Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 48 1 2 3 4 5 47 48
#3898536 - 01/20/14 02:25 PM Re: Wish List for WOFF ***** [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 193
Beanie Offline
Member
Beanie  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 193
Canterbury, Kent
Roland DII would be nice.


'Der Fuchs'

BOC Member
'BWOC BWOC BWOC'
#3898580 - 01/20/14 03:17 PM Re: Wish List for WOFF [Re: Lanzfeld113]  
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,548
DukeIronHand Offline
Hotshot
DukeIronHand  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,548
High over the Front
Originally Posted By: Lanzfeld113
With NO labels used, an aircraft of fighter size should be drawn as a single pixel (grey...hard to see) at a distance of 4 to 5 miles WHEN FULLY ZOOMED OUT


+2

I fly zoomed out a bit also.
Long as I am here how about bringing back the FOV to the Workshop?

#3898614 - 01/20/14 04:18 PM Some claim form requests  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 139
MeneMene Offline
Member
MeneMene  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 139
I would like to request the following changes to the debriefing/claims process. Right now, you get too much information, and it takes away the uncertainty and immersion to see that you did shoot that guy down in the debriefing even though you didn't see him crash.

1. Claims should not automatically be "assigned" to the player, if that makes sense. Instead, every debriefing should ask "Do you want to submit a claim", or have somewhere to indicate that you have claims that you would like to make. This should be after every mission, no matter what happened during it or if the game detected a victory by the player or not. The player then fills out his claim for whatever they believed they accomplished during the mission. If the player files a claim but the game did not register a kill, the probability of confirmation is very very low. As it is now, the "claims" page tells you exactly how many kills you really have, when it should really be left up to the player to decide if they scored a kill or not.

2. Claims should not be so specific in the aircraft types. Without labels, it's pretty much impossible to tell if you shot down an Se5a or an Se5a Viper. The claims possible should be based on what it is possible to visually ascertain during combat, such as "one seater", "two seater", "Albatros", "SPAD", "Nieuport", "Pfalz", "Camel", "Se5", "Strutter", etc. Then, after confirmation, the game would sometimes fill in the aircraft type details like it currently does with the pilot name and enemy squadron.

3. You should not be able to see the exact number of bullet hits you have. That is information that would be unavailable to the real pilots. You should be able to see your number of bullets expended, and maybe the ratio of bullets per kill, but not overall hit accuracy.

I hope these changes wouldn't be too difficult to implement and that they are worth consideration. In my recent campaign I've had to "stop myself" from filling out a claim form because I didn't really see the enemy crash, or know he crashed until the debriefing told me I had X number of claims to fill out.

thanks

#3898615 - 01/20/14 04:19 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: MeneMene]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,579
Polovski Offline
Polovski  Offline

Hotshot

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,579
Thanks, everyone has an opinion on claims for sure. In OFF we gave you almost no info and people wanted more.
Moved to wish lists.


Regards,

Polovski,
OBD Software, developers of the fabulously immersive
"WINGS: Over Flanders Fields" WW1 Sim.
http://www.overflandersfields.com
#3898643 - 01/20/14 05:26 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: MeneMene]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 243
Glubber Offline
Member
Glubber  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 243
Originally Posted By: andqui
...

1. Claims should not automatically be "assigned" to the player, if that makes sense. Instead, every debriefing should ask "Do you want to submit a claim", or have somewhere to indicate that you have claims that you would like to make. This should be after every mission, no matter what happened during it or if the game detected a victory by the player or not. The player then fills out his claim for whatever they believed they accomplished during the mission. If the player files a claim but the game did not register a kill, the probability of confirmation is very very low. As it is now, the "claims" page tells you exactly how many kills you really have, when it should really be left up to the player to decide if they scored a kill or not.

2. Claims should not be so specific in the aircraft types. Without labels, it's pretty much impossible to tell if you shot down an Se5a or an Se5a Viper. The claims possible should be based on what it is possible to visually ascertain during combat, such as "one seater", "two seater", "Albatros", "SPAD", "Nieuport", "Pfalz", "Camel", "Se5", "Strutter", etc. Then, after confirmation, the game would sometimes fill in the aircraft type details like it currently does with the pilot name and enemy squadron.

3. You should not be able to see the exact number of bullet hits you have. That is information that would be unavailable to the real pilots. You should be able to see your number of bullets expended, and maybe the ratio of bullets per kill, but not overall hit accuracy...


+1 I really like these suggestions.

#1- I'd also like if the details didn't tell me my actual number. Sometimes I shoot a plane and it crashes but a friend gets the kill, but I'd prefer that show up as a rejected claim for me than knowing exactly how many claim forms to fill out.

#2- I wonder if it really matters to the sim how exact we are. I'd like it to be realistic, but I don't know that pilots were expected to positively identify the difference between a DV and a DVa.

#3- I could do without the accuracy details as well, or have them tied to the workshop setting 'pilot stats'. I thought the "pilot stats" in Workshop covered that, but I have mine set to 'off' and I still see stats I wouldn't expect to know.

Polovski mentioned the many differing opinions... so I wonder if these are things that could be optional?

Last edited by Glubber; 01/20/14 05:28 PM.
#3898652 - 01/20/14 05:51 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 183
nhill40 Offline
Member
nhill40  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 183
I will officially add modelling "Leave" to the wishlist.

AI pilots in your squadron periodically ask for/are granted leave. It would be great to model this for the player pilot as well - would add to the immersion factor by giving you an idea of how long pilots typically stayed "on the line" during the war.

You could get pretty wild with this - leave being more or less likely as the war itself ebbs and flows (e.g. unlikely to be granted leave during a major offensive; more likely to be granted along a "quiet" sector of front). You could either make this random - i.e. sim advances one day and you are greeted with a prompt saying "you have been granted leave!" (with an accompanying historical photo of course of maybe a dashing young pilot posing with some ladies back home smile ) ... OR, you could make an in-game device that allows you to request leave and then you would find out the answer a few days later (depending on how the war is going, how long it's been since your last leave, how many other pilots are competing for leave, etc).

#3898662 - 01/20/14 06:09 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,548
DukeIronHand Offline
Hotshot
DukeIronHand  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,548
High over the Front
Well, reading this thread it looks like OBD could keep busy until the year 2021.
Or until the money or their patience runs out - whichever comes first!

#3898672 - 01/20/14 06:19 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: MeneMene]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 112
manfas Offline
Member
manfas  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 112
Originally Posted By: andqui
I would like to request the following changes to the debriefing/claims process. Right now, you get too much information, and it takes away the uncertainty and immersion to see that you did shoot that guy down in the debriefing even though you didn't see him crash.

1. Claims should not automatically be "assigned" to the player, if that makes sense. Instead, every debriefing should ask "Do you want to submit a claim", or have somewhere to indicate that you have claims that you would like to make. This should be after every mission, no matter what happened during it or if the game detected a victory by the player or not. The player then fills out his claim for whatever they believed they accomplished during the mission. If the player files a claim but the game did not register a kill, the probability of confirmation is very very low. As it is now, the "claims" page tells you exactly how many kills you really have, when it should really be left up to the player to decide if they scored a kill or not.

2. Claims should not be so specific in the aircraft types. Without labels, it's pretty much impossible to tell if you shot down an Se5a or an Se5a Viper. The claims possible should be based on what it is possible to visually ascertain during combat, such as "one seater", "two seater", "Albatros", "SPAD", "Nieuport", "Pfalz", "Camel", "Se5", "Strutter", etc. Then, after confirmation, the game would sometimes fill in the aircraft type details like it currently does with the pilot name and enemy squadron.

3. You should not be able to see the exact number of bullet hits you have. That is information that would be unavailable to the real pilots. You should be able to see your number of bullets expended, and maybe the ratio of bullets per kill, but not overall hit accuracy.

I hope these changes wouldn't be too difficult to implement and that they are worth consideration. In my recent campaign I've had to "stop myself" from filling out a claim form because I didn't really see the enemy crash, or know he crashed until the debriefing told me I had X number of claims to fill out.

thanks


+1

#3898683 - 01/20/14 06:45 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 825
Creaghorn Offline
Member
Creaghorn  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 825
N�rnberg Frankonia
Regarding 2. it is already like that. As I have mentioned several times in the past one can often get victories confirmed although wrong AC. I never care if that was a Alb DV-200hp or Alb DVa or whatever. I just choose Alb DV and that's it. Also I received confirmation for downing a Camel once, but since it wasn't in the dropdown I chose Sopwith Pup because I considered the Camel being too new at the front to be well known at that time. Often enough I was credited with victories although not exactly the right aircraft, as it was in real. So point 2 is no problem but already in actually. If the description is good enough and the witness and circumstances explained well enough, chances are high to be credited with "wrong" ac.

#3898685 - 01/20/14 06:47 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Creaghorn]  
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 243
Glubber Offline
Member
Glubber  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 243
Originally Posted By: Creaghorn
Regarding 2. it is already like that. As I have mentioned several times in the past one can often get victories confirmed although wrong AC. I never care if that was a Alb DV-200hp or Alb DVa or whatever. I just choose Alb DV and that's it. Also I received confirmation for downing a Camel once, but since it wasn't in the dropdown I chose Sopwith Pup because I considered the Camel being too new at the front to be well known at that time. Often enough I was credited with victories although not exactly the right aircraft, as it was in real. So point 2 is no problem but already in actually. If the description is good enough and the witness and circumstances explained well enough, chances are high to be credited with "wrong" ac.


Good to know.

#3898707 - 01/20/14 07:26 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Creaghorn]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 139
MeneMene Offline
Member
MeneMene  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 139
Originally Posted By: Creaghorn
Regarding 2. it is already like that. As I have mentioned several times in the past one can often get victories confirmed although wrong AC. I never care if that was a Alb DV-200hp or Alb DVa or whatever. I just choose Alb DV and that's it. Also I received confirmation for downing a Camel once, but since it wasn't in the dropdown I chose Sopwith Pup because I considered the Camel being too new at the front to be well known at that time. Often enough I was credited with victories although not exactly the right aircraft, as it was in real. So point 2 is no problem but already in actually. If the description is good enough and the witness and circumstances explained well enough, chances are high to be credited with "wrong" ac.


True, but it is a bit distracting, as there is no real point in all the subvariants being there. I don't think a British pilot would ever put DVa or DV instead of just "Albatros" on their claim form- it's not really possible to identify subvariants in fast combat, especially if pilots were probably not aware of the subvariants in the first place.

#3898756 - 01/20/14 09:08 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 173
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 173
Would it be possible to convert some of the French MS units to Recce/Art.Obs./Bomber units for 1915?

At the moment, you cannot enlist for a French bomber career until 1916, although historically the MS Parasol was used by the French as well as the British for recon and Art.Obs. duties, and the MS units were therefore sort of transitional I think, with a mix of fighter and recon duties? Maybe they could be mixed Fighter/Recon units in WOFF, and could transition to fully fighter units when they get the single seat scouts like the N11?

Just seems a pity to have so many French Parasol units in 1915 for WOFF, and all of them fighter units frown

B.

#3898961 - 01/21/14 08:03 AM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 379
yaan98 Offline
Member
yaan98  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 379
Just for aesthetic purposes and to be easy on the eyes... Workshop can be divided into separate tabs or pages:

Audio section

Video section

Gameplay section

others??

#3899026 - 01/21/14 12:38 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 173
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 173
Being able to reduce the ammunition load to 0% as in OFF - in WOFF 20% seems to be the lowest you can go.

B.

#3899031 - 01/21/14 12:56 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,429
Winding Man Offline
Member
Winding Man  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,429
Jhb, South Africa
Originally Posted By: Bletchley
Being able to reduce the ammunition load to 0% as in OFF - in WOFF 20% seems to be the lowest you can go.

B.


In QC you can go to 0.

You cannot and never will be able to go below 20% in campaign because the AI (includes player craft when in autopilot) will sense the low ammo and RTB - never engage - etc.

So its an AI requirement to have some ammo.

HTH

WM


OBD Software
#3899034 - 01/21/14 01:16 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,429
Winding Man Offline
Member
Winding Man  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,429
Jhb, South Africa
Originally Posted By: Bletchley
Would it be possible to convert some of the French MS units to Recce/Art.Obs./Bomber units for 1915?

At the moment, you cannot enlist for a French bomber career until 1916, although historically the MS Parasol was used by the French as well as the British for recon and Art.Obs. duties, and the MS units were therefore sort of transitional I think, with a mix of fighter and recon duties? Maybe they could be mixed Fighter/Recon units in WOFF, and could transition to fully fighter units when they get the single seat scouts like the N11?

Just seems a pity to have so many French Parasol units in 1915 for WOFF, and all of them fighter units frown

B.


We have plans for the French Squads in upcoming packs.

HTH

WM


OBD Software
#3899051 - 01/21/14 01:50 PM Re: Some claim form requests [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 173
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 173
OK, thanks WM smile

Good news about the upcoming packs. Will have to crack open the piggy bank.

B.

#3899075 - 01/21/14 02:48 PM Re: Wish List for WOFF [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,429
Winding Man Offline
Member
Winding Man  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,429
Jhb, South Africa
Thanks Guys - some nice ideas in here - cannot promise which will appear in WOFF but we are looking and reading this list.

WM


OBD Software
#3899085 - 01/21/14 03:02 PM Re: Wish List for WOFF [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Lanzfeld113 Offline
Member
Lanzfeld113  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
PA, USA
When flying the early BE2c our gunner with the enfield rifle SHOULD be able to aim the rifle in other directions besides a small cone to the aft (like the mounted MG). It is a hand held rifle.

I am sure this is tied to the coding for the MG equipped BE2c and may be a programming limitation but I thought I would bring it up.

Cheers.

#3899093 - 01/21/14 03:14 PM Re: Wish List for WOFF [Re: Robert_Wiggins]  
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 825
Creaghorn Offline
Member
Creaghorn  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 825
N�rnberg Frankonia
It is great to have so many historical aces in. One disadvantage of that is that often they are so complete that they take almost all spots of a squadron, just leaving space for 2-3 or so fictional fellows. It is a hughe part of the immersion to follow your mates, see their morale and tallies grow, see them fall etc. If you fly 90% with HA's then you know they can't die, their victories will not grow unless historically correct, can't get seriously wounded and go POW etc. and this is sometimes not the quite same like flying with AI comrades who can die.
All that is great and a history lesson with apropriate aces skins etc., but sometimes on squadrons with interesting aircraft I would like to fly with, i would like to have less HA and more fictional ones with whom I can grow together. Of course I don't mean cliche Jasta 11 whatever squadrons but often enough even mediocre squadrons are filled with many HA so there is just little space for fictional pilots.
Maybe an option to have reduced number of HA, or maybe just having those in who have complete biographies and victorylists yet. Those with missing bios and victory lists optional leaving out, making space for more AI comrades.

Page 3 of 48 1 2 3 4 5 47 48

Moderated by  Polovski, Sandbagger 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
This is a test...will be deleted.
by MarkG. 08/22/17 10:09 PM
I wll never slag off facebook again
by marko1231123. 08/22/17 09:22 PM
What do I do?
by Mr_Blastman. 08/22/17 12:56 PM
solar eclipse thoughts
by jroc. 08/21/17 10:17 PM
Hunting the mountain gold
by EAF331 MadDog. 08/21/17 08:46 PM
Forget Bonnie Tyler...
by WangoTango. 08/21/17 05:32 PM
Downloading YT videos
by - Ice. 08/21/17 02:01 PM
Who has seen Alien: Covenant? **spoilers**
by PanzerMeyer. 08/21/17 10:47 AM
Coal fire on the Titanic
by oldgrognard. 08/20/17 09:28 PM
Jerry Lewis was 91
by F4UDash4. 08/20/17 06:03 PM
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0