Quote:
Originally posted by Freycinet:
WWSensei, I salute your powers of prediction. This is alreasy starting to look ugly... \:\(
lol - well, for better or for worse my point is that WWI aircraft performance was so variable that it is pointless to talk about precise numbers. I have seen more stuff from people who claim to Know than I can shake a stick at. I would simply like to see folks admit that the the available data was not collected under pristine, uniform test conditions and therefore anything that we claim to know about these planes amounts to little more than a reasonable estimate and not a hard truth. We know general characteristics, let them get kind of close and let's leave it at that.

I am very happy to have a hope of getting a WWI sim. If the relative performance is reasonable, if it imparts a feeling of flight, if it has a good campaign engine, if it has decent AI it will be a very good thing.

Now, as to modeling the quirks like the sesquiplane's weak lower wing in a dive, that's the sort of thing that IMHO makes a WWI sim come alive. RB did a vague handwave at the issue of durability but they implemented a one size fits allformulat that did not model the specific quirks of a type. I.e. an Albatros and N17 would fail the same way as a Fokker D.VII and SPAD. It was just a matter of when.

Complex engine management should be fun \:\)


The lucky man is the man who leaves as little to chance as possible.