What would you like to get in P4?

[Olham 164]

Since our dev team decided not to give away any information on what they might be developing for P4

(which is fully understandable and okay after the spying out and copying of their ideas by others),

I thought I'd bring some action into our forum, and if only as a poll of wishful thinking.

I know we had similar polls, but what the heck.

 

You can only click one vote in each question, because otherwise, some of us would click everything,

and I wanted to see the biases of each section.

 

For the last question I made an exception, cause it contains so many different ideas and choices.

But to get some biases, please would you be so kind to only click your favourite five?

Thank you all.

[+Winder 32]

Since our dev team decided not to give away any information on what they might be developing for P4

(which is fully understandable and okay after the spying out and copying of their ideas by others),

I thought I'd bring some action into our forum, and if only as a poll of wishful thinking.

I know we had similar polls, but what the heck.

 

You can only click one vote in each question, because otherwise, some of us would click everything,

and I wanted to see the biases of each section.

 

For the last question I made an exception, cause it contains so many different ideas and choices.

But to get some biases, please would you be so kind to only click your favourite five?

Thank you all.

 

Excellent Poll - thanks Olham.

 

WM

[Slartibartfast 153]

Okay voted for a whole bunch of stuff... Must admit was a rather excellent Poll... there was only one thing missing as far as I am concerned and that was no Seaplanes...

 

Apologies I put in for 8 options...

Edited September 1, 2010 by Slartibartfast

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Slartibartfast 153]

Well Lou you only have to wait for 4 months...

[Rickitycrate 10]

Olham, nice poll, good idea. Not to be a critic but I think a few more choices were left out. I would like to have more french types especially early war. Such as Voisin, and Caudron types. Also if the theatre could be expanded to the north and south would be fantastic. We want it all don't we? I will be happy with what OBD offers I'm sure of that. OFF BH&H has so much to offer now that I am excited at the P4 prospects. OBD must have good things in mind or why would they bother themselves. I still think an Observer carreer would be interesting with option to become a pilot. Well, I made my choices and I am very interested to see the final results. Here's to the future of WWI Airwar simming .

[Dej 17]

Have to agree with RC there, Olham, excellent though the poll is. My main criterion for selection in the last section was that I, personally, don't want the Devs to expend their time on things we can tweak for ourselves with a bit of effort, e.g. TAC colours, pilot squadron moves, sound and tracer mods, skin previews etc.

 

Let them attend to the things we can't, e.g. more campaign two-seaters, proper reconnaisance missions, spy drops, accurate airfields and the in-flight map in general (alright, granted the last one we can do for ourselves too but I'm not hardcore enough )

[Creaghorn 10]

great poll .

i would vote for less hollywood effects, but more accurate physics DM. e.g. that AI AC doesn't turn simply into a pile when crashing, but have only damage what touches the ground. same for own AC. or when touching wings in flight, not only visual damage, but apropriate physics and forces on impact, like it is in RB or the other sim

[Olham 164]

Rickitycrate, the problem with a forum poll is, that you cannot ask limitless questions;

I asked the maximum of 5. You should click the time in the first question, or that you

want more two-seaters.

[Winston DoRight 3]

Hmmmmm.... it seems the "wish-list" contains some things that already exist in the game. In multiplayer that is.

 

For large bombers: Axis Gotha and Zeppelin. Allied Short torpedo plane, RAF FE2d, and R-80/R-82 airships.

Zeppelins with bases: There's already one in the game, but no single player missions are there. (hint: mission builder, most southeast airfield)

Ships to be attacked: There are abundant MP missions for this.

More variety of ground targets to attack: How about attacking a Large Factory or a Shipyard. Or an Opera House where the staff officers are attending a performance, or Buckingham Palace? We do it in multiplayer.

 

And for single player More damage effects: Don't ignore Herr-Propwasche's new damage model (single player). It's by far superior to the stock one.

 

If you haven't tried OFF multiplayer, you've only seen half of the game.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Winston DoRight

[Vasco 3]

I haven't voted on the poll because a lot of what I want to see isn't there or the voting buttons are too restrictive (one choice of a limited selction).

 

Mine are:

 

• A flyable in game map (on the poll)
• Fill out the missing aircraft from the squadron selection (Morane Saulnier Parasol, Sopwith Dolphin, Nieuport 10, etc, etc)
• All the missing multi-seaters that filled the skies during the war and more stuff to do with them rather than loiter for 16 mins, etc
• And most importantly - don't do anything else that nerfs multiplayer (I would have preferred to say 'improve multiplayer' but I've all but given up hope)

 

Vasco

Edited September 1, 2010 by Vasco

[Bullethead 12]

The things I see as most important to the future of the game weren't really in the poll, so here they are::

 

FRENCH 2-SEATERS

The French and US fronts are only really playable from the Entente side because of the absence of French 2-seaters. Sure, there's the Strutter, which they did use into 1918, but they had dozens of other types all through the war, in much greater numbers than fighters. So, if you fly for the Kaiser, all you meet in French and US sectors are vast herds of Nupes (early) and SPADs (later).

 

2-SEATERS IN GENERAL

There were far more 2-seaters than fighters on all sides in the war. However, in OFF, we have scads of fighters but few 2-seaters even for the Brits and Germans. Even the Brits don't have enough 2-seaters.

 

HISTORICALLY ACCURATE REAR GUNNER FIELDS OF FIRE

Right now, rear gunner arcs of fire are much smaller than they really were. This completely precludes their formations providing mutual defense, which defeats the whole purpose of flying in formation. As a result, you can wipe out whole flights with relative easy if you get under the formation. Alternatively, if the rear gun arcs remain the same, at least have the 2-seaters weave around so that their arcs can provide mutual cover at least some of the time.

 

DEDICATED 2-SEATER ROLES

Most 2-seater squadrons did 1 type of mission (short recon, long recon, bombing, arty spotting, or CAS) far more than they did anything else. Right now, however, 2-seater squadrons (even those with dedicated ground attack airplanes) do all mission types at random. Not only would this making choosing a 2-seater squadron to fly in more meaningful, it would justify making all the new 2-seaters we need anyway.

 

LESS-PERSISTENT FIGHTER AI

AI fighters (yours and the enemy) should do a better job of realizing when they've lost the advantage in a fight and get out while they still can, instead of staying suicidally in fights they should know they can't win. Right now, they only give up when they're too badly damaged to make it home anyway. So, dogfights (except 1918's massive furballs) should end fairly quickly with the player finding himself alone in the sky. Then maybe wingman losses could be made to match what actually happens in your missions, instead of like now where you see 3 of your guys go down in flames but they almost always survive.

 

LUFBERY CIRCLES

All 2-seaters without an effective rear gun (Quirks, Fees, and hopefully all the other early-war pushers we'll get in P4) shouldn't fly on straight and level pretending they have a real gun. Instead, they should do the Lufbery Circle like they did in real life.

 

Otherwise, I'm good. While I fly fighters much more than 2-seaters, the fighter experience is somewhat blighted by the lack of 2-seaters all around. Thus, I don't think we need any more fighters for a while, and should instead focus on 2-seaters.

 

 

[Red-Dog 3]

Hi chap's this is what i'd like to see in phase 4?

1.Be able to land and re-arm / re-fuel.

2.The price to stay what it was when all of us first lot brought the game. i.e not half in price 2 months down the road?

3.Multiplayer that the dev's will spend some time sorting out,they don't know what there missing out on,every other forum i go on the pilots will say what a good looking sim this is, but it's not for them because of the difficulties they have getting on oline so they have been out and brought ROF or a IL2 sim instead,and the number of people waiting for canvas knights is massive.So dev's sort the multiplayer out and you would be quids in.Until then the four of us who can get online will sing the praise's of the best ww1 sim out there.........

[Hellshade 110]

Great Poll Olham. With a limit of 5 questions, obviously it's impossible to hit everything that everyone wants, but it still does a wonderful job of providing feedback to the Devs.

Great idea.

 

Hellshade

 

 

 

[Olham 164]

Yes, it's hard to cover everything with 5 questions.

I recommend to the multiplayers to create an additional multiplayer poll; perhaps starting with the question:

"If it was easy to do - would you play OFF in multiplayer sessions?"

I'd also like to know, if it could be played in LAN sessions.

You guys know what to ask - you played it.

So come on - try it .

[themightysrc 5]

I'll happily shoulder what both Vasco and Bullethead posted - their suggestions are excellent.

 

I'd like to chuck in support for not just rounding out the missing craft from P3 - which I assume is more a less a given - but also the expansion of sectors. Is there a reason why the Belgian air force doesn't pop up? Only one I can think of - the Hanriot. If the missing French two/multiseaters is addressed, there's your Belgians. I'd love to see expansion into the Italian/Austrian sectors, although I appreciate that it would again mean new aircraft, and, I assume, new scenery and most importantly new maps. I suspect that that won't be easy. For my part, I'd dearly like to see Palestine as an option, but I appreciate that this is so niche as to be more or less pointless.

 

Aside from the above, I've already posted elsewhere that two seaters should be able to do spotting or photography in a meaningful way - particularly the former - and I'd like to see that evolve. It's actually fun flying two seaters (once you discard the Biggles mentality), but more to do than the occasional bomb run, would be much appreciated.

 

Hell, when it comes down to it, I'll take whatever's offered, and probably be very chuffed, but knowing that the fine folk who've crafted this game read comments and sometimes act upon them, this is my input - no doubt with more to come tomorrow when I've slept on it...

[Dej 17]

I'll happily shoulder what both Vasco and Bullethead posted - their suggestions are excellent.

 

I'd like to chuck in support for not just rounding out the missing craft from P3 - which I assume is more a less a given - but also the expansion of sectors. Is there a reason why the Belgian air force doesn't pop up? Only one I can think of - the Hanriot. If the missing French two/multiseaters is addressed, there's your Belgians. I'd love to see expansion into the Italian/Austrian sectors, although I appreciate that it would again mean new aircraft, and, I assume, new scenery and most importantly new maps. I suspect that that won't be easy. For my part, I'd dearly like to see Palestine as an option, but I appreciate that this is so niche as to be more or less pointless.

 

Aside from the above, I've already posted elsewhere that two seaters should be able to do spotting or photography in a meaningful way - particularly the former - and I'd like to see that evolve. It's actually fun flying two seaters (once you discard the Biggles mentality), but more to do than the occasional bomb run, would be much appreciated.

 

Hell, when it comes down to it, I'll take whatever's offered, and probably be very chuffed, but knowing that the fine folk who've crafted this game read comments and sometimes act upon them, this is my input - no doubt with more to come tomorrow when I've slept on it...

 

Agree with all of that Si. I'd like to see the Belgians in too. And I too would love to see the Italian/Austrian and Palestinian sectors. Problem with the latter is that they are less well documented that the Western Front, which alone causes the devs grief trying to pin an enormous number of aerodromes to an inaccurate map (courtesy of CFS3).

 

Most of all though, and I hope the vote will prove it, we need a concentration on two/multi-seater machines for the campaign players. But paying attention to the multi-player needs built on existing P3 may be a better way for the devs to go in terms of revenue generation... and I'd support that too, for that reason.

[Vasco 3]

But paying attention to the multi-player needs built on existing P3 may be a better way for the devs to go in terms of revenue generation... and I'd support that too, for that reason.

 

Dej,

 

That's what rteally hits me as a major missed opportunity. Despite this sim using an ageing flight engine, the sheer depth of the simulation knocks all other WWI sims into a cocked hat. If the multiplayer element was developed properly RoF and Canvas Knights would fade into obscurity overnight.

 

It's the reason I keep flying OFF MP despite its present shortcomings and RoF just takes up space on my hard drive.

 

Vasco

[carrick58 23]

Great Poll Olham, Bullet head hits it spot on with the 2 Seaters and Land to refuel and re arm would be nice if my pilots lasted that long. I have been having computer problems so have not been posting much. Hi to all. Carrick58

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I agree, great poll, Olham.

 

I basically agree with Bullethead's post, particularly about the need for more two-seaters.

 

Although I didn't click on combat reports with witnesses names already shown, I would put that as my sixth choice for the last question. ideally, a drop-down list.

 

I admit I am often too lazy to remember the names of all of my squadmates. Maybe if CFS3 did not randomize losses as it currently does in the duty room.

[Olham 164]

Yes, the witnesses would know, what they saw, and tell the pilot, who shot down a craft.

So names should be already there; that would also avoid writing mistakes for foreign names.

And if they could develop a software, that can identify descriptions, height, position and kind

of the crash; and decide wether you wrote the truth or cheated - that would be great.

(I know, it's shameless to ask for this much!)

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

If OFF succesfully develops a lie detector, then I doubt they would be able to work on flight sims anymore. They would be too busy filling requests by police departments and suspicious wives!

[Bullethead 12]

If OFF succesfully develops a lie detector, then I doubt they would be able to work on flight sims anymore. They would be too busy filling requests by police departments and suspicious wives!

 

But when you burn a balloon, at the end of the mission you get a message saying the nearby front line troops saw it happen. Why can't such be applied everywhere friendly ground forces can see things? Reading my books, it seems ground forces were often the witnesses, even well behind the front.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Really good Poll Olham...thanks

 

One other thing I would like, is the need to start engines and taxi out..rather than start on the runway

Edited September 2, 2010 by UK_Widowmaker

[Olham 164]

Good point, Bullethead. Perhaps it could be done like this:

All ground installations get a number with their Labels.

Now, if you fight above an army camp and shoot an opponent down, you switch Labels on

for identifying the camp number and write in your report: army camp No. XY