godzilla1985

don't get too excited over this guy's like I said it's just a rumor Peter Jackson would be an excellent choice to do a WWI movie but right now he seems more interested in doing fantasy movies and on a roll. While he does have a grand passion for WWI aviation that doesn't readly translate to he wants to make a movie or two about it. Really anyone will do as long as they have a passion for the subject matter and want to see it done right. Also if we really want this kind of film we have to accept some trade off's and not nit-pick a movie over every little infraction. CGI will be a major part of it, like I said the days of seeing real aircraft doing the stuff seen in Hells Angles and The Blue Max are long gone, it's too risky and no film would get the insurance coverage to do this stuff anymore, and of course the dreaded love angle that seems to derail most of these kinds of movies. But it can be pulled off, John Frankenheimers film Grand Prix comes to mind on the love angle, it was there (several actually) but didn't steal the heart of what the movie was really about. The biggest problem will be the actors since you really would prefer a pretty young cast to fit the charaters but young actors who could give a strong convincing preformance are not out there by the boat load. So settling for an "older" looking MvR and company might be better.

Maybe you should join forces with Olham on that movie script Hellshade? Kind of like how Tora Tora Tora was done I was kind of suprised when I read the rumor about Cruise doing a Red Baron movie. But the more I thought about it maybe it makes sense for him. Top Gun is the movie that made him a big money actor but he has really struggled as of late. Maybe he's going to retry getting some of that magic back with another aviation film? And from reading some of his comments during the filming of Valkyrie he is showing a strong interest in doing movies from a wartime German POV. He also attempted something along this line in his movie The Last Samuri with so-so results. As far as big budget backing, well that depends, his star is fading fast and if the rumor is true he best move quickly. The big studio's have been losing money on him for his last couple of movies and if he waits too long he may not be able to get the big funding. I was never a big fan of Tom Cruise to me his acting is very so-so but who knows maybe he can pull it off.

Sounds good Olham maybe you should write a screenplay The problem with making any WWI movie that is factual is it won't sell enough tickets. With the big motion picture companys only wanting to invest heaviley in movies with 100-200 million dollar opening night ticket sales the odds are pretty bleak these guys will get involved. So we will have to count on the indies to release these kinds of movies so expect CGI to be the norm and unfortunately very liberal telling of the historical facts because they have to turn a profit also. I guess thats why I was so disappointed with The Red Baron, I honestly expected it to be more like Flyboys from the aerial action point of view. I never really expected it to tell the real story of Richtofen, instead it turned into a chick flick. I only say this because my girlfriend actually sat down and watched it with me and liked it . She hates any kind of war movie, whenever I pop one in the Blueray she goes shopping. Now sit down for this one, I caught wind of a rumor that Tom Cruise is considering making a movie about Richtofen

Roger that UK, Aces High is an excellent movie with a first rate movie plot . Like you said "silly aeroplanes" but you can over look it if the story is good. Funny thing I almost never watched Aces High because Malcome McDowell played the lead role. Don't get me wrong he's a good actor but I had only seen his work in A Clockwork Orange and Caligula and somehow him playing the lead role as a WWI squadron leader seemed shall we say..... "different" . But I'm glad I did decide to watch it and was most impressed with his strong preformance in the movie, like him in Blue Thunder too.

Never said either of these movies would win any kind of awards Flyboys is good only for the flying scenes alone since they do take up over half the movie and are entertaining if for nothing else. The Blue Max is a superior movie because it does have it all in a good mix, good flying scenes, a hot leading lady and a damn good movie plot, you can overlook that most of the aircraft are not accurate because everything else was so good. But the question of the post concerned Flyboys and The Red Baron and like I stated in my original post if you were going to pick one over the other I presented my thoughts why Flyboys was better movie then The Red Baron. Was never my intention to change anyones mind who thinks both movies were total s**te. Movies are made to entertain for the most part and not educate, if your looking to be educated and see everything from a historical and factual position then load up on the "Dogfight" series, thats what I did.

Well hate to say it guys, but actually Flyboys is much more realistic then The Red Baron from a flight point of view. Flyboys director Tony Bill is actually a pilot himself. Special instruments were placed in the aircraft used for the movie and all the flight data from the aircraft was recorded and used for the CGI scenes, The Red Baron used no such devices to get actual data that I could find. I think the sense of aircraft speed in these movies is exaggerated not because of the aircraft themselfs but the cinematography. Remember most movies are only 80 to 120 minutes long, so how much time does a director want to waste showing an WWI aircraft taking 5 minutes or longer to get from 100 ft to a couple of thousand? WWI aviation buffs would have loved it, everyone else would have left the theater bored out of their skulls. Some interesting facts about Flyboys is all of the aircraft in the non CGI flight and CGI scenes are either vintage or replicas. There were quite a few used in Flyboys, 4 of the Ni-17's were replicas (from Airdrome Aeroplanes), 1 or 2 Ni-17's were vintage (one is owned by Kermit Weeks). The Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter and the Bristol Fighter might have been replicas also, all the DrI's used were replicas. If you go to Airdrome Aeroplanes website you can actually see the planes used in Flyboys. In The Red Baron there was only one actual Albatross (don't know if it was a replica or vintage) all the other planes in the movie (23-24) were 1 to 1 mock-ups (non-flying). And as far as I could find out there were no actual flying scenes, it was all CGI. One of the biggest raps director Tony Bill took over Flyboys was his choice of actors and aircraft. Much of Tonys directing skills were not in movies but in TV and like The Red Baron it was a private venture without the big studio $$$$ backing. In an interview he explained the reason behind his aircraft selection for the movie, he went for recognition over accuracy. The DrI is forever iconic for the German Air Service in WWI, even to a novice, even though it wasn't a aircraft produced in great numbers or widely used (like the Albatross DIII/DV family), same goes for the Ni-17 since the movie was based on the Lafayette Escadrille, the Ni-17 is forever associated with that unit (over the Ni-28 or Spad XIII). Was it a bad choice? For historical minded WWI aviation buff's yes, but for the general movie going public it was a no brainer, you knew who was who. We all have to keep in mind that while we want as much realism and real action in these movies there is only so much movie directors can do and are allowed to do today, the "Hell Angles" and "The Blue Max" days are long gone. Would you believe that the insurance underwriters for The Red Baron movie wouldn't even allow actual spinning props and machine gun fire (blanks of course)? Yep it's all CGI. Both movies have their problems from a historical point of view and from an acting point of view. But if I had to pick a pilots movie from the two, Flyboys would win hands down, it's more realistic (from the flight point of view) and there's lot's more of it. I have Flyboys and I would have The Red Baron if it would have had about the same amount of flying scenes or even close as Flyboys. But for the pultry few minutes it's just not going to keep my interest for very long, no matter how good it looks from the historical aircraft point of view.

I must be the odd one here, I purchased WoV on a DD ($9.99) and had no problems with the install on my Vista 64 HPE and had no problems assigning inputs to my joystick (a lowly Logitech X3D). Flying is tricky, but my Uncle who was an US Army chopper pilot in Vietnam has told me flying a chopper is more demanding then piloting an airplane. He likened it to trying to balance on top of a pin. The game does have glitches like disappearing crew members from time to time, and finding the target is almost impossible without using the target box feature. Although I have flown over rice paddys and seen several black claded VC with AK-47's running for cover. My rig (Intel Q4 2.33mhz, nVida GT120 1gb with 8gb ram) struggles with single digit FPS with everything maxed during heavy activity (mid range settings get 35-60 FPS depending on activity) so this game might be GFX intense (there are lots of tree's) or the code isn't refined enough. But I have played the game on and off for several months and have to honestly say I have paid more for a lot worse. Had G5 stayed in the PC simulation distubution market I think some patches from the games developer could have made this one a classic. But even with it's warts it does offer a limited look into a very overlooked early period of attack helocopters at war.

Was watching the latest RoF videos at SimHq and something really struck me as weird. I have seen lots of people are touting RoF's damage model as the most realistic ever seen in a PC sim (their words). But every shot down plane I watched in those videos that impacted the ground like a lawn dart seemed to just crinkle up somewhat on impact. I mean obviously parts were missing (shot off or fell off in the uncontrolled high G descent) but after they hit the ground not much happened. I would think augering in at speed from anything but a hundred feet or less would cause considerable damage. I don't know at what height or speed Max Immelmanns Eindecker impacted the ground at, but from the well known photos of the wreckage it does not even resemble an airplane anymore, it sure don't look a little crinkled up... know what I mean? Didn't the same thing happen with Voss's Triplane, that it blew apart like matchsticks when it impacted (thought I read that somewhere). I just wondered if thats something that will be addressed later in RoF or if the devs just don't feel it's that important to gameplay.

The sad part is that I have building models for well over 30+ years, just goes to show that even an experianced modeler can make some very rookie mistakes. One good thing out of all this is it finally made me get off my butt and pitch a lot of obsolete paints and finishing products I was hanging on to. I only work with two paint lines now and both of their finishing products are compatible with each other, but I still test before applying to a built kit. Paint manufacturers today are prone to change their formulas with very little heads up.

A few years back I finally got the bug to start my Trumpeter 1/32nd F-105D, it was to be my crowning achievement in my various scale's builds to the F-105D (my favorite century series AC). It had taken me a couple years to buy all the aftermarket goodies I wanted in this kit. Black Boxes resin cockpit, Cutting Edges resin tail/afterburner can & speed brake, TAC scale metal landing gear, Verlindens resin & PE set, CAM resin M-117 and Mk82 w/ fuse extenders and Albatros Decals (Cherry Girl was going to be markings on this Thud). All and all I think I had a little over $250.00 USD wrapped up here. The construction and detailing was finished after three long months and I had just applied the Testors enamel gloss coat for the decals. After it dried and the decals were applied I discovered there wasn't enough enamel Testors gloss coat left to seal the decals before I applied the Testors enamel dull coat to finish the model. It was Sunday and I was getting impatient to finish the model since I had a club meeting on tuesday and I wanted to show off this baby in all her glory. So digging around in my supplies I came across a bottle of AeroMaster enamel semi-gloss coat. I figured what the heck it's made for enamel paints so I loaded it up in my airbrush and sprayed away, then put the kit up to let it dry overnight. Monday after I got home from work and went to get the F-105 out to apply the finishing touches, to my absolute horror the model had a milky white film coating all over it, the kit was a total write off. In my zeal to finish the kit I had stupidly committed a cardinal sin in model painting and finishing when using different manufacturers products by not pretesting on scrap plastic first. I did not touch another model for over a year.

I decided to give RoF another go since they did release another patch yesterday. Wow these guys really swing from one extreme to the other, with the previous patch I was at least able to have some success in the 1 vs 1 russian roulette, no matter what AC I flew I was able to down several AC and the ubber AI gunnery seemed to be toned down. Now with this latest patch it seems like the ubber AI gunners are back and the AI aircarft have superior FM's again. In the last patch if I flew the Albatros DV against the Nieuport 28 he could eventually outpace me in level flight, quite accurate since the Ni-28 is slightly faster the the DV in level flight. But before he could get too far away I could land some rounds on target. But with this latest patch the Ni-28 not only runs away fast from me but does it also while climbing! I found this to be true also with the DVII vs the Ni-28. Utter frustration again

Very true TH, the AI is marketly better in use of flying/engagement tactics then prevoius patches but again there still are some problems. I was flying RR in a SPAD XIII and got my biggest suprise when I came up against the 2 seaters. I swear to God these AI pilots thought they were in single seat scouts! Most unrealistic, and I don't understand why they changed the 2 seater AI, the 2 seaters were just fine in the previous patch (a little bump in aggressivence would have been okay), but this a prime example of what I mean by the "dog chasing his tail" syndrome. They (neoqb) fix or improve something in the newest patch but also manage to unfix something or degrade what they just fix in the previous patch. Neoqb need's to stop running around putting out this little fire and that little fire, pull everyone in and take the next couple of months and get the basic's of this sim straightened out once and for all, then move on from there. I agree with Tamper statement that most of the fixes in this latest patch dealt mostly with grammarical errors, while I have seen more serious game issues like T-800 targeting and hyperactive joystick inputs for some users of various joysticks just to name a few get the "yeah they know about it but it's pretty low on the "to do" list", but typo's and grammar errors are more important? WOW! Tamper I understand what your saying about the other site, I don't post in that sub forum but do filter through it to see if I can pick up on some help or insights that might help my RoF gameplay. Negative post and sticking to your convictions about RoF's problems is not good for mental health in that peticular forum.

Agreed Tamper can't say I don't feel sorry for some of these guys though, they really believed with all their heart RoF would be the next big evolution of flight sim's. While RoF is revolutionary in some aspects it has failed so far to become evolutionary, some bad decision's along the way and patches that fix one thing (or tone it down) only creep right back in with the next newest patch, kind of like a dog chasing it's tail. With no improvement in RoF's features (like season's a SP campaign and a more active battlefield) because of the dog chasing his tail sydrome. While they maybe squelching the discontent at the other site it's heating up at the RoF forums, some very peeved people over there concering the latest patch and the return of the one shot one kill AI.

I agree Tamper, I'm fast approaching the delete from HD mode also. I was going to let it "ride" for awhile but this newest patch just put another nail in the coffin. The mandatory updating is really the big problem for me. The previous patch at least made the game playable (for me) while it added nothing to the content of the game at least I could take it up every now and again and enjoy a little combat lite with some beautiful AC, now it's back to just sight seeing if I leave it on my HD. I really hate the manditory updating even if you don't play MP.

Have to agree guy's RoF is definatley on the "remove from HD" fast track. Real shame as RoF has the potential and had a very supportive fan base which appears to grow smaller by the day. Have seen they (neoqb) are making a pich for modders. Even though this was talked about in the begining it's taken this long for neoqb to follow through with the original offer. Honestly I would have prefer to see them seeking help from the community in getting some bug's fixed and adding a dedicated SP campaign instead of looking for help just in making the game "prettier. I don't need 80 aces skins for the Albatros DV right now, but fixing that twitchyness in the FM or a SP campaign would have been much more appreciated by me right now.

Hi MaverickMike, Thats a good question considering what your looking for in a WW2 PC game, since some are strong is some areas that you want, but so-so in others. Il-2 probably has the best AC and cockpits GFX's of the three (Il-2 1946/ BoB II WoV/ CFS3) the terrain is good as is the DM and AI, the FM's are a mixed bag some people love 'em some don't. I personally don't have a problem with most of the AC in Il-2 1946 but a few of them just don't seem right too me, but thats just my personal view. Also a major strong suit of Il-2 1946 is there are LOT's of flyable AC in all the major WW2 theaters, also ton's of Mods and skins. If Il-2 has any major flaws I would say it is the SP campaigns. I do not play Il-2 1946 much because of that, it just doesn't draw me in. I don't do MP much anymore but if I understand it correctly thats the real meat and potato's of Il-2 1946. BoB II WoV has some very good AC and cockpit GFX (a step below Il-2 1946) and the terrains are good (vastly improved with the 2.10 patch) they are just a tick below Il-2 1946. The FM/DM and AI are also very good especially with the new 2.10 patch hard to say now if Il-2 1946 is superior, so I'll say there probably even. BoB II WoV stong suit is it's SP campaign, it does draw you in, downside is it's set in one time period...the BoB and accordingly the AC set choices are limited to what took part in the BoB, so flyable AC are the Spitfires/Hurricanes/Bf-109E's/Me-110's/Ju-87 Stukas, (maybe the Battle too, not sure about this one) you can't fly the bombers but you can man the gun positions, not sure if the bombadier station is manable. The game is somewhat modable but not to the extent of Il-2 1946. Skins are not an issue with this game since it does come with a new multiskin pack that provides most AC with historical skins and unit markings correct for the BoB (thanks to ACE of Il-2 fame). CFS3 I really can comment on since my only copy was mainly just used so I could play OFF3 BHaH. I do understand there are lots of mods but again I cannot rate it fairly with the other two sim's. P.S. I missed your one question, I have all three sims installed on my Vista 64 PHE rig, Il-2 1946 needed minor tweaking and BoB II WoV also needed very minor to run on my Vista OS. CFS3 seemed to run with no tweaking needed.

The third generation of the v8th for B-17 II the Mighty 8th is open and recruiting. So if you missed the first two or would just like to play again here's your chance. Once again men it's time to put on your flight suits and climb aboard your B-17 to fly deep into enemy territory to smash the axis war machine Go here http://glewis.us/v8th/index.php

SHIFT + C lowers that windscreen in the Ni-17, I don't know if it works on the Ni-11. I drop the windscreen down all the time in the Ni-17 before entering combat, it makes a BIG differance. If you really want to see something obtrusive wait untill we get the Ni-28, that windscreen is really a view blocker . I really wish we had a MS monoplane to go with the Ni-11 in that time frame, personally I would take the MS over the Ni-11 even if it was a wing warper.

Well my boys got me RoF as a belated Fathers Day gift, while I personally wasn't going to buy RoF for awhile (just because of the DRM/Internet connection issue, I wanted to wait to see if RoF survived it first six months). So now I am able to answer my own questions . Yes the DM is very good but the high speed impacts are not very realistic, well okay I can live with that. The AI is good, perhapse too good. Seems like I get waxed very quickly in the 1 vs 1 dogfights no matter what I fly. I suspect there is something not quite right as the AI AC seems to always get off some pretty amazing (if not impossible) shots. It seems it doesn't matter where they are at in the attack as most rounds either wound/kill my pilot or disable my AC. On my end I cannot seem to keep my AC flying straight or stable enough to even lay a glove on the AI, it's really weird as I am not a hamfisted virtual pilot. While I don't expect nor would I want a sim AC to fly like it's on rails, this one seems very exaggerated to the point of frustration. I did read this "twitchyness" can be helped by adjusting your external trim pots, but for guys like me using the Saitek X45 or X52 were outta luck as these sticks don't have those external calibrations . It is a very, very good looking sim no doubt but it just seems devoid of life on the ground, it really needs to get more happening on that aspect. I do hope that more content gets added soon to bring the RoF world alive and some fixes can be found for the joysticks but for now I don't fly RoF very much and with the twitchyness dogfights are out. I don't mind being shot down especially if it enlightens me to a new tactic but with RoF's lazer guided rounds I'm not learning anything but frustration right now.

LOL it's a great pun von Krumm but DNF finally got the ax, read it in Game Informer a couple months back Duke where ever you maybe

I agree guys, I got RoF as a belated Fathers Day gift from my son's. I personally was going to wait at least 6 months to see if RoF survived it's growing pains. But my son's know combat sims are my thing so they got it for me without my knowledge, sure wished I could have stopped them. They feel kind of bad because they see I have only flew this sim less then 10x since I got it, I always tell them it's the thought that counts, but when it comes to PC games please ask Dad first .

I know a couple of patches back your wingies would attack ground targets when told to attack. I have mostly been playing QC lately but a couple months back I had a campaign going as a French Ni-17 pilot. My flight (3 planes) was tasked to blunt an German infantry build up in prep for an offensive. The weather was very bad that day, gloomy and raining and I had trouble finding the target even with the TAC on. So I ordered my wingies to attack, sure enough they winged over and started peppering a nearby tree line. A couple seconds later there were some secondarys and some MG fire rising to meet them. But I will agree after the intial pass they never pressed the attack despite my commands to do so.

Good read, thanks Gremlin On a side note it looks like RoF is having a melt down of sorts at another forum after this interview Gremlin. Real shame but honestly I don't understand why these guys are getting so upset at neoqb? The very real problems (and lack of features) that were always possible and present with RoF were always right there from the start, so why do people blame a developer when they choose to ignore or even entertain even the slighest possibility that these problems could really happen? I'm not defending neoqb actions by any stretch as I think they also played a little "rope a dope" with potential customers. They should have STRESSED over and over that RoF would be an MP mainly title and there was a possibility SP might get some attention after all MP issues were ironed out. Instead they let the fan base run wild with speculations with no founded truth and did nothing in the way of a reality check, I guess in the end the almighty dollar win's again

Not much I can add here that hasn't been covered already. For myself I find it more of a challange to master these machines in combat then anything that came after WWI ended in a flight sim. Considering these warbirds were only less then a decade out after the Wright Bro's flight is pretty amazing in itself. The biggest change for me was getting use to the power to weight ratio, unlike the AC from late WW2 you cannot muscle yourself out of a sticky situation with most AC from this period. So you gotta kind of pre-think your attack and maybe your escape, of course you know what they say about the best laid plans The only thing that kinda levels the field is in most cases your adversary has the same disavantages as you.

I wish I still had some of my early WWI research material (lost alot in a fire ) but I do recall some photos I had of some early RFC aircraft actually having the British Union Jack on the aircraft surfaces instead of roundels.