Flying without crutches

[Interlocutor 0]

This will sound somewhat like an AA meeting I suspect, "My name is Interlocutor, and I am an OFF3 addict" :yes: ...

I started flying OFF3 when it first came out in January. Even with TrackIR I found it very difficult to stay alive at first, and so back then I used all the aids I could muster: enemy cones, TAC out to 8 miles radius, labels. I always kept the "Z" display up to know speed and altitude, and I warped through every mission. But other than using these aids, I've always flown at above 100% realism, though I have always used "automixture". I always fly campaign, never fly QC's. I always lead my flights.

Being retired, I have lots of time to indulge my habit, so since January I suspect I've flown an average of 2 hours each day, 5 or 6 days each week.

As time went on, I gradually became a better pilot. Sometime in February I stopped using the enemy cone, but until about a week ago I still used the other aids, though I had reduced TAC radius to 2 miles, taking it down altogether in dogfights.

But a week ago I decided to go full DiD. I now fly all missions (no warp), use no TAC and no labels. I've turned messages, TAC & labels off in CFS3Config, and never use the "Z" key.

I'm finding that I have to learn a whole new set of skills to fly DiD. Here's some things I'm finding out.

When I used TAC & labels, I got lazy. Because of TAC, I didn't look around & scan the sky for enemies, instead I just used the TAC. In a dogfight, I just looked out for labels to know where enemy a/c were.

Now, without TAC or labels, I've had to learn how to look intently all around me for little moving specks in the distance. It's been a matter of re-training my eyes. I particularly look above me, especially behind and above. I gaze hard at the sky, holding my focus on one area for several seconds before moving on. Even allowing for the fact that TrackIR doesn't require that I turn my head completely around, I get kinks in my neck...

When looking downward now, I've trained my eyes to look for moving specks against the ground. This can be learned, for me it took awhile, but I can sense my "visual skills" are growing.

Without the "Z" key display, I have no speedometer in either of the planes I fly (N11's & N17's). I now have to rely on my FF stick to warn me of approaching stalls when in dogfights, which makes me a little more cautious in using certain maneuvers, particularly climbing turns which bleed energy. The N17 does have an altimeter as well as a compass but the N11 has neither, so I'm learning to be a good judge of altitude by just looking down.

I'm learning to navigate by using in-game geography as well. For instance, when I fly my N17 pilot with the Storks from Cachy in the Somme battle, my home airfield lies just east of a big forest, which itself lies next to a big lake. I can see this forest/lake feature from many miles away at altitude, and rarely need to use the "M" key to find my way home.

I've totally reprogrammed my joystick. The buttons that used to manage TAC, warp, "Z" key & labels have now been re-set to manage zoom-in & zoom-out so I can better ID specks in the distance, and to give me all my "wingman commands" on the stick.

So for those who think it's "too hard" to learn to fly without the crutches of TAC, labels, etc, I can say that it can be learned. It is a different "skill set", and well as a different mind set. It's harder to survive in some ways, but easier in others. For those seeking full immersion, I say "throw away the crutches" and give it a try...

[Siggi 10]

Are you ready for a place on the DiD killboard then? :yes:

[Interlocutor 0]

Are you ready for a place on the DiD killboard then? :yes:

 

Siggi, I have to admit, somewhat shamefacedly , that I don't know what a killboard is...

[Siggi 10]

Siggi, I have to admit, somewhat shamefacedly , that I don't know what a killboard is...

 

Bloody hell.

 

It's all here: http://www.hetzer.talktalk.net/

[Ras 0]

Bloody hell.

 

It's all here: http://www.hetzer.talktalk.net/

 

 

Going to be al ong time before I get my pilot up there, with this new version/patch. I can't stay alive at all any more. Going to have to do a little more cheating. I have no choice.. Maybe the Track IR that I hope to get in antother month will help...or will I have been spoiled by learning some bad habits?

[Olham 164]

Olham tries to learn it, really!

But it's hard! So I won't yet risk any of my campaign pilots for that.

I did some QC fights today. It is extremely difficult to find, were everyone is,without the TAC.

But I switched everything off - no instruments at all, no target cone, no labels, no red or blue

text data. And I must say, after short time, I enjoyed the pure clean realistic view around.

Only, to find those Camels, was hard. I realised, I wasn't making the most of TrackIR before.

Now, I had to check 6 much more often, or look around the whole plane, to find the enemies.

I got almost dizzy!

But it worked much better, than I had expected. I will do more such training, and then start

two campaign pilots, who fly after "Dicta Siggi". Promised!

 

PS: here's a picture of the last Camel, I drove into the grass of our field.

[Rick Rawlings 136]

To be fair, you can spot small aircraft in real life much easier than you are able to in the game even on a large monitor at high resolution. Also, any cpu or gpu sluggishness can "smear" the ground and make it difficult to track. I always go through the motions of zooming in and scanning the skies using the number keys when dropped out of warp with an "enemies nearby" before turning the TAC on, and can often find them, but it can be more of an nuisance than the little bit of "extra real" feeling I get. Having the TAC on and set to 2 miles or 4 miles is a good compromise.

 

RR

[Interlocutor 0]

Olham tries to learn it, really! ... Only, to find those Camels, was hard.

 

Yes, much harder to find the enemy without TAc or labels.

 

Yesterday I finished my 8th mission with a full-DiD Storks pilot, flying N17's in Flanders in the summer of 1916. In those 8 missions, I've seen German aircraft only twice.

 

I suspect that this is more like it really was, at least in 1916. But if you want constant combat, as opposed to constant tension , then DiD is not likely a good place to find it.

[Interlocutor 0]

Bloody hell.

 

It's all here: http://www.hetzer.talktalk.net/

 

Thanks for the link to your killboard, Siggi. Until OFF3 BHAH came out, I'd been away from flight sims since 1999, so I must have missed the development of DiD.

 

But in looking over the DiD standards, I see I don't qualify. I conform with everything except that I set "AI gun fire (range)" to "Normal" rather than "Realistic", because I lost too many pilots to Archie on the "Realistic" setting :black eye: . Also I set both "Main guns" as well as "Rear guns" to "Hard", instead of main guns on "Normal".

 

But I'll check in on the board now & then to see what's up, and thanks for the invite.

[Siggi 10]

Thanks for the link to your killboard, Siggi. Until OFF3 BHAH came out, I'd been away from flight sims since 1999, so I must have missed the development of DiD.

 

But in looking over the DiD standards, I see I don't qualify. I conform with everything except that I set "AI gun fire (range)" to "Normal" rather than "Realistic", because I lost too many pilots to Archie on the "Realistic" setting :black eye: . Also I set both "Main guns" as well as "Rear guns" to "Hard", instead of main guns on "Normal".

 

But I'll check in on the board now & then to see what's up, and thanks for the invite.

 

I believe the "AI gunfire (range)" dictates the range at which EA will open up on you, and has nothing to do with flak. The "Main Guns Hard" is six of one, half a dozen of the other. If your guns are harder to hit the enemy, the enemy's are harder to hit you. Vice versa it's easier for you, easier for them. Net result = same.

[Olham 164]

Interesting thought, Siggi - would you say "Guns: hard" means "harder to destroy something"?

Cause, I had thought: gun's impact is harder/worse?

 

If "hard" means "harder to destroy something", then I'll pick hard. As my German planes all have

two guns, and the Allied planes are easier to destroy. So: my advantage.

 

Interlocutor; flying without TAC could make campaigns easier in one point, I read from your post.

An enemy you don't notice passing in a distance of three or four miles, can't lure you to attack him.

Less fights, and less risk to get killed. More flights without engagements at all. More flying hours.

[Interlocutor 0]

I believe the "AI gunfire (range)" dictates the range at which EA will open up on you, and has nothing to do with flak.

Siggi, in another thread, called "Uber Flak" I believe, the poster, Sqha, says he is always getting killed by flak over enemy lines, like I was. Polovski responded, saying "Stick AI range on normal and all should be well...". Since I've had the same experience, I do think that the "AI gunfire (range)" setting does control flak effectiveness.

[Interlocutor 0]

Interlocutor; flying without TAC could make campaigns easier in one point, I read from your post.

An enemy you don't notice passing in a distance of three or four miles, can't lure you to attack him.

Less fights, and less risk to get killed. More flights without engagements at all. More flying hours.

 

Olham, I agree completely. That has been my experience so far, though I am flying in 1916 when density of flights is probably less.

[Olham 164]

Boy, how much deeper the immersion!

Why haven't I done this before?

Answer:

I was afraid to get jumped on! I was afraid to miss the action! I was afraid to get lost!

Bulls**t, all! No more afraid!

This was a campaign flight, and I just risked it. And it was SO GOOD!

Flying that way, I see and watch so much more - I wouldn't even mind so much, if I would get killed

in an unforeseen attack; I want to live this as much as possible.

My honest advice: switch off your labels, TACs, warnings, instruments and target cones.

And SEE, what we there is around you!

Interlocutor and Siggi - you have cured me from a "false safety syndrom"! Thank you!

[Interlocutor 0]

Boy, how much deeper the immersion!

Why haven't I done this before?

Answer:

I was afraid to get jumped on! I was afraid to miss the action! I was afraid to get lost!

Bulls**t, all! No more afraid!

This was a campaign flight, and I just risked it. And it was SO GOOD!

Flying that way, I see and watch so much more - I wouldn't even mind so much, if I would get killed

in an unforeseen attack; I want to live this as much as possible.

My honest advice: switch off your labels, TACs, warnings, instruments and target cones.

And SEE, what we there is around you!

Interlocutor and Siggi - you have cured me from a "false safety syndrom"! Thank you!

 

Olham, you are very welcome :yes: . After all, isn't it the responsibility of true believers to spread the faith ?

 

For my part, I can see now that I had to build up a certain basic skill level with the help of the "crutches" like TAC & labels before I could hope to survive even one mission without them.

 

But once I had kind of "learned to fly my plane" and such, I was able to let go of TAC & labels and all, and take the plunge. And though I'm having to "unlearn" some habits, and to learn some new skills, I find it much more rewarding and "real".

 

Yes, you'll get jumped on. Yes, you'll miss a lot of action. But you can use the map ("M" key), so at least you shouldn't get lost .

 

As you fly more missions this way, I would be curious to hear from you about any habits you need to "unlearn", and about any new skills you might find you need to work on.

[Siggi 10]

I've been using TAC, and allowed it in DiD, because too much action was being missed as a result of not being able to realistically see a/c at distance. My first campaign pilot went 12 missions without seeing a thing.

 

But I'm going to stop using it now. I've already stopped chasing after white bogies anyway, so there's not much more point in it for me. I also believe it'll result in a more realistic incidence of encounters.

 

And I'll be glad to lose the "T" off my "DiD" rating.

[Olham 164]

To have enough encounters, you could enter second half of 1917, or better 1918.

There are so many planes underway, you could call it "crowded".

[Interlocutor 0]

I've been using TAC, and allowed it in DiD, because too much action was being missed as a result of not being able to realistically see a/c at distance. My first campaign pilot went 12 missions without seeing a thing.

 

But I'm going to stop using it now. I've already stopped chasing after white bogies anyway, so there's not much more point in it for me. I also believe it'll result in a more realistic incidence of encounters.

 

And I'll be glad to lose the "T" off my "DiD" rating.

 

Yes Siggi, without the TAC I think I'm missing many action possibilities, especially given that my two pilots, one LafEsc and one Storks, both fly in the spring & summer of 1916, respectively. BTW, by keeping two pilots active and alternating them, I find that when one gets killed, I still have the other to console me while I start out another "rookie" in the recently deceased guy's slot.

 

But missing action is okay. As Olham says, at least I tend to accumulate more flight hours than previously. In fact, since going DiD about a week ago or so, I've yet to lose either of my two pilots! (hurriedly knocks on wood...)

 

Anyway, I guess I've decided to go into this for the "long haul" now. I think you said it well in the intro to your OFF3 kill board website, that immersion has become the thing for me now, rather than combat.

 

I'd love to be the first OFF flyer to put French pilots on your killboard, but I just won't give my pilots up to Archie anymore. When I'm assigned a mission behind German lines, I at least fly to the terminal waypoint and make a token show of carrying out the mission, and with "AI Gunfire (range)" set to "Realistic", I lost 3 out of 4 pilots below 5000 feet on such missions. It's only 10% off my realism rating to go from "Realistic" down to "Normal" on this one, and I get that 10% back anyway by setting my guns to "Hard" :yes: .

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I don't fly DiD, currently, but may I suggest a compromise? How about permitting AI guns to be set at "Normal" for the period 1916 until July 1917 and then switch AI guns to "Realistic?" This would reflect the increased ability of AA guns from mid 1917 until the end of the war.

[Interlocutor 0]

To have enough encounters, you could enter second half of 1917, or better 1918.

There are so many planes underway, you could call it "crowded".

 

Olham, you are right, and I've considered it.

 

But I prefer to fly turn fighters, not energy fighters. By 1917/1918 the French have mostly converted to Spads (I hate flying Spads ). For the RFC/RNAS, I have a similar aversion to the SE5, and though the Camel is attractive in theory, I tried to learn how to fly it in QC's several weeks ago, and failed miserably :blush2: , kept stalling out whenever I tried a tight turn or a loop.

 

So it's Nieuports for me. That's okay, I love them, but by late 1917 or definitely by 1918 they are outclassed by the latest German types, and are no longer in service with many squadrons.

 

I did fly the Sopwith Tripe with the RNAS in 1917 a lot, about a month ago or so, but one of the patches changed its flight model, and I just didn't take the time to "re-learn" how to fly it. Maybe I'll try it again soon.

 

But to reiterate by paraphrasing Sam Sturgis' bon mot about John Pope, I don't give a pinch of owl dung for Spads...

[Siggi 10]

Ah, I see, those settings have an impact on the realism % rating. I was unaware of that. Had I known I would have made them "Users Choice", being that a score of 100% is all that's required for DiD, from whatever combination of settings it's derived.

 

I will amend the rules accordingly.

[Olham 164]

I like SPADs. For breakfast, lunch, or with my tea.

Yes, Interlocutor, I prefer turnfighters too (although the Albatros isn't the best there - Dr.1 would be the choice!)

For the Camel, there's one direction, were it's really good (depending on the powerful rotation torque); but I forgot,

wether it was the left or right turn. I think, it was the right, and it was so much faster and safer, that the pilots did

rather a three-quarter right turn than a left (if right was right - ask the experts).

I'll try a Camel campaign soon - she's the only British plane with good twin guns (if we ignore the few twin gun Tripes).

But a nervous little witch, as far as I experienced yet.

[BirdDogICT 3]

So for those who think it's "too hard" to learn to fly without the crutches of TAC, labels, etc, I can say that it can be learned. It is a different "skill set", and well as a different mind set. It's harder to survive in some ways, but easier in others. For those seeking full immersion, I say "throw away the crutches" and give it a try...

 

Interlocutor,

 

I've been flying BHaH since January, as well, and despite some minor PC problems, have logged many hours. I finaly started playing with a Track IR laast week, and can't believe the difference. I am having to completely re-learn how to fly anyway, so decided to throw away my crutches, following your "12 step program" to the letter

I found it a great help to use TrackIR in RB3D to get a feel for flying without crutches...that way I'm never tempted to turn on cheats like the labels, tracking cone, or tactical display. I can then take what I've learned in a more familiar 2DOF world to the 6DOF BHaH world.

 

Cheers

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Morning All,

 

I just returned from a business trip and have a lot of catching up to do I see. Another very interesting thread right here on the realism capacities of BHaH. Interlocutor, I have another twist you can add to your DiD campaigns if you like as well. In a previous post some time back I outlined the "engine trouble emulator" I use, and here is the bulk of that post:

 

 

As most of you likely know from your Great War studies, the early planes were bedeviled by intermittent engine problems. Defective parts, dirty fuel, mis-adjustments, and a myriad of other issues all resulted in engines suddenly acting up or conking out altogether. To simulate this when I fly I have developed the following system.

 

You will use four standard dice. After take-off and as you begin your circle of the field to form up you roll the dice, and are then bound by these results:

 

 

9 = Second dice roll before crossing the mud.

 

15 = Second dice role after crossing mud.

 

11 = Second dice roll upon reaching assigned target.

 

24 = Engine drops to 50% power, (hit #5 key immediately).

 

21 = Engine drops to 10% power, (hit #1 key immediately).

 

5 = Fuel mixture will not function. This means you can either continue the mission and fly at lower altitudes, or turn back and land.

 

13 = Catastrophic engine failure, you must immediately shut off engine and pray you have somewhere to land.

 

 

If you must roll the dice a second time I recommend you do it either well before engaging EA, or after a dogfight if you took no damage during the engagement, (and I make that stipulation because with the latest upgrade if you did take damage you will already have your hands full trying to get home anyway). Feel free to use this idea as you wish. It does add yet another realism layer to an already deeply immersive combat experience.

 

 

Also, about the flak. I have found that if you stay up above 8,000' when crossing the mud or when flying over enemy installations, and if you practice a good "dodge-dip-climb" routine when the flak appears, it is very unlikely you will suffer any significant damage. Watch as the flak starts to find your range, and then turn off to either side and climb or dive a bit to throw off their aim. Fly along your new heading for a short time and then turn back on course. If you do this, you will not only minimze the flak risk, you will also be following the same procedure used by our WWI counterparts.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

[Interlocutor 0]

Ah, I see, those settings have an impact on the realism % rating. I was unaware of that. Had I known I would have made them "Users Choice", being that a score of 100% is all that's required for DiD, from whatever combination of settings it's derived.

 

I will amend the rules accordingly.

 

Siggi, that's great! After I fly today, I'll send you the scoop on my two French DiD pilots, assuming thet survive today's missions . They are both early in their careers now, so there's not much to report yet, but we'll see...