OFF aircraft web page

[HomeBoy 1]

I have begun a rather ambitious project of evaluating and comparing each of the 39 aircraft in OFF and have created this web site to contain the study.

 

I envision two phases of the project; (1) historical and (2) experiential (actual in-game observation). The first phase is basically done (except for correcting mistakes). The second and much more difficult phase will be the testing and comparing of the OFF aircraft with no respect to the actual historical data. I feel it is a much greater service to the community to report how these planes actually fly opposed to how they should fly. In my years playing Aces High, I benefited greatly from the work done by one of the members: Soda's AH Aircraft Evaluation Website from which I am modeling this project.

 

My primary purpose is to make comparisons and observations that can help you understand how to best employ the aircraft. The plan is to measure the actual aircraft "in-game" rather than introduce "historical data." Obviously this will be a subjective evaluation but I hope those of you who get excited about this sort of thing will provide helpful input too. I will be analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft as well as the role each one is best suited for. My desire is to make the evaluations relevant to actual game experience. For example, if, in your Nieuport 11, you encounter a group of Alb D.IIs, you will immediately know what advantages you might have, what their weaknesses might be so you can make a wise decision on how to approach that situation.

 

Evaluating the aircraft in any game I undertake has been something I always do but this is my most organized attempt at that. Reading the thread started by BulletHead on the Spad13 was inspiring and there is obviously a wealth of knowledge here at the forum so I'm hoping many of you will join my effort. I figure if I'm going to this much trouble, I may as well make it a public project so that everyone can benefit and participate as they desire. Let's see how it goes. If it becomes clear that the work is inadequate, exposure will bring it to a merciful end or someone more qualified and motivated than I can step up.

 

I would appreciate reports of any mistakes (I'm sure there are plenty) of the historical data I have out there now. If you would, wait until you've looked through all of it and send me email (send it here: mhf99 - AT - yahoo.com) with your summary rather then hit me with a bunch of single items. That will help make my life a little easier. Thank you very much for any help you might be willing to provide!

 

I hope this effort will help you enjoy this great game better. I've got my stopwatch and graph paper all ready. Can't wait to get started!

[Olham 164]

Homeboy - this is really impressive, to see all the OFF aircraft on one page - I hadn't thought they'd be so many, honestly.

 

I am absolutely sure that your site will be much frequented. Either to compare your favourite crate(s) to opponents, or to

find out about the available craft, for making a choice. I hope you won't loose your energy for such a wide field.

 

And this HAS to become a sticky, surely.

[Hauksbee 103]

I have begun a rather ambitious project of evaluating and comparing each of the 39 aircraft...

A labor of love, no doubt! I'll be looking forward to this.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Brilliant reference work Homeboy!...thanks from all us OFF(ers)

[SirMike1983 3]

Regarding the Hispano-Suiza (at least what I saw in the Se5a): that's not an inline motor, but a V-8.

[Vasco 3]

Nice work Homeboy,

 

Some suggestions for some very useful additions to the information:

 

1. Include max rate of climb and the speed required to obtain it

2. Add the amount of ammunition carried per gun and the various ordnance loadouts available in game

3. Give some indication of the maneuverability of the aircraft (I remember playing a WWI wargame with aircraft minatures many years ago and the aircraft were given alphabetical ratings based on their maximum level turn rate - it made for a very useful comparison as to whether to engage in a turn fight or boom and zoom the opponent)

[cptroyce 0]

HB- A "standing O" on this project. Should enhance the OFF experience immensely.

 

When I was building FM's for Red Baron a few years ago, I compiled lots and lots of historical data on Excel spreadsheets and graphs, for flight analysis.

Compared RoC, Wing loads, turn circles, accellerations, power ratios etc. between all the RB models. Frankly, I am not sure if I eventually deleted them or if I still have them on an old hardrive somewhere.

 

If I can locate this data, I would be glad to send it along to you, if you think it useful for this project.

 

Regards,

Royce

Edited July 1, 2009 by cptroyce

[HomeBoy 1]

Thanks everyone for the kind support. I need the encouragement as this is a pretty big undertaking. I'm not going to reply to your posts much more because I want YOUR input and don't want to litter up this thread with my "thanks for that" responses. So, I hope my sincere THANK YOU will suffice.

 

SirMike:

Thanks for the heads-up about the Hispano-Suiza. I'll get that fixed.

 

Vasco:

Your comments are exactly in line with my purpose. Rate of climb tests are going to be a bit more challenging than with Aces High as there is no "auto-climb autopilot" as with AH (at least that I know of). In AH, it was a simple matter to take off, click on auto-climb and time how long it gets to 10,000 ft. In OFF, that is going to be more difficult. Any advice on ways to go about that?

 

cptroyce:

Thank you very much. Yes, any historical data you have will certainly strengthen the data I've put out there already. It's funny, while gathering this data, I would go to five websites and get five different "specifications" on obvious stuff like "Number of aircraft produced", "Ceiling", etc. I ended up erring on the side of the documentation that ships with OFF as I figure at least that represents the aircraft in game better than numbers that differed by large amounts. In reality, "historical data" is not that important for the purpose of this project anyway but what little I have I'd like for it to be accurate.

 

So, please keep the comments coming and PLEASE, those of you that are sticklers for accuracy, please email me a "correction list" of what you find wrong and I'll certainly fix it.

 

<S>!

-mark

[shredward 12]

Don't know the difference myself, but I distinctly remember starting campaigns in OFF with an SE5, and an SE5a, aswell as a SE5a 'Viper' that's 3. You only feature 2 varients ??

 

Hi Unc,

We have an SE5 in name only. It is actually the SE5a Hisso masquerading as. One day perhaps.....

Cheers,

shredward

[Guest British_eh]

Great project idea.

 

It would appear to me that there are three distinct sets of data, historical, players plane, and AI. Having done quite a bit or research on the DR1, there is differences between the historical plane, and OFF, and a AI DR1. So, there are three sets of data that could be compared. With the AI having no fuel load, ( in P2,) this likely increases their capabilities. Perhaps the OFF Team would be willing to provide such data.

 

For my own two cents worth, the decided advantage of maneuverability of the AI almost outweighs any thoght process that you as a pilot may employ in your players aircraft. While one on one should be your advantage, I have yet, in Campaign, been able to outduel two enemy AI, especially if I have sustained even minor damage.

 

Good luck.

 

Regards,

 

British_eh

Edited July 2, 2009 by British_eh

[Wels 2]

Hello Homeboy,

thanks, this is a good idea ! I already liked your command map, even if i changed mine (literally) to something completely different - the "vanilla" commands from CFS3 are indeed strange and unnecessarily hard to use. There is not even a fixed command for the virtual cockpit view, and you have to cycle through the cameras, err, was it F2 (?), to get to the cockpit. I wonder why the OFF team did not "invent" a completely new set of commands, and implemented this in OFF, but there were more important things i guess . Maybe i will do it and propose ..

 

Even if i have some info on the different planes it is very nice to have this map handy and be able to quickly compare them.

 

I wonder whether the OFF team could change the AI planes to have similar capabilities than the flyable birds, without thus breaking some of the AI that might then crash ... but recently there was a Nieuport 11 that followed me inversed, wheels up and shooting, for more than 30 seconds, must have had a captured german Argus carburettor (on a rotary ?!) lol. Ok i won't whine, guess i just do not like being shot at.

 

Thanks and greetings,

Catfish

[Check Six 2]

Homeboy,

 

Great idea. MUST become a sticky admins.

 

I tried chasing up aircraft performance comparison charts in "The Aerodrome" Forum for this very purpose...can I outrun that Halberstadt? Should i try a maximum rate of climb to get away? How do i best attack an Albatrross DIII in an SE5a etc etc.

 

The actual historical data can be inaccurate due to many reasons, and if you compare, say, rates of climb from different sources, you will receive different answers.

 

As I'm an abyssmal pilot, I won't post any OFF data on that website, but I will pass on everything I have and can find. I have many sources, and what needs to happen is to guage the accuracy of different data sources. For instance, I posted a comparison of "Rates of Climb" graph for various aircraft on the Aerodrome Forum, and was told by a genuine researcher that the data was bogus. He failed to state why, and I eventually got a set or very complex data for SE5a from him. The data source I posted the graph from?...NASA. Who'da thought they'd get something like that wrong?

 

Anyway, for what it's worth, I will post what I have as time permits, and I hope I'll be able to contribute to other's understandings of aircraft performances.

 

Once again...great undertaking. I wish you the best of luck, and I really hope to be able to assist. Do we just post data/findings/observations to you in private?

Edited July 2, 2009 by Steve Drew

[HomeBoy 1]

Great feedback! Thank you.

 

British_eh,

You are certainly right about the three FMs: historical, player, AI. I have thought about that and plan to deal with it this way:

 

Historical: What you see out there now is all I plan to do with historical data. I figure it does us no good to know that the historical se5a has a top speed of 120 mph while none in-game can exceed 115 (just making that number up for illustration).

 

Player: The section "Flying the XXX" is intended as an evaluation of the "player FM" of the planes.

 

AI: The section "Fighting the XXX" will be the evaluation of the "AI FM." This is a challenge that did not exist in Aces High since there are no AI there. There will obviously be lots of subjectivity here.

 

I want what I report to be recommendations on how best to fight in and against the plane in question and not so much a numerical tabulation of data. I'd rather say "Nothing in the game can catch the Spad13 in level flight at 10,000 ft" [just making this up btw] rather than just give airspeeds at various altitudes, etc. Bottom line is I need to keep this project in the "sweet spot" of my skills. I am not an engineer and if I try to approach this too much that way, all of you will reject the project as fraudulent plus I will not enjoy it and would probably stop doing it because it would not be fun. I love to dogfight and if I can keep the project centered on that I think that offers the best chance for success.

 

My first report will be the spuds as I have flown them the most. I will post my report, wait for feedback and amend the write-up accordingly. Naturally, your comments, criticism, etc. are most welcome!

 

Stay tuned!

[Rickitycrate 10]

Homeboy. You come up with the most useful projects and contributions. Many thanks for your care, time and skills. Anybody who may be unfamiliar with BH&H can see from this more tangibly the large number of crates and variants the sim offers. More impressive than just a list. I would like to see it stickified and maybe the stickies need to be cleaned up a little as we seem to be collecting too many. Or maybe we need another category to go along with the general help, skinning, mission etc.. I don't want to lose anything but our current post page is getting short. Moderators?

[Check Six 2]

Quote from Homeboy "I want what I report to be recommendations on how best to fight in and against the plane in question and not so much a numerical tabulation of data. I'd rather say "Nothing in the game can catch the Spad13 in level flight at 10,000 ft" [just making this up btw] rather than just give airspeeds at various altitudes, etc."

 

I have to agree with you there Homeboy, but you got me finally to get off my butt and do this myself. I mentioned that I had asked in "The Aerodrome" Forum for this kind of data, and most seemed to shy away from it.

 

I realise that it is useless to your purposes, but I'm going to go ahead with it anyway, as I am an amateur historian and I'd just like to have this kind of thing handy. My research so far has been dedicated to the man, not the machine, and I'm curious to see where this goes. I'll keep all of you posted, and make my findings available to all interested parties.

 

Rickitycrate,

 

You got that spot-on. I do think this should be a sticky, and we DO need to trim the sticky threads, as the current postings is getting woefully small. I'm not suggesting we lose these VERY VALUABLE stickies...maybe some could be added to other stickies and the name of the sticky changed to reflect this addition. Just a thought admins...hope its worth considering.

[HomeBoy 1]

Just a quick update.

BTW, if ever you want to get to my aircraft page and can't find this thread, just find any of my postings and follow the link to my web site (snomhf.exofire.net) shown in my signature. There you'll find everything I've written. There are other things there that may interest you as well as I've been gathering all sorts of flight sim related stuff for a good long while.

 

I am currently performing speed and altitude tests on all the aircraft. I'm about 1/3 of the way through the plane set and am very pleased to find the numbers I'm seeing to be pretty well in line with historical data. As I'm doing this, I'm recording maximum ammo and taking notes on cockpit visibility and will be including all this on the aircraft pages which I'll publish when I'm done with the speed tests.

 

After I finish this set of tests, I will work through the following tests in a similar manner and publish the results as I go.

 

• Stalls (power off, full power)
  
• Acceleration
  
• Climb and dive (including stress testing)
  
• Turn rate
  
• Roll rate
  

 

Following these tests, I will then begin systematic dogfighting and record advantages/disadvantages observed. I will complete the write-ups by offering advice on fighting with and against each of the planes. Hopefully at the completion of the project, players will be able to look up their plane of choice and at least have a basic idea of how to use or oppose a particular plane.

 

If there are other tests or comparisons you think are important that I have not covered here, please let me know.

 

All of these tests are being done using CFS3-QC with 75% fuel, mixture set to auto (for consistency), no wind, clear weather. Except for the settings just noted, here is my Workshop data:

Edited July 8, 2009 by HomeBoy

[themightysrc 5]

"HB- A "standing O" on this project. Should enhance the OFF experience immensely."

 

..and should have the summary for each page become the replacement text and illustration for the rather simplistic bits and bats found in OFF itself (the bit where you're choosing a pilot/squadron/kite. Anyone who's ever played IL2 will have a good idea of just how impresive and useful (as well as interesting) such features can be, and given that there's probably about another 200 meg of space left on the CD that people receive OFF:BH&H, here's a cracking way of filling it!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Outstanding idea and project HomeBoy! Well done Sir, I look forward to the completed endeavour.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[HomeBoy 1]

Update!

 

I finally finished the speed and altitude tests. I haven't updated any of the individual aircraft pages yet but I have summarized my findings on the Main Page. Check it out if you like. Let me know if you find any mistakes.

 

Over the next week, I will update each of the airplane pages with speed, altitude, cockpit views and firepower data (which is all I have done so far).

 

Next comes flight characteristics tests (stalls, climb, dive, etc.) I'm hoping that will go a little faster now that I have more of a system worked out for testing.

 

I sure do wish QC would save my last settings! It is driving me crazy to have to enter all that EVERYTIME I start a flight. Oh well, when it's over hopefully I won't have to be doing that all the time anymore.

[HomeBoy 1]

I have decided to hold off on editing the individual aircraft pages until after I have completed all the tests. I have started a "Best and Worst" section of the main page (if you scroll down the Main Page you will find it. I have included links to the actual data that I compiled from flying each of the planes. I've only completed the "Speed at Altitude" table so far but the others are soon coming.

 

I am pleased to find that the data is pretty well lining up with common sense. For example, the fastest planes in the game are the Spuds 7 & 13 and the SE5. I don't see anything outrageous with respect to data. Please let me know if find anything odd.

 

Speaking of weird. When I was organizing the armament data, I found it extremely odd that the RAF B.E.2c has a Lewis machine gun that fires through the prop! The Lewis was not synchronized, the Vickers was used for that. There is clearly no deflector plates on that prop (it's a four bladed prop too!) so I just find that puzzling. Is that a bug? From all the reading I've done on the BE2, the forward seated observer had a Lewis on a swivel mount for self defense rather than a forward mounted gun like in the game. Strange.