Claim submissions

[Olham 164]

Thanks a lot, Mack! I'll use that as a guideline.

So, Creaghorn may be right there - the sim can't possibly manage too many kills.

Cause you say, 80% are confirmed. That means 8 out of ten you reported.

But as you only reported 10 from 20 kills you really made, that would be a confirmation

of 8 from 20. Then it's about the same with me.

Maybe the sim doesn't "believe" so many kills.

 

All ziss butchery for ze fazzerland, ant zen zey do not even give me der whol confirmashionz.

How shall I ever get ze Blue Max ziss vay?! Oh, I know - I vin it at Lou's competishion!

 

[Baldric 42]

Great info- thanks much!

 

I had only inserted the name of one of the flight pilots as the form only asks for one witness, or in the case of the lone wolf, I put 'Spotter' where maybe I should have put 'German Spotter' since most ground objects seem to have at least two parts to their designation. I would love to add a full report if that helps game mechanic-wise especially since it fills the logbook in nicely too and looks like an interesting read. So, where would I type all that info? All I get is a large box with drop downs, a slot for the single witness (First name, last name), and thats about it as far as I can recall.

 

Thanks!!

[Olham 164]

Baldric, you can write all names into the upper slot, with a comma between them; they will wander to the left,

while you write on.

 

The same with the report; you can write on and on. When you press the arrow to the left on your keyboard,

between letter keys and numpad, you will get to the beginning again, arrow right gets you back to the end of it.

[Baldric 42]

Danke!

[77Scout 3]

I use ALL of my flights names in my reports. My confirmation % is about 80+%

 

Oh well, that seems to shoot down my two-word single witness theory; DOH!

 

Hmmmmm. The more I see of what people are putting into their claim reports, the less I see any pattern to successfully getting confirmations. Multiple witnesses is obviously nothing to do with it as Macklroy gets 80% and Olham gets 25%. Long writeup versus short writeup seems to make no difference either. Yet maybe someday we will crack this DaWinder Code :)

 

BTW, I still refuse to buy into the theory that there is some fancy text-parsing algorythm working here that actually understands even 5% of what people are writing about altitudes, locations etc. The artificial intelligence coding required to accomplish that would take decades to write...seriously. More likely a few 'magic words' might be looked for, like 'flames', 'killed, 'crashed' etc. (?)

[Olham 164]

Scout, watch the "review" after a mission ended.

The sim tells some data and detail from your actions there.

So, these at least are known to the sim; and if you mention these data, they might be compared?

[77Scout 3]

Scout, watch the "review" after a mission ended.

The sim tells some data and detail from your actions there.

So, these at least are known to the sim; and if you mention these data, they might be compared?

 

Yep, it is possible, but simply think what kind of programming would be required. If you have ever done programming then it will be seen as quite unlikely. Not saying Winder couldn't write this kind of code if he had enless amounts of time, but I am pretty sure he didn't have the hunderds of hours available to do it. I am betting the claims algorythm is something rather simple with a semi-large random component at its core, but of course I really don't know.

[Guest British_eh]

Hi there:

 

One issue that we haven't addressed is that perhaps for different Jasta's it is different. It was known to be easier for the Germans to get a claim through than the British. So, why Olhams issue. Just fly in 1917

 

There is a claim form from Flying Fury which I will put into MS Word, and post.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

[+Polovski 456]

Winder has code there to handle the claims and it is intelligent, and no I'm not giving any details. I only put in 1 witness usually, but the more you mess with it the more likely it won't like it. Of course as in war, a pilot claiming a high number of kills may be looked at very closely, and maybe be talked about behind his back, or maybe not who knows :)

[Condor44 0]

Scout, watch the "review" after a mission ended.

The sim tells some data and detail from your actions there.

So, these at least are known to the sim; and if you mention these data, they might be compared?

 

As I recall, we don't get the opportunity to see the review until after the claim form is completed. Am I mistaken because you seem to be suggesting that information from the review be included in the claim, (I would check but my gaming computer is down for a few days.)

[Bullethead 12]

As I recall, we don't get the opportunity to see the review until after the claim form is completed. Am I mistaken because you seem to be suggesting that information from the review be included in the claim, (I would check but my gaming computer is down for a few days.)

 

I believe you are correct. Certainly I've never been able to see the replay until after I've filled in the claim form. It's amazing sometimes how much I thought I saw at the time (and put in the claim form) differs from what the replay says, but that's life in a swirling furball. Sometimes you think you're on 1 guy, sometimes you get on another guy who looks the same without knowing it. Sometimes you pour a bunchof non-lethal bullets into 1 enemy who subsequently dies and you think you got him, but the one you actually killed was a pilot hit in a snapshot which you thought did no damage to speak of. But despite all this, I still get most of mine confirmed .

[Olham 164]

Condor and Bullet - no, you can't have the "replay" before you fill in the claim form.

What I meant was, to look at and read all the info given in the replay. You will see, how much info

the sim has collected about your mission (alt., rounds fired, position etc.)

 

That's why I could imagine, that the sim CAN compare some data like the above; and why you should

try and put them in to your reports. About rounds fired, you can of course only guess. But other facts

like altitude or position can be seen in the map or the red text you get by pressing Ctrl. + Z (or only "Z"?)

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Olham wrote:

But other facts like altitude or position can be seen in the map...

 

I pull up the map often, (via a hot button on my JS), not only for navigation but also to take note of the nearest aerodrome or town to where I crashed an enemy plane, or crashed myself for that matter. While the map coordinates of your exact location are constantly being displayed in the upper right corner of the map, I never use them in my claim form as this type of info was not available to our WW1 counterparts. I do however use those coordinates when building missions as they offer the perfect way to exactly place an item on the map.

 

And speaking of maps, I've also tried my hand at flying in the sim by using large-scale copies of vintage paper maps of my AO with a clear plastic overlay that I can draw my mission route on with a grease pencil. While this is another way to immerse yourself even more deeply into the BHaH experience it is tricky as the landscape in the sim does not match up precisely with an accurate paper map of the same area. However, just like those real pilots did back in the day, I have jotted down my own notes and corrections on my flying map as I go along, and after a few flights over the same AO you start to get familiar with the terrain to the point where you don't actually need the in-game map at all to fly your mission. However, it's best to have the large economy-size bottle of patience handy when giving this method a go, it can get a tad tedious at first.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Olham 164]

Lou, I have copied the Google maps of the areas around Arras-Douai -Cambrai.

When you switch on "terrain" in the top right corner there, and choose a reasonable size to fly sfter,

you have to do many screenshots, of course. Then you make them fit into the normal size of your printer's

paper, with a little white left for glueing them together; and there you are!

 

Next I will do, is get me a sketchboard for the maps, and attach a clear sheet of film to it, to lay

over the maps (which can be exchanged). That board will be some 60 x 45 cm.

[von Baur 54]

I've had a couple of rather frustrating anomalies with claim formes lately that I'd like to add here. Maybe someone can shed some light on them and help me prevent repeats.

 

I tend to be fairly detailed on my claims. Some of them could be copied and pasted to the "Reports from the Front" thread. A couple of weeks ago I'd shot down three BE2's in one mission. I gave each one its own line, as is my wont, and after completing the claim form I went back to my pilot's log to reread them. To my surprise the narrative for the first one stopped halfway through. Subsequently that claim was not confirmed while the other two, which went through in their entirety, including the witness (significance of stating this to come), were. I attributed its rejection to the fact that, while the actual form has the witnesses as the first entry, the claim puts the witness last and I assumed the game looked at it as having no witness, even though it must draw the info from the same place as the others.

 

The second occurrance was on my last flight. It was one of those 'gift of God' setups in which I was presented three FE2's, four BE2's and wigmen who either had jammed guns or were conscientious objectors because they wouldn't fire on anything no matter how many times I stabbed the attack key. To make a long story short, I ended up dropping all seven (and I fly with full realism settings, btw, although I do use lables and a 2-mile TAC placed so that it shows only from 9:00 to 3:00). Since there are only five lines on the claim form, I decided to group them into two lines, particularly since that's how I had shot them down, BE's first then FE's. When I completed the form I got the "Erroneous claim" warning. I tried to modify things here and there, especially since the BE's had been witnessed by one wingman (the other trailing far behind), the first two FE's by the other (having caught up and the first wingman becoming seperated while diving on the fleeing FE's) and the last FE being downed near a German obs balloon, but each time the claim was considered erroneous. I ended up deleting the entry with the BE's altogether, claiming the FE's and having the witness listed as the pilot who only was around for the BE's. The claim is still pending.

 

If anyone can shed some light on this, I would appreciate it. Dev team, I can understand Pol's not wanting to get into a part of the game that's another person's area, but I'm sure I speak for most, if not all, when I ask that if there's any information you can give to help us get more confirmations or avoid the situations I've described we'd appreciate it. After all, those who are going to pump things up will find their ways, because that's what they do. But those of us who want to play it as straight as possible deserve to be given a chance to be awared what we deserve.

 

While we're on the subject, is there any way the claim form can be moved to after the mission review. IRL a pilot would have a chance to go over what happened before having to fill out his claim, wouldn't he? And can it be changed to allow more than five claims and maybe a witness line for each, in case one has multiple engagements at different locations, with possibly different witnesses? Or would that involve too much rewriting to be changed with a patch?

[Olham 164]

I have the same problem with the claims:

The log entry only shows a part of them, and they don't get even noticed.

First I thought, they had to be kept shorter.

But then I read other people's often very detailed claims, and so I don't know

what is wrong here?

 

But the other question: you can fill in more than 5 claims. Just put the Fees into

one line, and the BE2c in another, and choose the number in front of the lines.

Fill all your witnesses in above - that should do.

 

But for our claims problem - could any of the devs help here?