Well thanks OFF Team...it's the end of a era!

[DukeIronHand 8]

Finally had a day all to myself - no pressing work and family gone for the day.

 

At last I really waded through all that is OFF - menus, settings, campaign screens, etc.

Only thing left to do is to assign keys commands to my joystick. Which, to be honest, I am kind of dreading based on past experience.

 

Anyway...

 

Decided to wait on that and jumped in a quick campaign mission (from a test pilot) flying with Jasta 11 on 4-26-17.

 

Bright, beautiful sunny day. Blues skies, puffy white clouds, awesome, detailed, and gorgeous terrain and aircraft, and...well you have all probably seen it yourselves!

Even bagged me a RE-8 that friendly flak pointed out for me.

 

Was all done, sitting in my chair sipping tea, and...and I reached for the mouse and deleted all my RB3D installs.

Sort of like shooting your favorite old dog but it had to be done. To be honest since acquiring OFF I have not played it much, having a feeling this day was coming, but still...the darn thing has been on all my CP's for what? 12 years?

OFF had finally arrived for me lock, stock, and barrel.

 

OFF is certainly the new king of WW1 flight sims and will always have a place on any computer I own.

[Von Paulus 8]

I wish I could have also a day for myself.

OFF is indeed the king of the WW1 combat sims.

I play video games since 1978 with Philips G7000 Videopac.

And OFF is one of the best videogames I have ever played in any machine.

My compliments to the devs team, they have just created a classic.

[Bullethead 12]

Was all done, sitting in my chair sipping tea, and...and I reached for the mouse and deleted all my RB3D installs.

 

I know the feeling. A few months back, I hung my RB2 CD (I needced its "superpatch" to make it RB3D) on my trophy wall side-by-side with the most blood-soaked mementos of my real life. I suppose one day, perhaps when P4 comes out, I'll replace the RB2 CD with my P3 CD.

[OvS 8]

.... A few months back, I hung my RB2 CD (I needced its "superpatch" to make it RB3D) on my trophy wall side-by-side with the most blood-soaked mementos of my real life ...

 

OFF's goal accomplished...

[Olham 164]

DukeIronHand, the joystick setup isn't so nasty, when you DON't try to delete a command setting,

that is already there. Before you can delete or overwrite it, you just click on "add assignment".

Now make your desired new assignment.

After that, you can (I think) delete the old.

[Red-Dog 3]

I know where your coming from Duke, i deleted every game off my computer and since May have only had Bh&h installed.Is this Sad? or just devotion?

[Burning Beard 14]

LOL, I still have IL2 on mine and have even added all the latest mods, but I don,t fly it. Heck I have even forgotten what the buttons on my joystick do in that game.

 

Beard

[SirMike1983 3]

I flew Phase 1 and RB3d side by side for a period. With Phase 2, RB3d retired to the shelf. I briefly reinstalled it with HASP for a period a few months back, but it's dated compared to P3. I will say RB3d still holds the advantage in terms of volume of aircraft and variety of action. But besides that P3 is the stronger and more modern game throughout. Once the variety of airplanes increases in OFF, it will truly be better on all fronts. That said, it does concern me how dated the CFS3 engine is becoming at this point. Whatever P4 will end up being, I would imagine would need some kind of heavy-duty engine overhaul or even an entirely new platform. But I'm enjoying P3 and am awaiting Hat in the Ring. P4 is a long way off, but it's good to know there's interest in keeping the project going at least. RB left everyone hanging because the series just stopped with RB3d-- which is why we had to make do with it for so long. A quality, comprehensive WW1 sim has been a long time in coming. RoF is nice visually and realism-wise, but it's not comprehensive enough for me (having been a fan of the RB series for so long). RB is very comprehensive, but it's dated visually and realism-wise. I think OFF fits in nicely.

[+Winder 32]

I flew Phase 1 and RB3d side by side for a period. With Phase 2, RB3d retired to the shelf. I briefly reinstalled it with HASP for a period a few months back, but it's dated compared to P3. I will say RB3d still holds the advantage in terms of volume of aircraft and variety of action. But besides that P3 is the stronger and more modern game throughout. Once the variety of airplanes increases in OFF, it will truly be better on all fronts. That said, it does concern me how dated the CFS3 engine is becoming at this point. Whatever P4 will end up being, I would imagine would need some kind of heavy-duty engine overhaul or even an entirely new platform. But I'm enjoying P3 and am awaiting Hat in the Ring. P4 is a long way off, but it's good to know there's interest in keeping the project going at least. RB left everyone hanging because the series just stopped with RB3d-- which is why we had to make do with it for so long. A quality, comprehensive WW1 sim has been a long time in coming. RoF is nice visually and realism-wise, but it's not comprehensive enough for me (having been a fan of the RB series for so long). RB is very comprehensive, but it's dated visually and realism-wise. I think OFF fits in nicely.

 

I can say P4 will be addressing a heluvva lot but I am always interested to here what basic aspect of P3 would folks want to see improved engine wise - IOW what steps forward would players expect to see in a next gen OFF?

Keep it real though guys - yeah we all want a 100% realistic virtual world...but think basic macro engine functions and not mirco issues like squad transfers etc.

So I am talking engine wise?

 

WM

[DukeIronHand 8]

DukeIronHand, the joystick setup isn't so nasty, when you DON't try to delete a command setting,

that is already there. Before you can delete or overwrite it, you just click on "add assignment".

Now make your desired new assignment.

After that, you can (I think) delete the old.

 

Thanks for the tip Olham - will give it a try that way.

[Olham 164]

Winder: ...what steps forward would players expect to see in a next gen OFF?

 

Now, I don't know if AI behaviour belongs to what you meant, Winder, but what I would

like to see changed, is the behaviour of two-seaters.

I'd like to see two-seaters, that react realistic on an attack, at least by evasive movements.

The Roland and the Brisfit are doing so very well - perhaps it can be changed for all craft.

 

Especially the Fee was a fighter by name.

 

And even a BE2c would not fly on straight, when shot at. With a good pilot, it might even

escape a fighter, who fires all his rounds too soon.

[+Winder 32]

Winder: ...what steps forward would players expect to see in a next gen OFF?

 

Now, I don't know if AI behaviour belongs to what you meant, Winder, but what I would

like to see changed, is the behaviour of two-seaters.

I'd like to see two-seaters, that react realistic on an attack, at least by evasive movements.

The Roland and the Brisfit are doing so very well - perhaps it can be changed for all craft.

 

Especially the Fee was a fighter by name.

 

And even a BE2c would not fly on straight, when shot at. With a good pilot, it might even

escape a fighter, who fires all his rounds too soon.

 

Yes all aspects of AI is one of the items being reworked/overhauled...

[SirMike1983 3]

Yes all aspects of AI is one of the items being reworked/overhauled...

 

Specifically on the AI: low level behavior of the AI is a bit spotty in the current version. They get down to a certain level and then seem unable to hold a straight course. Instead they flutter up and down, doing rolls and loops. I would think they should probably just fly more directly down low.

 

I'm not sure if this is present, but the AI seems to have a distance at which it "locks on" to targets. Perhaps this distance in which it "locks on" and recognizes enemy air targets could vary based on what skill the enemy pilot is simulated to be (veteran vs novice vs ace etc).

 

As for the engine, it seems to me that CFS 3 uses somewhat oversimplified physics for flight. Even on the most realistic settings, the aircraft seem rather easy to fly (perhaps with the exception of the Eindecker). This is present in plain CFS 3 as well, so I tend to think it's based in the game engine itself. An improved engine, I think, should have more difficult and complex physics at work, for example.

Edited November 29, 2009 by SirMike1983

[Bullethead 12]

I am always interested to here what basic aspect of P3 would folks want to see improved engine-wise

 

The biggest problem with the current game engine is the strangeness that happens at very low and/or slightly negative airspeeds. In this regime, the flight mechanics completely fall apart. It appears that if there is the slightest negative component in the wind direction relative to the wings, such as after a wings-level, nose-high stall. In such cases, it appears that ALL "atmospheric" air effects are ignored, but gravity and propwash over the tail surfaces remain in force. Planes in this regime tend to fall vertically with increasing velocity, maintaining their nose-high attitude without the slightest tendency for the relative wind coming up from below to weathervane their noses down and thus recreate a positive airflow over the wings. The ONLY way to recover from this is to gun the motor to create the most propwash over the tail, and hold full down elevator to force the nose down. As soon as the nose gets below the horizon and positive airspeed resumes, the plane instantly returns to flying normally.

 

A related problem is the tendency of a number of planes (Pfalz D.III, Fokker E.III, etc.) to fall out of the air sideways. Despite the center of gravity being well forward, the air supposedly blowing by the side of the fuselage and the vertical tail has no effect on pointing the nose down. This tends to happen even at otherwise flyable forward speeds, but I'm sure it's all part of the same hole in the flight mechanics.

 

These things kill a lot of players, but they also kill the AI very frequently. I'm sure the whole thing about the AI at low altitudes and speeds just pancaking is merely the result of the AI not knowing how to deal with the flight model problem. Instead of doing down elevator to exploit the propwash effect as the only viable method to regain control, it holds up elevator because it knows it's going down and the ground is close. Hence, it's never able to return to a flyable regime in the flight model. As a quick fix to the AI, therefore, maybe you could make it try some down elevator in such situations until such times as its plane starts flying again, then have it do up elevator.

 

Yes all aspects of AI is one of the items being reworked/overhauled...

 

Besides the above AI tweak, I'd like to see the following:

 

1. AI 2-seat with no conventional rear guns (at present, just Quirks and Fees, but hopefully others in the future) should do Lufbery Circles automatically, and there should be a player command (regardless of aircraft type) to order his flight to do a Lufbery Circle.

 

2. AI tractor 2-seaters should weave from side to side when attacked from below and behind by scouts, at least if they're aware they're being attacked. This is to give their gunners a shot. Same if they're under Archie fire. I remember modders made this happen in RB2/3D, for example the FCJ package. If the player is flying the 2-seater, his wingmen should do this without being prompted.

 

3. AI planes should hold their fire if there's a friendly plane (human or AI) between them and their chosen target. Even better, if this condition persists, the AI planes should pick a different target instead of following along uselessly with a closer friendly in the way. I'm rather tired of getting shot in the back by my own guys, AND losing wingmen this way.

 

Otherwise, I'd like the following things:

• The ability to specifiy my own mission waypoints if I'm the flight leader. Especially if I do this in the knowledge of where known AA concentrations are.
• The ability to specify my own altitudes for waypoints WHILE IN FLIGHT, so I can still warp even if I find, once I get to the airfield, that the cloud is much lower than the briefed mission altitude. Otherwise, have the pre-set mission altitude take the weather conditions into account.
• The ability for TIR to work in gunner positions.
• The flight not to end until the wreck of my plane actualy hits the ground. And for the black-out and red-out effects NOT to happen in external views, so I can take good shots of my horrible death.

[+matt milne 5]

in any case, naturally you would expect the difference between p3 and p4 to be as equal as the difference between p2 and p3.

 

if you're talking about a new or different engine, things that cfs3 can't do like damage modelling, and generally anything on the list that had to be limited because of the nature of the years old system, would be great. improved models, textures, sounds, weather fx, additional details, etc would all be expected for the next version as a given anyway.

p4 is limited only by the engine chosen and our imaginations, so i'm sure there'll be some pleasant surprises.

 

i agree with winder, photorealism is wasted in many games and films and wouldn't help off in any way. if anything photorealism can highlight and make worse any differences between lighting, models, fx, and environment. because things in the cg world are always going to be different to things in the real world, no matter how hard we try to match them. with any film, it holds up to the first few viewings but the more times you watch a scene, the more you notice the differences and the compositing, that applies to games as well, so yes photorealism is not the road to go down.

 

as usual, i think it's best to go with something that we feel looks right and are happy with. It should be great to us as players, it should always be a game we want to play ourselves.

If any developer is unhappy with the game they've made, the wise thing is to start again.

[Olham 164]

From my graphic designer point of view, I would say, photorealism could kill a lot of the

rich immersive feeling of this sim.

 

It sounds strange, but somehow you can highlight and bring to life a simulation much better,

when you make it an art work, like a painting or a sculpture.

With this own artistic touch, that we find in the aircraft as well as in the landscapes - a slight

abstraction, like the stroke of a painter's brush - "Over Flanders Fields" has become one of

those "games", where you really dive and wallow in a world of immersion.

Not many sims and games get that created, and I would never ask you to change that for

something as "naked" as photorealism.

[Siggi 10]

From my graphic designer point of view, I would say, photorealism could kill a lot of the

rich immersive feeling of this sim.

 

It sounds strange, but somehow you can highlight and bring to life a simulation much better,

when you make it an art work, like a painting or a sculpture.

With this own artistic touch, that we find in the aircraft as well as in the landscapes - a slight

abstraction, like the stroke of a painter's brush - "Over Flanders Fields" has become one of

those "games", where you really dive and wallow in a world of immersion.

Not many sims and games get that created, and I would never ask you to change that for

something as "naked" as photorealism.

 

How weird, I used to argue this very same idea. It's the same with modelling, to a point, if the subjects look too real they lose some kind of quality that makes them attractive.

[Bullethead 12]

How weird, I used to argue this very same idea. It's the same with modelling, to a point, if the subjects look too real they lose some kind of quality that makes them attractive.

 

Here's a cautionary tale on including too much realism in a game. All devs should take heed

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare

[shredward 12]

Hmmmm, I see real possibilities here, we can expand from our filling out claim forms:

spit shining boots, latrine duty, church parade, short arm inspection, putting rounds into ammo belts, sighting in guns, hut inspection - yes, I can see where we can take this....

Thanks Bullet!

Edited November 30, 2009 by shredward

[OvS 8]

I never liked photorealism in a sim... it never looks right with shadows and modeling.

 

The best best is how FSX is handled. It looks real enough, however still looks like a simulation. You look down at low altitude, and there are cars on the roads... they don't look like real life Fords and Chevy's but they are still there and give you the sense of immersion rather than just having photorealistic cars painted on to scenery tiles.

 

OvS

[Bullethead 12]

Thanks Bullet!

 

Always glad to be of service in helping make OFF better. I eagerly await all these new features, perhaps in P4? .

 

I must say, they had some very good technical advisers in making that video. It was all SO TRUE, even the parts about coming home.

[rabu 9]

Here's a cautionary tale on including too much realism in a game. All devs should take heed

 

http://www.theonion...._modern_warfare

 

 

This has got to be a joke.. right?.. r i g h t? .. why not just join the Army.

[Bullethead 12]

This has got to be a joke.. right?.. r i g h t? .. why not just join the Army.

Well, it was on The Onion, so yeah, I'd say it was a joke <BR><BR>But you gotta hand it to the bastids.  They hit so many nails on the head with 1 swing it's almost not funny <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://forum.combatace.com/public/style_emoticons/default/good.gif"> Edited December 1, 2009 by Bullethead

[Olham 164]

OvS, the look of FSX is very good, if you you want it to just look realistic.

 

"Over Flanders fields" is going some good steps further.

When we look at really good air combat paintings and art by some of the specialised

artists like Dietz, we realise immediately, that we look at a painting.

But we also favour this painting instead of the "naked truth" of a photograph,

because it also communicates with our emotions so much better.

Because contrasts and colour "tuning" are much more to our likes.

Because they enhance the visible facts into art.

 

That's what "Over Flanders Fields" is - an animated painting, a modern art expression

of the air combat of World War One.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I agree with you Olham, and you put it very well Sir. I prefer the "impressionistic" in this sim rather than the "realistic" when it comes to the art.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.