The "Regional Air Activity" setting

[DukeIronHand 8]

Just got done doing some warm-up flights in a Alb/DIII is preparation of a new campaign. Went to the "Workshop" to double check my settings and began to ponder about the "Regional Air Activity" setting. Its currently at medium which I believe is default.

 

1) Does the OFF campaign engine take into account the periods of high offensive/aerial activity (such as the Arras Offensive in April, 1917) and massively increase aerial activity in the area if you are stationed there?

 

2) If it does not do you manually change it to "high" during periods of known offensives?

 

3) What is the quantitative difference between low, medium, and high?

 

And for Bletchley - I believe it was you that had the handy chart (used for RB3d) that had the start and end dates of all major offensives on the Western Front. That would be most useful to manually increase aerial activity if the OFF campaign engine does not and even if it does it would still be good to know when the action is going to heat up.

I went to your (old?) website and it appears to be down.

Edited February 17, 2011 by DukeIronHand

[CaptSopwith 18]

Hi Duke. I can jump in on question 3. I'll leave the more technical aspects to the OFF team, they can answer a lot better than I can.

 

Low, to me, seems to replicate early war activity. I usually see scattered flights of a handful of scouts. It seems to replicate what I read about the re-ordering of the French and German Air Services in 1916 - moving away from largely single plane patrols and towards more organized efforts to cover the air.

 

Medium replicates 1917 pretty well. I encounter trouble more often than not when I fly. Whether they jump me or I engage them is usually left up to me - I can steer my flight towards or away from trouble. That said, I do find myself in much more trouble with medium than low. Many times, there's nothing else to do but dive in and fight and remember my line of retreat.

 

I typically don't even touch high. High taxes my PC too much and my fps begins chugging as OFF is generating so many flights that it takes up too many cycles to process all of that AI. I would imagine that high replicates the most ferocious, high pitched level of the air war and you'll see dozens of fighters tangling in a dogfight.

[+Winder 32]

Just got done doing some warm-up flights in a Alb/DIII is preparation of a new campaign. Went to the "Workshop" to double check my settings and began to ponder about the "Regional Air Activity" setting. Its currently at medium which I believe is default.

 

1) Does the OFF campaign engine take into account the periods of high offensive/aerial activity (such as the Arras Offensive in April, 1917) and massively increase aerial activity in the area if you are stationed there?

 

2) If it does not do you manually change it to "high" during periods of known offensives?

 

3) What is the quantitative difference between low, medium, and high?

 

And for Bletchley - I believe it was you that had the handy chart (used for RB3d) that had the start and end dates of all major offensives on the Western Front. That would be most useful to manually increase aerial activity if the OFF campaign engine does not and even if it does it would still be good to know when the action is going to heat up.

I went to your (old?) website and it appears to be down.

 

 

 

1) Yes its all dynamically modelled based on region and period...and air operations

 

2) No need the regional air activity is to help lower end PCs....

 

3) Hard to say OFF hand :-) but its simply a way to scale activity for PC FPS reasons....

 

HTH

 

WM

[Bletchley 8]

Hello DukeironHand :)

 

I could probably find that old chart, but a better way to manually adjust for such things in OFF is to keep an eye on the Intelligence Briefings in Campaign mode - these will tell you when a 'push' is on in your sector, or when your sector is 'all quiet'. I don't think you need to change your 'Regional Air Activity' setting though - I use 'Light' for the whole period, 1915-1918, as the higher settings produce too many combats in the air for my taste. OFF, like every other WWI combat flight sim, produces too many combats when compared to the historical record: but if it did not, it would be a very boring game :)

 

I manually adjust the AAA setting in workshop, to give less accurate AAA in the early years (1915 to early 1916), and more accurate AAA when tasked to attack a balloon. OFF models the amount of AAA dynamically, but I don't think that it makes any dynamic adjustment for increasing accuracy on either side (hiostorically, there were great leaps and bounds in technology and targetting doctrine). I think that the explosive effect of OFF's AAA is probably over modelled by around 50%-100% in OFF (although this is another issue), as WWII AA explosive charges (RDX and similar) were about twice as brissant as the Amatol and TNT charges used by WWI AA artillery - you may want to reduce the setting for AAA accuracy to compensate for this, although I find that the 'Normal' setting works well for most of the war. Other possible changes to workshop settings can be found in British_eh's SIA-RSS, particularly bullet load figures that are generally lower, historically, than the OFF defaults (see my recent post in the Knowledge Base).

 

Bletchley

[DukeIronHand 8]

...Hard to say OFF hand

 

Hehe...good one.

 

Thank you gentleman for all the answers and information. Should have known I was good hands with OFF.

 

If you happen to come across the chart Bletchley if you could post it here. Very informative and interesting to see the "ebb and flow" of the ground war. And interesting thoughts about the AAA. On "Light" what percentage of your war flights are experiencing enemy contact?

Edited February 17, 2011 by DukeIronHand

[Bletchley 8]

I will try and find that chart. Difficult to say, how often contact is made with the 'Light' setting - there are so many other variables. If I fly as Flight Leader, I would guess something like 50/50 chance - at least in the early period of the war, on a quiet sector, but more like 70%-80% in mid to late war or in a 'busy' sector. But this is probably because I fly without the in-game map or TAC aids, so miss waypoints that might spawn attackers and simply miss seeing enemy a/c. As non-leader, I guess this is more like 80%-90% most of the time (90% chance or above by late war, or in a very busy sector), as the AI Flight Leader does the navigation, hits all the waypoints, and has far better eyes than I do. This is entirely subjective, though, as I have never kept a record - other players might say differently (and I fly mostly RFC, which might also make a big difference). I also use the "historical" AI aggression rating, and so the AI does not always initiate combat (or breaks off after a quick skirmish). In my last mission, leading a flight of 4 BE2c on a bombing raid behind the lines in January 1916, I spotted a flight of E.III on the way in - but they did not try to intercept (just passed by going west at same alt.). On the way out, though, the same flight of E.III (or perhaps another flight) attacked from above - but they only made one diving pass. We carried on, and they trailed along with us, just making the occasional darting attacks. We all got back safely, although one of the BE2C (the rearmost one) was a bit shot up.

 

Bletchley

[Lewie 7]

Once a flight of Fokker EIII's have spent their 'E' in a dive, don't they take a long time to recover and get back on top of the six of the flight they just stalked?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Yes, indeed they do.

 

.

[DukeIronHand 8]

...80%-90% most of the time (90% chance or above by late war, or in a very busy sector)

Bletchley

 

Well, that's not too light!

 

And well above a "historical average" I would guess.

[Bletchley 8]

Well above a "historical average"? Yes, almost certainly if we are looking at an average for the war as a whole, and for all sectors of the Front. It has been said in earlier posts, however, that OFF does not attempt to simulate an 'average' pilot's experience but concentrates on the 'eventfull' parts of that experience (allowing, also, for the caveat that Polovski and others have repeatedly made that a 'real' simulation of such experience is impossible in practice), and functions as much (if not more) as a game than as a simulation. Most OFF player's virtual lives are therefore far more eventfull, and short, than their real life counterparts. Take, for example, the much quoted "17 hours" average life expectancy - this may have been true for some new, virtually untrained RFC pilots in some very active sectors of the Front at particular times, such as 'Bloody April' 1917. The British statistics for even this period, however, indicate that the 'average' life expectancy of aircrew in April 1917 was 92 hours, and was up to twice this in the winter months when air activity was low. As far as the expectancy of combat goes, I dug up this statistical data on the Belgian sector of the Front north of Ypres (I guess that this would correspond to a 'quiet' Front by RFC terms):

 

"Using data from the book by Walter M. Pieters, 'Above Flander's fields', we can extract statistical information on Belgian fighter pilots operating in the sector of the Western Front to the north of Ypres. Note that this is for Belgian, not British fighter pilots: so combat doctrine was probably more defensive and closer to that of the French than the more aggressive 'offensive patrolling' of the British, and the flooded land between Ypres and the coast would probably have been less active for most of the time than some other areas of the Front:

 

For the period 1915-1917 they flew a total of 11,125 combat patrols, engaged in 2,269 combats, and made 201 claims (of which 108 were confirmed): that is approximately one confirmed claim for every 103 combat patrols, or one claim (unconfirmed) per 55 combat patrols, or one combat for every 4.9 combat patrols. Interestingly, if we then divide the figures by year, there is one combat for every 2.8 combat patrols in 1915 (713 patrols, 258 combats), one combat for every 4.2 patrols in 1916 (1566 patrols, 376 combats), one combat for every 4.4 patrols in 1917 (3338 patrols, 759 combats), ending with one combat for every 6.3 patrols in 1918 (5508 patrols, 876 combats).

 

If we look at 'ace' pilots: from the top Belgian aces (but not including Willy Coppens, as the number of balloons that he shot down skews the figures) we find that Jan Olieslagers (22 claims, 6 confirmed, 97 combats, 518 combat patrols), Andrede Moulemeester (30 claims, 11 confirmed, 185 combats, 511 combat patrols), and Fernand Jacquet (16 claims, 7 confirmed, 124 combats, 328 combat patrols), totals combined, flew on 1357 combat patrols, engaged in 406 combats, and made 68 claims (of which 24 were confirmed). That is approx. one confirmed claim for every 57 combat patrols, or approx. one claim (unconfirmed) for every 20 combat patrols, or one combat for every 3.3 combat patrols."

 

Of course, you can tweak OFF to simulate 'historical' outcomes, if you are happy to accept long periods of tedium. The SIA-RSS by British_eh goes some way towards this, and the 'rules' on taking leave, skipping missions, and tours of duty contained within the Pilot Personality Profiles that I posted also help. I currently have a virtual pilot who started in August 1915 as a Sgt. Pilot flying BE2c, transferred to flying the Bristol Scout after promotion to 2nd Lt., and is now back flying the BE2c as an (Acting) Lt. in January 1916. He has survived almost 6 months at the Front, has not shot down a single enemy A/C, and is now looking forward to a period of several months training new pilots on "Home Establishment", if he survives until the end of the month. After that, he will return to the Front (probably as a Flight Leader). I would say this is fairly 'typical' (or lucky), historically, but not as wham! bam! exciting! as other player's accounts. Each to his own :)

 

Bletchley

[Olham 164]

Your post fits well with what I'm always saying to newbies: this is NOT a game...

 

But then many, if not most of us would find it boring to fly it so historical.

That's why I have a compromise to offer: I have one pilot (with Jasta 2, Sept. 1916), whom I try to fly much

like you describe (although not as far as you are going).

Watching myself and my own attitudes with this sim flying, I notice, that I change very slowly towards your

or Creaghorn's attitude. It's a slow development I can't and won't hurry in any way - it's a "natural change"

in it's slow way.

I came in to Phase2 very late, and was all into what you called Wham! Bam! Exiting! kind of flying.

I didn't know anything about WW1 air combat or the war in general.

Now I am (slowly) reading more and more about that time, and I have probably had enough "quick success/

early death" kind of action, so I'm also getting interested in how it would have been in RL.

 

I will still have pilots for Wham!Bam!Action!, but the interest in that is fading.

I think, it may take time for most "players" to become "RL sim flyers", and some may never go that way.

Well, each to his own, as you said.

I'm having a difficult, stressful time recently, but when all problems are solved in a couple of weeks,

I intend to work my way through British_eh's and your stuff, to find your guides to more realism for at least

one "RL pilot" to fly that way.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Olham

[DukeIronHand 8]

Perhaps the old saw "Combat is 90% boredom and 10% terror" applies to WW1 aerial combat also.

 

It would be neat to see such stats broken down by month for the British.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Duke, such figures are found in works like Raleigh and Jones, "The War in the Air", and if I were at home right now I could find a few for you. They would bear out what Bletchley has outlined above concerning the Belgian Air Service. Hundreds of flight hours spent on patrols dodging nothing more than AA, mechanical troubles, and bad weather, (as if that weren't entertaining in and of itself).

 

.

[DukeIronHand 8]

Hundreds of flight hours spent on patrols dodging nothing more than AA, mechanical troubles, and bad weather, (as if that weren't entertaining in and of itself).

 

Oh, no doubt.

 

If I had to guess, based on my decades of reading (and forgetting!) WW1 aerial history I would guess the most "active" pilots (those seeing the most action per flight hour) would be a Jasta pilots flying opposite the British.

[Bletchley 8]

Here is a related (ongoing) thread at The Aerodrome that addresses the issue of pilot life expectancy (or longevity at the Front):

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/people/51314-life-span.html

 

The posts by Russ Gannon indicate that even a Sopwith Camel pilot had a 50/50 chance of surviving for a whole year in 1917 - most of these survivors, however, would have been sent back to Home Establishment after 6 to 9 months of flying duty at the Front, and many new pilots would have lasted only a few days (and were probably more likely to have killed themselves in a flying accident than get shot down by the enemy), so averages can be deceptive.

 

Jasta pilots were initiated on two-seaters first, and I think only the very competent (or well connected?) then made the transition to flying scouts, and once there I don't think they were rotated back to the Home Front (training, or homeland defence) in the same way that RFC pilots were? I guess that this would mean that fewer of them would become a casualty of their own inexperience, and would continue to serve at the Front until death or disability, or the end of the war.

 

In either case, the average 'longevity' that we see in pilot careers would not have been possible if the rate of attrition (in both player pilots and AI pilots) was as high as it is for most players of OFF (or any other combat flight sim). We naturally skew our experience towards the "10% terror", although it is also interesting that some comments here would indicate that the more we play the game the less satisfying this becomes, and we then start to look for a 'richer' simulation experience. This is certainly my experience as well - playing a good historical sim like OFF raises questions in my mind, a mental itch that prompts further research into historical sources. Nearly all of the historical notes and posts that I have made to the OFF Knowledge Base have their origins in play: "Let my playing be my learning, and my learning be my playing" :)

 

Bletchley

Edited February 19, 2011 by Bletchley

[Olham 164]

We naturally skew our experience towards the "10% terror", although it is also interesting that some comments here

would indicate that the more we play the game the less satisfying this becomes, and we then start to look for a 'richer'

simulation experience.

Yep, I think it's the simmer's decision.

If we really fly without any aids on, the Entente pilots will find it harder to trace the enemy at all

(the Jasta pilots, operating over own grounds mostly, have the Flak as their warning and guide).

So we would have less sightings. From these sightings, we would still carefully approach and detect,

what enemy craft and strength there is underway, and often better decide to run instead of fighting.

And the more we fly it like that, the less sensational Wham!Bam!Boom!" would it be.

 

"Let my playing be my learning, and my learning be my playing"

 

Indeed! I will stay with OFF, and develop with it with the months of flying - more and more towards a realistic approach of the sim.

I bet, everyone who stays with it for a long time, will come to this point.

 

 

PS: I realised, that it must be the hardest thing to do and survive, to fly like the British side.

While the French flew a more defensive attitude, the British were operating in a much more offensive way.

As I said above: once you had crossed the lines, you wouldn't have had any Flak/Archie warning and guiding you anymore.

Once hit and damaged, you couldn't just put your crate down on the next meadow.

To fly British side without all aids, and for a long time survival, must be the hardest thing to achieve in OFF.

Especially in late 1916 and early 1917.

On the German side, the line-crossing, low operating two-seaters would be the biggest challenge, I suppose.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Olham