British Twoseater Campaign

**Hasse Wind** · October 15, 2011

Widowmaker is not going to like this, but the Snipe is one of those aircraft that had a very limited role to play in WW1 and which I would have added only after everything that was built in larger numbers during the war and served in many squadrons was already included. Yes, this means that the bizarre flying contraptions, such as Caudrons, would have been better additions to P4 than the Snipe! :cool:

**DukeIronHand** · October 15, 2011

.....and why the Fokker DVIII should never, IMHO, have seen the light of day, given the numbers and operational life.

Some aircraft decisions may end up being marketing ones - giving the paying customers what they want - though ultimately the OFF "purist" in me agrees with you.

And since OFF is kind of "family" operation someone somewhere may be a DVIII fan and had the model and skins done on their own time, so to speak, and the Devs were nice enough to include it.

While your logic is not flawed the screenshots of the DVIII flying are sweet! Very pretty...

And yes I wish we could have every plane that flew operationally on the Western Front from 1916 thru 1918. If the Devs only had model and skinning help...

**DukeIronHand** · October 15, 2011

Yes, this means that the bizarre flying contraptions, such as Caudrons, would have been better additions to P4 than the Snipe!

Agreed.

Is WM gonna hunt me down and beat me up now?

**Hasse Wind** · October 15, 2011

Is WM gonna hunt me down and beat me up now?

Yes, but I think he'll come here first, the distance being shorter and all that.

It gives you some time to prepare. :grin:

**33LIMA** · October 15, 2011

There is also an additional problem.

Its not just making the plane and all those skins (complicated and time consuming as that must be) and dropping it into the OFF folder.

Many other files have to be changed, I think, to integrate them into the campaign structure.

Hey 33LIMA! What are you doing here? I was waiting for further results of your two-seater/observer Field of Fire testing. Back to work! Or is this your lunch break?

Blame those dastardly Huns. It's slow work flying RE8 missions in mostly real time (I want to try out the 'Hard flak mod' too, as well as the 'Arcs of fire' mod) and the wily Jastas never showed up for the party during this morning's flight; deuced impolite of them in fact, they didn't even bother to tell me they had another engagement, very bad form. So all I can say is that the 'Hard flak' mod is producing terrific Archie barrages (the'Hard' ground guns setting increases rate of fire as well as accuracy) while the combination of Bletchley's modified flak files and a reduced blast radius edit, means it's scary but not deadly, which is how I like it. Will have to switch to QC to test the 'Arcs of fire' mod, at this rate. I'm off for a real lunch break now, then back to work, promise. :salute:

**33LIMA** · October 15, 2011

Just to provide some background, cut and pasted below are extracts from most OFF 2-seaters' .xdp files; specifically, the sections which appear to me to define the arcs of fire of the observer/gunner. Relevant (?) lines are in bold. At bottom is the same extract for the RE8, but modded in my effort, which I'm currently testing, to increase these arcs of fire, both vertically and laterally.

Note that - exactly as BulletHead had said - the Brisfit has MUCH wider arcs laterally, to the extent the observer can fire nearly 360 degrees, with but a small arc ahead 'blind'. Note also that all have MINIMAL depression - 10 (degrees) downward. I repeat - this is all untested (by me) but it corresponds to BulletHead's observations. I believe these restricted arcs may well be designed to stop the player firing, or seeing his observer firing, thru his own plane's tail or rear fuselage or wing trailing edges. I'd rather have more realistic arcs of fire, than a 'kludge' to prevent firing thru tails, because the latter seems to impose a very serious and unrealistic restriction of arcs of fire, which are not also applied to other, 'pure AI' gunners..

If this is validated, I think the resultant mod will on balance make 2-seater campaigns more realistic and more satisfying for those of us who enjoy them, by giving our observers much more realistic fields of fire, at least comparable to those already enjoyed by AI flights.

As stated above, this effort is based on the observation that 'pure AI' observers in most types of plane have wider fields of fire than these limits, which apply to the player when manning a gun, and to the player's observer, and to the observers in the player's flight. The aim is to give player-manned, -flown or -led guns a wider field of fire, to correspond more closely with the superior and seemingly more realistic arcs of fire reportedly enjoyed by 'pure AI' observers.

Brisfit stock

RE8 Stock

Strutter stock

DFW stock

Hannover stock

RE8 modded

Edited October 15, 2011 by 33LIMA

**DukeIronHand** · October 15, 2011

As stated above, this effort is based on the observation that 'pure AI' observers in most types of plane have wider fields of fire than these limits, which apply to the player when manning a gun, and to the player's observer, and to the observers in the player's flight. The aim is to give player-manned, -flown or -led guns a wider field of fire, to correspond more closely with the superior and seemingly more realistic arcs of fire reportedly enjoyed by 'pure AI' observers.

Just to make sure I am still following this correctly we are saying:

1) The above parameters control the arcs when a human is manning the gun only?

2) That an AI observers arcs are not specified here? Another files does that? That would seem to be the case as the AI has greater than 10 degrees depression.

3) When a human is the pilot the AI observer then uses the numbers posted above, i.e., the human arcs of fire? Probably because the human could man the gun?

4) When a human is flying in a flight then all AI observers in the flight will now use the above human numbers?

Sorry if some of these sound stupid but I wish to be clear.

If my above thinking is correct than changing the above files will do nothing for the pure AI observers (in all AI flights) but help out the human pilot when he has an AI observer?

Edit: Grammar

Edited October 15, 2011 by DukeIronHand

**Olham** · October 15, 2011

...the Snipe is one of those aircraft that had a very limited role to play in WW1 and which I would have added only

after everything that was built in larger numbers during the war and served in many squadrons was already included.

Yes, this means that the bizarre flying contraptions, such as Caudrons, would have been better additions to P4 than the Snipe!

For the makers of WW1 flight sims, there are two "truths" to keep in mind.

The one truth is the historical one, and here you are of course correct, Hasse Wind,

and I'm sure the devs do know that.

The other truth is, that they have to sell the product - to as many people as possible -

to make an income for all the time and work invested.

That means, they have to keep the customers' likes in mind, too.

And the polls about that showed clearly, what we already knew: far more people fly fighters than two-seaters.

If I play the devels advocat here, I would make my plea like this:

"After my long pleading about the immense richness and the immersion OFF brings to us all,

I would like to end with these words:

Dear jury - after all we have seen and heard here now, we all can only come to this conclusion:

the history of WW1 aviation - and I mean all that is involved in that - could not be in better hands

anywhere, than in the hands of these thorough, careful, accurate, detail-loving, tasteful nitpickers.

If we can ever be sure, that someone wants to build the WHOLE of WW1 aviation and air combat,

then it is this group of honest gentlemen.

I can go to bed and sleep and dream well, because I feel I can be absolutely sure, that - whatever

may yet be missing in the current product "Between Heaven and Hell" - they want to build it and to

get it into the next version. Or the version after.

Whatever you noticed is missing yet - it will come to you one day!

I am sure you will come to the same conclusion as me, and so I plea for: not guilty!"

Oh, and yes: I was sober when I wrote this. Sober as a judge! :grin:

**33LIMA** · October 15, 2011

Just to make sure I am still following this correctly we are saying:

1) The above parameters control the arcs when a human is manning the gun only?

2) That an AI observers arcs are not specified here? Another files does that? That would seem to be the case as the AI has greater than 10 degrees depression.

3) When a human is the pilot the AI observer then uses the numbers posted above, i.e., the human arcs of fire? Probably because the human could man the gun?

4) When a human is flying in a flight that all AI observers in the flight will now use the above human numbers?

Sorry if some of these sound stupid but I wish to be clear.

If my above thinking is correct than changing the above files will do nothing for the pure AI observers (in all AI flights) but help out the human pilot when he has an AI observer?

1. No, not ONLY the player. They DEFINITELY control the arcs of fire, when the PLAYER is manning the gun. I have just tested this, comparing stock RE8 with my edits, and they DO change the player's arcs, when gunning. But the proposition is that they do more than this. Per BulletHead, they ALSO control the arcs of AI observers either in the player's plane, or in any plane in the player's flight (as per your points 2, 3 & 4). This, I now believe they do; confirming it is my next test. IOW the proposition is that they control player-manned, player-flown, and player-led rear guns.

2. Yes, that I believe is the proposition, supported so far by BulletHead's observations, and by the observations of those of us who, when, flying scouts, have seen AI observers firing outside the arcs in these parameters. (the hope is that the superior AI arcs are indeed set in another file; if they work by taking the figures here, and adding on something, that seems daft/unlikley, but if so, then it is going to be much harder to level up the playing field);

3.Yes; confirming this is also part of my next test.

4. As per 3 above.

So far, I have been able to confirm in testing that changing the above numbers, definitely changes the observer's gun's arcs of fire, when manned by the player; and that the figures are indeed in degrees, Testing that it affects a pilot player's AI gunner, and the AI gunners in the rest of the player's flight, is next. Then testing pure, AI-only arcs of fire, to try to establish what arcs 'pure AI' use, and whether they bear any relation to these numbers, and that the AI arcs are not 'these numbers plus X', becuase then increasing these numbers could give pure AI gunners wildly unrealistic arcs of fire, and we don't want that, either. If that's safe enough, then upping these figures will help the player who's flying a 2-seater, by removing un-realistic restrictions on the arc of fire of his rear gun (whether he or AI is manning it) AND on the gunners in his flight. Well worth having I think if indeed it's possible and doesn't have any serious pitfalls or unintended consequences. We'll see.

I've also discovered that the 10-degree depression limit- in the RE8 anyway - is not quite enough to stop you shooting magiclly thru your tailplane or rear fuselage, tho it does reduce the scope for it.

Edited October 15, 2011 by 33LIMA

**Creaghorn** · October 15, 2011

And the polls about that showed clearly, what we already knew: far more people fly fighters than two-seaters.

good statement olham.

just wanted to point something out about the poll.

if the poll was about what kind of campaign people play most, the right question would rather be:

do you rather play scout careers, with fully developed missions and campaign, promotions and medals etc.?

or do you rather play two seater careers, not fully developed, without real tasks like recon, contact patrols, long range recon, without beeign able to actually do anything besides dropping bombs, otherwise just flying about over te intended area, with mates who more or less just fly straight?

i think of course people fly more scouts because p3 was primarily made for scout careers.

if twoseater careers are also fully developed, with the possibility to make pics, to range artillery, to contact your troops with flares etc., in short, if the two seater career makes more sense, than i think a way lot of people would fly two seater careers.

that's why IMO previous polls are not very significant.

+**Polovski** · October 15, 2011

No, AI craft and player craft of an aircraft type use the same settings from the same XDP files. If to some it seems to use different settings I have no idea why.

Note if you mod one, you need to mod ALL copies of that model to be the same or yes, you will see different things from AI flown craft and player craft.

We try to get some kind of realistic behaviour by using more realistic commonly used arc areas i.e. where the gunner may usually fire from in normal use.

Yes we have to restrict the arcs in some craft differently to give a better overall experienc and balance for certain craft. AI does not feel G forces for example and has no idea what a "fuselage" is on your craft ;). You would die all the time approaching an unrestricted AI arc.

Phase 4 is totally different but we shall see :).

4. On the gun mounts; of course we know how real ones worked but making extra pivots and new ways to move is too much work currently too many issues would arise. There are many odd mounts too that would all need special code and animation to cope with (for example some craft have odd mounts or multiple mounts with 1 gun).

P5 or P78 maybe if we don't shoot ourselves with the modded gun mounts first.

**33LIMA** · October 15, 2011

Thanks for the tip Pol, that will save me trying to prove the impossible - that the AI use different arcs of fire from the player, or from AI 'working with' the player, which I had just started testing for. Different impressions could be down to all sorts of factors. I did notice my plane's AI observer tended to hold fire till quite close (c.250m?) while AI observers were letting rip at about double that, but maybe this is another unreliable impression, or perhaps a function of the different gun range/accuracy settings I'm using.

If it's not giving away trade secrets, Pol, may I ask which models are the AI-flown planes? I would be interested in putting some 'lead in the a**es' of the AI planes, to hold back the 'unladen weight' AI, which may or may not be how you're approaching this for P4 (no I'm not fishing, honest!. I did this a long time back, for an CFS3 add-on Bf110 that could run rings around my Hurricane, with good results, IIRC just by adding some extra weight in somewhere, I think to an AI-only version of the 110's .xdp file. A 'lead in the a**' mod would - for me, anyway - significantly improve the OFF dogfighting experience, while we wait for P4 (even if the wait isn't too long - here's hoping!).

Al or player using the same arcs, as defined in the .xdp files, is the ideal situation. This means we need settings which suit players flying scouts, or which suit players flying 2-seaters, or preferably, a single set which suits both. Now I know that increasing the arcs will make 2-seaters more deadly for attackers, as well as better-defended, for those players who fly them.

I appreciate there are all sorts of limits in real life which mere arcs cannot allow for. Perhaps restricting the arcs to allow for these factors, is a good idea, which then begs the question, how much? Not much if at all, I think, because (i) Workshop already gives us a way of reducing rear gun accuracy if we feel it's needed and (ii) because in most cases, player and AI-flown 2-seaters don't stunt much in combat, often flying fairly level to give the gunner a good shot. So G-forces often won't make much difference and other factors like slipstream, cold, and fatigue are universal factors, best 'subtracted' at the outset by reducing overall accuracy, rather than 'deducted' from arc of fire. Slipstream I suppose is the biggest argument for inhibiting high angles of traverse and elevation/depression, but if a gunner can elevate to 30 degrees, why not, mount permiting, depress as much, I'd say.

I appreciate the OFF team has to make all sorts of design decisions for all sorts of reasons and I'm certainly not castigating or complaining about the calls made here; being a 2-seater fan I just think this is worth progressing in this particular direction, for my own enjoyment of this unique sim (or anyone else who might find it useful).

I have just flown a test RE8 flight and my new arcs certainly make my gunner much more useful, while before, there were times when I might as well have been carrying the ballast that RE8's are supposed to carry if flying without an observer. So I really want to go ahead with this, as I really enjoy OFF's 2-seaters.

What I think I will do is:

(i) mod ALL the (tractor) 2-seaters' .xdp files to increase arcs of fire, probably to something like the RE8 mod figures, perhaps slightly reduced to avoid making gunners totally 'uber'; but perhaps not, as even these increased arcs are well within what I think a gunner could reach (except the Brisfit's traverse, which is high enough already, and in part reflects that type's own particular qualities);

(ii) set the rear gun accuracy in Workshop to Medium, to see how it balances out; then

(iii) if attacking 2-seaters becomes impossibly deadly consider using Low rear gun accuracy when flying scouts, and changing it to High or Normal when flying 2-seaters.

For the sake of much more satisfying 2-seater missions and observers who really are worth their weight in petrol, I think I can live with (if not learn to love!) deadlier 2-seaters, having got used to First Eagles where they have good fields of fire and are very dangerous, especially in formation and especially to AI scouts who tend to attack them as if they were scouts too. They can be shot down, even from a formation, but it requires careful stalking, the caution to break hard away he moment you come under 'effective enemy fire', and if attacking a formation of 2-seaters, to do so en masse, not singly, carefully trying to damage one just enough so he lags or otherwise breaks formation, and then pick them off.

But there's only one way to find out if it's viable or not so I'll give it a try over the next few days or so.

If it doesn't turn out a total disaster, I'll upload the result here when it's ready, in case anyone else fancies giving it a try; tho it's easy enough to do for yourself.

Thanks again for the tips, Pol, much appreciated.

Edited October 15, 2011 by 33LIMA

**DukeIronHand** · October 15, 2011

Great work 33LIMA.

Your time and effort is appreciated.

**DukeIronHand** · October 15, 2011

And the polls about that showed clearly, what we already knew: far more people fly fighters than two-seaters.

Just to play the Devil Devils Advocate I will say the main reason is a two-seater (or a bomber for other eras) campaign has never been done truly well in any sim that I am aware of.

Probably much easier to design and program single-seater action (i.e., shoot down planes) versus all the jobs that a two-seater crew performed.

Having said that if a had to pick just one it would a fighter pilot.

Edit: Ooops - I should have read Creaghorns post first. I guess I just repeated what he said!

Edited October 15, 2011 by DukeIronHand

+**Polovski** · October 15, 2011

We are running around doing many things so I can't comment on all the points and questions, but the player uses _SQD and _QC1 models in the aircraft folder normally. HTH

**33LIMA** · October 16, 2011

Thanks for the tip! :drinks:

British Twoseater Campaign

Recommended Posts

Hasse Wind 46

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DukeIronHand 8

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DukeIronHand 8

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hasse Wind 46

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DukeIronHand 8

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Olham 164

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Creaghorn 10

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

+Polovski 414

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DukeIronHand 8

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

DukeIronHand 8

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

+Polovski 414

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse

Activity

Downloads

Site Support

Important Information