Consider the Loop . . .

[CastelEtzwane 23]

I haven't been active on this forum very long, so I could be mistaken, but I don't see any videos where loops are being performed. Why is this ? Is it not a valid tactical maneuver ?

Use this Topic to share with us your views and experiences with the loop in WOFF.

If you do use the loop as a part of your repetoire, please share a video with us !!

 

[Burning Beard 14]

The problem with the loop is the higher you get into it the slower you are moving, a that makes you a really good target.

[Rick Rawlings 137]

Hmm. It's a very specific maneuver that will rarely get you out of trouble. In the early war planes it's hard to do cleanly, you are very vulnerable at the top and the enemy will rarely cooperate by being where you want them to be when you are done. I also try pretty hard to be following the enemy rather than the other way round whenever possible, so if they are not doing one, I am not doing one. It just seems that Immelmans, wing-overs, yoyos, split-ses and Chandelles will get you most of what you would be trying to do with a loop, without doing a loop!

[+VonS 1,424]

I voted for "meh" because I tend to use it only on occasion, and strictly as a desperate, defensive maneuver - if I have enough speed - both in the earlier and later WW1 'crates.

Recommended is to "lean the loop" to one side, near the top of your loop - as Mikael Carlson does on his Dr.1 - this will give you better control and also help to get away from your opponent more quickly than a regular loop will - also helps to maintain a bit more energy if you go with the "diagonal loop" (let physics - the torque and energy - pull you out of the problem ).

Generally speaking, I would go instead with a split-s to get away quickly from something, or stall into a spin to drop alt. quickly and disappear from the AI's sight, before coming up again behind their tail.

Cheers all and happy looping,

Von S

[CastelEtzwane 23]

Personally, I use the loop once in a while when an enemy is on my tail. Most of the time performing a sudden turn will suffice to throw the enemy off your tail so I do that without thinking. But if that enemy is fast and persistent, I usually remember to try a loop against him.

As a rule of thumb, I use the loop if there is an faster enemy on my tail and I am at looping speed or can achieve it in a hurry. Some planes are harder to loop than others but as a consolation in the case of pulling back too hard, a resulting high speed stall throws off the aim of the pursuing enemy so you don't take damage.

Here is a video of my current Fokker DVII campaign pilot Randers looping against a SPAD XIII (no sound):

At the 50 second mark my pilot is taking hits from an attacker behind him so he breaks off his attack. At the 1:08 mark he commences a loop and completes it about 10 seconds later - with the SPAD now in front of his gun sights !!

(Note: I got so excited after this that I ended up mistaking the cockpit view for the gunsight view and used up all my ammo firing at the wrong spot so that the SPAD eventually just flew away. )

Pretty sure that I have another recording of one of my pilots looping against a pursuer and turning the tables.

Edited July 2, 2021 by CastelEtzwane

[busdriver 35]

3 hours ago, CastelEtzwane said:

Most of the time performing a sudden turn will suffice to throw the enemy off your tail so I do that without thinking. But if that enemy is fast and persistent, I usually remember to try a loop against him.

No disrespect intended, it's generally considered good form to look behind you (check six) periodically, especially when you're tied up in a close-quarters fight. IMHO there is no way to know if the enemy on your tail is "fast and persistent" without looking for him. In the case of your video, you simply performed a blind (WRT to the shooter) loop. If your bandit was not AI, and was "fast and persistent" he would simply follow up uphill and gun your brains out or relax the g he's pulling near the apex and stay above you. That's what we taught and tried to practice (it was very hard to keep this discipline when closing for a gun kill on an F-15).

3 hours ago, CastelEtzwane said:

At the 1:08 mark he commences a loop and completes it about 10 seconds later - with the SPAD now in front of his gun sights !!

Again no disrespect, but you have a SPAD out front (not necessarily your bandit) because there was another at your two o'clock (in a level turn) that may have been your bandit. Once I'm in a turning fight I have a terrible time searching for bandits in this wonderful air combat simulation. The darn wings get in the way and pretty much result with us 1GCCFPs (1 G Comfy Chair Fighter Pilots) performing HUD BFM. That's when we're maneuvering so as to keep the bandit near the gun cross. But it doesn't keep me from checking six.

To answer your poll, I'd go with other. I do try to use the vertical to get above a bandit, but in a defensive maneuver against one on my six my tendency is a level or descending break/hard turn. If the AI would try to loop when out in front of my guns, I would follow him uphill.

Good question! 

Edited July 3, 2021 by busdriver

[CastelEtzwane 23]

9 hours ago, busdriver said:

No disrespect intended, it's generally considered good form to look behind you (check six) periodically, especially when you're tied up in a close-quarters fight. IMHO there is no way to know if the enemy on your tail is "fast and persistent" without looking for him. In the case of your video, you simply performed a blind (WRT to the shooter) loop. If your bandit was not AI, and was "fast and persistent" he would simply follow up uphill and gun your brains out or relax the g he's pulling near the apex and stay above you. That's what we taught and tried to practice (it was very hard to keep this discipline when closing for a gun kill on an F-15).

Checking one's six is a good rule of thumb to live by, but my opinion is that it is counterproductive to do this in those situations where you have a juicy target sitting right in front of you. Better to concentrate on the task ahead of you and finish it off as quickly as possible than worry about the possibility about a rear attack. I think that this is also what combat flyers did in real life, at least in the WWI and WWII.

And when I speak of a fast, persistent attacker, an ideal situation describing this would be an Albatross V-strutter attacking a Pup or even better, a SPAD or SE5a attacking a Triplane. In these cases, the defender is capable of a tight loop while the attacker is not. In order for the attacker to hit that looping plane, he has to pull inside the defender's loop to acquire a shot. That is, he has to loop tighter than the defender himself, which he can't. So the looper is quite safe from attack if the attacker started at a reasonable distance behind. Of course, if the attacker was 200 yrds away when the defender started his loop, then the defender has most likely done the attacker a favor by looping, by allowing him to close the distance.

9 hours ago, busdriver said:

Again no disrespect, but you have a SPAD out front (not necessarily your bandit) because there was another at your two o'clock (in a level turn) that may have been your bandit. Once I'm in a turning fight I have a terrible time searching for bandits in this wonderful air combat simulation. The darn wings get in the way and pretty much result with us 1GCCFPs (1 G Comfy Chair Fighter Pilots) performing HUD BFM. That's when we're maneuvering so as to keep the bandit near the gun cross. But it doesn't keep me from checking six.

Yeah, things get very confusing in a dogfight, and this applies especially when recovering from a loop. But I've looped a fair number of times now, and that scene at the end of the loop film clip was typical. When I perform a clean loop against an opponent, he ends up somewhere in front of me (and usually above) wallowing about cuz he is recovering from, or close to stalling. I'm guessing that the other SPAD which was flying away from the fight was my original victim, but I could be wrong. Who knows, maybe two SPADs had been chasing my pilot.

Anyway, here is a recording I made last year of my Fokker Triplane pilot looping twice against Se5as. Both times he manages to turn the tables and lock onto his attacker.

First loop at circa 00:45. Second loop at circa 01:53.

Come on, people try out a loop and see for yourself -

Its great fun !!

[busdriver 35]

2 hours ago, CastelEtzwane said:

Checking one's six is a good rule of thumb to live by, but my opinion is that it is counterproductive to do this in those situations where you have a juicy target sitting right in front of you. Better to concentrate on the task ahead of you and finish it off as quickly as possible than worry about the possibility about a rear attack.

Okay, but if your first video is representative of your gunnery skills, then checking six is a good idea.

2 hours ago, CastelEtzwane said:

And when I speak of a fast, persistent attacker, an ideal situation describing this would be an Albatross V-strutter attacking a Pup or even better, a SPAD or SE5a attacking a Triplane. In these cases, the defender is capable of a tight loop while the attacker is not.

You sound like you're describing the way IJN Zero pilots thought their heniri-komi maneuver couldn't be countered. A bandit has no need to turn a tighter loop, they can shoot you on your way up without the threat of you reversing whilst going uphill. I'd much prefer shooting a guy going uphill rather than one going downhill where I risk getting my nose buried beneath the horizon. But I'll defer to your experience.

 

 

[CastelEtzwane 23]

22 hours ago, busdriver said:

Okay, but if your first video is representative of your gunnery skills, then checking six is a good idea.

Did I say anything to offend you ? If you think I have something to learn about gunnery, I'm all ears. Just start a thread and I'll join right in ! 

 

22 hours ago, busdriver said:

You sound like you're describing the way IJN Zero pilots thought their heniri-komi maneuver couldn't be countered. A bandit has no need to turn a tighter loop, they can shoot you on your way up without the threat of you reversing whilst going uphill. I'd much prefer shooting a guy going uphill rather than one going downhill where I risk getting my nose buried beneath the horizon. But I'll defer to your experience.

Saying that you don't like the loop because it didn't work well in WWII or jet- vs jet combat doesn't hold water when we are discussing its use in a  WWI sim. Neither does it change the fact that when the loop maneuver in WOFF is correctly applied, it works well and sometimes even spectacularly well. I don't know of any other maneuver where you can be attacked from the rear and then consistently turn the tables on your attacker 10 seconds later.

But of course everyone is free to use or not use this maneuver as they see fit. The beauty of this sim is the freedom we have to choose the manner in which we play it. I started this thread to find out what other members thought about the loop and show how I used it.

[CastelEtzwane 23]

On 7/2/2021 at 7:57 PM, VonS said:

Recommended is to "lean the loop" to one side, near the top of your loop - as Mikael Carlson does on his Dr.1 - this will give you better control and also help to get away from your opponent more quickly than a regular loop will - also helps to maintain a bit more energy if you go with the "diagonal loop" (let physics - the torque and energy - pull you out of the problem ).

I had to google the bit about the Mikael Carlson-style  loop - do you mean the maneuver  that starts at about 7:10 ?

I haven't tried a loop with a Fokker Triplane in BH&H but don't remember any torque when I did them last year in WOFF UE. By the way, I have now started a Camel campaign in BH&H and tried a few loops. With a Camel, the torque pulls you around into a diagonal loop just as you described !

 

On 7/2/2021 at 7:57 PM, VonS said:

Generally speaking, I would go instead with a split-s to get away quickly from something, or stall into a spin to drop alt. quickly and disappear from the AI's sight, before coming up again behind their tail.

I used to do this too, until I started flying campaigns versus SPADs. SPADs like to circle around and use pouncing attacks from above so if I split-Sed they would just spiral down after me and repeat their pouncing, albeit at a lower altitude. So now I circle around below them and roll onto their six as they complete a firing run at me. Someone should start a thread on favorite defensive moves . . .

[+VonS 1,424]

@OP, yes that maneuver at approx. 7:10 mins. is what I was thinking of. I am still mostly flying my PE/UE FrankenWOFF contraption (backport of PE aircraft and terrains into ver. 4.18 for SweetFX compatibility) - and using my FM pack that is compatible with the UE and PE eds. of WOFF - so there is a wee bit more torque on the Dr.1 tweaks in that package than in stock form (such as the 150hp Dr.1 tweak, as well as the 120 or so hp tweak that gives a slightly up-engined Oberursel variant).

I will eventually get to upgrading the FM packs for BH&H2, most likely sometime in the fall. (And yes, Camels in particular pull naturally into diagonal loops, particularly the Clerget, 130hp, and Gnome, 150-160hp, variants - haven't tested loops extensively on the other Sopwiths but the Pup and Tripe should be more complacent in loops than the Camel, and more similar to the stock Dr.1 FM in any recent vintage of WOFF.)

In terms of threads on defensive moves and whatnot, I think there is a (related?) thread or post on SimHQ, under the WOFF section - that includes several documents on "how to fly the old types" - posted either by Olham or Oldhat - can't remember now specifically where that post is but worth a look - those documents I think came about before WOFF UE, but are applicable to recent versions of WOFF too.

If you have other WW1 flight sims. such as First Eagles 2 and Rise of Flight installed, I recommend experimenting with different maneuvers in those too. It's always possible that some defensive, and offensive, maneuvers - work better in one sim. but not in the other - largely depends on how varied, seasoned, good, etc., the AI is.

Happy flying,

Von S

[CastelEtzwane 23]

11 hours ago, VonS said:

I am still mostly flying my PE/UE FrankenWOFF contraption (backport of PE aircraft and terrains into ver. 4.18 for SweetFX compatibility) - and using my FM pack that is compatible with the UE and PE eds. of WOFF - so there is a wee bit more torque on the Dr.1 tweaks in that package than in stock form (such as the 150hp Dr.1 tweak, as well as the 120 or so hp tweak that gives a slightly up-engined Oberursel variant).

I will eventually get to upgrading the FM packs for BH&H2, most likely sometime in the fall. (And yes, Camels in particular pull naturally into diagonal loops, particularly the Clerget, 130hp, and Gnome, 150-160hp, variants - haven't tested loops extensively on the other Sopwiths but the Pup and Tripe should be more complacent in loops than the Camel, and more similar to the stock Dr.1 FM in any recent vintage of WOFF.)

Btw since it seems you like odd variants of Dr.1 FMs, I read somewhere that Josef Jakobs was so enthusiastic about the triplane that he continued flying his Dr.1 long after the type was withdrawn from service and his squadron had re-equipped (with the DVII ?). He managed this by getting his mechanics to scavenge Camel crash-sites and re-fit his old Dr.1 with the Clerget (Bentley too?) engines. So it seems he flew a Clerget-powered triplane at some point in time ! 

Edited July 5, 2021 by CastelEtzwane

[busdriver 35]

On 7/4/2021 at 6:49 AM, CastelEtzwane said:

Did I say anything to offend you ? If you think I have something to learn about gunnery, I'm all ears.

Oh no, not at all. A very long time ago IRL I was a USAF fighter pilot for 9 years. After every mission in the F-16, we reviewed HUD video tape and honestly (often brutally) critiqued each others bombing, strafing, and air-to-air (missile & gun) gunnery. It's how we got better. I was offering my observation that you're gunnery skills are pretty average for a 1GCCFP. You're not terribly close to your target when you open fire, thus you might consider pulling more lead. It wasn't meant as an insult. If you can't kill a bandit quickly, then a smart 1GCCFP should periodically check six rather than waiting for the bullets to go zipping past his ears before he reacts. 

By all means, PLAY the game the way you want to play. Have fun.  I shall refrain from commenting on your posts in the future.

[CastelEtzwane 23]

2 hours ago, busdriver said:

Oh no, not at all. A very long time ago IRL I was a USAF fighter pilot for 9 years. After every mission in the F-16, we reviewed HUD video tape and honestly (often brutally) critiqued each others bombing, strafing, and air-to-air (missile & gun) gunnery. It's how we got better. I was offering my observation that you're gunnery skills are pretty average for a 1GCCFP. You're not terribly close to your target when you open fire, thus you might consider pulling more lead. It wasn't meant as an insult. If you can't kill a bandit quickly, then a smart 1GCCFP should periodically check six rather than waiting for the bullets to go zipping past his ears before he reacts. 

By all means, PLAY the game the way you want to play. Have fun.  I shall refrain from commenting on your posts in the future.

OK, you missed the note which explained that in my excitement sometimes I was using the right-hand gunsight when in actuality I should have been aiming straight down the middle. Btw I do check six regularly, but not when engaged with a bandit.

[busdriver 35]

49 minutes ago, CastelEtzwane said:

OK, you missed the note which explained that in my excitement sometimes I was using the right-hand gunsight when in actuality I should have been aiming straight down the middle.

Nope didn't miss that at all, it's in parentheses in your OP...I read it, comprehended what you wrote, and watched your video three times. And just to add to the discussion, IRL that specific remark would be called "an alibi" by fighter pilots looking at your HUD video. That's why I specifically posted,  "if your first video is representative of your gunnery skills, then checking six is a good idea." I stick by that observation based upon your OP video. 

IMO if you don't check six when engaged that is a recipe for a short SP career but, you PLAY the way you want to play. 

 

[CastelEtzwane 23]

3 hours ago, busdriver said:

Nope didn't miss that at all, it's in parentheses in your OP...I read it, comprehended what you wrote, and watched your video three times. And just to add to the discussion, IRL that specific remark would be called "an alibi" by fighter pilots looking at your HUD video. That's why I specifically posted,  "if your first video is representative of your gunnery skills, then checking six is a good idea." I stick by that observation based upon your OP video. 

IMO if you don't check six when engaged that is a recipe for a short SP career but, you PLAY the way you want to play. 

 

Why do you keep referring to your supposed real life experiences when this is a WWI sim we're discussing, not your real life? Why do you stick by your opinion (i.e. my lack of gunnery skills) based upon one specific video clip of mine when I have put out 4-5 others which disprove this ?

Perhaps you could start a thread with some videos of someone with good skills shooting down a SPAD or Se5a. Then I could see what you are talking about, just like you can see thru my videos that the loop works very well. Btw my flight model is set to realistic, Head Shake is on, Wind Effects Player is on, Main Guns is set to Normal - how about you ?

The reason why I specifically mention SPADs and Se5as is because as a rule they can leave an encounter when it suits them, which makes them very difficult opponents.

Your opinion on checking six seems to be the same as your opinion regarding the loop: that is, you have one, but it is not based upon experiences with WOFF. My experience is that 99% of the time it is more productive to concentrate on shooting down the enemy you have 'locked onto' than to check one's six. (But I suspect that most people will disagree with me.)

To make it clear, I'm very much in favor of checking six, but not while I'm busy trying to shoot down an enemy.

[MigBuster 2,884]

11 hours ago, busdriver said:

IMO if you don't check six when engaged that is a recipe for a short SP career

 

Very good advice and applies to all sims I have ever played 

Takes effort to train yourself so you might find most casual gamers cant be bothered. 

 

 

[+VonS 1,424]

On 7/4/2021 at 11:19 PM, CastelEtzwane said:

Btw since it seems you like odd variants of Dr.1 FMs, I read somewhere that Josef Jakobs was so enthusiastic about the triplane that he continued flying his Dr.1 long after the type was withdrawn from service and his squadron had re-equipped (with the DVII ?). He managed this by getting his mechanics to scavenge Camel crash-sites and re-fit his old Dr.1 with the Clerget (Bentley too?) engines. So it seems he flew a Clerget-powered triplane at some point in time ! 

Only saw this post now - apologies for the late reply.

Indeed, Jacobs is a colorful character. There are different sources out there regarding how many Dr.1s he still flew, well into Oct. 1918 - also in terms of actual/claimed kills he had, etc. If I remember my readings correctly, it is assumed that he had two black Dr.1s that he would use well into the summer of '18, with the possibility that there was a third (mystery?) Dr.1 in use as well.

The info. about his preference for Bentley, Clerget, etc. engines is another interesting aspect - I am assuming most of the variants would have been in the 130-135 hp range, and would have used the Sopwith props. too - if those props. were still intact on captured or downed aircraft. It's also possible, by that period in the war, that some of the captured rotary engines were within the 140-160 hp range, such as the long-stroke Clerget (9Bf), about 140 hp or so - or perhaps later variants of the LeRhone 9J, and the 9R, of around 150 hp. I doubt that Jacobs had access to the 160+ hp Gnome 9N or similar engines, although the performance possibilities with the Dr.1 are interesting to contemplate at any rate, with different engine mounts.

The Fokker V.7 experimental aircraft attempted to improve engine options on the Dr.1 - with Siemens-Halske, Goebel Goe, and other engines - performance was apparently "outstanding," especially with the Siemens engine and a four-bladed prop. - and an amazing climb rate - but the even trickier handling required excellent pilots. I've always been fascinated by little-known, experimental triplane projects that actually made sense to some extent, such as the Pfalz Dr.1 (not the useless triplane projects like tacking three wings onto an Albatros and calling it an Alb. Dr.1, or other oddities like the Euler quadruplane contraption).

Cheers all and happy flying with any number of wings (and don't forget to check your six, or at least your five and seven ),

Von S

 

[busdriver 35]

On 7/8/2021 at 5:59 AM, CastelEtzwane said:

Why do you keep referring to your supposed real life experiences when this is a WWI sim we're discussing, not your real life?

LOL, no offense taken. Having a healthy skepticism of other forumites is a good thing. But apparently, you think that WWI air combat is in a class unto itself with no analogs or corollaries to later methods and tactics. WWI air combat fought with underpowered, thrust limited airplanes required a fighter pilot to get within range and apply a proper amount of lead to get a gun kill. That's no different than WWII, Korea, SEA, the Six-Day War. The concepts of lead, lag and pure pursuit apply to WWI. The concepts of turn circles, flight path overshoots, and the maneuvering egg apply to WWI. This is something that EVERY fighter pilot knows intuitively, and most hardcore 1GCCFPs that have cracked open their copy of Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering or took the time to read Dicta Boelcke...

1. Try to secure advantages before attacking. If possible, keep the sun behind you.
2. Always carry through an attack when you have started it.
3. Fire only at close range, and only when your opponent is properly in your sights.
4. Always keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses.
5. In any form of attack it is essential to assail your enemy from behind.
6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught, but fly to meet it.
7. When over the enemy's lines never forget your own line of retreat.
8. For the Staffel (squadron): Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats, take care that several do not go for the same opponent.

In case it doesn't jump off the page at you, #5 has an unstated corollary to check six. Sure you check six, except when in close engagements, when bandits pose their biggest threat (they're freaking close to you and get on your tail unseen). IMO once you're in the furball that's when you need to check your six more often, but you play the way you want to play. 

On 7/8/2021 at 5:59 AM, CastelEtzwane said:

...just like you can see thru my videos that the loop works very well.

Okay, you got me, looping works for you against AI that doesn't fight in the vertical plane as a human can. This is major critique I have of your method of BLINDLY looping. I would encourage you to test your tactic against other 1GCCFPs on an MP server playing Rise of Flight (ROF) or Flying Circus (FC) then report back on its efficacy after a few engagements. I also posit that on an MP server your head would be on a swivel rather than your natural propensity to fly HUD BFM. Yes I know WWI airplanes don't have HUDs, it's simply the tendency of many WWI 1GCCFPs to fly whilst looking through, near, around their gun sites. 

On 7/8/2021 at 5:59 AM, CastelEtzwane said:

Your opinion on checking six seems to be the same as your opinion regarding the loop: that is, you have one, but it is not based upon experiences with WOFF.

Again, I don't do it in WOFF because IMO that is simply an exploit against an AI that can't fight terribly well against a vertically maneuvering target, and I would NEVER do it against a human on an MP server. I'd get my brains blown out as I'm pulling up into the vertical as I present a fat dumb and happy target to another 1GCCFP.

On 7/8/2021 at 5:59 AM, CastelEtzwane said:

To make it clear, I'm very much in favor of checking six, but not while I'm busy trying to shoot down an enemy.

You have made that abundantly clear, and it works for you in WOFF. Not so much in air combat sims against human opponents. I play 1GCCFP as I would against humans so I don't develop bad habits that will bite me in the arse.

You PLAY the way you want to play, it's only a game. Have fun...and don't check six. 

[CastelEtzwane 23]

14 hours ago, busdriver said:

But apparently, you think that WWI air combat is in a class unto itself with no analogs or corollaries to later methods and tactics. WWI air combat fought with underpowered, thrust limited airplanes required a fighter pilot to get within range and apply a proper amount of lead to get a gun kill. That's no different than WWII, Korea, SEA, the Six-Day War. The concepts of lead, lag and pure pursuit apply to WWI. The concepts of turn circles, flight path overshoots, and the maneuvering egg apply to WWI. This is something that EVERY fighter pilot knows intuitively, and most hardcore 1GCCFPs that have cracked open their copy of Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering or took the time to read Dicta Boelcke...

Ok I get it - you know alot about air combat - so do the lot of us. There is alot that WWI combat has in common with WWII combat yet it is still distinct from WWII, and is very different from jet age combat. There are of course some commonalities but ignoring the differences will get you shot down real quick.

14 hours ago, busdriver said:

took the time to read Dicta Boelcke...

1. Try to secure advantages before attacking. If possible, keep the sun behind you.
2. Always carry through an attack when you have started it.
3. Fire only at close range, and only when your opponent is properly in your sights.
4. Always keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses.
5. In any form of attack it is essential to assail your enemy from behind.
6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught, but fly to meet it.
7. When over the enemy's lines never forget your own line of retreat.
8. For the Staffel (squadron): Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats, take care that several do not go for the same opponent.

Someone should start a thread on Dicta Boelcke - Nr 4 and 7 are relevant for me. LOL, Nr 2 actually supports my contention to concentrate on shooting down the target in front of you!!

14 hours ago, busdriver said:

In case it doesn't jump off the page at you, #5 has an unstated corollary to check six. Sure you check six, except when in close engagements, when bandits pose their biggest threat (they're freaking close to you and get on your tail unseen). IMO once you're in the furball that's when you need to check your six more often, but you play the way you want to play. 

No no you misunderstand again, I check six until I've committed to attacking the target in front of me. Then it's time to concentrate on shooting it down. Even then I will break off in the face of a determined rear attack. And guess what - that's also how fliers did it in WWI and WWII. Nothing unorthodox here.

14 hours ago, busdriver said:

Okay, you got me, looping works for you against AI that doesn't fight in the vertical plane as a human can. This is major critique I have of your method of BLINDLY looping. I would encourage you to test your tactic against other 1GCCFPs on an MP server playing Rise of Flight (ROF) or Flying Circus (FC) then report back on its efficacy after a few engagements. I also posit that on an MP server your head would be on a swivel rather than your natural propensity to fly HUD BFM. Yes I know WWI airplanes don't have HUDs, it's simply the tendency of many WWI 1GCCFPs to fly whilst looking through, near, around their gun sites. 

Well my opinion is that in most cases, the AI fights in the vertical plane better than the average WWI pilot did. For one thing, their wings don't fall off as they maneuver while diving, which is a great advantage. And unfair. Some AI even energy fight better than WWI aces did, making judicious use of the vertical plane to pounce and then climb out of reach. Heck, even though your Boelcke's Dicta doesn't mention using a height advantage, the AI sure doesn't overlook it. Energy fighting wasn't a formalized thing in WWI, so its extensive use can be considered an exploit on the AI's part.

Strange if you think those were blind loops in my two videos - they weren't. And never claimed that the loop was a cure-all for every sim out there. Btw, I haven't flown MP Rise of Flight or Flying Circus though I can imagine that playing MP has its own problems when it comes to truly simulating WWI aerial combat. I used to fly MP IL2-Sturmovik back in the day and there was a world of difference between playing MP and SP. Anyway, the problem here is that while flying on MP servers is different from SP WOFF, it is not any more realistic. Just different.

14 hours ago, busdriver said:

Again, I don't do it in WOFF because IMO that is simply an exploit against an AI that can't fight terribly well against a vertically maneuvering target, and I would NEVER do it against a human on an MP server. I'd get my brains blown out as I'm pulling up into the vertical as I present a fat dumb and happy target to another 1GCCFP.

Like I said, the AI actually fights very well vertically. But yeah, it's not perfect. No loops but plenty of AI zoom climbs. Surely zoom climbs are a legit tactic for both AI and MP humans alike, but like the loop the timing, distance, and energy state has to be right or you end up a sitting duck. So do you avoid zoom climbs online as well ?

14 hours ago, busdriver said:

You have made that abundantly clear, and it works for you in WOFF. Not so much in air combat sims against human opponents. I play 1GCCFP as I would against humans so I don't develop bad habits that will bite me in the arse.

OK I get it, you realize that you want to play WOFF the same way as you would in a MP combat sim. Great,  that's fine. Makes sense, too.

14 hours ago, busdriver said:

You PLAY the way you want to play, it's only a game. Have fun...and don't check six. 

Well, seeing as how you selectively read Boelcke's Dicta I shouldn't be surprised that you do the same with my remarks on checking one's six. Have a good one.

[busdriver 35]

It's all good. And if you're interested in adding to your library I'm giving away a new edition of Bergstrom's Vol 1 of BC/RS feel free to participate if you're interested. 

[Adger 86]

Very generous of you Busdriver, it’s been a while since I participated over there but I found the generosity of many people to be 1st class. I’ve been gifted and have gifted back everything from full packs to individual planes..Very best of luck to all who participate .