HomeBoy

You are exactly correct BigJim. You must have Control Manager 4.50 or greater. Sorry about that. I need to put that in my guide. Just download the latest CM and you will be fine. Hope that works out dandy for you! <S>! -mark Update: I just updated the guide to reflect the issue you raise. Thank you BigJim!

I have unassigned "Toggle Cockpit" in my copy of OFF because it would be criminal to ever turn off the cockpit. Just poking at you there JimAttrill. You must know though that turning the cockpit off is the ultimate "training wheels." <S>! -mark

Just in case anyone is interested, Condor asked me if I would make a video of me tearing up a perfectly good N17 in a vertical dive test. is that video.

Hi Jim, I list it as "_________" because it is undefined by default. You have to assign a key value to it first. I set mine to "Shift-Control+c" or something like that. The idea of the "________" is so you can fill it in on your card once you assign it. I have no idea why that command is unassigned like that.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the original assertion. I agree with your comment here ONLY if we are talking about a PARTICULAR aircraft with a PARTICULAR engine. Maybe that's the point you and others are making. Sorry if I missed that part of the assertion along the way. If you take a 65hp J3 Cub and put it on a giant treadmill and spin the treadmill such that the Cub cannot get off the ground then, yes [mabe, not even sure], I agree with you. BUT, if I put a large enough motor on that Cub, it will overtake the "treadmill effect" and will take off every time! That's the argument I thought we were having. Perhaps I was wrong and I apologize if so. To give credence to this "treadmill theory" would be to say it would be impossible for any airplane to take off UP the side of a mountain, "with" a strong wind instead of into it, off an aircraft carrier that is turned "with the wind" instead of "into it", etc. All of which would actually be valid arguments in the event that this discussion was about a PARTICULAR airplane (example, the J3 Cub may not have enough power to do any one of those things). That was not however the myth that the Myth Busters were investigating and I was arguing along those lines and not this PARTICULAR airplane case. I'm with you. The fun is waning on this discussion so I'm going to bow out too. Nice energetic discussion. Makes us all pull out our aeronautic books and review the basics. Not a bad exercise. <S>! -mark

You know, this "treadmill theory" beautifully illustrates the mind-twisting problems student pilots have to overcome when thinking about ground and air. A student really struggles with the idea that an airplane flying at a ground speed of 100 knots flying into a headwind of 110 knots does not fall out of the sky. Well, this is an obvious example but is really exactly the same principle at work here as with the "treadmill theory." Ground speed ONLY matters to us humans when we care about how long it takes to get somewhere. The airplane has no concern at all about the ground. It is flying through the AIR not the GROUND. These concepts get tricky sometimes but principles override what "feels right" every time! It's like that old saying "Speed of light, not just a good idea, it's the law!" Have a great day Lou! Fun discussion. -mark

Hi Lou, Ok, I accept that. The helicopter is, based on your point, not the best example. However, you have, with your explanation of the helicopter "wing", proven that an airplane's contact with the ground is irrelevant. You say "A helicopter flys because its blades are the airfoils, (i.e. wings), and create their own air flow." Now, take that airfoil and mount it to the front of a fixed wing aircraft and it will "create it's own air flow" thus pulling the plane forward and create lift on the fixed wings which cause the plane to go airborne. NOWHERE in all of this is the ground EVER a factor. That is of course unless the engine does not have enough power to accomplish this which I previously mentioned. None of this has anything to do with propwash really. It's the "airscrew" nature of a propeller that is the primary issue here. The prop pulls the airplane through the AIR and when enough speed is generated, the wings moving through that air generated from the forward movement will experience lift quite independently from mother earth. Great discussion BTW. This really makes you come to terms with what makes an airplane fly. One of the hardest things when I first started learning to fly was how little of what goes on on the ground matters to the airplane flying through the air.

The assertion that an aircraft cannot take off if it is on a treadmill is absolutely a myth! A propeller (jet, rocket engine, or any other thrust producing device) pulls its payload through the air (i.e. an "airscrew") and has no relation to the ground at all really. If this were not true, a helicopter would NEVER get off the ground as that is the extreme example of the "treadmill effect." Now, if the engine is not powerful enough to pull the plane through the air without the benefit of rolling across the ground (e.g. the need to roll down a steep hill to gather speed) then yes, the treadmill effect appears to be legitimate but what's really going on there is the engine is not powerful enough to pull the plane through the air sufficient enough to produce lift and the "rolling across the ground" is needed to assist the engine. In fact, you could secure that airplane with chains into concrete and if the engine is POWERFUL ENOUGH, it would rip itself free or pull the engine off the front of the plane and move through the air! Extreme example obviously but true non-the-less. I saw the episode of Myth Busters as well and thought they could have done a better job with that particular myth. Their conclusion was correct however.

Just a quick update. BTW, if ever you want to get to my aircraft page and can't find this thread, just find any of my postings and follow the link to my web site (snomhf.exofire.net) shown in my signature. There you'll find everything I've written. There are other things there that may interest you as well as I've been gathering all sorts of flight sim related stuff for a good long while. I am currently performing speed and altitude tests on all the aircraft. I'm about 1/3 of the way through the plane set and am very pleased to find the numbers I'm seeing to be pretty well in line with historical data. As I'm doing this, I'm recording maximum ammo and taking notes on cockpit visibility and will be including all this on the aircraft pages which I'll publish when I'm done with the speed tests. After I finish this set of tests, I will work through the following tests in a similar manner and publish the results as I go. Stalls (power off, full power) Acceleration Climb and dive (including stress testing) Turn rate Roll rate Following these tests, I will then begin systematic dogfighting and record advantages/disadvantages observed. I will complete the write-ups by offering advice on fighting with and against each of the planes. Hopefully at the completion of the project, players will be able to look up their plane of choice and at least have a basic idea of how to use or oppose a particular plane. If there are other tests or comparisons you think are important that I have not covered here, please let me know. All of these tests are being done using CFS3-QC with 75% fuel, mixture set to auto (for consistency), no wind, clear weather. Except for the settings just noted, here is my Workshop data:

I surely wish there was a "Fly Now" feature in OFF. CFS3-QC is close but because you have to have an active pilot, you lose your pilot every time you crash (what a hassle) unless you go to the trouble of going to the Workshop and setting "Pilot never dies." It is also frustrating that you must set up the plane you fly, planes you oppose, weather, field you fly from, etc. EVERY SINGLE TIME you play CFS3-QC. I wish there was a way to tell CFS3-QC to remember your last settings. Fly Now was one of the handiest tools in RB3D and how I learned how to fly the planes in that game. When, in a campaign, you were issued a new plane that you might not be familiar with, you could pop out and go to Fly Now and learn to fly it against a host of opponents of your choosing. It surprises me that there is not more clamor around here for Fly Now. I must be a real odd ball!

Hi Widowmaker! Hope you have fun vacationing here in the US! FYI, here are a couple of my favorite spots (the first one because it is close to home): http://www.littleswitzerlandnc.com http://www.jacksonholewy.com/default.aspx

My sincere apologies here! I am now able to successfully destroy my Nupe due to stress! I just was doing it wrong. After reading Hasse Wind's post about how he accomplished this, I decided to try 15k (I was using 10k before) and using autopilot to hold the plane at altitude while waiting for it to develop full speed before split-ess'ing into a vertical dive. This gives the airplane much more speed initially and increases the chances of stress failure. The other mistake I was making before was at a certain point (around 205mph) the plane begins to nose up slightly. Before, I was just hands off the stick and the nosing up would drop the airspeed enough to prevent the plane from entering that "deep compression" (you hear the engine begin to speed up) just before things begin to fail. Now, I put forward pressure on the stick and hold it down in the vertical dive and force it to compress. At around 220mph things begin to fail. Still, total destruction does not occur unless I try to pull up (I hit the ground before that happens) in which case the plane comes apart. All I can say about this is these Nupes are some sort of tough birds! If I were to try to do something like this in any of my radio controlled planes or any of the planes in Aces High, bad things would happen within five seconds of a full-powered vertical dive. The reason I thought this wasn't working before is because I've learned from experience to NEVER sustain any sort of vertical dive with power for more than a few seconds. Because these OFF planes will dive 15 seconds or longer with full power, I was not forcing the dive long enough to see damage.

Thank you for that Hasse Wind. That's what I was hoping to hear. Now I've got to figure out why my game doesn't work like that. I have never installed any of these damage models. Maybe it's time to try some of them and see what difference it makes. Actually, there is not an aircraft on the face of the earth (modern or otherwise) that can survive a full-power vertical dive from 10,000 ft and not fly to pieces.

Pol, Sorry if I have sounded negative or complaining. Please don't misread my passion as nitpicking or grumbling. I'm just testing and reporting. Nothing more. The fact that stalls, spins, max speeds, mixture effects, etc. appear so excellently modeled, I find this stress modeling issue both surprising and disappointing. This thread going into the second page since Condor originally posted basically unchallenged was what made me do my own tests as I just didn't want to believe his finding. Now, if you say the tests are flawed, nothing would make me happier! That's part of the reason I wanted to post here. Condor stated that perhaps he was doing something wrong and I certainly hope that same thing. I just can't for the life of me see what that might be! Yes, having the "model stress" setting turned on was the FIRST thing I verified after taking the N17 in a full-power vertical dive from 10,000 feet and pulling out at 1,000 feet with absolutely no damage at all to the aircraft! I am using v1.30c with no additional DM at all. Everything is stock. Should I be using one of the other DMs? I certainly didn't think so. I'm very suspicious that Condor and I both must be doing something really bone-headed as this is such an obvious thing! I implore anybody and everybody to do the N17 test I just mentioned and report their results. It's easy to do. Hopefully EVERYBODY will come back here and show Condor and I how wrong we are. I have been doing these tests in CFS3 QC (because of the full availability of the entire plane set). I can't imagine why there would be two FMs for these two aspects of the game. Could it be that "aircraft stress" is somehow disabled in CFS3-QC but not in campaign? I seem to recall though that Condor also tried this in the campaign and had the same results. ?? Trust me, I'm teachable here. Please show me the error of my ways. <S>!

I have tested Condor's findings and confirm exactly what he is saying to be true. I put the N17 through the most violent maneuvers I possibly could and it pulled right through with no damage. In RB3D, that plane would have popped a wing in short order. I have ripped apart similar radio control models in much less stressful dives than what I put the N17 through. I have to say this is pretty disappointing.

Indeed OLP. Great info to have. Must useful! thanks -mark

Hi Tuba, I get your point but I think it is a bit of a stretch to try to justify TrackIR for non-game applications. There is a "mouse control" utility that comes with it but I have never tried it or know of anyone who has. I suppose you could work with it and get it replace the mouse to some extent but I'm not sure of the value there. Sorry. As for TIR4 vs TIR5, it's the resolution that is THE difference between the two and not so much the wider field of view (though that comes with the territory). You are going to get (and instantly notice) much smoother and responsive movement out of the TIR5 that you cannot get from TIR4. Now, you can tweak the TIR4 and get it to behave more responsively than how it comes out of the box but it's pretty tricky and takes a bit of work. The TIR5 on the other hand will work pretty much with the default profile what you would never be able to achieve with TIR4. That's not to say TIR4 is bad it's sort of the difference between a Pentium processor and a dual-core. Better and faster technology. Personally I think it's worth the extra $30-$40 or whatever. Others may not agree but being as the viewing system is the most important aspect (IMHO) of this game, I would not want to skimp there. You are going to get people telling you TIR4 is great and that's all you need. They are right, it is great (compared to hat switches and padlock views, etc.) but I would bet money that they have never tried TIR5 and if they did, they would tone down the rhetoric a bit. Sorry, I don't mean to come across as some sort of fanboy for TIR but I did LOTS of research before replacing my TIR4 with a TIR5 and felt very foolish for doing so until I got it installed and tried it for the first time. Just my thoughts of course. You know what they say about opinions. Best of luck with your decision. Getting any sort of TIR is a good decision so weigh your options and trust you will do what's best for you. Hope I've helped a little. -mark

After much discussion with the techs at NaturalPoint, I decided to plop down $148 for the TrackIR 5 hardware. I am also running the TIR5 Beta 4 software (latest) as well. I must tell you honestly that this is a HUGE upgrade over TIR4. Much more than I thought. The primary difference between TIR5 and TIR4 is "increased resolution." I really scoffed at that and really thought it was nothing but marketing hype. I was so wrong. With TIR5, because there is greater resolution, there is much more responsiveness, but it is also much much smoother as a result too. I was really amazed right away. You'd have to experience it to really appreciate what I'm saying. Within fifteen minutes, I was able to get the profiles adjusted for Aces High and OFF in such a way as I have never experienced. I even left the "Roll" axis enabled in the AH profile which allows me to look around the tail better. Many of us have left that axis disabled because it caused so much confusion. With TIR5 however, the movement is so easy to control and natural feeling that the roll axis is just as natural as the other axes. Personally, I'm loving this thing and am glad I got it. BTW, I canceled my Aces High account the other night after ten years! Do you think I'm enjoying OFF? I don't have time for both and one had to go.

Black Knight, I can't imagine why TIR5 software would interfere in any way with the OFF install. They are totally separate programs and only begin to interact once you are in the virtual cockpit (and the right side light on your TIR camera comes on). Sounds like OFF got corrupted somehow in some unrelated to TIR way?? Odd problem. I just replaced my TIR4 with TIR5 last week and had no problems like this at all (not gloating just trying to get TIR off the hook :blush2: ) Good luck. Keep us posted as to what you find. -mark

Says right here [pointing up and to the left] that you are an "Elite Member"! ...and I concur. ...and welcome aboard currick58. Please let us know if you need any help!

Beautiful Widowmaker! You are truly skilled.

Great feedback! Thank you. British_eh, You are certainly right about the three FMs: historical, player, AI. I have thought about that and plan to deal with it this way: Historical: What you see out there now is all I plan to do with historical data. I figure it does us no good to know that the historical se5a has a top speed of 120 mph while none in-game can exceed 115 (just making that number up for illustration). Player: The section "Flying the XXX" is intended as an evaluation of the "player FM" of the planes. AI: The section "Fighting the XXX" will be the evaluation of the "AI FM." This is a challenge that did not exist in Aces High since there are no AI there. There will obviously be lots of subjectivity here. I want what I report to be recommendations on how best to fight in and against the plane in question and not so much a numerical tabulation of data. I'd rather say "Nothing in the game can catch the Spad13 in level flight at 10,000 ft" [just making this up btw] rather than just give airspeeds at various altitudes, etc. Bottom line is I need to keep this project in the "sweet spot" of my skills. I am not an engineer and if I try to approach this too much that way, all of you will reject the project as fraudulent plus I will not enjoy it and would probably stop doing it because it would not be fun. I love to dogfight and if I can keep the project centered on that I think that offers the best chance for success. My first report will be the spuds as I have flown them the most. I will post my report, wait for feedback and amend the write-up accordingly. Naturally, your comments, criticism, etc. are most welcome! Stay tuned!

Thanks everyone for the kind support. I need the encouragement as this is a pretty big undertaking. I'm not going to reply to your posts much more because I want YOUR input and don't want to litter up this thread with my "thanks for that" responses. So, I hope my sincere THANK YOU will suffice. SirMike: Thanks for the heads-up about the Hispano-Suiza. I'll get that fixed. Vasco: Your comments are exactly in line with my purpose. Rate of climb tests are going to be a bit more challenging than with Aces High as there is no "auto-climb autopilot" as with AH (at least that I know of). In AH, it was a simple matter to take off, click on auto-climb and time how long it gets to 10,000 ft. In OFF, that is going to be more difficult. Any advice on ways to go about that? cptroyce: Thank you very much. Yes, any historical data you have will certainly strengthen the data I've put out there already. It's funny, while gathering this data, I would go to five websites and get five different "specifications" on obvious stuff like "Number of aircraft produced", "Ceiling", etc. I ended up erring on the side of the documentation that ships with OFF as I figure at least that represents the aircraft in game better than numbers that differed by large amounts. In reality, "historical data" is not that important for the purpose of this project anyway but what little I have I'd like for it to be accurate. So, please keep the comments coming and PLEASE, those of you that are sticklers for accuracy, please email me a "correction list" of what you find wrong and I'll certainly fix it. <S>! -mark

I have begun a rather ambitious project of evaluating and comparing each of the 39 aircraft in OFF and have created this web site to contain the study. I envision two phases of the project; (1) historical and (2) experiential (actual in-game observation). The first phase is basically done (except for correcting mistakes). The second and much more difficult phase will be the testing and comparing of the OFF aircraft with no respect to the actual historical data. I feel it is a much greater service to the community to report how these planes actually fly opposed to how they should fly. In my years playing Aces High, I benefited greatly from the work done by one of the members: Soda's AH Aircraft Evaluation Website from which I am modeling this project. My primary purpose is to make comparisons and observations that can help you understand how to best employ the aircraft. The plan is to measure the actual aircraft "in-game" rather than introduce "historical data." Obviously this will be a subjective evaluation but I hope those of you who get excited about this sort of thing will provide helpful input too. I will be analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft as well as the role each one is best suited for. My desire is to make the evaluations relevant to actual game experience. For example, if, in your Nieuport 11, you encounter a group of Alb D.IIs, you will immediately know what advantages you might have, what their weaknesses might be so you can make a wise decision on how to approach that situation. Evaluating the aircraft in any game I undertake has been something I always do but this is my most organized attempt at that. Reading the thread started by BulletHead on the Spad13 was inspiring and there is obviously a wealth of knowledge here at the forum so I'm hoping many of you will join my effort. I figure if I'm going to this much trouble, I may as well make it a public project so that everyone can benefit and participate as they desire. Let's see how it goes. If it becomes clear that the work is inadequate, exposure will bring it to a merciful end or someone more qualified and motivated than I can step up. I would appreciate reports of any mistakes (I'm sure there are plenty) of the historical data I have out there now. If you would, wait until you've looked through all of it and send me email (send it here: mhf99 - AT - yahoo.com) with your summary rather then hit me with a bunch of single items. That will help make my life a little easier. Thank you very much for any help you might be willing to provide! I hope this effort will help you enjoy this great game better. I've got my stopwatch and graph paper all ready. Can't wait to get started!

In my view, the Over Flanders Fields "trinity" (aka must haves) should be in this order: 1. TrackIR. If you don't have this, get TrackIR5 instead of TrackIR4. It's worth the extra cost. 2. A forcefeedback stick (Al has mentioned the only two I know of still sold new). 3. ButtKicker. OFF is such a sensual game (visual and touch) that you need tools that enhance those senses. TrackIR is discussed in geat depth here at the forum so I have nothing more to add to all that. FF is next, as Al nicely illustrates. These WW1 crates shake and vibrate like crazy. You really need to feel that in addition to feeling "the stall" before it comes. Without FF, I am not nearly as able to "ride the stall" as without it. An essential piece of gear. The Butt Kicker is a device that connects to your chair and rattles the chair based on low frequency sounds coming out of your sound card. It's basically another form of forcefeedback and works really well. I bought this thing about three years ago for about $60 and never really used it much until I began playing OFF. Let me tell you, when you bring that Spud around for landing and pull the throttle back to idle and the stick and chair are both rumbling, it is a fantastic experience! I wouldn't spend a bunch of money on one of these things but if you can get one for under $100 it's definitely worth it.