Bletchley

Sorry to hear that Royce :( I have been switching it in and out of several campaigns (British and German) without any problem (even ongoing ones, so no need to create a new campaign with a new pilot). It could be that one of the files got corrupted on downloading (try re-downloading) or you may have put JSGME into the wrong folder? - it must go in: OBDSoftware: CFSWW1 Over Flanders Fields, not the root folder. Let me know if you get it going. Bletchley

Yes, the hybrid 'lone wolf' missions do create a rather strange waypoint structure - I never fly using the waypoints (I don't use warp or TAC), so it hasn't bothered me. It only effects the in-game map - the briefing map does show the 'correct' area to patrol. It also effects any escorted missions - the 'escort' appears to disappear as it follows the spider's web of waypoints, leaving the player's lone 2-seater to head for the target (unless the player warps, but this can send the player zig-zagging across large areas of enemy airspace, and there is a good chance you will then never make it to the target or patrol area). If there are no other problems reported with 1915, I will post 1916(1) this evening, with 1916(2) to follow shortly :) Bletchley

Thanks Lou, and everyone else who has responded :) I have 1916(1) January-July ready to post, Wayfarer, and working on 1916(2) August-December, but I am just holding it back for a short time to see if there are any problems with 1915. 1916(1) will have the same flak files as 1915, but the missions are changed to bring back flight-strength patrols (particularly for the Allies, as in January 1916 Trenchard ordered that all recon. flights across the lines should be escorted by scouts or other machines of the same type). From my reading, the German scouts continued to fly in mostly single or paired flights up to their reorganisation in August, so solo missions will predominate (with a few full-flight missions starting to appear), and due to the increasing numbers of Allied aircraft (and the introduction of the new Allied types) the German air service was feeling outnumbered in this period, and was using two-seaters for barrage patrols and escort - so I have included lone-wolf line patrols for the Roland (sometimes 'escorted' by E.IIIs or other Rolands, although the 'patrol' and the 'escort' rarely appear to co-ordinate). There will also be some lone-wolf art.obs. and long-range recon. missions for the Roland (sometimes 'escorted', sometimes not). There will also be missions for the French scouts, still aggressive in this early period (Battle of Verdun), but becoming more defensive. The 'German' players should feel outnumbered and pushed back in this period, in Flanders if not so much against the French, culminating in the battle of the Somme in July 1916...but in August 1916 this will start to change again :) Bletchley

JSGME from here: http://www.users.on.net/~jscones/software/products-jsgme.html B.

"Is the smoke color of the Allied Amatol AA rounds going to be white? And also will there be the 20mm German Becker, the 11/2 pdr British autocannon and the 37 mm autocannon that made the "Flaming Onions". Yes, both the Allied Shrapnel and HE (Amatol) rounds burst with white or light grey smoke - this is already present in OFF, so not part of the mod. In theory the other AAA types could be included, but the guns themselves would have to be included in the game first. They are not at the moment, and this would be beyond my very limited abilities (this is the first mod that I have ever done, for OFF or any other game). The 'flaming onions' were a form of larger calibre tracer or incendiary round, I think. Bletchley

"Do you plan on extending the Weather Mod to include your extensive research for the day-by-day atmospheric conditions through to the end of the war?" No, from 1916 onwards the weather files that Shredward have done are excellent, and I don't think I could improve on them. It was just the 1915 weather file that was a bit 'sparse' :) "It would be tremendous, also, if somehow the SIA information that you and British_eh have summerized in the Realistic Survival Settings section could be Modded into the game as well" Yes, that is the idea. I am currently working on the period January 1916 - July 1916: after I have tested this for any glitches I hope to release that as a 1916(1) mod, to be followed by a 1916(2) mod (August-December). They will use the research that has gone into SIA-RSS. "is it for campaign or is it for QC?" It is designed for campaign, though I guess bits of it (AAA files?) might work in QC (?). "is the less destructive AA going to stay in 1916 and further (which would be good) or is it going to be switched to normal AA after 1915" The same AAA files will be included with 1916(1), but from 1916(2) the Allied guns will switch from Shrapnel to HE (Amatol) and will be the same as the German HE (TNT) rounds. They will then both continue at that level until the end of 1918. The original AAA round used by OFF is a WW2 German 88mm flak round, and by WW2 RDX was being used in place of TNT or Amatol - this filling was almost 100% more 'brisant' (burned faster, to produce much more explosive 'punch') than the equivalent WW1 AAA round, and was also somewhat bigger (most WW1 AA guns were of the smaller 75mm or 79mm calibre). Not sure if I have got it right yet (very difficult to judge). Accuracy is unaffected, as I have not fiddled with the AAA 'Noise' settings or blast radius, as this has been discussed at length here, just reduced the impact effect (slightly) and the blast effect (quite alot). Bletchley

Sorry, I was a bit quick off the mark in announcing it (the link worked immediately for me). But now that it has been approved by Shredward it should work OK. I passed the files on earlier to Shredward, to get OFF Dev. Team approval for posting this little bit of 'meddling', and I have been using it myself as a 'Home Brew' for a couple of weeks now to check that it doesn't mess up the OFF install. Using the JSGME Mods installer, all can be returned back to normal just by de-activating it if you do run into any problems :) Bletchley

File Name: 1915 OFF MOD File Submitter: Bletchley File Submitted: 24 March 2011 File Category: Maps, Missions, and Campaigns A MOD for Over Flanders Fields, for 1915, that includes a new Weather file, new mission files and new AAA weapon files. Click here to download this file

WWI Anti-Aircraft Artillery Munitions For some time I have been wondering why, when the British AA artillery units switched from using Shrapnel to HE rounds in 1916, they are still reported to have burst with a white/grey smoke, when German HE rounds burst with a black smoke. Lyddite (Picric Acid) was used for British artillery shells up to and shortly after the outbreak of war in 1914 (black or dark grey smoke), and then they switched to TNT - but TNT was expensive and in short supply (at least until they started to extract toluene from aromatic Borneo heavy crude oil later in the war), and Amatol (initially 60:40, later 80:20 from around 1917) was much cheaper. The disadvantage, compared to TNT, is that it is hygroscopic and does not store as well as TNT. Even in dry conditions it will deteriorate after 5 years or so, becoming rather unstable, and it then 'sweats' corrosive and toxic residues. The Royal Navy continued to use TNT in their shells, I would guess for this reason, but the British artillery and AA units probably used up their stocks so fast that this would not have been a problem, despite the sometimes very damp conditions on the Western Front. Up to mid or late 1916 the British AA artillery used Shrapnel in preference to HE, and this also burst with a white smoke (black powder bursting charge). It was not very effective as an AA weapon, as the shrapnel balls were discharged in the direction of travel of the shell (on an upwards trajectory), so unless a target aircraft was above and more or less directly in the path of the shell then the burst, even very close, would do relatively little damage (the blast effect was only about 1/3 or less that of an HE shell, I think). German AA units switched mainly to HE (TNT) shortly after the start of the war. Digging into this a bit more I discovered that the British munitions manufacturers appear to have switched from filling HE shells with TNT to filling them with Amatol (80/20 TNT/Ammonium Nitrate from 1917, 60/40 before that) from around early to mid 1915 onwards, due to a perceived or actual shortage of toluene (an essential ingredient of TNT, or Tri-Nitro-Toluene), and this might account for the white smoke from this point onwards. The Germans had a much more plentiful supply of toluene (a by-product of their coking industry), and it therefore makes sense that they would continue to fill their shells with TNT. This burst with an oily black smudge of smoke, because it is not entirely consumed by the explosion (not enough oxygen in the air to burn the TNT completely). The Ammonium Nitrate in Amatol is less brisant than TNT (it burns more slowly, producing less of a blast), but also provides additional oxygen to fully consume the TNT in the explosion - the result is an equivalent blast to TNT (even slightly better, so long as the proportion of TNT to Ammonium Nitrate remains high), but it leaves a thick white or light grey smudge of smoke. By comparison, WWII HE AA shells were filled with RDX, or possibly a mixture of RDX, TNT and aluminium powder, to produce a blast that was far more brisant, from 50% to 100% stronger than that produced by the WWI HE AA shells (either TNT or Amatol) of an equivalent size and weight. Bletchley

Hello all, I noticed that you can select flares instead of bombs when flying the BE2c - but when I select them as my loadout and then try to fire them, using the same technique that works for bombs (backspace, then enter), they don't fire. I can't see any listed keypress for flares either. Has anyone managed to fire them? Bletchley

I will try that, thanks Olham :) B.

OK, I tried the various suggestions - starting with that given by Polovski - and none of them seem to work for me ?? Or maybe it worked, and I just didn't see or hear the flare go (I have no problem with bombs, they drop with a nice 'clunk' followed by a line of explosions and visible craters, so I am guessing that flares are fired with an audible pop or a whooosh). Not sure what I am doing wrong, but I will include them in the mission instructions anyway (for Art.Obs.). B.

Thank you Polovski, and everyone else who replied, I will try that :) It is needed for an RFC "1915" 'mod' that I will post soon, a little entertainment whilst we wait for Phase 4. Bletchley

If you fly in this way you will find that, very quickly, you don't even need the paper maps very much. You will soon come to recognise the landmarks within quite a wide radius of your home airfield (the odd shaped woods, lakes, towns, roads, airfields, rail and rivers), and can navigate accordingly. You can even do without a compass if you are aware of the time, and the position of the sun in the sky. It all seems very difficult at first, but knowing where you are (or getting lost) does add an extra dimension to the game. I only use the in-game map if I first land at a friendly airfield (to ask for directions), and then fly out again :) Bletchley

Rounds Carried In arriving at a figure for bullet load I think we have to draw a distinction between the maximum number of rounds that an aircraft could carry; the weight of ammunition (from which we can infer the number of rounds) included as 'military weight' in official flight tests (from which we get the standard parameters on an aircraft's performance); and the number of rounds that an individual pilot might specify as his loadout. The first of these, at least for belt-fed machine guns (Vickers and LMG 08 or 08/15) must be limited by the capacity of the ammunition boxes, and then by the capacity of the belts used. From the evidence that I have come across so far, I think that a standard 500 round capacity box was used by the Allies (a box capable of holding a 500 round belt) for each belt-fed machine gun, and a standard 600 round capacity box by the Germans. Fabric belts appear to have been made in standard sizes, and I have come across no evidence so far to indicate that pilots would cut these down or stitch them together to form shorter or longer belts: the Germans probably used 250 or 500 round Maxim belta in the LMG 08 and 500, 250 or 100 round Parabellum belts in the LMG 08/15, whilst the British used either the 500 or 250 round fabric Vickers belts, up to mid 1917, but variable length belts using either metal links or Prideaux metal links thereafter. Both sides, in the early years, used stripped-down versions of the machine guns used by the ground forces - the French predominantly used the Hotchkiss, which had either a 25 round clip or a 100 round belt (the former being used on aircraft), until they acquired enough Lewis and Vickers guns to replace them; the British used the Lewis (a 47 round drum, and then mostly the 97 round drum from mid 1916) until they developed effective synchronising gears for the Vickers: a single synchronised Vickers with a fabric belt (250 rounds or 500 rounds) and then Prideaux links (400-500 rounds) followed by a twin Vickers with 2 x 250 round fabric belts or 2 x 200/250 or 2 x 400/500 round Prideaux linked belts (up to 750 rounds per gun, in some cases, where the aircraft was used in a ground-strafing role, and rising to 1000 rounds per gun at the end of the war); the Germans used Parabellum guns to begin with (100, 250 or 500 round fabric belts), then a stripped down LMG 08 (250 or 500 round fabric belts, or a 500 round metal linked belt) that was soon replaced by a lighter LMG 08/15 that used either 100, 250 or 500 round fabric Parabellum belts - 500 round fabric belts for all the twin-gun biplane and triplane types being the standard. The weight of ammunition included as 'military weight' in British flight tests can be used to infer the number of rounds that were carried when assessing the performance of aircraft - the closest thing that we have, perhaps, to a 'standard' ammunition loadout. In general, this appears to be equivalent to 500 rounds, or sometimes 400 rounds with Prideaux links, for a single Vickers, and 250 rounds for each Vickers in the twin Vickers arrangement (400-500 rounds per gun for some of the later aircraft such as the Snipe and the Spad XIII, and probably 500 rounds per gun for the up-engined Sopwith Camels of 1918). There is some evidence that these 'standard' loads would be increased to the 'maximum load' of 500 rounds per gun when tasked for ground strafing. Any individual pilot specification would therefore be constrained by the limits imposed by the capacity of the ammunition boxes (i.e. a maximum of 500-600 rounds per gun), the size of the available belts, and the effect on aircraft performance of increasing/decreasing the weight of ammunition carried forwards of the aircraft's centre of gravity. British memoirs that we have looked at indicate that 200 rounds per gun in a twin Vickers arrangement was regarded as a minimum useful load, and 500 rounds per gun as a maximum load for ground strafing. In a single Vickers arrangement either a 400 or 500 round loadout appears to have been the standard load. Evidence from the 'military weights' included in the British and US capture reports on German aircraft suggests that the 'standard' load for the early German single gun scouts (the early Fokker types, such as the E.III) was 500 rounds (25-30 lb weight), and 1000 rounds (55lb weight, or 500 per gun) for all twin gun types. Woodman, Harry. Early aircraft armament: the aeroplane and the gun up to 1918. Arms & Armour Press, 1989.ISBN: 0853689903 Williams, Anthony G.; Gustin, Emmanuel. Flying guns: World War I and its aftermath, 1914-32. Airlife, 2003. ISBN: 1840373962 Clarke, R. Wallace. British aircraft armament, vol.2: RAF guns and gunsights from 1914 to the present day. Patrick Stephens, 1994. ISBN: 1852604026 Weyl, A.R. Fokker: the creative years. Putnam, 1965 (Ed. J.M. Bruce). Bruce, J.M. War planes of the First World War: Fighters (vol.1-5). Macdonald, 1968. Jane's fighting aircraft of World War I: a comprehensive encyclopedia. Studio, 2001 (reprint of 1919 ed.). ISBN: 1851703470 Profile publications (various), and books on individual aircraft. Memoirs and diaries (various). Air Board data for structure and stability calculation of aircraft. [british] Air Board, August 1917. (unpublished, UK National Archives). Bowyer, Chaz. Sopwith Camel - King of Combat. Aston, 1988. ISBN: 0946627495. Aerodrome Forum - various threads and posts. Miller, James F. (JFM). Post in OFF Forum, quoting from Lothar and Manfred von Richthofen's combat reports.

Thank you Jim! That is just the evidence that I was looking for. The statement by Lothar (April 1917), and the quotes from MvR's combat reports do clearly indicate that more than 500 rounds were carried, before January 1918. That is good enough for me - I eat my words. Many thanks for taking the time to research this further :) I hope you don't mind, but I have posted your evidence from Lothar and from MvR as a continuation of my thread (How many rounds did they carry?) at the Aerodrome forum - the original thread was closed (old) so I started a new one, citing you as source and linked to this thread. Woodman does not cite a reference for his statement that 250 rounds per gun was the normal load after the switch to twin guns. The reference to MvR's trigger leavers was from a thread on the Aerodrome forum - I will check back and post a link. Bletchley

"Also, many of MvR's combat reports indicate he fired in excess of 500 rounds. One well known example is when he fought Hawker 23 November 1916. His combat report indicated he fired 900 rounds flying an Albatros D.II." You may be right Jim, although I would like to see consistent evidence from several pilots' combat reports to be convinced that 1000 rounds was the norm in this period, and not just a personal variation on the part of MvR. It is possible that MvR is the exception here, as he certainly had the personal clout to customise many features of his own aircraft (not just the colour, but the trigger leavers of his guns as well), and he may have felt that the advantage of a further 500 rounds would sometimes (allways?) outweight the disadvantages in aircraft performance of adding 27lb to 28lb pounds of extra weight forward of the centre of gravity. Harry Woodman (Woodman, Harry. Early aircraft armament: the aeroplane and the gun up to 1918. Arms & Armour, 1989. ISBN: 0853689903) states in reference to the LMG 08/15 "The gun now weighed only 13 kg... and this was the weapon, in twin-mounted form, that armed the Albatros D.I which appeared over the Front in September 1916...the ammunition belts normally carried 250 although more rounds could be accommodated. p.136-137". The ammunition box was apparently of a standard size, divided into two compartments, each capable of holding up to 600 rounds... so it would have been possible to fill it with either 2 x 250 round fabric Parabellum belts or 2 x 500 round fabric Parabellum belts (the 550 round Maxim belt does not appear to have been used on aircraft). I have only seen extracts from selected combat reports of MvR here: http://www.oocities.com/taipan1961/Richthofen.htm None of these cite a figure higher than 500 rounds being fired, although some hint or suggest that there might have been more. It cites 200 rounds fired on 30th September 1916; 300 rounds on 10th October 1916; 200 rounds on 25th October 1916 (and 500 rounds by another pilot, possibly with a single gun Halberstadt, ending with a gun jam); 150 rounds on 23rd January 1917; 150 rounds on 1st February 1917 (with single gun Halberstadt); "some several hundred shots" on 14th February 1917, and "one hundred shots" later in the day; "some 500 shots" on 4th March 1917, although there is a suggestion that he fired earlier as well; 400+ rounds later in the same day. If you have the full reports to hand, it would be useful if you could quote from those examples where MvR fired more than 500 rounds - in particular the encounter between MvR and Hawker, as the source linked to above contains no details of rounds fired in this combat. Bletchley

Not waterproof Olham - if you read the Aerodrome thread you will find knowledgeable people who disagree with it. But it fits the evidence, I think, and the experts cited above include these figures in their books. If you want to look at British_eh's SIA-RSS settings for bullet-load you will find the percentage for each aircraft that you need to set in-game (for most German 2-gun scouts it is 50% up to 1918, but the Fokker E.IV is an exception at 100%). Bletchley

"You learn something new everyday. I have always thought that 500 rounds/gun (in the double Spandau fighters)was pretty much the case throughout the war". Yes, this is the impression that I had until I started to look into it, and it is the figure repeated in many of the textbooks (probably from a misinterpretation of figures in Weyl's book on Fokker), and it does not take account of changes over time - but not everybody agrees with my argument that the Germans (and British) moved from a standard of 500 rounds per gun for a single belt-fed machine gun (e.g. Fokker E.III, Sopwith Pup) to a new standard of 250 rounds per gun when the switch was made to 2 machine guns (Albatros and Pfalz, or Sopwith Camel), and then back to 500 rounds per gun (or even higher, in some cases) in 1918. But you can find this information in the 'specialist' books on WWI aeroplane armament that I quote from iin the Aerodrome thread (such as: King, H.F. Armament of British aircraft, 1909-1939. Putnam, 1971. ISBN: 0370000579; Woodman, Harry. Early aircraft armament: the aeroplane and the gun up to 1918. Arms & Armour, 1989. ISBN: 0853689903; Williams, Anthony G.; Gustin, Emmanuel. Flying guns: World War I and its aftermath, 1914-32. Airlife, 2003. ISBN: 1840373962. Williams and Gustin even put the Dr.I bullet load as low as 100 rounds per gun, but this now looks likely to have been a mistake), and the primary historical evidence that I have seen (particularly the figures on weights from the British official sources) would seem to support it. I don't think anyone came up with convincing contrary evidence in the Aerodrome thread that I linked to. Bletchley

Louvert, yes, I would guess that there were exceptions to the general rule, circumstances when less than a full tank would have been used by individual pilots on solo sorties, of one kind or another - particularly if there was need for a high altitude interception, such as the Home Defence sorties against Zeppelins or McCudden's solo flights to intercept high flying reconnaisance aircraft. Many of the individual sorties at the Front would also have been of an essentially non combat nature as well - for flight testing after repair or maintenance, or to accept a new aircraft, air firing tests on a ground targets or butts, new pilot orientation or training, etc. - and I guess that the use of less than a full tank may have been common then. Olham, the placing of the fuel tanks would also have had an effect on the trim. Most Allied scouts appear to have had the main fuel tank under or behind the pilot's seat, to the rear of the centre of gravity. So the Sopwith Camel, for example, is known to have been tail heavy on take off, with a full tank, but with a more neutral trim on landing after a long patrol had consumed most of the fuel and oil. Most of the German scouts, on the other hand (with the exception of the Fokker E.III, which had the main tank behind the pilot), had the main tank forward of the pilot behind the engine and next to the ammunition boxes, so that these were probably the opposite in most cases (neutral trim on take off, but slightly tail heavy on landing). The co-location of fuel tanks and ammunition boxes would also have meant that a trade-off could have been made here between ammunition load and fuel load, without having too much effect on the trim (i.e. a reduction in the fuel load could permit an equivalent increase in weight of ammunition), although I think it is unlikely that the necessary calculations would have been left to the individual pilot unless they were making solo flights. In OFF, however, it can be a good idea to vary the fuel load if you fly 'by rank', as it is very difficult to keep up with the Flight Leader in a climb if you do not give yourself the advantage of starting with a much lighter fuel load. I do it all the time :) Bletchley

The British Air Board definition for air endurance (quoting from the Air Board data sheets of August 1917) was "at 10,000 ft at full throttle including climb". The German definition appears to have been "full throttle running, at sea level". In either case, the actual time spent in the air might be slightly more or less than the figures quoted. British and French scouts appear to have had an endurance of around 2 1/2 to 3 hours (e.g. SE5a 2 1/4 to 3 hours, Sopwith Camel 2 1/2 to 2 3/4 hours, Spad VII 2 1/2 hours, Snipe 3 to 3 1/4 hours). German and Austrian scouts had a slightly lower endurance of around 2 to 2 1/2 hours (e.g. Pfalz D.IIIa 2 to 2 1/2 hours, Dr.I slightly over 2 hours, Albatros D.V 1 1/2 to 2 hours, Phoenix 2 hours). The German situation is further complicated by a Kogenluft order of January 14 1918, ordering an immediate cut in the fuel load carried by all operational single seat fighters to "a maximum endurance of only 1 1/2 hours", with a further reduction to 1 hour for the acceptance tests. This can be seen in the case of the Dr.I, which had a fuel capacity of 73 litres, but carried only 55 litres (for 1 1/2 hours endurance) from early 1918 onwards. This reduction in all up weight then permitted an increase in ammunition load from a standard 250 rounds per gun to 500 rounds per gun. I think it is unlikely that pilots of either side would have been allowed to vary either the ammunition load or fuel load of their aircraft before a combat patrol, except for short solo flights, and I have seen no evidence of this in the literature. Flying as part of a combat flight, in formation, I think it would be essential that their tanks were topped up to the same level (otherwise, the individual pilots would be falling out of formation, short of fuel, before the end of the patrol). I think it is also unlikely that Flight Leaders would have made the necessary mathematical calculations before each flight (route, distance, altitude, wind strength and direction at altitude, and allowing some for full throttle combat), and I have seen no evidence for this, again, in any of the literature. Any variation of the fuel or the bullet load would also have had a significant effect on the aircraft's trim, so day to day variations of this kind would also have made the individual handling characterists of particular aircraft even harder to learn for the often inexperienced pilots. The related subject of fuel and bullet load has been dicussed in some detail towards the end of a recent thread on The Aerodrome forum : http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-wwi-aviation/49045-how-many-rounds-did-they-have.html Bletchley

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

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

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