Bletchley

Hello DukeironHand :) I could probably find that old chart, but a better way to manually adjust for such things in OFF is to keep an eye on the Intelligence Briefings in Campaign mode - these will tell you when a 'push' is on in your sector, or when your sector is 'all quiet'. I don't think you need to change your 'Regional Air Activity' setting though - I use 'Light' for the whole period, 1915-1918, as the higher settings produce too many combats in the air for my taste. OFF, like every other WWI combat flight sim, produces too many combats when compared to the historical record: but if it did not, it would be a very boring game :) I manually adjust the AAA setting in workshop, to give less accurate AAA in the early years (1915 to early 1916), and more accurate AAA when tasked to attack a balloon. OFF models the amount of AAA dynamically, but I don't think that it makes any dynamic adjustment for increasing accuracy on either side (hiostorically, there were great leaps and bounds in technology and targetting doctrine). I think that the explosive effect of OFF's AAA is probably over modelled by around 50%-100% in OFF (although this is another issue), as WWII AA explosive charges (RDX and similar) were about twice as brissant as the Amatol and TNT charges used by WWI AA artillery - you may want to reduce the setting for AAA accuracy to compensate for this, although I find that the 'Normal' setting works well for most of the war. Other possible changes to workshop settings can be found in British_eh's SIA-RSS, particularly bullet load figures that are generally lower, historically, than the OFF defaults (see my recent post in the Knowledge Base). Bletchley

British_eh, in your SIA-RSS the AI Gun Range (Air) is currently set to (recommended) 'Easy'. My understanding is that this means that AI pilots will only fire on you when they are within short range (i.e. elliminates long-range accurate sniping). The settings for accuracy (the poll here) are 'Less Accurate' (i.e. Hard) for both AI and Player, for both Front and Rear guns. I think this is correct? I don't think you need to change it. The 'Players Guns Only' setting is set (recommended) to Normal (i.e. hardest) :) It is possible that by using the 'Less Accurate' setting (AI & Player), the problem of long-range AI accurate sniping is now elliminated, and 'AI Gun Range (Air)' can be set to 'Normal' or 'Hard'. Does anyone use this combination of a 'Less Accurate' Main and/or Rear guns with a 'Normal' or 'Hard' AI Gun Range (Air) and 'Normal' Players Guns Only? Bletchley

OFF is itself a mod of CFS3 (a 'supermod'), and the original group of modders are the OFF development team - as new modders appear, and show that they have something of lasting value to contribute, they tend to get absorbed into the development team or become associated with it in some way. The situation is similar to that of the BoB (Wov) WWII sim where the development team working to update and improve BoB (WoV) are mostly from the earlier BDG (Battle of Britain Development Group) modders. You will see a similar scarcity of 'independent' mods there. The value of this is that the mods are fully tried and tested before being absorbed into the sim (the 'supermod'), so that conflicts that might lead to instability or unintended consequences in some other part of the game code or experience are elliminated. Although a game like RB3D has a huge number of mods, any pick and mix modded versions of it tend to become hopelessly unstable, subject to crashes and freezing - only a few RB3D 'supermods' are stable enough to play consistently, and even some of these have odd stability issues. OFF, and BoB (WoV), are both rock-solid for me on my PC, and that is a huge advantage - there is nothing worse than spending days, or weeks, playing a long campaign only to then have the PC crash and find the campaign file corrupted beyond repair because one modded file has caused a conflict with another. Independent mods are a necessary feature of those sims where the developers are either very propriatorial and have a very firm view of how they want the sim to develop and so insist on doing any 'modding' of it themselves, or where the original developers have abandoned the sim and are no longer around or interested in any further development or patching (many commercial game producers fall into this category). I guess OFF falls between these two positions - not entirely open to independent modding, but then not completely closed either, so there are independent mods that 'tweak' it, but none that make fundamental changes to it. Bletchley

Those who fly in 1915 campaigns will probably have realised by now that the weather is very uniform (mostly comes out as 'variable') for most of 1915. The enclosed is historical weather information that can be used to introduce some of the missing 'dud' days when there is no flying. Note: this is not a mod, the text file cannot be plugged in to OFF to update the weather files - when you see a 'dud' day listed, use this information to skip that day by using the manual time advance (workshop setting must be set to manual/automatic). This information has been passed on to OFF Devs, so will probably be incorporated in Phase 4. Bletchley :) Weather 1915 Jan 1 : DUD : clouds at 700 ft, and very thick, and a high wind with rain squalls Jan 2 : DUD : early morning...low clouds, wind and rain...but about 12:00 it started to look up a bit...but gusting heavily up to 2000 ft...thick cloud banks...strong winds blowing from west to east...cumulus, very thick, very low, with wind up to 60 mph over 1500 ft, and still blowing strong below this altitude. Jan 3: DUD ? Jan 4: POOR ? Jan 5: POOR : very bad weather early, starting to clear a bit later. Jan 6 - 8: DUD ? Jan 9: POOR : rough, stormy weather. Jan 10: FINE : lovely all day...but with some low driving clouds and a misty haze for a short time around midday. Jan 11: POOR : fine day, but with high winds and cloud down to 2000 ft. Jan 12 : DUD : useless for flying. Jan 13 : DUD : very strong wind, and cloud. Jan 14 : DUD : blowing a gale, cloud down to 1500 ft, wind SW to W. Jan 15 : POOR : blowing a gale from the SW, and cloudy down to 500 ft. Jan 16 - 17: DUD : snow and rain. Jan 18 : DUD : snowed, heavy storms rolling in every few minutes.. Jan 19 -20 : DUD : snow and rain. Jan 21: POOR : dull and cloudy... low lying clouds, clearing in patches, to 3000 ft in the morning. Afternoon clouded up completely, very low, quite hopeless for flying and raining hard. Jan 22: FINE : gorgeously fine, wind gone into E veering NE. Jan 23: POOR : wind still E to NE, but hazy on the ground, cloudy, filmy haze that kept coming along and covering the ground but then clearing off. Jan 24 - 26: DUD : calm foggy weather, clouds down to 1000 ft, especially thick over the lines. Jan 27: POOR ? Jan 28: POOR Jan 29 - 31: DUD ? Feb 1: DUD ? Feb 2: POOR Feb 3 - 4: POOR ? Feb 5: FINE : lovely day. Feb 6: POOR : rain all day. Feb 7: DUD ? Feb 8 : POOR Feb 9 : DUD : rained solid all day. Feb 10 - 11: POOR ? Feb 12: POOR Feb 13 - 14: DUD : blowing a gale, raining all day for both days. Feb 15: POOR : morning fine, but from 3 pm storms and strong winds, snow. Feb 16: FINE : lovely. Feb 17: POOR : rain all day, blowing a gale. Feb 18 - 21: DUD ? Feb 22: POOR ? Feb 23 - 24: DUD ? Feb 25: POOR ? Feb 26: FINE Feb 27: POOR ? Feb 28: FINE ? Mar 1 - 2: POOR ? Mar 3: DUD ? Mar 4: POOR ? Mar 5: FINE Mar 6 - 7: POOR ? Mar 8: FINE ? Mar 9: FINE Mar 10: POOR Mar 11 - 12: DUD Mar 13: POOR ? Mar 14: FINE Mar 15 - 16: POOR ? Mar 17 - 19: DUD ? Mar 20: POOR Mar 21: FINE ? Mar 22 - 23: FINE Mar 24: POOR ? Mar 25: POOR Mar 26: FINE ? Mar 27 - 27: POOR ? Mar 28: DUD ? Mar 29: POOR ? Mar 30: FINE Mar 31: POOR ? Apr 1: FINE ? Apr 2 - 6: POOR ? Apr 7: DUD ? Apr 8: POOR ? Apr 9: DUD ? Apr 10: POOR ? Apr 11: DUD ? Apr 12: POOR ? Apr 13: FINE ? Apr 14: POOR Apr 15 - 16: FINE ? Apr 17: FINE Apr 18: FINE ? Apr 19 - 20: POOR ? Apr 21 - 26: FINE Apr 27: POOR : foggy, low cloud. Apr 28 - 30: FINE : hot, some haze. May 1 - 3: FINE: hot, perfect weather, but wind turning northerly and colder on the 3rd. May 4 - 5: POOR : misty, low cloud. May 6: POOR ? May 7 - 8: POOR : foggy, misty, clouds down to 1500 - 2000 ft. May 9: FINE : lovely morning, but strong wind. May 10: FINE ? May 11: FINE May 12 - 14: POOR May 15: FINE May 16: POOR May 17 - 19: DUD May 20: POOR ? May 21: FINE May 22: POOR ? May 23 - 25: FINE May 26: FINE ? May 27: POOR ? May 28: DUD ? May 29 - 30: POOR ? May 31: FINE Jun 1 - 2: FINE Jun 3: FINE ? Jun 4: POOR ? Jun 5 - 7: FINE ? Jun 8 - 9: POOR ? Jun 10: DUD ? Jun 11: POOR ? Jun 12: FINE ? Jun 13: POOR ? Jun 14: DUD ? Jun 15: POOR ? Jun 16: FINE ? Jun 17: FINE Jun 18 - 19: POOR ? Jun 20: FINE ? Jun 21: POOR Jun 22 - 24: FINE ? Jun 25: FINE Jun 26 - 27: POOR ? Jun 28: DUD ? Jun 29: POOR ? Jun 30: FINE ? Jul 1: FINE Jul 2 - 4: POOR ? Jul 5 - 7: FINE Jul 8: POOR ? Jul 9: FINE ? Jul 10 - 12: POOR ? Jul 13: FINE ? Jul 14: POOR ? Jul 15 - 16: DUD Jul 17: DUD ? Jul 18: POOR ? Jul 19 - 20: FINE ? Jul 21: FINE Jul 22: POOR ? Jul 23: DUD Jul 24 - 25: POOR Jul 26 - 27: FINE ? Jul 28: POOR Jul 29 - 31: FINE ? Aug 1: POOR ? Aug 2 - 3: POOR Aug 4: POOR ? Aug 5 - 6: POOR Aug 7: DUD Aug 8 - 9: POOR Aug 10: POOR ? Aug 11: FINE ? Aug 12: POOR ? Aug 13: DUD ? Aug 14 - 19: POOR ? Aug 20: POOR Aug 21: POOR ? Aug 22 - 22: FINE ? Aug 23: POOR Aug 24: POOR ? Aug 25 - 27: FINE ? Aug 28: POOR ? Aug 29: DUD ? Aug 30: POOR Aug 31: FINE ? Sep 1: POOR Sep 2: DUD ? Sep 3 - 4: POOR Sep 5: FINE Sep 6: FINE ? Sep 7: POOR Sep 8: POOR ? Sep 9 - 10: FINE ? Sep 11: POOR ? Sep 12: FINE ? Sep 13 - 17: FINE Sep 18: POOR ? Sep 19 - 22: FINE Sep 23: POOR Sep 24: DUD Sep 25 - 26: POOR Sep 27: DUD Sep 28 - 29: POOR Sep 30: FINE Oct 1 - 3: FINE Oct 4 - 5: POOR Oct 6 - 15: FINE Oct 16: POOR Oct 17: DUD Oct 18: POOR Oct 19 - 23: FINE Oct 24 - 25: POOR Oct 26: FINE Oct 27 - 28: POOR Oct 29: FINE Oct 30 - 31: POOR Nov 1 - 2: POOR Nov 3: DUD Nov 4 - 7: FINE Nov 8: POOR Nov 9: FINE Nov 10 - 12: POOR Nov 13: DUD Nov 14 - 15: POOR Nov 16: DUD Nov 17 - 18: POOR Nov 19: DUD Nov 20 - 22: POOR Nov 23: FINE Nov 24 - 28: POOR Nov 29: DUD Nov 30: POOR Dec 1 - 3: POOR Dec 4: DUD Dec 5 - 12: POOR Dec 13: FINE ? Dec 14 - 16: FINE Dec 17 - 18: POOR Dec 19: FINE Dec 20 - 22: POOR Dec 23 - 25: DUD Dec 26 - 27: POOR Dec 28 - 30: FINE Dec 31: POOR FINE = Weather suitable for flying POOR = Poor weather for flying (Passing frontal system in OFF?) DUD = Weather unsuitable for flying ? = Weather unknown, a 'best guess' inferred from activity levels recorded by Henshaw and Bailey+Cony

Hello Misterdan :) I think promotion is linked to the successful completion of missions, so you can slow down your promotion prospects by making it more difficult to complete the missions. I don't know what workshop settings you are using, but try some of the harder (usualy more 'realistic') ones if you are not already doing so. Also, try flying without any aids (if you are using them) such as the TAC, the in-game map, etc. Just using a paper map and not using the TAC will mean that you will no longer hit all of the waypoints, and so you will not always complete the mission successfully. My career pilot has survived for one month now, without a single promotion :) Bletchley

Cutting off the fuel supply (either via the fine adjustment, or the fuel cock) was a recognized way to kill the engine for landing. As Uncleal says, this removed the danger of a fire under the cowling from any excess fuel vented from the exhaust valves. This is from Lt. Leighton's pilot notes (Sopwith Strutter, 110 hp Clerget): "To land: shut off your engine. If above 500 ft turn your petrol off and leave switch [magneto] on. If at 500 ft turn petrol on and switch off. Coming down from a good height, try engine occasionally. Watch your pressure when engine is shut off" (Avro 504K 100 hp Monosoupape) "To descend: shut petrol off...Although pressure is kept up by mechanical pump while engine is running, as soon as engine is shut off pressure must be kept up by hand...When about 50-100 ft from the ground put petrol lever to one inch and hold thumb switch down but do not 'buzz' engine...Taxi in by 'buzzing' engine with petrol about 1 inch on adjustment...Before getting out of machine put switch and petrol both off and let pressure out of tank by opening release valve at bottom of pressure pump" Bletchley

I like to use the 'magneto' method of simulating the blip switch in OFF, described above by Lou. If you use this method to stop the magneto for too long (more than a couple of seconds) in OFF the engine will not restart again which, I think, simulates the flooding effect rather well :) Although the first time you use it, you have to press the magneto-off key several times, you then only have to press the magneto-on once to restart the engine and then magneto-off and magneto-on once to stop and start the engine each time. I have the magneto-on and magneto-off key combinations asigned to 2 buttons on my joystick. Bletchley The best settings for idle-cruise-fullpower seem to vary slightly from one OFF aircraft to another, but I mostly use 4-7-0 or 4-8-0 - but trial and error will find a combination that suits, with the lowest key-number being the one that keeps the engine just turning over without dying, and the cruise setting being the one that will keep you up with the AI flightleader in level flight. In practice, historically, these were not preset positions on the throttle and fine adjustment quadrant - the pilot would have to find them for himself and remember them or mark the quadrant in some way: "The engine has an rpm range from 800 to 1,150. It normally flies at full power but needs the 'idle' [control settings] for landing. The lever settings for take-off and approach must be memorized; these change with atmospheric pressure and temperature" (Neil Williams, Sopwith Pup pilot, quoted in L.F.E. Coombs 'Control in the sky: the evolution and history of the aircraft cockpit', Pen & Sword Aviation, 2005) "To start up: fine adjustment about 1/4 of quadrant; throttle about 1/2 of quadrant. These positions cannot be given definitely as they vary on different machines but the right position can be found (Lt. R.T. Leighton, Sopwith Strutter pilot, 'Pilots' notes for the handling of World War I warplanes and their rotary engines', Shuttleworth Collection)

The PPF is an adaptation for OFF of an RB3D mod. It is a manual paper-and-pencil scheme for offline interactions with the AI pilots of your selected Squadron or Jasta, a role-playing 'game within a game' that also includes guidance on tours of duty, leave, promotions and transfer. It can be used in combination with SIA, DiD, or on its own, or can be used as a base for further changes or adapted further to suit individual taste. It is a simple text file, it does not physically change the OFF program, and so it is safe to download and read. Bletchley

Latest version :)

"in the OFF options there's an option to set the player flight maximum altitude (18,000ft, 10,000ft or 3000ft I think - presuming this makes the AI flight leader fly lower if you're not flight leader)" No, I don't think it does. Bletchley

Yes, Lou, you are probably right - I always assumed it must be the auxilliary throttle because it looks throttle-like, but the spark-advance makes sense as well :) Bletchley

I think the quadrant on the left is the auxilliary throttle lever (?), the main throttle lever being on the joystick. There was no mixture control. Mixture control was not automatic, either. The carburettor was adjusted at the factory to give optimum mixture at around 1300 m (1800 m for the overcompressed version of the D.IIIa engine), and the engine ran 'lean' below this threshold altitude and increasingly 'rich' above this altitude. You will see that it is already modelled in OFF - fiddling with the mixture control has little effect, other than to kill the engine, and you will notice that the rpm rises slightly after take-off up to the threshold altitude, and then drops thereafter (mixture going from lean to full-rich and then to over-rich). The Allied (French) altitude compensating carburettors (mixture control) were a great improvement on this, giving aircraft such as the SPAD much better performance at higher altitudes (over 12,000 ft), and were introduced as early as late 1916. The Germans did not develop altitude compensating carburettors of their own until late 1917, and did not use them in scouts until the Spring of 1918. Bletchley

I think there is a difference between stoppages and jams (?) - as I understand it, a stoppage occurs when there is, e.g., a misfire and the cartridge isn't ejected from the breech (or the next one isn't fed in): this was a common occurence, and could be cleared simply by re-cocking the gun, to eject the old cartridge and feed in the next. Jams (or jambs) were less frequent but were more serious, as the cartridge was stuck in the breech or feed and sometimes couldn't be cleared in the air (even with vigorous pounding of the cocking handles, with gloved mitts or the mallet supplied). I think the old "hit U" of RB3D simulated the act of manually re-cocking the guns. Bletchley

"Back when we first realized this in CFS3, we started adding invisible non-jettisonable weight and pylons to A.I. only standalone planes to fight against" This could perhaps be less than the total weight that is 'missing' (maybe only 50% of missing weight), otherwise the human pilots would then have another advantage over the AI, by reducing their own fuel/ammo load to less than that of the AI aircraft. Bletchley

Reducing your own fuel and ammunition load can also help you to keep up with them :) Bletchley

"Is it the same in all plane types?" Some had a small gravity tank - if there was a failure of the main system these could keep the engine running for about 15-30 minutes or so. Bletchley

I have recently upgraded from an AMD 3400 (single core) with AGP ATI 9800 PRO to an i5 with PCIE ATI 5770 card and I am very pleased - it runs OFF very well in Turbo (no need to do anything, it kicks in automatically) with all the sliders on 5 except Terrain and Scenery on 4, with 40-50 FPS and no stutters at a price that I could pay. For older games that only make use of a single core, I think the Turbo feature is very good (turns the PC into faster dual core, in effect, but quite automatically as needed). For a game that makes use of multiple cores (e.g. RoF) you might be better off with an i7 though (and you may be better future-proofed with an i7 as more games come out that can make use of multiple cores). When I bought my i5 it was significantly cheaper than an i7 920. Some of the techy people here will be able to give you a more informed answer - all I can say is that I am very pleased with the i5 so far. Great for BoBII and small child's Need for Speed as well :) I now use the older one (Win XP) just for internet and older games that Windows 7 has problems with. Bletchley

"I can tell you that the devs must have dialed down the WWII flak found in CFS3" Louvert Yes, they seem to have changed the accuracy and intensity (rate of fire?) of flak, to give us the EASY, NORMAL and HARD settings - but it is possible that the bursting effect is hard-coded in OFF by CFS3, as it is for rockets? "Does it also say 'Move up one knotch, when attacking a balloon, or Airfield'. Because the concentration of fire around a miltary target are mind boggeling...EASY as you've grown so fond of is NO AA cannons at all, just machine guns, so stay above 2000 on Easy, and you'll always be safe" That is a good idea uncleal, and one that I use myself - intensity and accuracy of fire was always greater around a balloon due to the concentration of dedicated AA guns of all calibre, from AA mounted MGs to small calibre pom-pom types that produced the flaming onions (tracer or incendiary cannon rounds fired a magazine at a time) to heavier calibre AA artillery. In my experience the EASY setting in OFF does not entirely elliminate the flak AA artillery, as I find that I still run into it over the Front in 1915/16 on EASY - it is just less intense and less accurate than the NORMAL or HARD settings. Bletchley

I don't know the internal mechanics of how OFF (or CFS3) simulates flak, but it seems realistic enough to me - if you change direction or height you will often see a cluster of flak bursts near the point that you would have been if you had continued to fly straight and level. At the beginning of the war (1914-15) flak was relatively inneffective at shooting down aeroplanes (but, in the abscence of effective fighters, were responsible for most shoot-downs over 3000 ft) - the original flak guns were designed to shoot down airships, and were of the low calibre pom-pom variety firing solid shot, tracer incendiary or explosive rounds. These were soon supplemented by field or horse artllery howitzers converted to fit on trucks with elevating mounts. These generally had a low muzzle velocity, were aimed individually with makeshift sights, and they fired mostly shrapnel at first. Shrapnel was found to be less effective than was first envisaged, as it burst mostly along the shell's direction of travel, not in a 360 deg. burst, so an aircraft had to be directly in front and above the bursting shell (or directly hit by it). In 1915 the Germans switched to a HE (TNT) bursting charge, that was found to be more effective. The British did not do so until mid to late 1916, due to difficulties with design and manufacture of the shells, but when they did they used an Amatol bursting charge which, like shrapnel before it, bursts with a puff of white smoke (unlike the German TNT, which burst with a dirty grey/black smoke). Both sides also discovered that HE works better when used to bracket an aeroplane with several simultaneous near-miss bursts, as the blast waves are more effective when combined (rather like the use of depth charges against a submarine). This led to the practice of aiming and firing whole batteries of 4 or 8 guns as one, using more sophisticated aiming and fire-control devices and guns with a higher muzzle velocity, to fire into a three-dimensional 'box' where the target aircraft was predicted to be when the shells burst. Another advantage of this is that any small evasive 'jinking' manouevres would not take the target aircraft out of this 'box', only quite pronounced changes in aircraft direction or altitude. I think that this is modelled well in OFF. I am not sure how well the bursts themselves are modelled though - if the burst-effects are hard coded to their WWII CFS3 counterparts, then the bursts will be twice or even three times as effective as the WWI HE shells, and about ten times as effective as the WWI shrapnel shell. This is because, by WWII, anti-aircraft shells were using a much more effective bursting charge than the TNT/Amatol charge iof WWI. In OFF, a single flak near miss will (to me at least) appear to cause a disproportionate amount of damage - blowing off wings, or completely destroying the aircraft. From the accounts that I have read, the WWI flak was not usually so deadly in its immediate and singular effects, unless a direct hit. Bletchley

Sounds good Herr P-W :) I am looking forwards to your next update on Sgt. Fromage. Bletchley

Yes, it might be better to make it player choice - either go back to Home Front for a period of x number of months (as currently), start a new career, or accept transfer to another (possibly lower quality) unit. I know at least one example of a pilot (Harold Balfour) who returned early to Home Establishment after a few unhappy weeks at the Front flying the Morane N (partly his choice, I think), but then returned later to complete a very distinguished tour of duty. Bletchley

Keep it coming Herr P-W - it is turning into a very good story :) I have been thinking about what might happen when a pilot's score falls below '0', as at the moment this triggers a return to the Home Front. It occurred to me that, after the successful completion of the initial induction/training missions a trained combat pilot (however bad or unpopular) would be too valuable to waste in this way - so I had the idea that this should instead trigger a transfer (to a lower rated unit, if there is one - perhaps even a 'bomber' type). What do you think? : Transfers If your CP score is below '0' at the start of any new day after the successful completion of the induction and training period, you will be transferred to another unit - the need for trained pilots is too great to send you back to the Home Front, but you are clearly not fitting in with this unit: it will normally be to a lower rated unit (i.e. if current unit is Average look for Poor), or if no lower rated unit is available then one with the same rating. You can do this by starting a new career, or by editing the OFF pilot dossier of your current pilot - see below Check your pilot's no. on the ingame log. Go to Campaigns-Campaign Data--Pilots and look for your Pilot Dossier (always one higher than on your log, so Pilot no.1 becomes Pilot Dossier no.2). Open the dossier, check that you have the correct pilot, and find on the third line down his current squadron/staffel. Overwrite this with the one you want to transfer to - name should be correct, so if necessary enlist a 'test' pilot first in the desired squadron/staffel to check that the name of he unit is correct. Start with the initial three training/induction missions, as above. Bletchley

Great stuff, Herr P-W! I think the 3P really lends itself to that kind of narrative campaign, if used imaginatively :) I look forward to reading the rest. Bletchley I don't deduct anything for an 'aircraft destroyed' message if the damage was caused in combat (i.e managed to land a badly shot-up aircraft). This seem reasonable? Also, had the idea to score +2 for every non-target balloon shot down as well - OFF currently doesn't give you anything for shooting down non-target balloons, so this would give a player some incentive to go chasing balloons again :)

HPW, I like your change to the 'bad landings' score modifier, and I agree: it would be great if someone could to write a small computer program to automate the whole process - but in the meantime I am happy to plug away with dice and paper :) Bletchley

Thanks HPW :) That is a useful schedule, you seem to have got the hang of it very quickly and I like your additions. I am continually tweaking and fine tuning it myself, the most recent change being an additional +5 points for every end-of-mission landing back at the pilot's own airfield: I was finding that my pilot sometimes got stuck in a rather irritating cycle of an initial bad start leading to an early return to the Home Front, only to be followed by the same again on return. Adding that +5 per mission gives a slight positive bias that can help to overcome bad luck at the start. But a bad landing (-5 points fot the 'your aircraft is destroyed' message) would, of course, cancel this out. My aim is to start out in 1915 at the lowest rank and progress through to the highest rank by the end of the war, all in one long campaign: I never axhieved this in RB3D, and I doubt if I will achieve it in OFF, but it fun to attempt it. Bletchley