Siggi

Flying DiD with guns set to normal? Not in the DiD campaign I hope.

Happy birthday dude.

I have an account in one of my books where the pilot fell out of his Sopwith as it looped and landed back in/on it 2000ft lower and regained control, all witnessed from his airfield (which he sprayed with bullets accidentally as he fought his way back into the cockpit).

You have to take into account which bullet-spread option players are using too. In DiD we have the biggest spread, so we don't see wings being sawn off that often. For us I'd say the stock DM is just about right.

21st December 1916. It looks like we're to have a few days of decent weather, though yesterday was nearly my last and I have no more confidence with my perfectly horrid little plane. While chasing an Albatross low over the lines the lower left plane buckled and broke and I was barely able to set the machine down before it turned completely over. The carriage is smashed and the rest of it isn't in much better shape. I now have another hand me down. I got away with it scott free somehow. A horrid plane with a horrid gun and a horrid sight, which I'm forbidden to remove. The hun has one thousand rounds in his Albatross, five hundred for each gun, firing directly from the nose. Both fed from continuous belts. I have one on the top wing with two hundred and fifty rounds, split over five drums, and aren't they an absolute bugger to change. Yesterday I emptied the lot into an Albatross, and if it hadn't been for the pair of DH2s behind me who were also pouring it into him he would have got away. My claim has been rejected, apparently there was a queue of gunners on the ground who claimed for him too, and as they need anything they can get to bolster their morale they've been given him. I don't mind, they probably did shoot him full of holes. I shall be going up again in a while. I've been chastised for breaking my plane by flying it "too aggressively". Well, don't worry about that, from now on I shall be flying it like it's made of matchsticks. Oh, it is.

Merry Christmas everyone, and hopefully no flamers in the new year.

You do realize contraception isn't modelled in OFF? Don't be a cad sir.

And what would you chaps say/think if you discovered the sim's planes were flying differently to the real ones, in that they were modelled 20% lighter? Such that the full tanks were making them 10% closer to reality but still performing 10% better than real? I'm not saying that's the case, but how do we know it's not? Have any of us flown a real one, right to the edge of it's performance envelope? My point is that our simulated planes are an abstraction already, and the fuel-load is just an abstracted component of that abstraction. The only reason it matters to you is it was once variable and now it's not. Would you care if it had never been variable? No, you wouldn't, you would simply have got used to their performance envelopes and flown them accordingly. I think the best way to make my point is with this para-phrase...instead of trying to adapt the world to you, adapt yourselves to the world. These are the planes you have, right now; try to survive in them, try to kill in them, try to do your vDuty in them, as they are. Because they are, at any given time, what they are. Hated, loved, as were the real ones, for this or that. I hate the N17. It's fragile, under-gunned, has a lousy sight. But it's what I'm issued with right now, and I do my vDuty in it to the best of my ability. Just like the real chaps did. My lord, if they could hear us!

That's a pretty superb analysis.

The aggressive AI is the 1.32g AI.

Historic AI, april 1917, QC, 1 Se5 vs 6 Ace Alb Dv, what a bunch of wimps. Stayed high, floated around with not a lot of interest in me. It's weird to say the least how the AI is so aggressive and tenacious in the Quick Scenarios but so passive in QC. Is this the random thing that's been introduced, or is QC coded differently to the QS and campaign? I'm not going to do any more QC and QS, it's all doing my head in. I will stick with historic and fly my campaign and take it as it comes and see how I feel about it after a good number of encounters.

Bloody hell, vicious little buggers. I did a 12 vs 12 in Quick Scenarios (Camel vs Dr1) and they were like Rottweilers. Some stayed high for a while, others went for the deck. The Dr1s did their usual yo-yoing but seemed able to still get on my tail and pour on the lead. This was on Historic AI. I got one kill but it was extremely hard work. It's going to take some extensive campaign flying to get a proper picture though.

Well, I'm going to run mine on Historic and see how it goes. Everyone else can suck all the modes and see how they taste and we'll reach a consensus later.

User's choice I guess?

I tried but my MP takes me to the Quick Scenarios screen.

You're a very very naughty boy, you're grounded for a week. With no pudding.

That's a thing of great beauty Lou.

No point in using 0, as then you'd have a transparent plane.

It does, and it's a nice little drop.

Well dude, surely "Normal" is 1024?

I had to try out the campaign AI, so I did so with a German test-pilot I already had. Funnily enough it was on the day before the armistice. Anyway, to cut a long story short, after a very long flight we came upon a mixed bag of D7s, SPADs and Camels, at various heights. I got a SPAD, a SPAD shot my motor to bits but I managed to bag a Camel on the way down. From what I experienced in that one combat I saw nothing wrong with the AI. And four D7s that were going at it with a lone Camel, right on the deck, also looked good to me.

Ooh, gawd, I don't cotton much to that.

I don't believe that can be true, otherwise there would be no "Random" in QC.

Is it possible there is a variation in the experience of individual players according to the power of their CPU in all this?