tttiger

No, it's not dynamic. Not in the sense of the campaigns in Falcon 4.0 (11 years old and still the campaign champion and I still fly it). In Falcon (F-16s modeled in great detail if you haven't tried it), you can halt an enemy attack on a key position by destroying his tanks or blowing up his artillery and your success will shift (slightly) the course of the whole campaign. Blow up a bridge and the enemy's ammunition and POL are slowed down and thus his ability to shoot and maneuver. Destroy a runway and his planes can't take off. Kill the engineers fixing the runway and it will be closed even longer. On the other hand, if you fail in your mission, the enemy may well take that key position or defeat the attack of your ground forces. What you do or fail to do REALLY matters. I kind of wish OFF were that way so that a mission actually would mean something. Blow up a rail yard and the enemy gets low on shells. Shoot down a balloon and the enemy artillery (at least one battery) is blind. The way it is now, it really doesn't matter if you save your hide and totally ignore your assigned ground targets (as some here brag they do) because, even if you blow them up, it doesn't change anything. There is nothing at stake if you fail or refuse your mission. No reward for success and no penalty for failure (or cowardice). All that said, the choice here was for historical campaigns and that means the script is written and the outcome will be the same whether you kill Goering (I've killed him five times) or destroy every hangar at an enemy airfield. Or not. Kill him or miss him, Goering will be right back in action in the next mission and so will the Jasta that uses that airfield you just blew up in the last sortie. I can forgive the lack of a real dynamic campaign because the historical aspect is so complete and so accurate. It's a brilliant job of recreating history. But, no, you can't change that history so the campaign is not dynamic. It's an "either...or..." choice. ttt

LOL, forgot that one... Senior moment...

It's the file entitled: "I Wonder What This Does?" :crutch00: It's located right next to "Hey! Watch this!" Should we place bets on how soon these guys will be re-installing OFF? Tony

Well, your search is over. "The Blue Max" is just the opposite of "Flyboys": The flight scenes (all real and filmed in Ireland, no computer cartoons) are simply magnificent. The story (which centers on defending the "honor" of the German officer corps) is a tad lame but Ursula is wonderful to look at and Jeremy Kemp is perfect as a German aristocrat. And George Peppard? "I love it when a plan comes together!" http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res...FB066838D679EDE It also was an excellent novel: http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Max-Jack-D-Hunt...3435&sr=1-1 ttt

My post was made with tongue firmly in cheek. Welcome, Luft, from the Great American Desert Tony

"Flyboys" was released in 2006. This is, uh, last time I checked (when you're retired you don't check very often): 2009. What cave have you been sleeping in for three years? I've been to Fort Campbell and it isn't that far out of the mainstream. I'll go a step beyond OvS. It was completely awful, up to and including the silly plot. There was a bit of history it got right (there really was one -- just one -- black pilot named Eugene Bullard and he couldn't get into the USAS when they finally showed up and took in all the other Laf pilots). But 99 percent of it is pure crap and CGI crap at that. You're right about one thing: It has been covered before. I think. If I can remember back that far.... So, how did you like "Wings"? ttt

For use when your machine gun jams: "2nd Lt. Clive Wilson Warman, M.C., Gen. List and R.F.C. For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. During two days, whilst operating under very difficult conditions in high wind and against strong hostile opposition, he destroyed three enemy machines and a balloon. He displayed the greatest dash and fearlessness in attacking an enemy aerodrome, and on one occasion, when separated from his patrol, and surrounded by 20 hostile machines, he fought his way through, although his machine gun was useless, by attacking them with his "Very" pistol; eventually regaining his own aerodrome with his machine much shot about. His wonderful coolness and courage have on all occasions been beyond praise." It doesn't mention Warman also carried a hammer to unjam his machine gun. When it failed to clear his Vickers, he threw the hammer at the Germans, too. Warman was an American flying a SPAD VII with the RFC and the only Yank to be awarded the DSO in WWI. T

Some interesting comparisons and contrasts: http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/AIAAPaper2005-119.pdf Note the turn rate for the SPAD XIII and the SE5a are identical, which certainly is nowhere near the case in OFF. Mentions stall speeds only in passing but concludes the DVII had an advantage in a turn fight because it had a much lower stall speed than the SE5a and a much, much lower stall speed than the SPAD (Lmax C equates to stall speed -- but the higher the number, the lower the stall speed): "The D.VII had another advantage over its counterparts. It was an easy-handling airplane. New pilots could master the D.VII with very little training. The thick Gőttingen airfoil helped prevent sharp, unexpected stalls. Lmax C of the D.VII was 25% higher than for the SPAD and 12% higher than the SE 5a. This could be used to great advantage in close quarters." But this study does: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch2-2.htm Describing the SPAD: "Piloting the aircraft required care, particularly at low speeds, and the use of moderate amounts of power was recommended in landing." FWIW Tony

Fantastic, Fubar! (okay, that's enough alliteration for today) The color, the textures, the details, the weathering all are dead solid perfect. My new default SE5a skin! Thanks! Tony

Other than your font choice -- think simple and clean and easy on the eyes -- it's heading in the right direction! Great idea! Tony

Thanks for the new thread BH I keep trying the Spad XIII (the Spad VII is harder because it lacks the power to extend -- run away -- and the firepower to inflict lots of damage). I can fly it and stay alive okay but I'm still trying to figure out how to use it as a good gun platform. The idea, of course, is to hit and run, extend, climb and hit and run again. The trick is to extend far enough that the enemy can't catch you but not so far that he is able to recover from your last attack. You want to keep him at an energy disadvantage and wear him down with repeated attacks. Here's how I was taught (we had on line instructors and they were very good) to fly the Spad in the old Dawn of Aces: As long as you have adequate horizontal and vertical (altitude) separation, turning it is really fast and easy. The trick is to use a wing over for turns. Essentially you stand it on one wing and you then use the rudder as you would the elevator. You can't really fly the Spad without knowing how to do it. If you don't know, here's what it looks like: http://www.furball.warbirdsiii.com/krod/ACM-wingover.html Getting a good firing position is more tricky and that's what I'm working on now. You can turn it...a bit...to try to get a shot. I use the rule of thumb BH mentions above: DON'T DROP BELOW 100 KNOTS. EVER. That's the hard part for me and I try to work on it awhile every day. When I feel myself getting too frustrated, I go find another plane to fly. Good thing we have QC to try to learn in. Hope that helps. It really does turn, just not in the way you may be used to turning... And, yes BH, you have to land it very hot and there are no brakes and it's very hard to see the horizon from the cockpit. Tony

Thanks, Pol. It's fine the way it is I just wasn't sure what the figure represented. It certainly looks and acts like feet. Whatever, I think you guys finally have got it right! Tony

The History Channel? Do you actually believe anything you hear in that breathless narration and with those phoney "recreations" and with those often dubious "experts"? I would NEVER use the History Channel as a reference source for anything. In fact, I never watch the History Channel any more. It's history for people who never studied history and will believe anything. Go get Shaw's "Fighter Combat" instead and learn the real stuff. (In fact, I'd recommend it to any serious sim fighter pilot -- even if the "New Edition" was written 25 years ago; it all still applies). http://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Tacti...w/dp/0870210599 First of all, "slamming on the brakes and letting the enemy overshoot" (assuming you have air brakes on your plane; the Sop Strutter is the only one in the game that has them AFAIK), isn't a good tactic and rarely, if ever, is used in real life. Do you want to give up all your smash (energy) in a dogfight? You won't get it back and when that enemy pulls up, does a wing over and comes back at you, you'll just be there panting and wheezing and, very soon, just a smoking hole in the ground.. It's only done in the movies. If you want to try to force an overshoot, try doing scissors. You'll maintain a much higher energy state. And it may actually work (or not). It's not technically a defensive maneuver but it can be effective. Personally, I'm happy with my twist stick Evo Force. I used to use rudder pedals but the dog would get under my desk and get tangled up in the wires. Ugly results both for the pedals and the dog.. So I went to a twist stick. Not as realistic but just as effective as pedals and much more dog proof. Pedals are quite pricey, too. Just my opinion: Free and worth what you paid for it. Tony

Mike, why don't you and Rick and BH start your own thread about Spads and please stop hijacking this one, which is about medals? I would be glad to comment but this isn't the place for it. Tony

von Baur, If you are responding to my comments (your writing is far less than clear, in fact you're just muddying the water with throwing the TAC and MvR into the mix), I was simply asking what the distance shown on the labels IS. The AI enemy opens up on me when the label shows 400 to 450 and my AI gunner in the Biff does the same. 450 feet is 150 yards and that would appear historically accurate for opening fire (closer, obviously, would be more accurate). At 450 yards that would be 1,350 feet or almost a quarter of a mile. That's a pretty absurd range for an MG on a bobbing airplane. I assume that the figure on the labels is in feet. That seems reasonable. I really don't care whether it's in feet or yards or meters. As I said above, I personally would prefer yards because that is how I was trained to estimate range (foot soldier stuff). It appears several posters in this thread think the number is yards, not feet. I just would like to know, officially from a developer, what it is because there seems to be considerable confusion over what that number in the label represents. BTW I'm quite happy with the current range at which the AI opens fire (I just don't think everyone agrees on what it is). This isn't a complaint ttt

I think folks still are confused about what the range numbers mean. Feet or yards? Please, Pol, clear that up. Sure seems like feet to me. If the AI are opening fire at 400-450 feet (as they appear to be with labels on) that's 130 to 150 yards and that's quite realistic IMO. Sure wish you had made it yards (or even meters) because gunnery ranges (at least in the US) always are in yards and that's the unit of measure shooters are used to. But I'm pretty sure the ranges are in feet. Right? Thanks. T

The only time I use manual time advance is when I must transfer to a new airfield. For some odd reason, the transfer never is accomplished, even if I complete the mission, land and park the plane. Next mission I'm back at the old field and am told to fly the transfer mission again. Soooo, when a transfer comes up, I just advance by one date and voila! I'm at the new field. Other than that, I just fly what the computer gives me. ttt

Al, I've also noticed that very few American aces have the biographical backgrounds in the "Ace Dossiers" section that the British and German and French aces do. Considering all the British and German and French biographies were taken directly from "the Aerodrome" web site (with permission I'm sure) the US bios could have been used in OFF as well. The bios of all the Yank aces certainly are all there on the Aerodrome. From a marketing standpoint that seems to be a glaring oversight. Eddie Rickenbacker, Frank Luke, Elliott White Springs and all but a very few others simply state "Data Not Found" in the Aces Dossiers. My interest is primarily RFC/RNAS/RAF (I can't fly the Spad effectively, either) but I usually fly the careers of the real American pilots who historically flew in those British services. Happily, most of the US aces pictures are there (I put the correct one in the dossiers) but not their bios. It's not a huge deal but considering how accurate historical units and aerodromes and front lines and even weather are portrayed, it does seem odd to pay such short shrift to the Yanks. Okay, I'm gonna go fly Eliiott White Springs' Camel for awhile, whoever he was.... Tony

It's in keeping with the finest traditions of the United States Marine Corps, Jarhead. The ENTIRE First (and only) Marine Corps Aviation Force combined shot down only four German planes in all of World War I. http://www.acepilots.com/usmc/hist2.html And the USMC's MOH pilot (who shot down only two German planes, go figure) was really a Navy officer (there actually was one US Navy ace who flew with the RFC). So, maybe you aren't supposed to get five. Tony

Well, the American medals are pretty screwed up. The Medal of Honor (NOT Congressional Medal of Honor as the game calls it) is the lower award. I dunno what the highest award (30 kills) is. Haven't got that many in a Yank plane (yet). Would be kinda nice if that is corrected. ttt

Excellent link! Thanks! ttt

Francis Gillet, America's number two scoring ace (behind Rickenbacker) flew only the Dolphin and scored 20 kills in it (for the record, 14 of them were Fokker DVIIs, so the Dolphin was either VERY good or the DVII is highly over-rated). In fact, he was the top scoring Dolphin pilot from any nation. Three of the top 10 Dolphin aces were Americans. http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/gbrit...ith_dolphin.php I consider it an insult to all Yank OFF pilots that there is no Dolphin in OFF. I'll let the Canucks lobby for the Snipe. Barker was one of theirs. Actually we need both Tony

Ditto! The problem with padlock (in any flight sim) is that it has built-in target fixation and your situational awareness is hopeless. Your view follows the only the target and you can't unlock to check your surroundings and, yup, pretty soon....Hey! Who put that hill there????? Since I got TrackIR many, many moons ago, I've never used padlock in any sim. I may crash into the ground but it's from crappy flying, not because I couldn't see it If you don't have it you really don't know what you're missing! ttt

Super, Chris! Thank you! Tony

Excellent! ttt