Dej

Some links that may interest... Another person with a mapping project... and good photos from various trips including Shuttleworth Verdun Mapping Project and speaking of maps, for anyone who's interested in the Austro-Hungarian side of the conflict, these are very detailed: Third Military Mapping Surveyt of Austria-Hungary These next are for Creaghorn! Several German newspapers with editions from the Great War years are digitised and online at the following addresses. Deutsche KriegsZeitung 1914 Deutsche KriegsZeitung 1915 Deutsche KriegsZeitung 1916 Deutsche KriegsZeitung 1917 Deutsche KriegsZeitung 1918 Coburger Zeitung Freiburger Zeitung The Digital Library of Wroclaw University has another three. At the Digital Library Search Page ... type in one of the following followed by the year of interest, e.g. 1916 Grottkauer Zeitung Guttentager Stadtblatt Illustriertes Sonntagsblatt You'll need a Java applet capable of reading DjVu files for these last three, you can get one, ExpressView, at LizardTech

Thanks Olham, fixed it now.

Brilliant! Played by Creaghorn's hands this sim is as close to WW1 aviation as can be achieved today. If you're a realism-junkie, Creaghorn is your example. But, naturally, he'd also be the first to argue how far it is from the reality that was.

I voted, because I think this poll could offer some insights into the community's thinking but I confess I'm not entirely sure what is being asked for. Full DiD is binary, it either is (and by Siggi's rules in the absence of any other) or isn't. But at less than full it allows modifiers such as DiD/T or DiD/L if you want labels to indicate how difficult a flying experience you've chosen for yourself... so it's customisable to a degree. Or are we being asked collectively to give a guide to what 'aids' to unselect when, as part of a new player's learning curve... so that they can get to full DiD as optimally as possible and to say that a certain set of 'aids' are on or off for different periods of the war? That's already customisable too, insofar as if you want less action fly earlier, if you want to have the upper hand choose the side with mechanical superiority. What I personally think would be more immediately useful to new players (and to me, too) would be a series of common format 'How to fly and fight Over Flanders Fields in the [Name of Aircraft]' guides, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each machine and strategies for engaging, surviving, winning and disengaging vs. different opponent aircraft. We have acknowledged aircraft experts around (specifically for flying in OFF), e.g. Olham for the Albatross, Louvert for the Camel, Bullethead for the Fee and the DH5 etc, etc. Anyway, kudos to Brtish_eh for raising the poll, be interesting to see the final results.

Interesting idea, Creaghorn. Could be technically feasible if what I think I've learned of how OFF works matches the reality. Something needs doing with the situation definitely, because, as you've often pointed out before, the disengagement pattern doesn't match what we read of. It can be frigged with a timid AI but that isn't immersive either as evidenced by the AI aggression choices we now have. To further discourage players taking advantage of the AI's actions though you'd have to have a parameter that stopped any victories counting until the next batch of AI enemy was encountered. Or, I suppose, you could leave it like DiD and have it on each player's own conscience? All kudos to the devs though, as you say, they know the problem and will fix it if it's fixable at all. Your idea might give them an avenue they hadn't explored.

Ah, takes me back a while. In my morris-dancing and folk-singing days that song and 'And the Band played Waltzing Matilda' were two staples. But if you consider the songs sang by those who really lived through it, rather than those who were, like us, moved by the pathos, there was more satire than sentimentalism. One of the times I've felt 'closest' to those who really fought and died in WW1 was doing an amdram production of 'Oh, What A Lovely War'. It moved me and most of the rest of the cast more than those songs do... though I admit, as noted above, I'm over-exposed to the 'Willie MacBride' genre. But, it occurs to me just now, now that we've lost our last veterans... isn't it time for a West End revival of OWALW?

Ah, well. The information on The Aerodrome is incomplete, like any other source, alas! One thing to bear in mind regarding British victories is that they are more suspect, all things considered, than their German, French or American counterparts. The British simply were not as rigorous in their criteria for awarding victories. Thus, if you do find a source for numbers, the British ones won't be as reliable as other forces. Various historians' research has firmed some areas up a bit but there's still a lot of circumspection. And what I said about the German Air Service, whilst I hold it to be true, wasn't meant to denigrate in any way, Olham. Your ancient compatriates fought a wise and skillful battle and played to their advantage... there's nothing to criticise in that. In the end, just as in WWII, they were overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers and the unavoidable demise thereby of their experten... but if the playing field had remained level... I'd have bet on Germany. [EDIT] To add, having read Catch's post which went up whilst I was correcting my appalling typing, one can admire the Allies for the obstacles thay found themselves faced with, across the board... but it doesn't account in full for the disparity in the military gains of the Central Powers vs those of the Entente. Now the reasons one alliance of nations loses a war whilst another wins it are myriad and would spark another long discussion, but in the context of the skies Over Flanders Fields I wouldn't say that German pilots didn't have the upper hand when they did 'fair and square'. They played to their advantage. If the British chose to send over teenagers with 17.5 hours against experianced German aviators with better machines that's hardly the fault of the latter. Hmmm... becoming uncommonly impassioned... stopping before I offend... hope it isn't too late.[/EDIT]

I believe that striking statistic, i.e. the 17.5 hour operational lifespan is centred on the shock of 'Bloody April' and was then perpetuated as an 'urban myth' for most of the rest of the War, especially at home. Actually, it's probably more complicated still. Here's an extract from the RAF's offical history site at raf.mod.uk: "April 1917- In the first week of "Bloody April", the RFC lost 75 aircraft in action. Average life expectancy of a pilot in France during this time was 2 months, and some aircrew were arriving with as little as 17.5 hours flying time under their belt. By the end of the month the RFC had lost a total of 150 aircraft and 316 aircrew, the French and Belgians 200 aircraft and the Germans 370." These figures too, as so many others, are probably disputable or can be broken down in different ways. Nevertheless, the fact is, as has been pointed out, the German air services always had the advantage of fighting over their own side of the lines and they generally with the wind in their favour. In April 1917 they also had a superior machine vs thier British counterparts along most of the British part of the Front. And they still had superior manpower... most German scout pilots of the time having come to it via a good amount of time in two-seaters, where they learned (when air fightning was in its early infancy) how to spot other aircraft; how to fly; how to stalk and importantly how to shoot. Thus most German pilots joining one of the innovative Jastas was considerable more experienced than most British pilots he would be facing. Trenchard's policy of 'always on the offensive' put the RFC at a considerable disadvantage on more than one occasion.

Great work Creaghorn! Tried 'em out this evening. Very immersive. The doppler effect on the engines and the archie works very well especially.

Well it certainly works, difficult to make out your Tripe from the patchy landscape... Alas! I doubt the sim models that fact.

I hadn't looked closely at that before, but Duce is correct, very expressive I'd say, I can imagine he's replaying a combat in his head... to take his mind off sitting for the drawing . He's certainly 'somewhere else'.

I'm hoping you want constructive criticism. For me, the shadow on the shoulder needs softening and the ribbon or whatever it is above the Medaille Militaire is too insubstantial. Otherwise, f*cking brilliant, I wish anyone I know had half your talent.

I could believe that, though I never flew IL2 MP nor played Aces High. The LA7's superiority in IL2 SP even did become boring after a while. I spent my last play hours in IL2 flying Macchi 202s against 112 Sqn. Kittyhawks (or Tomahawks. P40s whatever )... that was fun. A pity that 112 was on Home Defence in WW1. It'd be cool to fly with them in OFF, especially as one of their earlier commanders was Quentin Brand who went on to be Keith Park's equivalent in 10 Group during the BoB.

Crikey BH, you need to get out more! Actually, because I'm looking down your list and nodding or thinking 'I'll check that one out'... I need to get out more. La7 = SE5 Viper - I like that one. Loved the La7 in IL2.

Ah, well if the Gotha is the HeIII then the Straaken would have to be the He177 Greif, wouldn't it? Or maybe a FW Condor. The HP 0/400 must be the Lancaster. If we can have aircraft swap sides then I'd pitch the Fee as the Me110. Outclassed almost from the start but very long-lived and fond of defensive circles . The Spad XIII for the Jug perhaps?

You'll find a willing Guinea Pig in me HPW. Looking forward to trying it. I haven't enough time to play campagins atm but I could try a different couple of aircraft each couple of nights a week in QC. The thing I'd most appreciate is eliminating the discrepancy between the damage I do and the damage the AI does, like for like. I can get behind an enemy and pepper him good enough to generate the 'paper chase' effect and he'll fly serenely on. OTOH, his mate'll get behind me, there'll be a couple of 'per-chow per-chow' sounds and I'm flopping about the sky like it's the friggin' Glorious 12th.

Trying to get my hand back in after a significant absence (truly been too busy to play, can do more than post here), I've been QCing in the steady SE5. Tonight I inadvertently selected Dawn as the time rather than the default... Wow! If you haven't had a dogfight at dawn yet I urge you to set one up, it's another hidden depth in this game I've just discovered... and I thought dusk was awesome. Apologies that they're all the same shot from different angles but it was a spectacular moment, especially after being 'off stick' for a while.

Not so sure there's anything wrong with a Welsh accent And it's 'Heaven forbid he were Welsh' - subjunctive mood, expression of wish or possibility. I also know some very nice sheep, as it happens, wool-mannered, wool-educated, BAAs every one. And 'Contact Cle-eh-eh-eh-ehr' would sound perfectly reasonable to me.

Pol, You and your fellow geniuses behind OFF have often noted in similar responses to similar questions that one of the things that delays you is the fact that there are only two modellers on the OFF team. Now I, and others too, have repeatedly expressed a willingness to subscribe to some kind of 'development budget'. So, in terms of money, could not members of the OFF community subscribe to commissioning a model and skins from a skilled modeller 'out there' thereby reducing the 'time to market'. I'm not proposing even that people can select what they'd want to sponsor - you guys would name the craft, those who wished to would cough up. I'd do it willingly, although perhaps I'm lucky I've no particular axe to grind in favour of one machine over another. Sorry for the slight hijack Tamper.

I'll back that up. I've used the Bristol Scout quite a bit and once you get used to where the bullets go it's not hard to score hits, a sideslip to the right and firing left and upwards at that approx. 35 degrees worked well.

"Any landing you can walk away from..." Funny vid, better landings than many of mine! Nice one Olham!

I'm not criticising anyone, but I'm kinda with uncleal on this one I'm not really interested in 'will it, won't it' about P4, there's so much to explore in BHaH and I've barely scratched the surface. Sure, I like to see previews, such as Paarma posted re: the medals, but BHaH, even with its imperfections, will see me through for many a month yet. If P4 never materialises, I'll still have had a blast... and more than my moneysworth!

Hmmm... someone got their Martinsyde replica plans confused?

Conjecture, of course, but I've noticed (or think I have) that phrases along the lines of 'n miles XX of Y' like those in Siggi's examples boost the percentage quite a bit. I had very few claims rejected on my combat reports which were a lot like Siggi's but with the addition of how many rounds I'd fired (guesstimate) and the markings of the enemy craft. Terms á la mode or in character seemed to help too, e.g. 'machine, not 'aircraft' or 'HA' not 'EA' (if you're on the Entente side). Having said that, none of my pilots ever lived long enough for really high scores. However, when all is said and done, this is one area where the devs drop hints but remain inscrutable... and I like it like that

Some lovely shots there vyrago. I especially liked the SE5 one. Reminded me just why I like the looks of the SE so much... soft spot for long-nosed birds