Dej

Yaaaaay! Sachsenberg's chequered beauty! I've been trying to skin that, off and on (mostly off) for ages. Good to see it, I'll definitely be flying that. Any chance of 'removing' the cowling, as Sachsenberg machine is depicted in some profiles?

It is colourised, of course, but I think the computing technology they have used to add the same is pretty cool, to maintain the colour balance and separation off a few keyed frames. Genuine early colour photograhy, using coloured starch granules may well have rendered Richthofen's plane more pink than red. To be fair, too, didn't Richthofen refer to himself as 'Der Rote Kampfflieger' rather than 'Der Rote Rittmeister'?

^^^ There is no better support for any game than we have in our devs... period.

Interesting question, one to which I 'd like to have he answer from a true expert. I can only offer an observation. In BH's original post he mentions in Para. 2 that unless an total loss oil system is present the build up of gunk negates the benefits of castor oil's superior lubricating qualities. In Para. 3 BH cites experts opining that the use of castor oil was dictated by the rotary's total loss system. Now, it seems logical to me, unless I'm missing something, that if one needs to use a superior lubricant but one recognises that leaving it in the system is detrimental, one would design one's engine such that it got rid of the oil totally thereby mitigating against the build-up of undesirable elements. There must be some documented history of rotary engine development that indicates some bright spark postulating something along the lines of "we need a bloody good lubricant for these things but the best one stuffs the engine unless we replace it on every flight... Iknow, why not design the engine to get rid of it as it uses it?" I'd more readily believe in the idea of total loss being a deliberate measure to cope with the detrimental effects of castor oil build up rather than the total loss sytem being a given and castor oil the only type that lubricated sufficiently before it was lost. As I say, an observation

Hadn't commented. Just so as you know why, CJ... too humbled.

Cripes!

Well, the one book that whet my whistle for WW1 aviation (aside from avidly reading Biggles as a boy) is Alan C. Clark's 'Aces High'. Clark's credentials are pretty good but I wouldn't take it all as gospel. Nevertheless, if you want a good read that is a kinda synopsis of other sources and genuinely leaves you wanting to read more... I'd recommend it.

It was on Atari ST too. I had it, and with it the only time I ever had a letter published in a gaming magazine. I wrote in to say that you could always beat an enemy ace as long as your crate had a higher ceiling. You'd just climb above their height as soon as you left your aerodrome and at the mission destination you'd find them hanging on their props trying to get to you... at which point you could shoot them down easily. I enjoyed that game a lot. It and 'Their Finest Hour' were the two most played games on my Atari.

I, personally, think it's much better to have a thread each than to bury an individual's adventures amongst everybody else's. I don't see it as so much of an imposition on the forum as others might. Again, personally, I'm not going to bother trawling through, for example, Lou's posts looking for Olham's story... nor vice versa. To keep it simple, let's have one thread per pilot... Lou, apologies for the hypocrisy of hi-jacking your log thread to advocate having one each

RC, I suspect you're double-clicking on the .txt file? That doesn't work. You have to open Notepad, select 'Continue' then navigate to your campaign\data\pilots folder and open the pilot dossier .txt file you want. That should then save okay, if not... I'm stumped.

For those of you running Vista you may need to check 'Run as Administrator' in the properties of Notepad, depending on your security settings, otherwise you won't be able to save your edited pilot file. Not sure about XP, so long since I abused it.

I'm a Consultant Data Architect and head up the Data Management Practice of the UK division of a large global IT consultancy and outsourcing firm. Quite what I want to be when I grow up, I still don't know... but if it involved computer art and air combat history I'd be a lot more satisfied than I am now.

Wouldn't that be evident from Siggi's board, in a pure measure way? It's not always going to be fair to compare one pilot's perfomance against another given the switching superiority of aircraft in this period.

Ah, so it's 2 RNAS now. Drat! Just flew a couple of practices with 3 Wing and it seemed ambiguous as to whether there was a problem or not, the Brits did use the same aircraft as both bomber and escort. Anyhoos, 2 RNAS it is, off to reroll an Aussie. Thanks for the post Lou... sorry it proved premature.

Well, you achieved yours and their objective Matt. It's an awesome and atmospheric piece. Indeed, they all are, not just the main theme. Any chance of you writing some more, maybe to accompany (excuse the pun) the expansion packs?

Ah, I'd forgotten about that. Membership seniority makes a difference to whether one can edit one's post indefinitely or not, I think.

Not sure if you guys are missing Siggi's point or I'm missing yours' If the logbook link for a pilot on Siggi's DiD Campaign page takes you to that pilot's logbook thread, you'll only need to scroll down to his last entry, not plough through loads of stuff you've already read. Having a common single thread for all the DiD campaign logbook posts would involve more scrolling, especially if there's a lot of roleplay.

How bizarre that his record should end on the virtual date Siggi's campaign idea is to start Collision claims yet another. Awesome record Creaghorn, one of A Flights aces should carry Cvjetanovic's Ordenkissen. I'm sorry for your loss. 'Neath Flanders Skies, the poppies blow...'

I'd agree with Baldric on the mixture, it's a small thing to be left to individual choice. As to final aircraft, my long-term (relatively speaking ) pilot is a Camel jockey and as I'v only time to play one campaign of an evening I'd prefer an SE5 for the change of scene... but it's no biggie. 'Course, if you start in the RNAS then it'll be after April 1918 before you could get a crack at an SE5 unless you change service and join the RFC.

Matt Milne has a page on Soundclick where you can check out his other work. It was a lucky break for OFF, IMO, to have him compose the theme. Link Here: Matt Milne's Page

I too am jolly keen to get over there and do my bit to give the beastly Hun a black eye, what? Trouble is, I can't get back to port 'til 9th November so you chaps will have to start without me... leave some bally Huns for me, eh?

I rather like that idea. I tend not to fly bombers and I feel there's a lot I'm missing. Wouldn't mind being 'forced' into it... in the nicest possible way. Limiting the units available to choose from would save you work, Siggi, which was partly behind my suggestion. But I know where you're coming from with the point about people's preferences... I'd want an RNAS unit in there so as I could fly my beloved Tripe, for example. Maybe Olham's suggestion of a poll would work... I'd abide by the outcome. I wasn't suggesting variation #2 be a rule, it'd be overly complex to monitor. It's just something for people to try. I shall give it a go if this gets off the ground... I rather like the idea of an AI Olham or AI Creaghorn saving my virtual ass, zum Beispiel... or vice versa. On the other hand I shall blame them if they let me die But anyway, discussion aside. I hope people sign up, 'cos it sounds both fun and community-building.

I'll give it a go, Siggi, sounds as if it'd definitely add to the enjoyment. May I propose a couple of variations/enhancements? 1) I suggest that you, as the arbiter of the thing, should offer a limited number of units to choose from, say two or three from each nation, that we may join. 2) For further immersion, once everyone has signed up with their chosen Jasta, Squadron or Escadrille we each take the in-game names of the others who've chosen the same unit and amend the other (AI) names in our unit accordingly, so that we are actually flying with them, albeit in their AI personas. I think it would be intersting too, to see whose AI alter ego survives the longest and scores the highest and with whom. Are you proposing both bomber and fighter units to be available?

Top of the thread, Olham, unless your system has a problem with the viewer?

Third party add-ons are all very well, as would an SDK be - great idea that one . But as we know from the OFF that is, the model is only a fraction of the story, for each model there's all the ace and default skins to be researched and created, the unit placements, locations and timings, suitable missions etc, etc. I'm sure there'd be volunteers... Hell I'd volunteer too, but I hesitate to say I could commit the necessary hours in an acceptable timescale. Adding even a single aircraft to a simulation of this quality is a major undertaking.