Winder

Thanks for the detailed answer, Winder (and all others).

 

Seems, I have that problem alone. It happens always, when I fly north of Cambrai.

The further north i am, I meet more British than French flights, which should be correct.

But those British flights ALWAYS outnumber mine.

I did all recent campaigns in May 1917, and I come across hordes of Tripes, Pups or S.E.5a.

They are not one big flight, no, but when the firtst flight I spott is more or less our size, there

will be more flights joining in very soon, until we are outnumbered 1:3

 

Now, my neighbour just told me, that he had two flights from Wasquehal (where I am too with

Jasta 10 and Jasta 28w), where the British flights were less craft, and very low.

So I wonder, why I don't experience that? Chain of bad luck?

Could be chain of bad luck certainly you can see how this can arise within the context of the system as it stands.

And it does add an extra facet of variability which in keeping with Dej's view and mine is a good thing - makes the game less predicatble.

However I will look at the OOBs and make sure that all is well therein and report and update with a patch if needed.

But first 1.32 then MP so not a top priority right now.

Please also remember we are working on P4.... so much to do so little time.

WM

Forgive my ignorance if I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't 100% simulation of the daily OOB potentially remove the 'Fog of War' for the player?

 

That is to say, if I know that historically Jasta N with their inferior machines were in Location X at HH:MM today, I can lead my flight over and bag some easy kills... likewise I can avoid running into MvR and his cronies because I sure as heck can have read about where they were operating... using knowledge the contemporary pilots didn't have.

 

Isn't it wiser to retain a certain random factor, e.g. historic time and date +/- 2 hours or +/- 1 day, so the activity profile is correct but shifted randomly left or right.

Yes indeed if you know historically what is happening on a day to day basis.

Yes it also would make the experience very consistent - if you fly on the same day 10 times in a row it would always be the same flights going out - the mission micro dynamics would differ of course as the mission plays out.

I have no intention of ever going down to that level as a its a mammoth amount of work.

The point is that the engine can cater down to that level of replay and if we ever got there there would be a button in workshops that would switch on historical war activity on or off - I doubt we will ever get there.

HTH

WM

Guys there is no bias in the way missions are generated there is always X number of Allied Flights and X number of Hun Flights based on:

1) The OOB (order of battle)- this dictates the ratio of enemy to friendly flights based on historical reseach and varies as the two sides air activity and superiority changed over the years of the war.

2) The Players settings in workshops then simply scales this up or down to increase or lessen the total number of flights in the region. This does not affect the ratio in 1)

One can see that depending on what the OOB is and what the players settings are that there can be marked differences as the war progresses from mission to mission

Remember the flights are randomly picked and it could be that a particular mission has picked X flights from squads that are close to you. Or X flights that are far from you - both enemy and friendly.

This is a good thing as it adds variation to the equation.

The final facet that affects what you see and how often you see them is based on location.

OFF has 4 main regions and I list them in descending size (area and squad count ratio) and activity ratings

1) Somme

2) Verdun

3) Marne

4) Alsace

2 and 3 are very close activity wise.

Here then is the final effect on what you see -

3) Your location.

Alsace is lightly loaded but the fields are all quite close so you may even see more activity there.

Somme is heavily populated and heavily congested but a large area so you may not see a lot if all the activity is in W somme and you are in E somme but on average over X missions this all balances out.

As our PCs improve I would like to generate real air activity (qty wise) in these larger areas but guys we dont have the CPU power.

There is a small element of local air acitivity generation around your home field and your target to balance this CPU issue in the short term. But as you have seen we are still a way off from the CPU/GPU power we require realistically....

I would summarise by saying that the missions generated are not some random string of air activity - every one is based on replicating real flights (with real objectives) from real squads with real aces and real homebases in your area of activity, ratio'd by the OOB (who is stronger / more prevalent at that time in the war) and curtailed in overall numbers (maintaining ratio of OOB) by your settings in workshops to suit your PC power.

I have considered breaking down the OOB from its current 'war periods' to weekly and or even daily ratings based on Ted's exhaustive research but will not implement that just yet as its a mammoth task.

The other way of doing campaign generated missions (as in P1/P2) is to simply randomly generate enemy flights that are in your mission path so you will either run into enemy or not and this is then IMO the very plastic way that most campaign engines run on - I doubt that I will ever return to this.

We will continue to expand the real air activity model as our PCs allow.

I might consider expanding the CPU weightings even for 1.32 if users whant to give this a go?

As a parting comment the OFF campaign engine is very powerful and can be made to generate flights down to daily OOB commands to actually replicate the war day by day - the actual flights that squads undertook - thats is an ultimate goal we all look towards and Moore's curve may see us there sooner than we think.

HTH

WM

sent files for first and last names regarding French and USA pilots to the support-email addy. hope it helps out.

 

Kurtz

Thank you sir.

Best

WM

Thanks Creaghorn - file received.

Best

WM

Oh and I almost forgot...

Many fields had to be moved due to:

1) Straddling a Road...

2) Straddling a stream...

3) On difficult terrain...

4) Too Close to hilly terrain that result in AI take-off problems...

Yeah many hours went into that as well - in all 12 global layers.

HTH

WM

(oops, Shredward beat me to this...)

 

I think this may be a case of two places with names that are very similar. for example-- on some old maps I could find that "Metz-en-Couture" would simply be called "Metz". in which case, there would be confusion in combat reports for people who didn't know the difference! you might find a report where somebody claimed a victory at "Metz-en-Couture" (which is in Flanders) and if they abbreviated the name, you might think that they were all the way down in Alsace.

 

so I pulled out my maps from "The War in the Air" and looked through some German trench maps of Cambrai in late 1917 and I noticed some bewildering conflicts.

 

for example, Lagnicourt is actually west-by-southwest of Pronville, which is in turn southwest of Epinoy.

 

with the game's in-flight map Lagnicourt is actually northwest of Pronville. another oddity is that Riencourt is west of Lagnicourt when it was actually almost directly north of Lagnicourt.

 

assuming that Cambrai is anywhere close to where it's supposed to be on the map--which I doubt! the most likely aerodrome is located somewhere near the village of Baralle, which is west of Marquion. I don't think I've ever read about an aerodrome being used there. it was, by all accounts, a tiny little village

 

oh well... so far as I can tell--this is best approximated by "Marquion"--assuming it hasn't already been represented elsewhere.

There are some fields that had to be moved to accommodate approximations of the frontlines at various stages of the war.

Why is this? Well I have modeled the frontlines in only 12 states - of the actual rather infinite states of the frontlines as they vascillated during the war.

This effectiveley means that OFF is actually 12 sims in one with 12 global layers to represent the 12 frontline states.

Each state has a global layer that has over 1000 objects so thats 12000!! objects in all. Many move (they are moveable objects) and many are stationary

Rather than have the field suddenly move only in the period that it might be affected by the averaged front line state(s) I decided to move (as little as possible) all affected fields in all 12 periods 1914 - 1918 so as to best suit the frontline clash period and to avoid a player seeing the field move (ahem what??? has my field grown legs???).

Moreover there are I am sure some typo errors - its a mammoth job and it is being looked at together with the Railyard exercise and historical landmarks and correction of towns that are offset, as part of P4.

I may introduce more frontline states but I think its hard to convey the amount of work this requires.

I also believe (I have not confirmed) that there is a Lat/Lon offset error in CFS3 that someone recently pointed out to me (one of the other CFS3 mod team members) and we might be able to correct this in hardcode. This means that even fields that I did not have to move might have an offset.

Ted acurately researched all fields and we used the real world Lat Lon co-ords of all fields...

Finally I know too that there are some placeholder fields- I believe Brayelles is one of them.. Ted and I are discussing solutions but please be aware it will not be in 1.32 Patch.

It might be given the amount of work that an updated Global Layer pack will be made as a purchaseable upgrade unless we can sort the CFS3 offset by hardcode.

Of course sales/support play a big role in this decision making too.

I hope that ultimately these errors in offset and forced moves and or placeholder fields do not spoil too much the immersiveness of OFF and as usual we are always improving it.

Best

WM

Dear OFF enthusiasts:

 

After having P1, P2, and now P3, I can respectfully say that it has been an inspiration to all those who covet flight sims, and WW1 aviation. I too have been quite entertained and have pursued the 17 hour challenge.

 

There have been musings of the current difficulty of achieving the goal, and certainly, the OFF Team has supplied many different options to facilitate ones approach. For myself, 100% (or greater for some) Realism is the standard, but so difficult (for me at least).

 

I am reminded that the 17 hour, or two week stint on the Western Front, was the average time for a new pilot, when the Germans had the RFC on the run in 1917. What a goal to shoot for, which leads me to the following. I am embarking on making a series of Missions to perhaps provide a lead in to P3, or for QC pilots to expand their choice of Missions.

 

I have uploaded GB Productions 9 which is the first of these Missions. GB Production 10 "R series" is soon to be uploaded for approval. The *Realistic series is meant to provide for a P3 setting that is "Realistic" in the sense that it emulates what I believe to be a reflection of the pilot's flight mission experience and chance of survival, given the limitations of a flight sim. The hard coding of MS CFS3 provides for many obstacles, but with the keen approach by the OFF Team, there have been great strides to making this flight sim the best WW1 entertainment available.

 

And so, the object is to have a reasonable shot at attaining the 17 hour, or average life span of a pilot. Dead is dead can still be applied to your "Workshop" settings, but you don't actually qualify for the Siggi's DiD standard.

 

*Resources: Flying Fury – J. McCudden, Sagittarius Rising – C. Lewis, Dr.1 – Norman Franks, Fokker Dr.1 Triplane – Paul Leman, Fokker V5/DR.1: by Achim Sven Engels, Fokker Dr.1 Aces of WW 1- Norman Franks

Sounds good - will be keen to know how it pans out.

WM

after reading Creaghorn's post about expanding/improving the available names for AI pilots I decided to look at the other nationalities

 

when I opened up the text files for "FrenchLastNames" and found a paltry 13 last names!

 

 

so I scrabbled together 338 names to make French camaign names a bit more exciting.

 

drag-and-drop this into the Campaign Data folder and it should work out just fine.

Good grief so there is - only 13 French names...

If you guys give the nod I can include updated files like this in upcoming patches - but not 1.32 alas.

Yep we are not French or German...lol

If you do agree then kindly send them to support@overflandersfields.com and it can be processed accordingly.

If you feel that because OFF is payware and would rather not then again please that's no problem!!

I will look into expanding names files in future patches/releases these things all add up.

Best

WM

I too had a Ti4600 128mg three cards ago. It was a great card for its day. And before that I had a Voodoo 5500 64Mg card which was awesome way back when too. Today of course, these cards are relics.

The first card I ever bought was a Matrox one - I forget its name - then came Voodoo1!!

Yeah I think TI400 is a wee bit old.

WM

Getting back to the torrent issue.

 

Consider corrupting the torrent.

Thanks Guys - predictably this thread is turning into a personal abuse session in e-mail with people taking things as personal insults rather seeing it as a discussion as to why DRM is coming and going to get worse.

I cannot leave a thread open when I have e-mail abuse on a subject.

Thanks

WM

OBD Software

Winder,

 

I should have read what I typed before posting it, I meant you have released at least 10 patches, some of which have fixed minor bugs, and the rest of which have improved the gameplay, i.e. the patch where you fixed aircraft that had been shot down looking like they were just gliding earthwards without any major damage.

 

Thanks

Rugbyfan1972

Hey no problem I read exactly what you meant and thanks! :yes:

I have made a mental note to myself to include smilies more as I actually type too 'literally' or 'sparsely' - its the engineer in me I guess.

WM

Winder,

 

While as you say it will not make this patch, the way you guys are supporting and churning out patches to rectify any minor problem (at least 10 that I can think of since the game came out in mid January), it will not be long before this problem is rectified. My feeling is that you will add it into the aircraft packs that you are working on.

 

Not many other software manufacturers give this level of support to a program that was (in my eyes) pretty darn perfect when released.

 

Thanks

Rugbyfan9172

I guess many patches can infer many bugs but thanks for putting it in prespective in such a nice way - much appreciated.

Yes we will continue to support and tweak P3 as we go.

WM

To SCSG1 I believe you posted in this thread and it was deleted?

Well I cannot tell you who deleted it... as I have no idea but...

I said:

"Its only rotten from a user whose perspective is skewed towards feeling

like a thief and then possibly acting like one."

My comment pertains to DRM not the quality of ROF or how shakey its DRM is (I have had issues too and I allude to them) or whether you believe the product is a rip off.

'Its' equals DRM 'Its' does not equal ROF

My response to you in email thus:

Hello Mike,

The line quoted is in reference to peoples feelings about DRM and making

them feel untrustworthy.

It is not about the quality of a product, any product, but about the

imposition of DRM and ones reaction to it- "oh so they think I am a thief

and not trustworthy?" sort of gut wrench reaction - we all experience it in

one way or another.

I would not care to comment at all on the quality of ROF at all and it has

no bearing on the topic in hand.

HTH

WM

I started a new campaign. The good news is that my flight was logged and my flight time was recorded. I also smoked a couple of BE2c's. The bad news is I clipped one of those pesky trees at the edge of the field while trying to land my EIII and was killed. So my best and only pilot had a grand total of 32 minutes flying time. My problem seems to be fixed. Now I just need to learn how to land.

Pleased to hear it - only re-install the sim if you have contacted us on the support e-mail and we run out of ideas!

I put in the reset button back in P1 because CFS3 occasionally (rarely I have not seen it) screws up the outcomes data file in which case OFF no longer communicates correctly with CFS3.

Have fun!

WM

*sometimes* someone forgets a small adjustment which makes a large impact....

just trying to help

CFS3 always insists on a resetting of the Graphics settings whenever the driver version changes so even if one were to 'forget' then OFF simply cannot run.

Clever stuff by Aces - not that they got a lot right but that part they did.

190.38 gives an increase in FPS because on some rigs (I cannot say all) AA and Aniso is not working correctly... 3 users so far are known to me.

I spent two hours trying every Nvidia setting combo under the sun and nothing made the AA/Aniso work including a double reinstall of 190.38 so I hope that others who are considering this for OFF steer clear for now.

And yep YMMV.

Oh and I did not mean to sound blunt so please dont get me wrong - forums are bad for that and I am known to not use smilies when I should...

HTH

WM

The guy down the street is selling his old pc XP with a Nvidea GeForce Ti 400 card. I am unfamililiar with this card and never have used XP. Can anyone tell me if this card would handle OFF BH&H? I am looking to replace my Vista laptop for gaming. If it stands a chance of handling OFF I can look into the pc specs further. Any opinion would be appreciated.

Waste of time IMO.

HTH

WM

Hmmm. Did you reset your cfs3 settings, and also your nvidia control panel settings to what they were before?

Mine looks great....no shimmies, no jaggies at all.

Performance is better in OFF and a ww1 sim which shall not be named.

 

What are your settings at now?

 

 

 

 

ATI--blecht!

Nvidia--mo betta

Yes thanks I am quite familiar with the settings given that I have spent 5 years making OFF.

WM

Thanks Winder and Uncleal,

 

Won't resetting CFS3 wipe out my ghraphics settings as well? I'm wondering if a complete reinstall as per uncleal might not be the best way to go. I've saved screen shots of my graphics settings to make reconfiguring easy and my mine.xca file so I will still have my controller assignments. Uncleal, where are those to hidden files you mentioned located, in the OBD files, the microsoft applications section of documents and settings, or somewhere else? Is there anything else I should save to make setting up after reinstall easier?

No just press the reset CFS3 files button in workshops.

WM

I've been using TrackIR since version one (now on version 5). When I raise my head in the Nieuport 17 Lewis to get the crosshairs centred (as it is not naturally sligned with the pilot's normal forward view as per the SE5A) and fire, the rounds drop low. In order to hit the target I have to either aim above well above it or raise my head even further to look obliquely down along the sight; furthermore this is not down to deflection or firing while manouvering. Isn't there a message somewhere in the game that warns that the Aldis sight on the Nieuport 17 is not aligned with the normal pilot view?

 

Vasco

Will have a look I think the N11 also needs its wing mounted lewis better aligned although it has no GS at all so you don't know its out - but it is.

Wont make this patch as its in beta test.

WM

Hi Winder,

I have similar problems. I loaded an updated driver for my 285 a while back, and it locks everything up after a few minutes. Where did you find the default driver - I'd like to reinstall my original as well.

Cheers,

shredward

Ted I am using the one that came with my GTX280 on the included CD/DVD - may I suggest you do the same for your card - as the latest driver seems to have crippled AA/Aniso.

Hence the reports of 10 FPS improvment that chaps are reporting - not surprising that.... if AA and Aniso are stuck off!

I may pick up an ATI card tomorrow lol as I have had enough of Nvidia driver issues.... time to have ATI driver issues for a refreshing change!

HTH

WM

.... Or preferably make the Aldis on the British Nieuport 17 usable (more like the view on the SE5A and aligned with the gun in the normal pilot view). It seems a shame to lose one of the variants in game when all it needs is adjustment to not be so obtrusive.

 

Vasco

No Trackir I assume?

WM

strangely for me it didn't work good at all. i made the same settings as before, but AA didn't work good at all. i have a gtx260 card. the fields and grounds had some metallic and fluid appearance. before i had AA set to 16. with the new driver even with AA16Q it looked not as good as before.

 

the good thing is, i installed my old driver again and i thought, why not try 16Q with the old driver. i didn't do it before because i thought it'll slow down FPS a lot. but no, it's a lot smoother, FPS are even better and more stable.

I have just updated and have exactly the same problem AA/Aniso is not working well at all....

I even tried uninstalling and re-installing to no avail - bad aniso and AA issues.

I have GTX280 - will install default drivers as I cannot live with the shimmies...

Maybe its time to go back to ATI...

WM

Losing all my pilots won't be much of a loss since there is no record that they have accomplished anything anyway.

O.K Condor - post back if you still have issues.

WM

Actually, what I see is more blue than green. No language problem. Just poor memory of the color between the game and the forum. But I do know where to look for the record of the flight and time and it's not being recorded.

Strange,

Try going to workshops and reset CFS3 - this clears the MS CFS3 outcomes files and alas all your pilots....

HTH

WM