77Scout

I'll second that. A nice improvement!

Just checking...am I reading this correct that the flight density choices ('normal' and 'high') are no longer functional so there is no need to worry about which to use? Thanks!

I'll echo the others...realistic flight sizes is the only criteria I am interested in. If some people want and 'easy button' that is fine by me, but I wouldn't use it myself.

It does happen occasionally that you survive when you should not. In that case I just consider the pilot dead and end the career...easy.

Can't please everyone I guess. Most people like the new patch, so I think you will find yourself in the minority. Most of what I see in the latest patch is, in my opinion, a great upgrade. The new winter trench terrain tiles in particular are fantastic (the earlier ones were not 'broken, but merely great). The artillery sound has been explained in numerous threads and can adjusted. Bottom line: There is no law saying you have to use the latest patch, so if you liked the earlier versions, just stick with that...problem solved. With such a simple and obvious solution, why would you be talking about deleting the game from your system? I personally appreciate that the OFF team constantly works towards more and more realism, and am impressed more and more with every upgrade that comes out (patch is not really the right word).

Excellent as always! I am 'OFF' to get it :)

I used to hear only engine sounds (realistic) but now hear everything, even artillery exploding in the distance. The ambient effects level seem to be maxed out (100%) whether you select 'Realistic' or 'Ambient'; doesn't seem right. Am I correct that the sound level settings in the workshop have been revised with by the 1.32 patch? Wish I had recorded the old settings as they were realistic...neither choice now seems correct (i.e. reduced ambient sound)? Can someone running 1.30 or earlier please tell me what the old sound levels settings were for 'engine/effects/cockpit/user' under the 'realistic' setting are so I can get these back they way they used to be? Thanks!

Yes!! The clouds now certainly add a new level of realism. What an improvement (Using the TAC and labels of course completely negates all that, hint hint. )

Thanks Guys. Sorry that I missed Winders earlier post...it slid down too fast I guess. I will go a head and play with the levels, no problem. If anyone has found what they think is a good, realistic batch of sound level settings as a starting point, please feel free to post.

It will be looking for the CSF3 CD from Microsoft (not the OFF DVD). If you mean the CSF3 DVD from Ubisoft, I think there is only one DVD but someone who owns that version should confirm.

The wind sound is the biggest thing missing right now. Currently, if you turn off the motor (or it dies) you have no sense of speed because there is no wind noise. Would be nice to have, but it should not be in any way tied to the engine speed...should depend on the speed of the plane irrespective of what the engine is doing.

I've only had time for one campaign flight with the superpatch but it looks great so far. The winter trenches seem much improved...shell craters and such make them much easier to see. The new flak seems great so far. Also, have the bridges been redone?...no longer seeing far-off bridges showing through clouds (and looking like distant airplanes). More good stuff to find yet no doubt, so I am off to fly some more. Great job. I am running out of adjectives that do this sim justice.

Hi Olham: Someone posted recently that setting clouds slider to '5' makes them block the AI's view. Seems to not hurt the speed of the game so I switched clouds to '5' hoping it is true.

Another solution is to just stop making it seem like 'work' by not writing so much detail into the claims. It is not necessary as far as I can see, so why make it a hassle. People will tell you that 'Lat' and 'Long' etc is required, and so on but I heartily doubt the claims code has anywhere near that level of complexity. I write only a short blurb (e.g. craft seen to catch fire and crash). I certainly do not stop the game to get location info (to me that is totally unrealistic), nor do I generally even bother with specific witness names (I often just use 'wing man', 'flight leader', 'ground troops', whatever). I am getting about 2 out of 3 approved. Just my take on it.

This also shows what a great improvement the new ability to fly into the clouds is. I don't know how much work it was for Rex-Hannover to make this happen, but I sure want to tell him a big thank-you. This one change has added a whole new dimension to the sim for me.

Yes, the lone-wolf missions seem to be more prone to the 'no mission data recorded' problem than most. If someone knows what the cause or cure is for this random occurence, I haven't seen it mentioned. I am still getting a lot of missions with only partial time credited...a related problem? Don't know.

I believe the BE2c in OFF is even more defensless than the real thing, as the observer has no weapon. You can attack them from behind with impunity.

I have used the map on scrambles in the past with no problem, so I suspect you might have a problem with your particular install, or maybe just that mission was screwy?. The only caution is that I haven't had a scramble since the latest patch, so if the latest patch changed something in this regard then my conclusion is wrong. Also, as far as I know there is no need to hit all the waypoints to have your mission recorded. I have flown many missions missing the waypoints and got full time credit. I think the source of the goose-egg thing is more random than that. I have had it on very rare occasions but could never see a pattern.

There are definately planes with no compass. Navigating can still be done...you can use the sun to get your heading or just keep careful watch on your progress using your map (not the in-flight map of course, that would be cheating, right? )

Thanks for the explaination Winder. Interesting stuff. I am running at 'heavy' on the 'Regional Air Activity' and my rig does not seem to struggle at all (E8400, 8800GT), so if you want to include an option for 'super heavy' I would personnally give it a try. Even at 'heavy' I am not seeing much in the way of other flights in the air (but then I am using no 'aids' so might just be blind :). One suggestion, which I will bet you have already considered: Rather than managing the whole sector, generate air activity only within a certain radius of the players airfield that the player is unlikely to fly out of (200 miles?, whatever makes sense). This will remove the need for flights to be spread out over an entire sector, and would also remove the adverse density effects imposed by having different sized sectors. As a related change, it would make sense to limit the distance for campaign missions...filter out the unrealistic half-way-across-France missions that could take the player into 'dead air'. This last thing would be a good change regardless (saves the need to select 'alternate flight' over and over until a normal mission distance comes up). Seems like the ebb and flow of airpower should ideally also effect changes in flight size, and plane types encountered (not just the number of flights per side). If only the number of flights per side is affected, then as a German in Bloody April you just won't see many enemy flights, but when you do it is likely to be a full-strength flight of good quality fighters (as Olham is experiencing). In reality I am guessing a German in Bloody April should actually see lots of enemy flights, but they should be mostly recon planes plus a few obsolete fighters, smaller flight sizes due to pilot shortages, low calibre pilots, etc. Again, I would bet lots of money you have long ago considered all of this and have all that and more on your 'want to do' list for the future, not to mention much of the guts of this in there already.

Yah, sometimes it is better not to know how the program works internally...occasionally spoils the magic. Sorry about that (but you DID ask, heh heh).

They definately do. Have seen it several times, although they aren't particularly good at it. Watched 5 Roland CIIs try to land at an airfield yeaterday and each crashed in turn.

CJ: I have no idea on the problem with CSF3, but just wanted to say that having CSF3 preinstalled is not necessary for OFF (used to be back in the Phase 1 and 2 days, but if you check the instructions on the Phase 3 case you can see there is no mention of CSF3). If you were to completely uninstall CSF3, then when you run the OFF installer it will see there is no CSF3 and ask for the CSF3 discs at the appropriate time and get only the files it needs. Might work??

Currently, I am pretty sure there is no reporting from CSF3 back to the OFF Manager about who died in the mission. The deaths and injuries and 'missings' you see after each mission are just randomly generated events unconnected to what actually happened in your mission flight. I think Winder has mentioned the team looking into someday having the true results captured and reflected someday. Nice if it can be done. "Speak for yourself" says my wingman :)

Olham, I am also flying Jasta 1 currently, but a few months earlier (mid-January 1917 from Proville). I have not seen this problem so far, but then I have not actually seen much enemy activity at all; just one flight of three BE-2Cs encountered in 14 missions. I will report if I get any similar results as I approach (hopefully) May 1917. Definitely the period you are playing should be all to the Germans advantage in numerical superiority of fighters, as you say. I wonder if it is a fluke...how often has this happened to you? I know the OFF Manager is supposed to simulate the ebb and flow of air power by adjusting flight size and numbers based on the time period of each campaign mission, but have to admit I haven't noticed anything definitive happening in the ebb and flow department (maybe I die too quick). As an example, I would thing the OFF Manager should automatically adjust your flight sizes for you to reflect good times and bad times (i.e. there should be ideally be no need for a flight size adjustment in the workshop) but I haven't seen that happen much. Not saying it isn't happening...just haven't seen it.