Flyby PC

OK, to look at this a different way, suppose every combat was indeed chaos, and that after the break command you knew you were on your own and fate was out of your hands, just imagine how devastated you'd feel to be one of the first to witness one of your comrades being clinically destroyed by a co-ordinated and structured attack. I don't mean being unlucky, or out numbered, but unequivocally and clinically shot down because he was in the killing zone of a cold blooded pre-planned attack pattern set up by enemy planes working together. Imagine the chill that would send down your spine. What would you do when you go back to base? Curl up in your tent and try to get some sleep, or tell your squadron what you'd seen and try to make some sense of it. At the very least you would warn them, and try to work out a possible defence. Children playing football develop tactics to win, its instinctive, and pilots in the RFC would do it too. That's what I often find myself asking myself when I'm in a dog fight. Like Olham, I try to look around and I do see very occassional instances which resemble tactical awareness in the forces I'm fighing, but I know it isn't tactical awareness, because the AI has extremely limited awareness and it isn't intelligent thought which controls their actions. If there is no structure guiding an attack, you cannot structure your defence. It's the difference between finding yourself in a pack of 10 wolves who will attack you with 10 separate but broadly similar attack plans, and having those same 10 wolves attack you with one plan. It makes the difference between having ten one-on-one fights, and having one fight versus ten opponents. It's that pack instinct to co-ordinate which isn't there in the ai formations, neither in attack nor defence. It's not a criticism, just an observation. AI in a combat sim, any combat sim, still has a long way to go.

Yes but that's No. 56 Squadron, and nobody messes with them.

You're absolutely right again Hellshade. It's all very well me talking about about artifical intelligence in a perfect world, but the combat in OFF is so immersive that I regularly go screaming off after any bandit who is after one of our guys, and even if I can't possibly interevene and save him, I'll still squirt some tracer in front of him in the forlorn hope it might just give him a fright and break off or at the very least put his aim off. 200ft? I need to factor in the curvature of the earth for some of my shots when trying to save my buddies.

I do take on board what you fellas are saying, but at the risk of labouring the point, I cannot imagine pilots going to the front without some rudimentary training, even classroom training about rudimentary tactics. It may have been hopelessly inadequate training, but I cannot imagine a pilot going into battle with a complete vacuum inside his head. There is too much he would have to know, just so he wasn't a complete liability. How to hold formation, how to break formation, how to signal he had a problem, how to say his guns were jammed, how to communicate if he'd spotted an enemy, and how to understand someone elses communication that they'd spotted the enemy. I cannot believe he wouldn't know this, even as a novice. The army, any army and every army, has had drills for everything for centuries. It's not a 20th Century phenomenon. Sometimes the drill is outdated and dangerously ineffective, like the RAF rigidly flying vics at the start of the Battle of Britain, but thats a good example, because the tactic drilled into pilots was made obsolete by the experienced pilots realising it just didn't work, and telling less experienced pilots to abandon the accepted practice in spite of their training. I think if I remember correctly, when 12 group pilots came into the Battle of Britain, some were still flying in vics just as the manual said. Pilots talk to each other and try to keep each other alive and win the fight, and that would have happened in WW1 too. The whole point of debriefing a pilot after a mission is learning. The military loves drills because they make important actions become automatic reflex, and even when your mind is in crisis, your subconcious takes over and keeps you in the fight. I don't doubt for a minute that Arthur Gould Lee felt his training was inadequate, but Arthur Gould Lee stayed alive long enough to write a book, and just perhaps there more to that than luck. (I take it he did survive, but forgive my ignorance, I am sadly not familiar with Arthur Gould Lee). Just to confuse things even more, I recently started to read the US combat survival manual. (Don't worry I'm not one one of them extreme survivalists, I was hunting Lee Enfield details after a forum discussion and the link popped up. I thought that sort of stuff would be restricted so went in for a nosey). There's a whole section on stress. Some pilots who go down behind enemy lines can survive and evade successfully for weeks with no prior training, while others properly trained just don't hack it. They do know what to do, but stress causes them to shut down and not do the things they know they should be doing. The best training in the world can be completely ineffective if your head's not in the right place. But we're kind of getting off the point. In CFS3, it's not just that flights of AI aircraft could but don't co-odinate themselves to act tactically, my point is that they can't. It is wholly beyond them. 1 on 1, the simulation of combat is very plausible, even good, perhaps very good, but I've never seen AI pilots team up and work together. The AI stands for artificial intelligence, and while I hate to let the cat out of the bag, there is absolutely no artificial intelligence telling those aircraft what to do next. THAT leap in technology is the most desireable improvement I would like to see, but it is a pipedream fantasy way beyond existing hardware, and it is definitely not an expectation for P4. P5 ... maybe, but not P4. Edit. Tee Hee, reading back what I said, reading combat survival manuals is a warning sign of possible mental instability, but scanning the internet for gun details is absolutely fine. I really hope the Echelon computer isn't listening in..... I'm sane mother, really, I'm sane!

I'm trying to stay neutral, but when a new guy is attacked for saying or doing something, it's not just him who gets driven away, but who knows how many other forum visitors are looking on trying to decide to remain lurkers in the background or just disappear altogether. When you join a new forum, it takes a while to know what you're getting in to. It's only natural for somebody to be shy, or a bit nervous at first, and getting savaged by some forum 'elder' in your first couple of posts is neither fair nor healthy. If Uncleal wants to rant and wilfully offend people, then that's up to him, but here's not the place for it. Just behave like a grown-up. Why force others into the unpleasant job of banning you? You just spoil your day, and theirs, and all for what?

Thank Olham. I did know of Boelckes dictat, but my point was he died in 1916, but already by 1916 his tactical wisdom was recognised early on in the war. And regarding his advice for no two planes to attack the same target, you need to add 'at the same time'. I need to brush up my references, but I'm positive I've read that the Flying Circus would attack a squadron from higher altitude by first, leaving two or three aircraft as top cover in reserve, but then selecting their target, often a straggler or the extremity of a formation, and plunge down into their attack, line astern firing at the target as they passed. As each attacking plane followed through to overshoot, he would at once seek to use his momentum to recover altitude, with the planes following doing just the the same but recovering altitiude and formation. The poor target would be hit by 3 or 4 attacks in very quick succession and didn't stand much of a chance. And if the rest of flight wasn't paying attention, they may not even notice and the Jasta was already in position to repreat the same attack all over again. I'm sure I read this in the context of the Flying Circus, but I'll need to read a lot of stuff again to find the reference. There's a difference between chaos and complete chaos. There's a modern expression that no plan of attack survives first contact with the enemy, - but knowing that expression is an act of training itself. The Parachute Regimental Motto is Utrinque Paratus - Ready for Anything. The plan might very well be in a state of chaos, but that's where the soldiers discipline, training, skill, experience, and will to win take over. I reckon even a novice pilot, in fact especially a novice pilot, would have been bored to tears with briefing after briefing on how to end an engagement and start running for safety. Whether he'd be able to do it is a different matter, but I'm positive he would know what to attempt. Lifting a quote from one of your links:- H. G. Clements of 74 Squadron wrote an account of Major Mick Mannock in 1981. The fact that I am still alive is due to Mick's high standard of leadership and the strict discipline on which he insisted. We were all expected to follow and cover him as far as possible during an engagement and then to rejoin the formation as soon as that engagement was over. None of Mick's pilots would have dreamed of chasing off alone after the retreating enemy or any other such foolhardy act. He moulded us into a team, and because of his skilled leadership we became a highly efficient team. Our squadron leader said that Mannock was the most skilful patrol leader in World War I, which would account for the relatively few casualties in his flight team compared with the high number of enemy aircraft destroyed.

Classic. But there are going to be letters.... :yes:

I do understand that air combat was in it's infancy, but there would still be rules of engagement. Say for example during the Fokker scourge when the Germans could fire through their propellers, I'm in no doubt the allied pilots would at least speculate on how to fight and fly together to offset their disadvantage. And if a senior pilot was taking up a novice, I am in no doubt whatsoever he would have been told exactly what to do, if only to head for the deck as fast as possible and head for home. Just re-emphasise, I may have been including OFF under the umbrella, but wasn't meaning anything specific to OFF, but a more general observation about simulating air combat. I know it is very complex, and difficult to compute. Essentially you need to create AI aircraft with self awareness, then make them act together looking after someone elses best interests. It's difficult enough getting a brain to do that. There were rudimentary tactics in WW1, and I have read that the Flying circus would co-ordinate their attacks. I'm sure I've also read about FE's forming a circle to cover each others tail with their forward arcs of fire. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but however rudimentary, pilots new and old would still have some level of briefing on what to do, and that is a tactic. There are also stories of Jastas shepherding kills for their aces to claim. That's a tactic requiring co-ordination. Oswald Boelke, the "Father of Air Fighting Tactics" was killed in October 1916. Furthermore, even in the absence of tactics, there would still be instincts. I don't believe real pilots would hang back if one of their number was in trouble. They would try to fly cover for him, and try to get closer if only to see what condition he's in. I've never seen an AI pilot respond to that stimulus, and you can press help me! help me! 'til the cows come home. It's hard to describe what I mean. I'm tempted to say it's the difference between single player and multiplayer. In multiplayer, you can recognise pilots are people, and almost see that each plane is a thinking entity, and there's a vitality to the action which just isn't there in single player mode. You do things differently. You feel bad when when somebody is in trouble, but your confidence soars when know you're in action with somebody who's good flying beside you. And once you've flown with the same people for a few missions, you tend to know the score and get to know those in your squadron and your missions get more successful. And what's worse is if someone regular is suddenly not there, then it leaves a great big hole in the team. I've never for an instant felt any humanity in any AI pilot, - no rage, no courage, no fear.

I'm with Hellshade. I'm happy too. I'm not even sure I want to read the features list when it does come out, I'll be happy to explore what's changed for myself. I know about AI planes climbing away from you, but I can still nail one now and again, but I've been getting used to that since CFS3. Once you transfer some of the lead from your aircraft into his, you even up the weight difference and pretty soon he's not so sprightly anyway. (Said in jest chaps, I respect your likes and dislikes, but this issue doesn't kill my immersion to the extent it does yours). My bigger gripe about the AI, -( no Pol, it's not a request or requested improvement), is the manner in which they perform in formation. Enter a fight and straightaway it's every man for himself. There's no tactical co-ordination between aircraft, neither in defense or attack, and your wingman is there in name only. He won't actually do the things a real wingman would do, nor even attempt to fly in a position to look after you. I've been flying sims for ages it seems, but I still don't know where my wingman should actually be flying relative to me and vice versa. Should he be mimicking my manouvres or hanging back? I don't know. Then there are the defensive tactics to adopt flying in circles covering each other for example, or simply changing formation in flight. You'll never see a flight of AI pilots doing this because there isn't the means to make them do it. And then of course is the judgement involved in adopting that tactic when it's appropriate. Doing it all the time might be worse than not doing it all. It's all mightily complicated. We've all seen the classic Hollywood sequence of planes banking over to dive onto a target one after another. It looks awesome, but you can't do it. It harks back to CFS3, and the constant criticism that for a Combat flight sim it paid very little attention to the mechanisms of tactical combat. A bomber pilot was trained to corkscew when attacked, so why don't they do it when you attack them? They don't react like a bomber really would. I've read the Flying Circus would also pounce on the same target one after another, but there's not that level of Ai to Ai co-ordination to see it happen in the SIm. I'm not saying the AI weight thing isn't an issue, and if it can be remodelled to be better then that's excellent news, but I like to enjoy those parts of my flight which do work well and suspend my disbelief that I'm actually flying in combat in 1917. Would my perception of the enemy's capacity be so detailed if I was frozen stiff and constantly trying to watch him in 100mph headwind? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. You might even argue that the flight Simulator is actually doing it's job because your mind has developed some spacial awareness and can recognise where the simulated physics of flight is beginning break down. For me, the flight seems more or less believeable give or take. But the combat? No. I know air combat was chaotic, but the chaos came from people trying to do what they'd been trained to do with lethal distractions all around. Even in chaos, there would still be a level of tactical awareness, if only the pack instinct to look after each other.

Nice job again Lou. If seeing things is good enough for Sir Stuffy Dowding, then who am I to argue?- But I still prefer my spirits inside the glass.

I cannot answer the question either, apart from stating the obvious that they all did - all transferred together into the RAF in 1918, but I don't think that's what you're asking. But I can comment on the subsequent arrangements which arose later. The RNAS was the Naval arm of the air force, and after 1918 it remained part of the RAF until 1938, when it was re-established but called the Fleet Air Arm. Such servicemen were considered to be in the Navy, no longer in the RAF. In 1938/39 my father was an RAF wireless operator who flew in Fairey Swordfish. When the Fleet Air Arm was formed, the transition didn't happen over night, but the Swordfish were eventually transferred to the FAA for carrier based ops after the war had started. I can't quite believe the RAF air crew were given the choice whether to stay with the swordfish but join the Fleet Air Arm and go to sea, or stay in the RAF, and be transferred somewhere else. Freedom of choice is not something the military is renowned for. I'm not sure whether his unit, No3 Anti-Aircraft Co-operation Unit at Hal Far was disbanded in 1939 when the aircraft were taken by the FAA, but in any event my father stuck with the RAF, and ended up on the ground operating wireless in Burma and Imphal. I can't report these arrangements with certainty however, because I don't know the facts. I do however know of Hal Far swordfish pilots from 1937 and 1938 who later flew from the carriers Glorious and Courageous, but because the Fleet Air Arm didn't exist until 1938, logically, I think these must have been RAF pilots, and men whom my father quite possibly knew. It is a bit confusing. When I was a nipper, I could never work out how my father in the RAF was flying in Swordfish which every report said were carrier based Navy planes. I even saw some of his pictures of Swordfish on floats being lifted onto boats in Gibraltar. Very confusing. My father was also an air-gunner / wireless operator, not a pilot or navigator, so perhaps that made a difference too. The FAA wouldn't have any pilots or navigators, but they would have their own wireless operators and gunners, so why nick those from the RAF? Just a theory..... http://www.halfarairfieldmalta.com/WW2_Page1.htm To quote from the Fleet Air Arm Archive:- In January 1914 the government established the Royal Naval Air Service (RNAS). Within a few months the RNAS had 217 pilots and 95 aircraft (55 of them seaplanes). By the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, the RNAS had more aircraft under its control than the Royal Flying Corps. The main role of the RNAS was fleet reconnaissance, patrolling coasts for enemy ships and submarines, attacking enemy coastal territory and defending Britain from enemy air-raids. The leading war ace in the RNAS was Raymond Collishaw with 60 victories. The RNAS was severely attacked for its failure to prevent the Zeppelin bombing raids. In February 1916 there was a change of policy and the Royal Flying Corps were given responsibility of dealing with Zeppelins once they were over Britain. The RNAS now concentrated on bombing Zeppelins on the ground in Germany. The RNAS also had fighter squadrons on the Western Front. Popular aircraft with these pilots included the Bristol Scout, the Sopwith Pup and the Sopwith Camel. When the RNAS had 67,000 officers and men, 2,949 aircraft, 103 airships and 126 coastal stations when it was decided to merge it with the Royal Flying Corps to form the Royal Air Force in April 1918. The Royal Navy did not regain its Fleet Air Arm again until 1938

I see what you mean Wayfarer. It's photographed from the ground, but looks like it could be at 20,000ft.

I thought so too UKW, but I'm not so sure now. I'm almost positive the P51 was losing altitude just before the collision. Even after the strike, the trajectory doesn't really change, which suggests it was already heading towards the ground. I'd say pilot error was my first guess, with power failure in the P51 my second guess. Yeah, that angle looks different. Not so sure the Mustang was decending, but instead, I doubt the Skyraider could see him and took out his tail. I'm back in the pilot error camp, but not sure who's actually to blame. There seems to be a pattern for taking off in threes, and you'd need to watch these to see who departed from the protocol I guess. I understand the P-51 pilot was also it's owner, so at least that's one less awkward conversation he's got to worry about.

I agree about the atmoshere with BW pics. Some cracking shots Mike too, real pro quality. The only thing about colour is that you can change colour to black and white, but not in reverse. Shame about Duxford, but I'd say they were lucky. The DR1 doesn't look too damaged, and to have the Skyraider survive a mid air collision and make it back nearly in one piece is pretty good going. And even with the Mustang, at least the pilot got out. Hate to say it, but to collide in the way they did suggests somebody making a big mistake, unless of course there was some mechanical failure first. It looks to me like the P51 went high, but while it didn't lose altitude, it wasn't gaining any either. Seems a bit strange when he'd know there were two aircraft climbing from below. The Skyraider does climb pretty fast, but not as fast as the P51, and it looks like the Mustang falls into him rather than the Skyraider rising up into the Mustang. Do you think the P-51 lost power?....... Watched it again, and I'm sure the Skyraider was finished his climb and levelled off. That means the Mustang was decending....

I'd put it down to the mind playing tricks. Have you never been completely engrossed with doing something, like stuck under the car or something, and the girlfriend has asked if you want a cup of tea? You say yes please, but discover she's looking at you like an alien or something because she asked you 20 minutes ago? Or you've been distracted while somebody asks you something, but the question doesn't register for a few minutes by which time they've gone? You even watched them leave, but you'll still look to where they were standing ready to answer and be surprised for a millisecond they're not still there. Or else have you ever been in church or a library and thought you might have said out loud something you were only thinking? You genuinely don't know if actual sound came out your mouth. If you can't be sure you've said something, can you be completely sure you've heard something? When the focus of your mind is busy or distracted, it can get sloppy with the less important stuff, or quite literally, it play tricks on you. 4.30am? Might be coincidence, but that's typically when your body metabolism is most sluggish. You typically haven't ate for the longest period in your 24 hour cycle and postponed your normal sleep pattern. And if you haven't slept at all, by 4am you're brain still sees nighttime, and is still telling you that it's sleep time. But if you don't sleep, by 6, it starts to recognise morning, and you get a second wind and have a perfectly normal day without feeling tired, especially when you fill up the tank with breakfast. But 4am to 6am you're typically at your lowest ebb. It's not pleasant, but your body can cope for 2 to 3 days without sleep before you start to struggle, but it will always find the 4-6am shift to be the toughest. That's how sleep deprivaton is used during interrogation, it's not just the lack of sleep, but there's no perception of time, day or night, and your body doesn't know where it is in its daily cycle and gets really stressed out about it. Extreme sleep deprivation will actually kill you. That lad probably walked past and you ignored him until he was out of sight. He probably wandered off in the huff thinking that's the last time I'll say good morning to him! Either that or he wanered off not entirely sure whether he'd actually said out loud what he was thinking. Of course it might also have been a Carp Protection Ninja hiding in the bushes ready to clobber any East European fisherman not playing by the rules.

I'll be happy when it arrives. There's lots of stuff I'd like to see, but we're in good hands and we've not been disappointed so far. It's the new aircraft I'm looking forward to, and it would be nice to chase Zeps again, especially if their damage destruction looks a little more realistic. More P4 pics please. And the pics don't have to contain any new revelations, but the images themselves just look tremendous.

First flight in a new 1915 campaign, a balloon busting mission. One wingman is clipped by flak, falling to rear, he's alive but in trouble. Poor old whatshisname, good luck and Godspeed. (Hey, come on, its a new campaign and we haven't been introduced yet). On to the target men! A second brave wingman (or it might have been flak, I was too busy trying to line up the gun to see what happened) downs the target balloon before Lt Sausage has even fired a shot. "I say", says Sausage, "lets bag another before we go home. Lets do it for Whatsisname!". Lt Sausage spies another balloon less than a mile away, speeds away and quickly brings it down in flames. A kill! A kill! When suddenly BANG! and Sausage is spiralling down in flames. Hit by flak himself. There's no going home today for 2nd Lt Sausage. A brilliant career, spent in an instant as the ground rushes towards him through the flames. But wait! Somehow, Sausage survives! He's alive!! But taken prisoner. But wait! Somehow, Sausage escapes! He's free!! And back with his unit and filing his balloon claim after 20 days in captivity. Good old 2nd Lt Sausage. He's a bally hero already and he's only flown 1 mission. Why, oh why, did I call him Odin Sausage instead of something cool? Still, I don't fancy his chances of surviving the war though..... He's used up his luck already.

Seem to be doing something wrong with my signature. It's writing the text, but not showing the picture. What have I done wrong?

Nailed it! Nailed it! Nailed it! (Well so did Olham if I'd read more carefully). I'd been using the 'insert media' tab, when I should have used the 'insert picture' tab. Seems silly now, but it's working fine now, from my own gallery. I'll take a guess that's what you've done too HPW.

It isn't? I see it. I see HPW's too.

I was having the exact same problem with my sig Herr Prop-Wasche. What to do is forget about an image in your own gallery, and link the URL with the logo in somebody elses. (My logo is one of Lou's). And when you enter the URL text, - don't. Just drag the pic into your signature box. I don't know why you should be having problems, but I was just the same and that's the workaround I'm using.

Wow! Am I a lucky bunny or what? My CCTV at work records the video on an 800Gb IDE hard drive, but started reporting an error with the hard drive. I thought, I know, I'll whap it into the PC and do a scandisk, and a re-format. Problem 1, my CCTV hard drive was IDE, my PC only had eyes for Sata. Luckily, both were Seagate drives, and the printed circuit boards attached to the connection port looked similar, with screwing the same place. I thought, what can possibly go wrong? I switched over the circuit boards, so my IDE hard drive was now a SATA drive. Well, that didn't work, (or perhaps it did) but the damaged hard drive reported an error, no disk found. I thought oh well, it's kaput. Problem 2, I swapped SATA circuit board back onto mt 500GB SATA hard drive, and nothing happened. Dead. The monitor wouldn't even turn on. My main PC shot down by friendy fire. Disaster! No OFF!!!! I thought switching over the circuit boards must have done something critical to the hard drive to kill it stone dead. I managed to get the CCTV back working on an old IDE hard drive, not 800GB, but 250. I get 2 days recording instead of a week but it works. But my PC was very sick. I'd no screen to even try stuff. I started to transfer all my stuff to my smaller work PC. (I had a hard drive backup), but my backup was XP, and my work PC Win7. I tried to get OFF working by just compying it across, but it wouldn't work. Re-install it from scratch. OK, first I can't find the disks, neither BHaH nor HitR. I tear the place apart, and find BHaH. Woohoo! Disaster - see the pic! It's gone bad! Arggghhh!! I cannot find HitR to save my life, but the bad fairies were feeling kind today and I found a spare BhaH! A second copy sent to me in the great release! Woohoo! I have P2!!!!, but no P3... Closeto despair, I took the old hard drive out, and took the circuit board off and on a number of times, but it just wouldn't work. You fool! I thought. How could you be so stupid? (It's easy, I needed the CCTV to work). Suddenly I checked the other end on the SATA cable, and thought, am I 100% positive that's where the plug was connected. I felt sure it was, but hellfire, I've tried everything else. I'll try the other port. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! My P3 is alive. I'm laughing like a maniac. And the moral of the story is.... Don't bother backing up stuff, it won't work, and don't rely on copies of disk because you'll only find you have sat on them or lost them. Don't buy land in dodgy places where you need CCTV to keep attacks from the undead under control. - Don't do any of that. Have faith. If P3 dies on you, P4 is on the way. I have one, working P3, so everything is fine, but it was all a bit hairy there for few hours.... Stress in the workplace eh?

Can't answer you von Baur, but I once had a similar problem. Many years ago I used to do architectural drawings. No computers back then, just tracing paper on a drawing board. I had left the room for a time, forgetting the window was open, and returned to find a swarm of midges attracted to the white surface of the drawing board and spot lamp. It was crawling with them. You couldn't sweep them away or place anything on the drawing for fear of squishing them, and thus permanently ruining the drawing. Even a tiny amout of moisture, water or a squished bug, can destroy tracing paper because it makes it warp. All I can say is thank heavens for vacuum cleaners.