SirMike1983

The comments below aren't aimed at anyone in particular, just my view of the situation. I am of the view that Muslims, like other people, are a mixed group. You have sensible, decent people among them and you also get radicals too. That's true of all religions. I do agree there is a certain "violence" in the history and culture of Islam-- that the concept of Jihad in the history of the religion is a violent history. I do think it's whitewashing history to contend otherwise-- to claim that "jihad" as a violent act never happened. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean all Muslims are radicals or jihadists (the same as not every Christian is an abortion clinic bomber). There are Muslims who contribute to the United States in a positive way, but there are also Muslims to bring terror in the name of Al Qaeda and their own radicalism. I don't agree with demonizing Muslims or Islam, but at the same time I sense there is a certain tendency among certain groups or views to try to whitewash the situation too. For example, there are people claiming that the Ground Zero Mosque/Islamic Center is purely just "religious freedom". That, to me, is whitewashing the issue. We have to recognize that many good people died in 9/11 and the ensuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More may yet be wounded or killed. I think some of the proponents play this down too much and ignore the hurt that the building may bring. These are also many of the same people who impose the yoke of "political correctness" on others. Under that mentality we live in constant fear we might offense somone somwhere. On the other hand we have opponents who have gone too far-- made death threats or encourage violence and vandalism, while we also have opponents who have been peaceful and made their case in a fair way. What may prove most dangerous is if we indeed begin to treat all Muslims as enemies. Al Qaeda wants this war to become a clash of Muslim vs. non-muslim ("Muslim vs infidel"). In that way we would cultivate an enemy population in our own country. I think we should deny them that propaganda coup. I think we should recognize some Muslims make a positive contribution and therefore marginalize Al Qaeda further. But in so doing we should not do so in a way disrespectful to those who have given their lives against Al Qaeda either. As for the book burning plan in Florida-- I am concerned by any "book burning ceremony". We fought an entire World War against book burning thugs. I do think the pastor has the right to protest and voice his dislike of Islam, as it's his view. But the actual act of book burning rubs me wrong. If the radical element of the Muslim faith are our enemies, in the form of Al Qaeda, then let us learn about the Koran and use it against them rather than just burning it.

Intel Core 2 Quad 2.33 ghz 8gb ram Windows VIsta 64 SP 2 Nvidia GeForce 9500 GS card 2558mb total graphics mem 512mb dedicated video mem Terrain slider on "2", I get about 40-50 fps with my settings. It didn't do it on my old computer, and I don't recall it doing it when I was playing regularly when HITR first came out. I took a hiatus for a few months and came back to the game recently, and I've been getting it. I won't use the map in scramble from now on-- I assumed that visiting the waypoints and generating a "complete" caused the game to give me better odds on my kill claims. So I tried to follow the waypoints around on the map to try and better my odds on confirmations of claims that way. If that's not part of bettering my odds, I won't even bother.

E.IIIs mainly-- they don't fly terribly well usually, though are quite deadly when they line up a shot because of their gun placement and heavy ammunition supply.

Usually after all the enemy attackers have been downed I visit the waypoints to "complete the objectives" as the CFS3 engine sets them out. I am often curious as to what kind of waypoints are set forth in a scramble by the game. That's when I check the map and it dumps me.

More Battle of Verdun action (95 years is coming up this February): Nieuport 11s over a French Airdrome. The lead Nieuport is in the colors of Jean Navarre-- "the Sentinel of Verdun".

One of the eerie things I recall about that day was the fact that no airplanes in or out of National were flying over the rest of that day. We usually had planes going over Georgetown all day, every day. But that day it was strangely quiet without them.

I moved to the DC area in Aug 2001. Not more than a few weeks later the attacks took place. I did not see the impact at the Pentagon itself, though my neighbor saw the plane dive down and disappear below the tree line from his window. After the impact we moved to a rooftop nearby and saw the mess down at the Pentagon (it's only a few miles away).

Not a big beer drinker, though I like summer Ales. I'm overdue to get a couple of Blue Moon beers though-- I've had them recommended to me.

The N.28 is a sort of hybrid aircraft-- it was an attempt by Delage and his team to create a fast, sleek aircraft that maximized the 160hp rotary it was given (Gnome Monosoupape). For its time it was a rather well streamlined fighter. It was originally built to hold only a single gun, but by 1918 2 guns was a necessity. The Nieuport is more maneuverable than the Spad XIII, but isn't quite as fast. An N.28 probably tops out around 120 or so, a Spad 13 around 135 or so, roughly. What the Spad lacks in turning it makes up for in diving. With a Spad XIII you can engage and leave as you please, pretty much. The N.28 dives well, but not as well as the Spad. The N.28 in OFF is not quite as maneuverable as it should be, I think. But that said it is an effective fighter if you use a mixture of turning and energy tactics. It differs pretty greatly from its V-strut predecessors in that you can engage in decent vertical maneuvers, to a point. The 28 lives somewhere in the middle of the road-- if your opponent is a turn fighter, use energy tactics. If your opponent is more energy oriented, use turns. The Spad is a bit different in that you'll almost always use energy, the N24 a bit different in that you'll try to turn mostly, whereas the 28 needs to change from scenario to scenario.

Thanks for the link-- agree with the changes you've described, especially the ones about wing roots. I like the concept of a little bit harder DM for the planes-- as many pilots learned damage to skin alone does little to harm an opponent (and in WWII the Germans found this out with the Hurricanes). So the game of getting close and hitting the vitals is big. I think that's a good move.

That will likely help. It probably is the best way to go. When you start fooling around with large numbers of aircraft and adding new ones you get mismatches. The single biggest issue 60 had was mismatched plane warnings. It seemed to come up for various people.

I just got the PW DM up and running. The first time, the CFS3 program crashed to desktop, but after that the second attempt seemed to work ok. The planes are indeed much harder to destroy. Have the hit boxes for the vitals been configured to realism?

Oh right, I remember something about that now. I was wondering only because back in the day we had MP-friendly Nieuports that had tons of ammo to make up for lag and make MP more playable. I am a realism fanatic, but frankly liked the ammo load increase because in MP it can be so much harder with lag figured in. I was hoping something like that would come to HITR MP efforts-- especially in planes we didn't use before like N11, 24 and Spads.

I run the two Creaghorn items: the sound and the smoke rounds. Is the Propwasche DM a realism dm? Is there a short checklist of difference between that and HITR DM?

What are the changes you're making?

I think the review did well. -yes, at this point CFS3 as an engine is a liability to a developing game. It would need a major, major overhaul to be worthy of a fresh game today. When P-1 started (what was it 5 years ago now?) CFS3 was actually still semi-current. Today it's starting to look quite old, though I do think the general combat sim market has thinned out a little in recent years, in terms of quality engines. -the physics on wings as they break off is a little weird, well I should say the visual of it. They kind of float off as they break sometimes. Sometimes it looks like a nice, awkward snap. Other times it's as if they just sort of "rise off" the rest of the wing. That's nit picking though. -the instrumentation on the later Nieuports is a little sparser than probably should be. It's not, in the strictest sense, inaccurate, though the 24 series (24, 24bis, 27) and 28 planes should probably have compasses and altimeters in addition to the tach. The 17 does. One of the big reasons the survivors of these planes have so few instruments is that they were often harvested and given to newer planes that could take them. This was especially true of Nieuports in French service: the French system was to send the plane with just a tach and let the pilot or squad put in what he wanted to. Most pilots harvested their gauges from older Nies and added it to their newer ones, accumulating them as they went. The British were a bit more rigid and often modified theirs to take wooden instrument panels akin to what you'd see in a Sopwith Pup. -AI still doesn't like low altitude and tends to "stunt" when it gets down to a certain level. Probably an engine issue. -Spad XIII doesn't have a mounting stirrup (from what I can tell). Again nit picking level though. I think 91 with the HITR patch is low, and especially if you take a couple of the nice 3rd party mods and mix it with HITR. I'd award something more like a 95 or so with all that in place.

The Von Baur changes may be a nice path to setting it up so that the labels only become useful within a certain distance, thereby simulating the improved, but still somewhat imperfect viewing power of the pilot. It also could be tweaked probably so that you only identify the enemy at about the same distance as they can identify you. I think I'll give this a shot next chance I get.

I agree about the warnings: I fly with them on because I view them as simulating that "belly feeling" of when something is wrong. In a real plane you can feel the Gs and that will tell you when you're pulling back "too much for the airframe" and also that classic "sluggish vibration" that you get in a stall. Like the labels I think they are consistent with realism, but arcade looking because of their colors and appearance.

That's true-- high wing loading and thin wings make it more an energy fighter than a turning fighter. Though the interesting thing is that it actually is a good turn fighter if you use vertical up and down zooming in the turns (especially with the XIII). The extra energy when you vary the turn in the vertical adds a lot. But down low you can't really get to do that, so it's opportunity targets, snap shots and hit n' run. All it takes it a scramble to remind me how much I miss the Nieuport.

I have a 94th Aero career going (among my others) and we had a scramble where I took nasty damage (Spad XIII's low speed handling is less than optimal against D.VIIs). But interestingly the next mission was a "revenge" mission where we made an attack on an enemy airdrome that seemed to house the same set of D.VIIs that attacked us (same color scheme and squad). I really liked that turn, even if it was random.

My view on labels in OFF is that they are completely consistent with full realism, even though they're a bit big and obnoxious. The reasons for this are varied, but, I find, compelling: -you're not there, as you would have been. Presence and situational or locational awareness are heightened by actually being present in 3-dimensions. Furthermore, being there gives you the ability to learn about your surroundings (the way a person is constantly learning about the area where he lives). That level of deep immersion in location and geography would have provided an extra dimension to knowing where you are. Disorientation is absolutely an issue, but when you live somewhere and are completely immersed in it, you start to learn shortcuts and tricks to knowing where you are. -computer AI: the AI doesn't "see" the way we do. It is basically part of a computer program. Once you come within a certain range, it always knows whether you're a friend or foe. I've found they tend to "lock on" and know who I am a couple of thousand yards out. By contrast a human using only monitor+eyesight won't know until the markings are visible only a few dozen yards out. So basically without labels, it's as if you have "20/1000" vision if they have "20/20". That certainly can't be. Labels remedy both situations and though they're somewhat obvious, they do so in a pretty realistic way. With location-- if you were actually living at the front day in and out, you'd have a level of immersion where you can identify what is what fairly quickly. Labels give you a sense of this knowledge when flying in game. As to sight-- the labels put you on a par with the AI in terms of being able to see. Yes, optimally it would mbe so the AI has the same vision limitations as the player, but given the current AI, I think labels allow you to see and identify the enemy about the same as they can see and identify you. Playing against humans this would not be necessary since all would suffer from the same "sight and monitor" handicap. I think limited use of the TAC could be acceptable as well, say where it functions to identify limited ground installations to give some more sense of that "life at the front" immersion. So I fly with labels on and find that does not conflict with realism, simply because all it is doing is fixing some of the handicaps that come with it being a simulation and playing against a computer.

I've been flying for YEARS without pedals. I've been told by a number of people I should get some. I guess I should start looking into it, since I finally have a high quality machine and a nice monitor and all. I currently fly with a Logitech Extreme 3d Pro stick. It's a basic non-Force FB stick with a twist rudder. What I'd like to do is simply get some basic non-force pedals go with it. So what I'm looking for is something relative cheap, but durable, simple and that can work in conjunction with a basic stick like my Logitech. USB is preferred (I think they all are now anyway). I fly OFF most of the time, FS2004 some of the time (might get FSX eventually), and CFS3 once in a great while. I do have BoBII but don't fly it much. Any stick out there that meets my needs and that you would recommend? I've been doing some searching but have zero experience buying rudder pedals. I tend to favor Logitech stuff (have had great luck with their stuff over the years).

These CH pedals have made a nice addition to the game for me. I crashed once the first night I had them, but other than that I've had pretty decent success with them. They're a bit different feel and I like the added dimension they add. In particular I like how simple these are-- just had to mess with the USB connection and the control assignments. I'm glad I got them.

That's true of OBD and that's part of why OFF is good-- the team seems to work well together. When you get mergers the leader of the other team often wants some kind of concession. This can be good or can be bad. I'm apt to believe in enthusiasts that it's good, but am apt to think in the case of a purely corporate individual, bad. A fellow enthusiast would understand the concerns of the players, whereas if it were a more corporate entity purely concerned with the game as business, then it probably would hinder production. We saw this recently when MS made the money-based decision (and that's what they do, they're a business) to can their flight sim production team. The enthusiast side, if you ask me, actually produces a stronger product. That's part of why I like OFF so much and also I think why Canvas Knights could end up being an excellent game in its own right. It's about the presence of people who like this stuff and want to get it right, for the sake of having a proper game. It's when you get production budgets and timetables governing that you get lower products. RBII was an example where a strong production team was cut off by corporate constraints. Just compare RBII/3d out of the box to the enthusiast-produced mod versions of it. OvS will testify as to that too. I don't have the IL games but depending on the release and quality of Canvas Knights, I might pick it up solely for the WW1 side it would have to offer.