SirMike1983

The Nieuports will be great-- I've missed the 24 after RB3d became out of date. The personalized skin function looks great too-- another RB3d touch. I'm looking forward to this and will get it as soon as it comes out.

My old one from Boys of 60: took me a few weeks to finish.

It's Sealab 2021, is that still on Adult Swim?

Sounds good to me-- looking forward to the new Nieuports.

Good to hear he's doing better.

The Pup is a nice little flying machine. I prefer it to any of the Alb aircraft, even if it's slower and underpowered. The Pup is reasonably sturdy and does just about whatever you want it to. In the event of a power loss, it can glide for miles.

That sounds great-- can't wait to get my hands on a full 24.

.120

Not since OFF Phase 2 came out. I alternated sometimes between Phase 1 and RB3d, but not after OFF grew enough to be more comprehensive.

N.11 and N.17 are my bread and butter airplanes-- both are very agile on the whole. The 17 is a true fighter through and through, the N.11 is more an improvisation of a quality racing airplane with a machine gun mounted to it. The N.11 was actually originally supposed to be a Gordon-Bennett racer, but the war cause the race never to be held. But the French worked out a system where they could mount a machine gun to the upper wing. A lot of work with these is done with the rudder. Neither has a vertical stabilizer, just rudder. Roll rates are mediocre without the rudder, but using the rudder to get you started will go a long way. The elevators are very powerful, and this is where you can get into trouble with the lower wing snapping in a high g maneuver. You can do an inverted loop dive maneuver safely. My strategy is to roll inverted, then cut the engine back to min throttle or else use the blip switch. Then make a steady pull on the stick-- nothing severe or sudden. The plane comes right around quickly and effectively. Done correctly the lower wing will be fine. Then as approaching level again, peg the throttle back to full and execute your turn. Everything with the elevators is done with a firm, steady hand. Jarring tugs will cause structural damage. Sustained high speed dives will cause damage too-- use the falling leaf trick to lose altitude FAST if you really need to do that. You can also glide a LONG way with these. Stall speed on the N.11 is especially low as the aircraft weighs next to nothing. Shooting distance is very close, especially on the N.11. I'll close to within 20-30 yards and open up on the engine and pilot with the Lewis on the 11. If I draw too near, I cut the engine back and stick close behind. With an E.III you can do this. With Albatross aircraft, keep using your turn against them-- especially at low speeds. I've shot down Alb D.III and D.V aircraft regularly and with little difficulty in both the N.17 and the N.11. If you can get the speed of the fight down and keep a steady turn you WILL defeat any Alb pilot who tries to turn with you, including a D.III or a D.V. You can usually lure the AI into these fights with enough coaxing. The v-strut Albs are much better fighters than the D.II, but they do suffer from being somewhat heavy and sluggish at very low speeds. This is where the Nieuport is most deadly. The Nieuport is very much a slow speed turn and burn airplane, though you can't max your elevators out or pull in a severe or sudden manner. Steady and smooth with the maneuvers will take you a long way. Remember to get within spitting distance in the 11. As to Verdun specifically-- in early 1916 at Verdun the Germans have nothing that can come close to you. You should be faster and more maneuverable. It's best to avoid prolonged engagements with Dr.Is because they can turn quite fast on you and have out outgunned. It's possible to outrun a Dr.I in an N.17 if you know what you're doing with the mixture. The N.17 seems to have a little bit better engine performance than the Dr.I does. Hopefully you're not facing Dr.Is in an N.11 (you shouldn't be anyway). Facing a D.VII is something I've done in QC and had good success by keeping in mind the slow speed turning of the Nieuport. It's all about making the most of your low speed turns against faster airplanes. The 11 and 17 are gems.

The E.III, in my experience, is inferior in every way compared to the N.11, DH2, and Bristol Scout with the single exception of fire power and ammunition count. You can't turn with these guys, you can't outrun them and you probably can't dive to safety very well. Only attack when you have far greater numbers or are above the enemy by a considerable amount. A ratio of probably 3-1 or 4-1 is needed to attack on the same level. It's going to be sloppy if you do-- expect to lose a number of your friends and possibly yourself. I suggest something similar to what successful pilots used to do when the Spad XIII had a poor flight model: stay back from the fight until the enemy and your AI wingmen have engaged. Then seek an opportunity as the "odd man out" to render an attack on a vulnerable enemy plane. When he dodges, don't follow unless he's badly hit. Instead fly away and become the "odd man out" again. The basic idea is actually to stay out of the fray itself while using the AI as a diversion for the enemy. The enemy AI in the game have a "lock on" sort of feature where they latch onto a target and pursue like mad. If you coax the enemy to "locking on" to AI planes, you can attack and escape more easily. The other method is simply to attack only if you have a considerable energy advantage. I would only do this still though if I have greater numbers or at least equal ones. The E.III is not efficient from an energy standpoint, so after a couple of dive attacks you should be on your way out of there.

The XII also suffered from a number of drawbacks. The cannon would often jam and then become unworkable. The weight also threw off the handling of the aircraft to a degree. The rate of fire on the cannon was also very slow, and its range extremely limited. It would be interesting, but it is a peripheral plane at best. The amount of work that had to be put in to keep the XII viable was extra. For these reasons you don't see cannon guns in WWI aircraft like you do in WWII. By the 1930s-40s they had become much more viable for air use.

N.11 production packs an 80hp motor-- often a le Rhone or a Gnome. It's the 16 that has the higher horsepower motor from the factory. By many accounts it screwed up the flight characteristics.

The WWII aircraft handle stress maneuvers much better. The stronger of these biplanes tend to do ok up to a point. The most fragile aircraft will overstress easily and sustain damage at speeds over 110 mph. The fighting is done at fearfully close range-- I do most of my work within 75 yards of the enemy aircraft, often even within 50. Fewer vitals in the enemy-- there's a lot of "dead" space in an enemy aircraft where the bullets don't do much damage because they just pass through one side and out the other. You have to get close and aim for some vital piece of the aircraft or directly at the pilot himself. It's often quite clear you're dealing with an enemy ace because many of them have their own glaring custom color schemes. You probably will learn who precisely is flying the other plane, and it's your job to bring him down. Low level machine guns are more deadly. You're probably moving pretty slow, so exposure to ground guns is worse than in a WW2 game. Turn fighting plays a bigger role, though not the entire role. WW2 is very much about boom and zoom for many planes. WW1 has some boom and zoom planes, but many fights are simply reduced to turning like mad until you can get a shot off. As said before, no parachute. There is no escape once it's going down. Take offs and landings are easier in general. Some aircraft are tricky, but they have much shorter take offs and landings than WW2 aircraft. But once in taxi, ground handling often sucks and some of them really like to try to flip on taxi. Rotary engines are unlike anything else. They aren't the monsters some make them out to be, but they do add a level of difficult in their torque. Missions are very different from WW2. In WW2 you often get "heavy bomber escort" and the like. In WW1 must of the grunt work is done by medium-sized 2 seaters. You won't see the high altitude level bombing runs by heavies. It's basically scouts and two seaters. Heavies existed but were not nearly as important as in WW2. Balloon missions-- in WW2 ground attack is usually on a base or troop column or the like. In WW1 you get these, but you also can be assigned to shoot down stationary balloons. It sounds easier than it actually is. The front-- in WW2 games the front moves a lot. In WW1 the front moves but stays put within a few miles in many areas. Flying over it is to fly over a shooting gallery. Every gun, AA, machine gun and even individual soldiers will start shooting up at you. Once you cross it, you have to cross back over to get home. There is no "going around the hot area" like in some WW2 scenarios. Rear gunners are even deadlier than WW2. WW2 aircraft usually have a fair bit of speed difference between them. But WW1 aircraft are all pretty slow, and even the fastest is only 50 mph faster than the slowest of them in OFF. The result is that the rear gunners will have a pretty good chance of defending their aircraft because you don't have a huge speed difference in many cases. It's tricky, but you can get them still. It's easier to ditch. WW2 aircraft are heavy and fast compared to these. With the short take off and landing, it's actually easier to ditch these in a field than belly land a WW2 plane. You can actually land some these in the backyards of houses (Pup, N.11 for example can glide right in slow and just land in someone's yard).

Scrambles go best using turn fighters. Since the enemy is way above you and faster to start with, you're not going to want to climb after him if he zooms, regardless of what plane you have. What you do want is the ability to attack and evade as rapidly as possible. You will need to do a fair bit of evasion since it's hard to ascertain the number, formation and position of the enemy all while struggling to get altitude. Stick close to the base ground fire field. If you have a plane like a Spad-- floor it and stay low until you can get some distance on the enemy, then climb and turn to fight them. The temptation is to turn fight, avoid it. Stay low and fast until you can get a little breathing space. This intial phase is a defensive one-- space gives you time to set up your second phase: attack. Then turn and meet the enemy-- you become offensive against the enemy aircraft. If they follow, drag them over the ground fire if possible to soften them a bit. It's easier if you have a Nieuport, Pup, Camel etc-- just keep turning to keep your tail clear and make snap shots when they attack. Try to lure a turn fight-- low and slow is literally the case in these battles. Then the turn fighter negates the element of surprise and actually takes the advantage because there's nowhere to dive to once you have out turned him. I prefer this method since I can hang in the ground fire area while playing a simultaneous offense-defense combination. Remember that just because the enemy has height, surprise, energy etc-- do not let that fool you into thinking you have to play defense the entire time. Take the fight to them where possible, break up their attack by making attacks where possible. If you see a stragler break off from the group, make your attack on him. It's balancing on the razor's edge: you're using evasion to keep enemies above you from killing you and at the same time attacking enemies who have lost their advantage by getting low and slow.

I think this plane outclasses the Alb D.II hands down. I've flown it against them and have had no trouble chewing them up. It's snappy enough to come around on them and get the shots off or to keep you out of trouble. It does have some trouble with Alb D.III aircraft, but again is more responsive than the Albatross. You can use that to your advantage if you can lure a turning fight.

For those curious: There is a great P26 for FS9. It's fun to fly and slick looking too. Plane: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/downloads/down...php?FileID=8502 2d Panel: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/downloads/down...amp;FileID=8425 There is also a "Planes of Fame" skin-- a duplicate of the paint scheme in this thread. It should be over at Sim-Outhouse if you search for it.

The thing that does take a bit of time to master is the gunsight on the Spad XIII-- it's actually a very well-done, accurate sight, but it's way off to the right, so you have to work to get behind it.

As I recall, the Hanriot was more directly in competition with the Spad VII, the N.17 being a somewhat older plane already by the time the Hanriots were made available in any number. I would prefer the Hanriot to the Spad VII, myself. If I recall it dated to the summer of 1916, by which point the N.17 was already in service. But head to head with the Spad VII would be an interesting comparison. I'd love to see an improved version in OFF some day.

Curtiss Goshawk biplane? Nice little airplane, and smooth lines on it.

Better functionally, but not as attractive in appearance. I would put the early Spitfires in the top 3, but the P26 has that "art deco streamliner" type look between the slick curves and the wild paint. The Spitfire is a better combat plane of course though.

No metal monoplane ever constructed is as attractive as the P26. It has all the classic elements of the "streamline" school of industrial design of the '30s, right down to the bright, colorful "dart" paint scheme. The Army Air Corps of that era used a "blue and yellow" scheme, but the fliers and squadrons really made it stand out with true 1930s style. In FS9 I have a P26 with that paint scheme above and I love it. The "streamline" design ethic of that era was really unique and even applied to objects that didn't travel at all. Of course it added greatly to aerodynamics of aircraft and cars, where much of it started. How about a P-26 inspired bathroom scale? Now you can weigh yourself in comfort and sleek speed at home... http://www.lepoix.de/html/reference/stream...esign_index.htm

I've been flying the Spad XIII more, and I am enjoying it. I still prefer the Nieuports, but I'm enjoying the alternative energy tactics of the Spad. I've gotten thankfully to the point now where I can alternate aircraft between the Nieuport and the Spad campaigns, and succeed with whatever I am using at the given moment. The Spad XIII in this new version flies more intuitively and seems to be set up right when compared to the other aircraft I'm facing. With sufficient energy the XIII is extremely deadly, much more so now than before because you don't have such a high stall speed anymore. You can now employ energy to make high speed dive-turns and wingovers to devastate enemy D.VIIs. Get above them and you've already won half the battle-- the rest is speed and altitude management. You can even employ quick, short turns now to get off better shots. Whereas the other aircraft like the Nieuport feel like a bicycle-- light and very agile, the Spad feels like a big old Indian motorcycle-- heavy, fast and solid. It won't turn as well, but it sure hits hard and fast. Punch the throttle, climb, and you're gone when you feel like it. I think my suggestions from before, in the earlier Spad thread, still hold true generally. But now there is MUCH more room to make quick turns with speed and more little "snap" turn-shots than before. The airplane doesn't wallow anymore, which was its biggest fault in the earlier version. This airplane falls like a rock, climbs like an ape and punches like Rocky Marciano. I can see why in the late war stages the French and American pilots liked it-- you control the most vital question of all: whether the engagement happens in the first place. The D.VIIs can claim all they want about turning and ease of flight, but unless they have a strong altitude advantage you can flip them the bird and show them your asshalf.

I love that Nieuport card. Have to love that slick silver.

I've been around since the days when OFF P1 was still a work in progress. Like many of the long-term OFF'ers I'm enjoying this game very much. This, to me, is the truest successor to the classic Red Baron series of games: a wide-ranging, comprehensive sim that attempts to dig right down into the history. But OFF does Red Baron one better: whereas Dynamix didn't offer much in the way of on-going patches (besides the Super Patch and some fixes), OFF has continued to improved, with repairs being made throughout. It's literally a mix of the classic Red Baron historical, broad sim with the beauty of the active community that made Red Baron the best it could be. This is what happens when you put a corps of true community enthusiasts in charge-- it's a good thing. I also welcome the critical remarks, as much I like the game. I think that if we can't talk freely about the game here, that we can't do it anywhere. This is, in a way, a "community shop" where raw feedback and ideas come to be and where the game can become better as a result. I will also add the caveat that, while I think critical remarks can be constructive, that when they begin to get truly angry or add threats into the mix, or are made out of disgust, that the tone goes too far. But I'm enjoying this game-- I remember the days when you'd google WW1 sims every so often, hoping there would be something to replace RB3d. Finally OFF became that game that was long in coming for years.