von Baur

It isn't so much a lack of the spirit of adventure or experimentation, Flyby, it's the fact that the rules that must be followed these days make the undertaking either too cumbersome or illegal. Filling out tons of paperwork, waiting months (maybe years) for some government agency to approve what you're doing, submitting to periodic inspections along the way (on their schedule, not yours) can erode anyone's passion. And if you don't comply with all that and are caught taking to the skies you could end up in jail or fined or both and your machine will likely be confiscated. I'm not surprised at all. Saddened, but not surprised.

I'm about 99% decided that, once I retire (less than a decade, at this point) I'm getting an ultralight. Been fake-flying one in MS FSX and it looks like exactly the kind of aviation I'd like.

I believe that the altitude settings also dictate the target altitudes for missions.

Every force feedback stick I've owned has simulated near-stall quite nicely, the method depending on the sim. In Red Baron it was a strong, but not what I would consider violent, shaking. May have been that way in some others, I don't recall all of them. But most that I can remember were the discussed mushiness. The best way I can describe this is to think of the resistance to movement as arm wrestling. In normal flight it would be like wrestling with Arnold Schwarzeneggar and as you enter your near-stall it switches to wrestling a pre-teen...there's still resistance, just very noticeably less, and a rather quick change from one to the other, so there's no question what's going on. As I've said before in various threads around here, I don't have the warning turned off, but I'm almost always correcting based on the stick's response before I see it. I will say that a lot of that depends on the settings you select in the stick's profiles...the stronger you've got it, the more noticeble the difference is. Everyone's preference (and budget) is different, but I highly recommend using a force feedback stick. I've only every had one and I found myself stalling on a regular basis with it, just because I didn't realize I was getting near that point. (editted to correct grammar)

While I have no experience with what it sounds like to be in an aircraft (particularly open-cockpit) as it approaches a stall, I have several hundred parachute jumps with square canopies, which are essentially inflatible gliders. And I can tell you that when they do it gets quieter. All the wind noise (both in your ears and through the suspension lines), all the flapping nylon, everything decreases until right at the stall point. Which makes sense, when you think about it, because the noise is caused by the very aiflow that is disrupted by the stall. So I'm not sure what kind of audible cue you're expecting, 33LIMA. I doubt you'd notice a drop in wind noise over the sound of your engine. And the propwash would likely still provide your ears some wind noise. Any pilots out there who can lend some more direct experience to this point? General notes on OFF's current sounds. I rather like them. An engine running at a constant speed will sound pretty much constant. And any quirks in that sound (which were plentiful I'm sure, given the technology of the day) will be repeated at regular intervals. When I'm driving I can usually hear another car's engine as it approaches me even with the windows up and the radio on, but not until it's very close. After you land sit on the field with your engine off for a few minutes and you'll hear your wingmen's engines slowly fade in and out as they circle endlessly waiting for...I don't know, either their fuel to run out or gravity to increase . I can't remember, but I think there's even a slight Doppler effect. One thing I don't think is in the game that I would like to see is a time delay between sight and sound. Right now, it seems that you hear a shell exploding at the same time that you see it. I don't know if it can be done, or done easily enough, but it would be nice to have that 1-second-per-1,000-feet (about 330 meters, I guess) delay so you could possibly judge the distance better.

33LIMA, I never meant to imply that air-to-ground voice communication might have been carried out. In fact, that's why I specifically chose the word "wireless" instead of "radio", the former being a shortened version of "wireless telegraph" (which was used, as Hasse Wind pointed out, as early as 1915) and the latter generally implying voice. And while I admit I'm not up on WWI era equipment, I know from working as a radio (voice) maintenance technician in the Air Force that transmitting is far more demanding on a system than receiving. I'm not saying that the sets were two-way, I don't know. But I would be more surprised to find that it wasn't tried than that it was. Regardless, the question posed was how to fly the mission. And whether the method used to get the information back was dropping a bag (which sounds familiar now that you mention it, as if I may have read many years ago that that was done) or wireless (and don't underestimate the speed of a skilled telegraph operator), the likelihood is that such tactical missions would have been flown with a less rigid pattern than a photographic mission.

Parallels between The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars (focussing on episodes IV, V and VI): the triumph of the simple agrarian society (Hobbits/Ewoks, who played a decisive role in aiding the rebels to disable the protective force field) over the massive industrialized one a good wizard (Gandalf/Obi-wan and later the Jedi Luke) versus the evil wizard, corrupted by his power (Sauron/Darth Vader) the heroes are individuals (Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Legolas, Elrond, Eowyn, etc/Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, even the machines R2-D2 and C-3PO) while, except for the main few, the villains are collectives (primarily the Orcs and the Nazgul/Imperial Stormtroopers) one could even make a case for the ultimate evil (the Ring/the emperor) being destroyed in a fall...although that might be stretching a bit the imagery is still the same I'm rather certain Lucas had a copy of LotR somewhere.

Duh!! It occurred to me that I hadn't mentioned how this would tie in with the original question of what type of pattern to fly. It would depend on a combination of type of mission and when it was being flown. A photographic mission would best be done in long, straight lines at a fixed altitude and speed, so as to give pictures of uniform scale and in order to minimize gaps that might be created from random flight paths. Whereas, direct observation would be more of a loiter in a given area to provide the observer the opportunity to make his notes and verify everything was accurate as well as that he hadn't missed anything. That could, and probably would, include multiple passes over the target from different angles and possibly even different altitudes, the latter to provide varying perspectives. And since most, if not all, observation was direct in the early stages, one can assume loitering would be the prevalent tactic at that time. This would also lend itself to defense from AAA (constant changes in direction and altitude would confuse their aim and the timing on the rounds) and there would be no concern about giving enemy fighters time to hunt you down since there weren't any. Of course, the introduction of the Eindekker would elevate that particular risk. Later missions, partiuclarly after observation aircraft started being fitted with wireless sets (about 1916, I believe..surely by mid 1917), would be dictated purely by the type. I would distinguish between only two types, though: tactical and strategic. Tactical missions are those in which the results must be in the hands of the commanders who need them as close to real-time as humanly possible. I'm talking about command needing to know what's happening immediately in order to impact a highly fluid, highly dynamic situation: i. e. an active battlefront or an artillery barrage. If this information has to wait until an airplane can land, photographic film or plates are processed and analyzed and conclusions delivered to a general or a local commander, it's too late. All that info is completely wrong. This is one of, if not the main, cause of patricide, even today. Areas that were recently occupied by the enemy have been taken over by friendly troops and the first thing you know it's, "We regret to inform you...". Those missions would be carried out by wireless-equipped machines (when available, later in the war) and would utilize the loiter...and possibly have two or even more individual target areas in one flight. They would also require fighter escort to protect them from intercept. Most of these missions would probably not extend beyond five miles or so behind enemy lines, depending on how deep a targetted artillery battery (if the mission was to direct counter-battery fire) was. It would be likely that these would have no more than two, three at the most, planes: one primary and the others backups, just in case. Strategic missions, otoh, would be the gathering of general intelligence for the purpose of planning an attack or divining when and where the enemy intended to do the same. These missions would best be done with photography so the results were a matter of record and could be consulted whenever necessary, and indeed aerial reconnaisance advanced the science of photography during WWI, as other innovations did many others. The resolution of cameras improved considerably once they had to take clear images from two or three miles (10,000-15,000 feet) or more. If I'm not mistaken, the British developed strip flim during WWI, making it possible to take one continuous picture covering several miles of ground, lessenning the chances of a gap but increasing the need for a steady flight in altitude, direction and speed (a FLAK gunner's dream). Since everything that an enemy does can have a bearing on strategic intelligence these missions could literally be from the front lines to the maximum range of the aircraft. Multiple planes flying in line abreast or echelon formations would also increase coverage of the target area. I think I've covered it. ps..I repeat that I have not actually studied the matter and that these are my own conclusions based on supposition and a kind of reverse engineering alone. Anyone who has looked more deeply into the matter, feel free to correct me whereever I've made mistakes.

Like Bullethead, I've not studied the tactics of reconnaisance aircraft. But I have read that, particularly early on when that was virtually the only role of the various air services, pilots were enlisted men and the observers were officers. This was because the observer was the more important crew member, since he had to be able to recognize what he saw and report it reliably (much too important a responsibility to be entrusted to a mere enlisted man) and the pilots were considered aerial chauffers. Remember, von Richtofen's first job as an aviator was GiB (Guy in Back) and not pilot. Later, when aerial photograpy became better, the roles shifted, since the observer was then a combination camera-operator and gunner and the most important role was safely flying the plane and successfully navigating to the target and home (much too complicated a task to be entrusted to a mere enlisted man). Gotta love how the barss hats can rationalize.

I think the biggest delay in that kind of virtual reality, Flyby, has been the ability to render the image in true-3D; stereoptic depth perception. To date, in order to achieve that in a head-mounted display (necessary for 360* viewing, unless you can afford to build a warehouse-sized gaming room ) you needed multiple displays. Pi-sight even created a monster with 24...count 'em, 24...individual displays, 12 per eye. But look at the trend in 3D TV's and you'll see that this is becoming much more feasible. Manufacturers are making single screens that can provide full-color steroptic depth perception (true-3D) with passive lenses. How long will it be before somebody sticks a 7.5" (about 6" horizontal) one of these babies in a hmd, with polarized lenses like the ones you wear at a 3D movie over each eye? I'm thinking, make it an OLED dispay curved to an arc of 45*s or so for a good wrap-around effect and virtual reality is...well, a reality. I give it two to three years, max. And assuming that people who work for the companies that would be involved in this kind of thing have the same sort of vision (get it? ) I do, it could already be in the works and possibly available by the end of this year. Now all we have to do is hope the Mayans were wrong.

I've always felt that using recent satellite imagery (updated every day, or maybe even as much as two to four times per day) for the terrain would be the absolute bomb for a civilian flight sim. Imagine flying over London, Tokyo or Los Angeles in near-real time? Seeing the fall colors in New England or a fresh snow pack in the Rockies? Or virtual sightseeing of natural disasters like the tsunami that hit Japan last year or an erupting volcano or the aftermath of an earthquake? I would think that people would pay extra for that capability. And if it could be streamed real-time.....

Not only find the casings, but differentiate between those the Sioux used and those of the cavalry. I saw the same show, and it was really quite interesting. The forensics they did, mapping the locations of the shell casings and where bodies had been reportedly found, showed a very different story than the popular mytholgy. The rise where the "Last Stand" took place was really more of a final position in a long retreat from which they could no longer fall back. Which makes more sense to me. It was one of the stops made by my first wife and me on our road trip north when we were transferred to Alaska back in '79. I was never impressed by the defensibility of the location as marked by the monument. The rolling nature of the hills leaves too many blind spots for my taste.

But Moses invests!

I'm with you, Flyby. The trailers looked good, I enjoyed Tarantino's previous films, and I was looking forward to watching it. Didn't see it in theaters, instead waiting until it came out on DVD. The only really good parts of the film, IMO, were the cat-and-mouse opening and tavern basement sequences. The whole theater assault was just too over-the-top for me. And I can just hear some 10- or 12-year old asking, "Is that what happened to Hitler, dad? He got shot in a movie theater?" after watching it. And his equally underinformed father (remember, we're getting into the fourth generation that was born after WWII ended) saying, "Yeah. They couldn't put it in a movie if it didn't happen at least something like that." On the plus side...it makes you appreciate the historical accuracy of movies like "The Red Baron" and "Flyboys".

IIRC, Red Baron's approach was a little confused. If you embarked on an American career prior to the USA's entry into the war it would tell you that you had to be part of the Lafayette Escadrille. But I'm pretty sure that once there all the names were distinctly French. Not a Smith, a Brown or a Jones in the bunch.

I started pondering the possibility of a HMD with the view slaved to your head movement back in 1999 (before anyone, as far as I know, ever heard of TrackIR). To work the way I envisioned it and you want it, ShinKazama, depends on a 1-1 scaling for the head tracker, which isn't possible with TIR. I don't know of any current system that would accomplish that, but I readily admit that I don't stay as up-to-date on the subject as I would if I could afford a setup like that. I'm guessing something inertial, possibly utilizing minature gyros on multiple axes. A point to consider is the recent developments in 3D TV's. A few years ago, to achieve stereoptic vision required two screens one for each eye, which is the trend in HMD's. In some cases they go for more than two...check this out. But I anticipate that it won't be long before they shift to a single 3D screen with individual lenses for each eye much the same as you have with TV's and movie theaters. And once that starts filtering into the market I expect the prices of the HMD's will come down dramatically, as will the video card demands/requirements. And if they use flexible OLED screens they should also be able to achieve the wrap-around effect of that pi-Sight. As Tank said to Neo, "These are exciting times."

As long as they don't announce it will be released on...February 29th.

I agree with Vasco, and already stated in the "Taps" thread, that if OFF had a properly functioning multi-player side RoF would be just something people had as a change-of-pace sim. I certainly don't believe they would be able to hang with their 'pay-per-plane' philosophy. Would you put up with that if a sim with the scope and quality of OFF could fully support player-vs-player mp instead of just player-vs-AI? I've no direct experience with 'the other sim'; can you fly from Belgium to London and back in it? I've created a Gotha mission that does exactly that in OFF. But until you can do that and have to elude enemy SE5's that are similarly pilotted by humans coming up to intercept you, you might as well be playing single-player, IMO. I also agree with Vasco that if the basic CFS3 engine could be adapted to accept the fantastic improvements the devs have made to terrains, aircraft, vehicles...everything...to make OFF-SP run as beautifully as it does, they could (if they wanted to) do the same for multiplayer.

Very nice, Olham. And not one bit blasphemous, IMO. Hey, Lennon! You got any problem with Olham's poem? No answer. I guess not. (Now THAT was blasphemous...or at least very, very tacky)

It's good to hear that the lag and invisibility problems have been resolved. But as I mentioned, the most prevalent problem with opposing humans in multiplayer was (and apparently still is) the aspect issue. That alone makes it barely playable with four or fewer players and unplayable if you have much more than that. While I've never flown RoF, I agree that OFF with a solid mp side would be the complete package we all want, and would probably knock RoF and any other WWI sim available or on the books out of the ring.

Hauksbee: I've heard the claims (and I don't use that term to indicate that I don't believe it, hear me out) that most of this is caused by spec traders. I do believe, however, that if that were the real cause the oil companies could and would find a way to eliminate or control it so they didn't look like the greedy bastards that they do...unless, that is, unless the owners/board members of those companies are the ones making obscene profits from the trading. Visit here?? Sometimes I don't think any lives here. Fortunately, when that happens I simply look in a mirror and I'm reassured that there is, indeed, intelligent life on Earth.

Gentlemen, First, let me state that I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. I do not believe that the US government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks in order to create a false emergency; WTC7was NOT "pulled" by a controlled demolition (nor were the Twin Towers), Oswald acted alone and there was NO shooter on the grassy knoll (I'm still up-in-the-air about UFO's...pun intended). In fact, my discussions with a die-hard conspiracist at work are the subject of some humor for our coworkers, and much dismay by our manager. That said... I've seen the same pattern (as I'm sure many if not all of you have) since the early 1980's: fuel prices leap up using whatever feeble excuse is available: (we're nervous about the price of crude oil because there's unrest in the Middle east; the Arabs are getting together and jacking up the price of crude oil because they're getting along so well in the Middle East) (the weather's been too hot and dry; the weather's been too cold and wet) (too much blah, blah, blah; not enough blah, blah, blah) and then s-l-o-w-l-y trickle back down. This is a ploy by the oil companies to make as much excessive profit in a short time as they can before we get angry enough to take out a few of them, then drag out a reduction so we all feel better, and then stop the prices while still well above where they were before the whole process began. **edit-Rinse and repeat.** The fact that all the prices go up and down at the same rate and at the same time is obviously collusion, although the oil companies deny that, because "that's Illegal". And the fact that no politician has the courage to take them to task over it is...well, business as usual for politicians, unfotunately. I'm in the unhappy position of living some distance from where I work. Although I rarely drive except to and from work, I use about 26-28 gallons of gas per week. Not being able to afford an electric or hybrid car, nor likely to find work closer to home (moving closer to my work isn't an option for too many reasons to go into here), I'm forced to live with it...for now. If things go as expected, I should be able to retire modestly in slightly over four years, or semi-comfortably in slightly over eight. At which point I shall thumb my nose at the lot of them and drive not more than 100-150 miles per month, instead of 120+ per day. That shall be my revenge, and it is the only one for which I can hope.

The problem with OFF-MP wasn't in the community, Herr Prop-Wasche (not that I'm suggesting that you're suggesting that it was), nor in OFF per se. It was, for me at least, in the way that the CFS-3 multiplayer engine interacted with the additional information that OFF presented it. It simply wasn't up to the task. Not that it was a complete bust...it worked fine as long as the enemy planes were piloted by AI. But any time you encountered an opposing aircraft flown by a human you were in store for all kinds of wierd occurances. No! I take that back. My personal experiences can be reduced to three problems that I can recall: 1.) Invisible aircraft. Your enemy could see you and shoot you and you would take damage, but you couldn't see him to fight back or even know where he was to try to escape. And (again, if I remember correctly) he didn't even show up on the TAC. Not a lot of fun to be taken apart and not be able to defend yourself because you don't know where the attack is coming from. And even when you're the one who can see your opponent, it's a hollow victory to defeat a blind enemy. Rather makes the experience a collosal waste of time. Admittedly, this was the rarest of the three. 2.) Human-crewed aircraft flying in directions other than where their noses pointed. And I'm not talking about tight turns, sideslips or tail stalls. I'm talking about aircraft moving up to 90*s off the logitudinal axis for sustained (minutes at a time) periods. When you got close enough you could even see the exhaust smoke moving straight away from the bottom. I think there were a few times the planes would even fly backwards, but I won't swear to it. This was the most common situation and pretty much guaranteed to happen if you were online for more than a few minutes. 3.) Lag. Check that..INCREDIBLE lag!!! As often as not the aircraft you were chasing and occassionally putting holes in from his 5:00-7:00 was the same one shooting holes in you from your 5:00-7:00. And all of these happened too often to too many people against too many people for it to be connection-related. Plus, when we all flew together against only AI none of these things happened. Not even once that I can remember (although the AI enemy would stutter frequently, making it appear that there were two flashing planes instead of one steady one). But if someone switched sides, even in the same session, it would pop right back up. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the hell out of the weekends I spent flying the Vasco's Volunteers missions. He did a lot of work putting them together (as did several others trying to sort out various other issues with multiplayer) in such a way that one could almost ignore the fact that all your enemies were AI. And with the AI in OFF, that's no easy kill. But it's still not the same as trying to outwit a human being, and at some point it becomes perennial playoff-contending pros taking on a good, but not top, college team. That's why I lost interest. And unless the dev team overhauls mp the way they have so much else I don't see it getting any better; P4, P5, or P100. Sorry to be a downer on the subject, guys, but I must be honest about my opinion. I'm guessing it's not mine alone.

That's great, Widowmaker! I'm truly happy for you. I've had precious few times in my life when I was excited about going to work even most of the time, let alone every day. I hope your business grows and fulfills all your dreams.

Rule #1 of "Skin Club" is listen to Olham. Rule #2 of "Skin Club" is...LISTEN TO OLHAM!!! With as many as he's done and the quality of all of them, if he suggests it, do it.