von Baur

So I decided to drive from Bertangles west airfield to Amiens for some sightseeing and maybe to fraternize with one of the local ladies. Stole the CO's Model T Ford, had to drive around a convoy of lorries and then a column of five or six Whippet tanks and some troops that were marching with them. I never made it into town...pranged the motorcar hitting a dip too fast (looked like the car was flipping over backwards and I got sent to the debrief screen, but it sounds better the first way I said it). The Army censor confiscated the pictures of the lorries, tanks and troops (forgot to snap any, but...well, see above), but they let me keep this one taken where the airfield access road meets up with the main north-south road. On the one hand, kudos to the devs for the level of detail. On the other, no wonder this game requires the resources it does. And if this has been mentioned before I apologize for repeating it, but I just noticed it. And there might be some other folks who hadn't noticed or heard it.

I'd always taken the flying time in the debriefings as gospel...never questioned it. But three missions ago it struck me that I'd been flying longer than I was credited. I put it down to not getting the start time right (I log start times) and decided to pay better attention next time. Well, next time came and I did pay attention. Start time was 8:15am and it was after 10:00 when I landed, but in the debrief I was only credited with 53 minutes of flying time. I knew I couldn't have made that significant a mistake, so on my latest mission I paid strict attention to the times and had a stopwatch running at the same time...started at wheels up, stopped at wheels on the ground. My takeoff time in the game was 16:45 and change, the landing time 18:11:xx and my stopwatch showed 1:26:03. The debrief screen congratulated me on 43 minutes of flying time...less than half of the 106 that I was actually in the air. Is this something that anyone else has noticed/reported? If not, can the devs look into it and hopefully fix it? After all, if 17 hours of flying time is a mark to be proud of shouldn't the log track it accurately? So far my log shows 4.35 hours, but I'm guessing it could be as much as 8 or 9, maybe even 10 or so. And how many others may have gone significantly over 17 without knowing it because the game doesn't report it accurately?

77scout made a good point, and I had been guilty of pausing the game including several times in the two that I timed. With that in mind I flew a mission without pausing. The results: take-off at about 6:55, landing at about 8:15, credited flying time 77 minutes. Allow for minor inconsistancies ( did I takeoff at 6:55 or did the mission start then and I didn't leave the ground for a minute or two and on landing was it really 8:15 or was that when I stopped rolling), and I can live with it. Then on my next mission I started at 11:45 and set down at 13:25 without pausing and was credited with...55 minutes!!! That's a considerable discrepancy, in my book. But then I remembered that I had manually advanced through two waypoints. While two waypoints shouldn't make that much difference, it could be that throwing the game timer off at all cold throw it off significantly. So on my next mission I made sure to hit every waypoint and not advance past any or pause the game. The only deviation was that I did take time out to engage a flight of Bristol Scouts and one of BE2's. With wheels up/wheels down times of 16:09 and 17:35 I should have gotten 86 minutes but was only credited 53. Catch, I don't think it's the install (though I could be wrong) because the in-game clock shows the same time passing as my stopwatch or real-world clocks, yet the flight time doesn't always match up. I think I've found the line in the pilot log text file for flight time. I'm far enough along with this pilot that I'll keep accepting the awarded time until I earn a Blue Max or I die. But then I'm starting another FA62 1915 pilot (third in a row) and tracking and manually adjusting the log times and see what happens. Meantime, if anyone else feels like tracking this I'd love to see some responses here. I'm terribly curious just how common this is.

Good to know.

It was raining this morning, so I snagged a bicycle that belonged to Johnson-Smythe-Brown (didn't return from his last mission six days ago...no one saw him go down, just never reformed after a scrap over Hunland...too bad, too...nice chap, unlike his cousin Smythe-Owens-Brown...his mother sent the most wonderful macaroons every month) for the same trip. On the way I snapped this (hope the censors don't find out): Notice how the tank is driving through the truck (or more accurately, absorbing it). Since the soldiers march with the tanks I assume they will as well, though I didn't confirm that. And while I'm on the subject of the troops, if you've ever done a close flyby you've probably noticed that their legs are stationary as they move along, making for a gliding or sliding effect. Well, if you get closer than about 125 yards their legs start to move. I'm talkin' Jesse Owens move. These guys are on a dead run. It's hillarious. But I digress. Back to my story. I'd made it, I believe, almost into Amiens when I started going down a moderately steep hill. Unfortunately I picked up so much speed that I wasn't able to avoid a pothole at the bottom of the hill [actually it was the steep angle of intersecting terrains...I'm guessing it may have been the same spot that totalled the Model T yesterday, but can't be positive] and...you guessed it...I pranged the bicycle, as well. When I red-facedly reported the incident to the CO he told me that I had accounted for more squadron materiel losses in the last two days then Jerry had in the last week. He's confined me to base and restricted me from operating any machinery incapable of sustained flight. A real shame, that. I like Reggie and I'll feel just awful about disobeying that order. Back in the 'rea'l virtual world: So that was a little surprise, huh? Curious how many more there are. Of course, if you told us they wouldn't be surprises any more, would they. I found the guy taking a leak in the back right corner of the hangar (if you look closely you can see his right arm about chest-level, so he's probably actually working on the rudder in front of him, but at first glance .....), but it seems to me that one's alread been mentioned. About this problem of sharp terrain changes. How would one adjust the damage model of the Model T and the bicycle to make them invulnerable, thus making it possible to go past this obstacle? I'd really love to do land tours of some of the local towns just for S&G's. Another question is how can I make the Model T and the bicycle available to my Hun pilots? And could/should the bicycle be changed to a motorcycle considering the speed it's capable of achieving on level ground? *edit* Almost forgot to ask. If that's the only one why there? Any particular significance (I believe RAF 209, Roy Brown's squadron, was stationed there on April 21, 1918) or just happenstance?

Thanx, Bullethead, for the info on the wingmen's performance. I had gone solo and was thinking about trying with friends to see how they would behave. Do you remember how close they were to you when you released? Maybe by keeping the formation tight the bomb spread will be as well.

Ditto to Hasse Wind's sentiments on the DFW. I used to enjoy taking one on long-range runs to London in Richtofen's Skies. Of course they always ended with ditches at the mouth of the Thames, but what the hell. I hadn't tried the one in OFF, but HW's post made me want to try it, so I fired up Feldwebel Freuliche Flieger, went to QC, strapped three 50's to her uderbelly and headed out to look for some TO's. First was the climbout. Slow circles over the airfield to just under 10,000' then continuing to climb as I headed west I crossed the lines at 14,000. Your prm's will max out between 1380 and 1340, with the top end lowering as you climb even adjusting mixture (manual, not sure of the results if you're on auto-mixture). Not only does the high altitude make you less vulnerable to AA, it gives you a wider field of vew when you go to bombsight, thus giving you more time to adjust your final approach to target. As Hasse Wind said, the bombsight is very accurate (maybe too accurate)...I hit an army base from 15,000' with all three bombs on my first bombing mission. And the bombsight view makes for an excellent simulated recon camera. All-in-all it's an excellent plane for anyone who likes flying for the dark side and would like to try two-seater campaign. I may put one up myself.

Crimi-NETT-ly!! I just downloaded the 10.2 drivers less than two weeks ago and the 10.1 a month-and-a-half before that. Is ATI trying to get into the Guiness Book of World Records for "Most video drivers released in a year" or something?!?

No warping...part of the fun is finding what's out there, even if it's nothing. Plus I'm starting to note discrepancies between rabu's map and the actual OFF terrain so I can modify the maps. Can't do that in warp. Haven't lost a wingman yet, to ea or aa...I'm proud of that. And we've done some damage. Upwards of 30 British planes have fallen to our guns, 10 mine, five just got confirmed (three rejected for lack of confirmation...pencil-pushing bastards!). I thought it might be a hard-coded flight time, regardless how long you're actually in the air, but the last one was scheduled for 39 minutes and I got credit for 43, so that one's out of the water, too. Pol, if you and your guys can fix it it'd be great. Meantime, I've no intention of cheating. I'd just like not to be cheated.

So what you're saying is that if it ever does make it into the game it'll come from the Good Old OFF Yahoos. Which would make it................GOOFFY

No one's more patriotic than I am but I'm very happy with the way this game went. The people of Canada get the immense national pride of seeing their team win gold in their national sport in their own country. And though the athletes of Team USA are disappointed now they will come to realize that the fact that the team considered best in the world couldn't get it done against them in regulation time (pause to stand at attention for the Canadian National Anthem) is nothing to sneeze at. CONRATULATIONS TEAM CANADA!! ps...you got the score right, British. Just reversed the order. Enjoy it, partner.

Must have been luck of the draw, Olham. Only thing I've changed with the current campaign I'm running is the subdued labels and it's a 180-degree turnaround. Three flights and I haven't seen an enemy plane, go figure.

A big "second" to that, Olham. I don't fly full DiD and before I hit upon my modified labels I had a FA62 Eindekker career going in which I managed 20 kills and received two Iron Crosses, a Hohenzollern and a Pour le Merite in 17 1/2 hrs of flight time. But what I was proudest of was that I didn't lose a single wingman and that they usually combined for as many or more kills than I got. In fact, they rarely let me get a shot on the scouts, although I did manage to down a few. The only knock I would lay on them is that they were as nonchalant about the two-seaters as they were aggressive about the single-seaters. It does make it a pleasure when your wingmen behave.

I, too, have never liked the immersion-killing red and blue labels, but the poor quality of my monitors (the two in my head as well as the one on my computer desk) makes it too hard for me to find planes at an acceptable range. But I got to noodling around in the viewui file and came up with an alternative that I feel bridges the gap between the stock "Hey! Here I am" labels and having nothing at all. A discussion with pictures of what it looks like as well as the file itself (about two-thirds of the way down) can be found here. http://forum.combata...ality-settings/ Enjoy or ignore, up to you. I'm gonna go grab a beer.

...for non-campaign style fun. Team dogfights: These would feature classic match-ups...Camel/Dr1, N-17/Alb D-III, S-VII/Alb D-II or D-III, Fokker D-VII/SE5, FokkerD-VII/S-XIII, and any others that can be agreed upon. Airstarts in close enough proximity to prevent either side gaining a distinct altitude advantage for the initial engagement. Sides would be kept even and in the event of an odd number of players the odd man would pick a team and replace the last man on that team knocked down. I know, conventional thinking would be replacing the first man knocked down, but if it's the last it gives the rest added incentive to stay alive (you're not off the hook until you land safely) while giving the first person downed hope that he may yet fly the next round, thus keeping his interest up. These could be full-real with TAC and labels off or with them on, but the response might be better if they were left on. Points are awarded based on numbers of enemy destroyed or forced to retreat and numbers of the last team in the combat area to land safely. Any tactical withdrawal from the combat area of more than five minutes is officilally a retreat. King of the Hill tournament: Best of three one-on-one combat with winners taking on winners until one is declared the weekly winner (the defeated can arrange their own battles to have fun, too). Same-plane matchups with different planes each week (could probably even include two-seaters). Take off from the same field and climb to a pre-determined altitude, gentleman's pass from opposite directions (fly straight and level until past your opponent), and then go for it. Initial pairings can be in order of arrival onto Teamspeak or by challenge or both. Protect/Intercept: This would be close to campaign-style, but without AI. Start with one or two two-seaters (crewed by AI and players or entirely by players, if there are enough, but no entirely AI aircraft) then divide the rest as evenly as possible with any odd numbers going to the side of the interceptors. A target is chosen among three or four nearby potentials to prevent base-hugging by the interceptors and the two-seaters must bomb or photograph from above the target. If bombing, destruction of the target is the primary objective and landing safely is secondary. If it's photo recon at least one of the two-seaters must make it safely back to friendly territory. Points are awarded based first on mission completed and second on safe landings.

You can't lean that far outside the aircraft, Axe, at least I can't. Personally I think it's a CFS3 thing. The lean was probably limited in that to keep the player's head from going outside the canopy, thus preventing you from leaning past the cockpit even when there is no canopy.

Joke. Referencing the potential consequences of releasing bombs at under 100' altitude. It's true: jokes aren't as funny when they have to be explained.

Not likely. Again, my first-hand knowledge is based on years of skydiving, but the airplane pulls away immediately after exit. And while a human being in free-fall position has significantly more drag than a bomb, physics demands that forward momentum starts decreasing immediately after release, and the path is a parabolic curve beginning with the angle of release and ending with straight down. Besides, the picture was taken from in front of you and you appear very close to level and at very low altitude (based on the position of your shadow I'd guess you were on the low side of 200-400 feet maybe less, and certainly not much more than 500). So if you did a diving run this probably registered before your pullup. Unless you released at 50-100 feet. In which case, can you name me as your beneficiary Oh, and can I have your video card?

A couple of BDA photos from today's missions. First is Duck's hangars burning (4, 5 and 6). And next is Axe's hit on a parked plane. We all know he was aiming at the hangars, but as the basketball announcers say, "COUNT IT!!" Also evident in the second picture is yet another multiplayer glitch. Notice Axe's plane just to the left of the third hangar (second canvas) from the bottom. Obviously, as my computer was reading this, the bomb hit before his plane made it to the point of impact.

Since it was raining when I landed (bloody desk jockey's, making us fly in that weather), I decided to give the ground crew a break and put my bird in the hangar. Can someone alert maintenance to fix the holes in the roof, please? Winston, here's what I saw when you were seeing Niewports on the field. Good flying, guys. Probably gonna miss next week's festivities. Mandatory overtime.

Well done on the research, Lou. I guess it shows that you get used to what you're used to...I see a button like the one on the Sopwith yokes and I think 'electrical'. As for the loose wire on the Nieuports, that shows the desperation to which the Allies were driven to respond to the Eindekker. I can think of dozens of reasons not to have anything loose, or even semi-loose on an airplane, particularly one in which violent maneuvering would be the standard procedure. Uncleal, an electromagnet would be powered by the magneto, not a battery. If the engine weren't running the pilot would have more on his mind than shooting at the enemy. Besides, I seem to remember Willy Coppens (and it's been nearly or more than forty years since I read his book) recounting an incident where his engine died and he wasn't able to fire his guns. Anyone out there have the book to check this? Or maybe a better memory than mine? But you make a very valid point about the difference in power and performance between WWI and WWII aircraft. It would be like wondering why the P-51 didn't carry the payload of an F-15. Apples and oranges. Both fruits, but there the simlarity ends. It would be nice for most to be able to fire the left and right guns, or fuselage-mounted and wing-mounted (although I contend that is possible now) independantly. But I have all my joystick buttons mapped to other, more essential, functions, so I'll stick with one button fires all.

Uncleal, the picture shows a single button on the yoke to fire the guns. I don't know why you don't believe an electrical firing system couldn't have been used, since the electromagnetic relay was invented in the 1800's (ever heard of the telegraph?). It seemed to be a favorite of Sopwith, since I've seen it on images of the Pup, Tripe and Camel. Bullethead, The Bowden cable (although I never knew it's name until now) had been around since the turn of the 20th Century and would have been a viable option for remotely activating a lever (trigger) from the early days of the war and the fact that they are still in use today proves their effectiveness. The cable system with separate triggers in the form of spade-like levers extending into the middle of the yokes seems to have been the choice for German aircraft. I've seen that arrangement on Albatros and Fokker fighters but I won't swear to any others. And a loose cable would be totally ineffective unless absolutely taut. Also, a taut cable can only pull, while a Bowden can pull or push with less stress on the cable itself, thus extending its life. As far as firing the guns independently in OFF, it can be done. Not on the German aircraft, as would be historically accurate, but on the SE5 and possibly some others. The reason is because the fuselage-mounted gun on the SE5 is recognized by the game as a cannon and the top-wing gun as a machine gun. Therefore by mapping machine guns to one button and cannons to another you can choose. The Spandaus, OTOH, are considered cannons and can't be separated. To be honest, I haven't messed with this since programming my stick last year when I installed BHaH, so I think that all Vickers are cannons and all Lewis are machine guns, but don't hold me to that. What I'm really waiting for is to be able to fire the Lewis in the reloading position (hint, hint). Regarding mounting the guns inside the wings, the thickness (or lack thereof) of aircraft wings for both the guns and the ammo, their ability to withstand the stress of recoil, and the accessibility inflight to the pilot are all good points, although the later Fokker wings were certainly thick enough and strong enough to house them. I would add a couple more to them, though. First is accessibility to the ground crews for loading and maintenance. While the metal skins of WWII aircraft could easily have access panels that could be sealed tightly against the airstream the same cannot be said for the canvas-covered wings of WWI. Any loose seam is a potential entry point for air that will build pressure inside the wing itself and could cause ballooning of the fabric, which in turn would seriously impact the aerodynamics and performance of the wing, as would any gap between the muzzle and the leading edge. The second is heat buildup. If the guns were housed in a compartment that was sufficiently sealed to prevent the ballooning mentioned there would be no airflow to cool them and the heat would eventually damage the barrel and could theoretically get high enough to set the wings on fire. I will admit that I have no evidence to support the heat idea, but it seems logical. The air pressure theory, though, is based on years of skydiving and seeing firsthand the effects of high-pressure airflow. *edit* The lever firing mechanism used in "The Blue Max" was a complete fabrication insisted upon by the director for one purpose and one purpose only...to show Stachel about to fire on the two-seater and then changing his mind when he saw its pilot was defenseless. Pure Hollywood.

Congrats to the Saints and all their fans. To paraphrase Bobby Bare, "Another Manning done gone." (all non-country music fans, please search 'Marie Laveau lyrics')

My contributions: First, the official stuff. Bomb damage assessment of the airfield attack. As Jamey Johnson said (the Country music fans will get this), "You Should Have Seen It in Color" Now the general pics: Axe's ghost See, I wasn't making it up. Half-a-wing and a BIG prayer Returning Home Below the horizon you can see the effect of backlighting on the trees that I was talking about.

jwrich, just my two cents' worth, but I find joystick assignments are better done by using the stick's programming software. My keyboard, OTOH, is very personalized with very few, if any, commands left stock.