UnknownPilot

Cool. I have too...... if you add up all the pilots/campaigns.

Louvert, thanks for the welcome, but I'm afraid I've never been part of any RAF squad, nor any RB3D squad of any kind (I did go through hell to obtain a copy, and got the Full Canvas Jacket patch and all the other upgrades I could find, but in the end, the result just wasn't worth it and ultimately I found FS-WWI more appealing). Olham, will do. Regarding spins... surely the Camel should be able to get into an unrecoverable one? Pilot experience is a lot, but as I saw in a sig quote around this site - a superior pilot is one who avoids situations which would require him to use his superior skills. Meaning that staying away from stalls, or reacting quickly enough when you sense that a stall or spin is imminent to correct it before it ever develops would be where experience would matter most. But from what I've read, that massive torque and close coupled nature of the Camel was such that if it did enter a spin, there was often no hope of recovery. That may have been purely aerodynamic (plus torque), or it may have been from lack of altitude (generally you aren't going to be at 20,000 feet, especially in a fight that's gone a few passes. lol). I'm not saying it's a fact (about the Camel), just what I remember reading....

OvS, I hear ya, and agree, but only to a point. If all you have is bland, barren scripted missions, AND you choose to fly carelessly and just "re-fly" until you succeed, then yes, it will be boring. Likewise, if you either try to replay too soon, or remember specific details too well (me, I have too many and too varied interests to remember minutea of specific missions after about a year or so), then perhaps replay can suffer as well. But the first thing I thought of when you said replay being hurt in scripted campaigns was Wing Commander. This was a unique split between scripted and dynamic, but still, if you did everything right, you saw the same string of missions every time. However.... I use this example because it is my favorite series of all time. I have played it countless times. And from time to time I get the urge and will play the entire series straight through (WC1, SM1&2, WC2, SO1&2, WC3, WC4, and Prophecy along with all the downloaded episodes). That is what I could call replayability, and it has not been hurt through the scripting of missions or mission branches. There's a couple of things to consider - how well are the missions written (particularly the brief) and how much atmosphere can they bring; and of course the AI; finally, how do you as a player play the missions. Chris Roberts's stuff (Wing Commander, Strike Commander, and Star Lancer) have the atmosphere and story elements, so it's just like watching a beloved movie all over again. But even without that, you can still have a great time, if you choose to. For instance, go to mission4today and look for the White Sun Blue Sky campaign for IL2. This was made by someone who once called himself Chuck Older (in homage to the pilot), and is probably the most detailed and well written AVG (American Volunteer Group, aka "Flying Tigers") campaign ever made. Yes it's scripted, but it's tense, INtense, and the briefs draw you in, you can't help but enjoy it. Now as for replay? Well... that's where the AI come in. Technically the missions are never the same twice, even though the same craft spawn at the same points and times and fly the same paths each time you load it, they have an inherent bit of randomness to their behavior, as do you, and this interaction results in a different fight, with potentially different outcomes each time you fly it. And for me, once I complete, or get frustrated from trying to play it DiD style, I'll move on to something else for a bit, and eventually move my interest on to something non-sim related for a while, then work my way back, and at some point get the hankerin to fire it up again and it's enjoyable all over again. So I guess it's really what you make of it, but there is always an element of dynamism present, even if you know the campaign's final outcome (such as in "dynamic" LuftWaffe campaigns in IL2) and they are still enjoyable to replay, whether auto-generated or pre-written.

I don't have it yet. I'm not sure where I tossed my copy of Crap... err I mean "Combat" Flight Sim 3. lol But seriously, it's around somewhere, I just haven't had time to find it. Presently I'm involved in a Rolling Thunder campaign in Strike Fighters 2: Vietnam with VF-84 in F-4Bs. And after that, I suspect I'll either go with an F-104 campaign, or a VA campaign (A-4, A-7, or A-6), or even maybe a Thud, or some more CAS. Either way, right now that's the current new shiny. But I remain very much interested in WWI kites, and sims for them. This thread is a good one that I keep checking on because it's about the plane itself (which has always been one of my favorites, although I'm more of an Albatros guy, just on looks. But the S-S D.IV was an awesome design from a technical standpoint, and ya just gotta love the F. DVII and DVIII, plus it would be awesome to fly around in a Taube, and I've always liked the DeHaviland DH2.... oh hell, I love (nearly) them all. lol )

Um, what you guys are calling a "string of themed missions" is actually called a scripted campaign. Very much like what is in IL2. It's still a campaign any way you look at it.

Some of that comes down to limitations of the underlying physics engine. But that aside, I suppose the question is "what is correctly modeled?", and in that regard, strictly speaking, I don't think an unrecoverable spin is all that big a deal. Let me explain.... the Bf-109 was known for extremely gentle stalls where the nose would just mush out, but you'd always have aileron control (that's what those leading edge slats are for, afterall). However, in IL2, it has been known (in various patch levels) to have some rather more viscious stall tendencies. But those came from chasing the actual performance parameters. And in a combat sim, those are what matters most. So, for ANY plane (from any era in any sim), the overall performance is the critical thing - climb, dive, acceleration, top speed, roll rate, turn rate (for props, torque, prop-wash, p-factor), etc. If those result in an unintended and inaccurate stall behavior, well, so be it. And to that end I would say that you can have something "correctly modeled" even if the stall behavior is way out of line - so long as the other stuff is accurate. (in fact, one would hope that all the above factors would add up to take off and landing behavior that matches the real thing as well, since that, along with combat, is where people will be spending their time, and it could be argued that either riding the edge of stall, or staying away from it altogehter while in combat is the "proper" way to fight, but we all have to slow down to landing speed and wrangle it down to the ground (eventually). ;) )

Pucker factor? Maybe for everybody else. That's always been a bit of a dream of mine - not to have the pilot die, per say, but to get a chance to take over and fly and land it.

Good job. That's the way it ought to be done. I just hope that it wasn't done for the publicity.

There are many kinds of fail boats. ;) lol

You are quite incorrect about that. I have flown campaigns in FS-WWI. Many times in fact, with many different aircraft. In fact, it's what I did most often when I flew it offline. However, they are scripted, and must be made by mission makers before you can fly them. So you could certainly end up with a plane and no campaign for it, but that is NOT the same as there being "no campaign mode".

I was reading Real Life Comics today (a great web-comic btw - http://www.reallifecomics.com ) and they had an add for something that I thought was another web-comic, but instead turned out to be a story. Called The Flying Cloud, it's set in 1926, and starts off with the crew of an air ship in some real trouble. I'm only 3 pages in, but so far it's been really good. Wanted to pass it along for all of you. http://airships.paulgazis.com/001/FlyingCloud001.htm

You don't need much to kill a pilot or break his engine, or.... shoot away his wires. That's another advantage the Dr.1 had, it was a bit "tougher" to down because there weren't a mess of wires in between the wings to shoot and break. People who think that energy fighting is "all zooming and booming" [and btw, it's BnZ, not ZnB] don't really understand it all that well. There is so incredibly much more to it than that, however, it's a skill that is not the most intuitive and takes a long time to learn, so most eschew it.

....teacher needs to see me after school ....I think of all the education that I miss, but then my homework was never quite like this....

Take a breath, slow down, go back and re-read what was posted. There's a HUGE difference between using an example via analogy, and insulting something. But you chose to ignore that and invent an insult that wasn't present.

Yes, as I said in my edit - the page linked did indeed so max take-off weight, however it did NOT show empty weight, and so a real comparison is hard to find. The best wing for supersonic speeds was, supposedly, that trapezoidal thing. The best wing for a range of speeds and weight carrying capability is a delta - which is why the Concorde and XB-70 use that. Aircraft do indeed dogfight at sub-sonic speeds, but if the design was as poor as you imply, it would never have entered service. Even if you wanted to claim politics, that doesn't account for the German or Italian love for the plane, nor the Japanese (they made almost as many as the Italians). The 104 had something going for it, or it would have been little more than a crazy experimental foot-note in history. While an aircraft that generates the most excess lift at sub-sonic speeds generally is the one that will turn better, as you suggest - dogfighting is NOT turning. It really never was. Even the modern notions of WWI combat is off - check the Dicta Boelcke, to paraphrase, be above your enemy, and dive with superior speed, from above and behind, from out of the sun, perforate him, and fly away at a high speed to reset and find the next victim. Richtofen felt the same way, and it was the foundation of the SPAD combat technique. Later Hartmann took that concept to a whole new level, and one very successful (even in air to air combat) plane was also the heaviest and poorest turning of it's time - the P-47.... but it was FAST. The Spitfire would out-circle a 190A, but the 190s terrified the Spitfires for a good long while (as they were faster, and rolled MUCH better). Basically, the long and short of it is, turning isn't the way to fight, nor is it all it's cracked up to be. All you need is to be able to bring the nose around in maneuvers such as a yo-yo or hammerhead in a reasonable time-frame. If you can do that, and you have monstrous thrust and speed and roll rate, (and especially the training to work together as a unit with your flight), you're golden. That brings us back to the earlier question..... it's been suggested that the SF2:V E.P. 2.0 F-104C is overmodeled. Ok, it may well be. Has anyone done a correct one (primarily C model, as mentioned, but the others would be good ot have too) that I could obtain? And if so, where can I get it?

Give tinypic a try (as a place to drop screenshots) - http://tinypic.com

Wow, talk about a short article. Seems like they almost couldn't be bothered with it. Still though, good news.

Well.... don't take this the wrong way, as I'm merely making a philosophical point - while Adam and Jamie (the MythBusters) did prove that you CAN indeed polish a turd, in the end, you wind up with just a polished turd. Again, I am NOT making accusations of OFF. I'm simply re-phrasing my personal concern about it. 1% and all those guys may do good work, but they are all inherently limited by the engine they work with, thus, my questions about this total conversion. There are some nifty things in CFS3, and so if this can do it "right", I would love to snap it up. Does it handle torque? Does it handle propwash? Does it handle P-Factor? Adverse aileron yaw? Differential roll rates (with vs against torque)? And that's even before we get into issues of absolute numbers and relative aircraft performance (ie, plane vs plane). One thing I like about FS-WWI is that, even though it lacks P-factor (ie, gyroscopic precession), it is tweakable so that when somethings off, you can fix it. I hadn't heard of anything about copyright binding, that's interesting. But being a total conversion mod, those almost never manage to incorporate the original engine, so that CFS3 would be required on that alone I would assume, just like I had to get FS-SDOE in order to download and use FS-WWI.

The Dr.1 was a turning demon as well, be sure. The climb-rate is the first indicator. Since it was so low on power, it was not going to be climbing on it's prop (in fact, no Kite would be - that was something seen in the 40s by the 109), so that meant it was the lift of the wings. Lift, or more to the point, the excess of it, is directly related to wing loading, which in turn, is also directly related to the ability of an aircraft to turn, in comparison to other aircraft (and in the abscense of particular high-lift devices which alter all that). The only thing that could limit it would be roll rate and pitch authority. I have heard that it's roll was not the greatest, but by no means was it really a liability. I have read a first hand account on Air and Space magazine of a pilot, familiar with WWI types, flying a Dr.1, and he was stunned at it's ability to climb, it's infamous "flat turn" (which Voss used to great effect many times on his last flight), and it's banked turn ability. After being duly impressed, he decided to see just what it really do and started to pull back with some authority in a turn, and quickly realized he'd made a mistake - it turned so hard the Gs ripped the goggles right off his face and left them hanging around his neck. It was best described by the comment that.... "if a German pilot wasn't careful, he could do a full loop and still remain in front of his opponent!" While that may be a slight bit of hyperbole, it's effect, intent, and meaning is pretty clear.

BAM!

Well, it was said that the cheapest way to aquire a 104 was to purchase a piece of land and simply wait. lol It sounds to me like in the previous one, you were either too close and caught the blast, or that the gunner got you. If it was the gunner, then it's not the 104's fragility that is the problem, it would be just as bad in a Phantom. That will take time trying to get the gunnery eye in and the speeds and angles necessary to get the kills without being hit. If it was the former, then you need to work on hitting from further out and improving your aim as necessary. It is a fragile plane, and if you get caught in the blast it won't be happy about it. (heck, I took pretty heavy damage from shooting an unarmored man pushing a pedal bike with an F-100 (they explode for some odd reason and I was just too low) ). Also, they are held to a 7G limit (well, the C is anyway), so becareful about hauling back on the stick while at speed. You can cross that pretty easily and damage it that way too. The trick is to be fast, high (at least higher than the enemy when possible), and smooth (even gentle). Arc the plane around the sky gracefully, work with it's thrust and gravity by guiding where you want them to take you, rather than controlling them (meaning, more of a suggestion than a man-handling, if that makes sense). Well, that and don't get hit. lol

James, I worried about that too, so I looked for an alternative. Check out http://tinypic.com Cliff, sounds like you got a better handle on it at least, and you survived, and that's what matters. :)

Conrad, thanks for the response. :) I can appreciate atmosphere. And single player. I have long lamented the death and dearth of single player in recent years, as I am an "old school" PC gamer. For reference, all my favorite titles are both from the 90s, and SP/offline only (the FMV era such as the Tex Murphy series, Gabriel Knight, Shivers 2, etc; and Wing Commander (my all time favorite, hands down), Privateer, Strike Commander, etc). In fact, as I have said before here and elsewhere, I think that Strike Commander or Crimson Skies, done with accurate physics, and aircraft and systems modeling, with a plausible damage model, would be the most epic games of all time. Ok, that said..... "atmosphere" is pure story. It's descriptive text and dialogue. And it's the imagination that that triggers. As a RPG GM (Game Master) and fan of fiction and one who enjoys writing, I am familiar with creating atmosphere and drawing the player/reader in (not claiming to be an expert, just familiar with it, and with doing it). In short, I have found that atmosphere in both IL2, and FS-WWI - when running well made campaigns. Granted, seeing things going on IN game helps (such as how SF2:V's Expansion Pack 2.0 shows ground damage over hte course of the campaign and has so much going on at once you get a feel of there actually being a war going on), but it's still secondary to a well written campaign story line and descriptive text. However.... I digress. My real point is, it doesn't take much to accomplish that, both FS-WWI and IL2 do. So you need something more. All the atmosphere in the world won't make a lick of difference if the planes are not modeled correctly and if the physics engine is wonky. So that is my real question. For example, I love the TW stuff. I would really like to pick up First Eagles. But I can't...... I can't because TK doesn't model engine torque, or prop-wash, or P-factor. These things don't really matter for jets, but they are vital for props. Many of these effects are, to varying degrees, present in FS-WWI. It's primitive (because the SDOE/OpenPlane engine is just old), but so far it's the best I can get to. As for flying methods, don't worry about me. I have been very much interested in the aircraft and the pilots for a long time, and am aware of the issues they have. However, Energy tactics still work. And using them I was able to frustrate more than a few FS-WWI players online. hehe (for the record, that does not mean flying it like a WWII fighter, in the sense of putting it under the same loads and speeds, rather simply adapting the thinking and tactics to work with the slower, weaker kites) What engine does RoF use, btw? I know FE uses the TW engine, OFF is CFS3, FS-WWI is OpenPlane, and there is (or was) a project for using Oleg's IL2 engine. That isn't RoF, is it?

Sorry... I can't tell if you are joking, or if you are giving me a hard time because you think I implied that. If the latter, let me assure, I most certainly did not. ;) I should have used a semi-colon I guess - Or used a period and capitolized the And. Either one.

Just found this thread. I don't have OFF, or RoF, or FE.... but I do have FS-WWI, and have been hooked on WWI kites ever since the old (Microprose?) Knights of the Sky. One thing I feel bears mentioning... this IS an OFF forum, by default, one would expect all opinions to sway in favor of OFF as a result. With good reason. while you did make note of aftermarket improvments, the mere fact is the engine allows things that simply are enough to turn one off from it. For example - let me start off by saying that I am primarily an IL2 simmer, have been since 2001 (with some time in LOMAC when it came out), but it's that engine that has hooked me the hardest. Now, with that said, when CFS3 came out, I got it because it had "The Wing" in it. This was prior to Oleg releasing a 229 for us, and also I don't always trust his spin on the numbers (afterall, he has all the best attritubes of soviet designs modeled, along with the all the problems and field issues of LW designs - like putting perfect concepts up against battle worn production craft), so I just had to have it. Once I got it, I proceeded to see what kind of trouble I could get into, and I managed to put it into a full-on tumble - a 360 spin about both yaw and pitch axes. ...... I never lost altitute! As I sat there tumbling, trying different things to stop it, noting worked, so I started pressing every button on the keyboard. Eventually I hit the waypoint warp, and it took me there, and left me flying normally. This was at 1 thousang 5 hundred feet when I started the tumble. I spent a good 5 minutes or more trying to work my way out of it and then finding the warp button. The only way that should be possible at ALL is if I was in orbit. It's one thing for a plane's tables to be set up wrong, but the physics engine (over-arching FM) should not allow that. Needless to say, that was the end of CFS3 for me. CJ, how would you define those differences, IYO? I feel that an inaccurate FM ruins EVERYTHING for a sim. However, at the same time, the most accurate FM in the world is useless if it's not surrounded by the right atmosphere. (ie, Crimson Skies is ruined by the arcade crap-model, despite the awesome story and atmosphere. But the IL2 Demo, devoid of on-line and of campaigns, would be useless as well - ya gotta have both (and IL2's offline is borderline at best, but it's still enough.... just) )