Goodvibes

G'day uncleal, Yes, I certainly agree with your observation and is the same with me in regard to dust collectors. Unfortunately, I've still had no luck in getting my TrackIR3 Pro to run with or even be recognised by OFF or CFS3. Looking at the Natural Point site, I note that TrackIR3 wasn't updated past XP and I'm using a Vista operating system. After much patching, reading, reinstalling and testing, I suspect that CFS3 only recognises TrackIR3 with XP and TrackIR4 or better with the later Vista or Windows 7 operating systems. Anyway, it's been nearly a fortnight, am now moving on and reached that point in our observation in regard to OFF or until I get around to upgrading to a better version of TrackIR. It's replacement is not on my priority list (have other financial things to do over Christmas) right now and my existing TrackIR3 version works flawlessly with ROF and IL2. Also have extensive SEOW Campaign commitments for IL2 and need to honour this with much of my spare flying time. (three hour sorties off Japanese carriers if you get my drift) Guess it can wait awhile. Reading between the lines and with no two seaters, I'd reckon that ROF is at least a year or so away before a quality and comprehensive WW1 campaign is in the offing. Unfortunately only a quick dogfight sim at present. Anyway, thanks for your assistance and will keep you posted of any further developments. Regards, Vibes

G'day, Thanks for your assistance uncleal. Am afraid I'm still trying to get the trackIR to work, but don't think its a problem related to which version I use or whether it has the vector expansion. There seems to be a number or persistent and perenial problems of trackIR (from versions 1 to 4) running with Combat Flight Simulator 3. Just came across an old 12 page post on the Naturalpoint forum on these issues. Anyway, have tried to patch everything up to the latest versions and am still searching for a solution to my problems. Hopefully will eventually sort this out, as having a functional trackIR device is a game breaker in flight sims for me. Regards, Vibes

G'day, Whilst on the subject of trackIR. I've finally started mucking around with the copy of BH&H that I received in the mail last week. Been rather busy with work. I noted that it doesn't recognise my current trackIR device. The trackIR device that I use is trackIR3 without the vector expansion. Software version 3.13 of this. Does Over Flanders Fields / Combat Flight Simulator 3 recognise this level of trackIR? Or is the vector expansion module also required for the simulation? My existing trackIR3 works with IL2 and Rise of Flight without any problems or concerns. Also on this point, is trackIR5? or the latest Naturalpoint product sufficently better than what I have, to be worth the extra investment in upgrading or is it best just to stick to the purchase of the vector expansion for trackIR3? I haven't touched upon setting up my Saitek X52 Joystick and pedals as yet, but am assuming that I can create a seperate profile for these to pickup all the flight commands. Thanks for any advice. Regards, Vibes.

G'day Elephant, Have just read your post and would like to state that I reached somewhat similar conclusions to those that you outlined, particularly in regard to WWI flight sims. I also have OFF BH&H on order and am a little dissatisfied with ROF in terms of its campaigning field. I also have Pat Wilson's work on the career mod for ROF and totally agree with your assessment on this. It did however, spark my interest in looking further affield for something better developed on the subject of WWI. Something more than dogfighting is needed to hold my interest in the longterm scheme of things. Naturally, I've heard and seen your pilot skin work from Loewengrins DCG. Very nice. Campaigning in the WW2 environment is definitely not a dead issue. BOB2 Wings of Victory made a fair effort, but in IL2 this would have to be SEOW, http://www.seowhq.net/ and 242 Squadrons HSFX patches, http://www.242sqn.co...6d487be498156a1 for the most comprehensive approach to campaigning of WW2 air battles. I currently use the 4.09 4.2 B2 patch for my IL2 work and play and personally have not been on a Hyperlobby dogfight server for a number of years now. Apart from this, can expect that Team Daedelaus (Olegs licenced modders) will finally sort out the bugs in 4.10 and release it sometime soon. On this, I'll be curious to see whether the Channel and Mediteranean maps are included and how the Zuti mods stand in this with particular regard to the future Storm of War. Whether this comes up to the campaigning standard demanded for HSFX and SEOW is an entirely different matter altogether. But as it is, IL2 is still a very competitive product and suspect that OFF should be held in the same vein. Welcome, Vibes

Yes, in total agreement with you on this and is never any argument on this. The blockade of the Central Powers in WWI and its economic consequences by 1918, combined with the entry of the USA into this war, spelt their approaching doom. The black day of the German Army during 1918 and growing riots clearly indicated the course which the war would follow, had it continued longer. Hindsight is a good thing to have but not always possessed. Some, like the Nazis incorrectly argued that the German Army was not decisively defeated and that other factors were responsible for losing the war. Then there are those, such as US Army General Perishing who insisted that the Allies give no quarter and march onto Berlin to ensure that there wouldn't be a repeat of WWI. Economically, Germany was probably at its height in the decade just prior to WWI. After this war, the industrialisation of Russia and the USA took on even greater significance and this was the decisive factor in the return bout. Even with the whole of Europe under Nazi yoke, the Germans were well past their peak and totally overmatched by the Allies. Look at aircraft, artillery, tanks, munitions, supplies, ships or numbers of anything else produced and this will clearly indicate the way WW2 was going to go in the longrun. Anyway, it seems that we've strayed off the subject of airfield attacks and agree that its best that we end this here. Regards, Vibes

G'day, Yes, I do think the Albatros was kept in production longer than it should have been. I think this was largely due to its use of an inline engines and the need for something until the Fokker D.VII's were available in sufficient numbers. Nor was the Pfalz D.III & D.IIIa considered a sufficient replacement. Review of prewar Grand Prix racecar engine development clearly indicates the German domininance and preference for inline engines. The French opted for rotary engines before WWI, but switched to the Spad V series midway through the war as the torque from larger rotary engined fighters made them only suitable for the experts and positively lethal to the novice flyer. In WW2 the Bf-109 was still a very capable fighter till the end of the war. When optimised for a strictly fighter role, variants such as the G-10 variant, were certainly a match for any of the American, British and Russian opposition. The problem for the Nazis was that the USAAF was continually sending over masses of heavilly armed bombers with strong fighter escorts at well over 20,000ft. The Bf-109's needed to carry more heavy cannons to knock down bombers. A Bf-109 with wing gondalas (cannonboat) was not at its best for a "fighter on fighter" engagement and had a much degraded performance. This is what won the air battle of attrition over the Reich. Also the Bf-109 had good altitude performance as did the Mustang and Thunderbolt. The performance of the FW-190 Anton series which had the heavy cannons, fell away at over 20,000 ft . Actually many short nosed Focke Wulfs were used on the eastern front and largely replaced the Ju-87 Stuka in the ground attack role. It was the T-34 that was killed the Wehrmacht and they were totally overwhelmed by the mass of Russian armour. In some ways it was a repeat of WWI. New German designs such as the FW-190 Dora, Me-262 and others comming online, but it was always too little and too late. Regards, Vibes

As mentioned earlier, the Imperial German Air Service fought a largely defensive battle. Quick climbing interceptors were highly desired. Sometimes they'd concentrate their Jasta's for an offensive and there was always an enivitable Allied response. A good general picks the battles he needs to fight. Don't fight battles that you can avoid and winning without a battle is the sweetest victory of all. On the last, captains of antiquity, such as Alexander, Caesar and Hannibal were past masters in this field. Essentially, the machines that were the most valuable and did the most damage to the German Army were the two seaters. These are the bombers, the recon and the artillery spotters. Fighters were there to protect them or shoot them down. An artillery piece directed by a spotter was a very effective weapon in eliminating key enemy artillery pieces, tanks, infantry concentrations, supplies and strongpoints in the opposing line. An afternoons work of spotting for the guns could mean all the difference to the sucess or failure of a ground offensive. Likewise, recon and bombing had critical roles. It was these machines which were often the directed focus of Abartri attacks, not the Spads, Camels or SE5a's. The standard operational policy of the IGAS was to go after the two seaters and avoid the enemy fighters. Was not profitable to do anything else. What do you think Dowding and Park of Fighter Command were doing two decades later? Focussing upon the Albatross series of fighters. Yes the single spar and sequisiplane layout from the D.III onwards compromised the types extended diving abilites. However, it did improve the Albatrosses manuverability and the all important climbing abilities over the previous models. And the Albatross did have some other things going for it. First was its firepower. At the time, it was greater than the earlier Sopwiths and Spads (till the Camel & XIII) and the SE5a. Second was its stationary inline engine. This could be good and bad. A stationary inline engine offered a good, stable gun platform and the engine was more efficient and performed better at altitude than the air aspirated rotoraries. Nor was there too much fiddling around to be done with the Mercedes engine. As an owner of ROF, I personally believe that some of this is modelled correctly whilst am dubious about the altitude performances of the rotaries in this sim. Have yet to receive OFF, but suspect you guys have probably got the balance right if your running campaigns with the program. Putting things into an operational aspect or theatre is always the best way to find these things out. So roughly speaking, I see the Albatross fighters as a compromise. Their overall speed was down on opposing SE5a's and Spads. At height its speed would have been superior to rotary engined fighters and probably on par with them at lower altitudes. Am sure that Albatross drivers could have chosen when and where to fight Pups or Camels and at times would have had the performance to cut and run. I also suspect that the sequisiplane arrangement gave the Albatross an edge in manuverablity over the SE5a and Spad, but this could in no way match the turn gained from the torque of a rotary engined fighter. Also, rotary engines need castor oit and this was a very scarce commodity in Germany. Is one of the reasons why the Germans concentrated on building inline engines. All this, coupled with the heavy armament, made the Albatross a formidable fighter. Yes, at lower altitudes it would have had a hard time against the Camel and could never match the Spad or SE5a in diving and breakaway combat ability. Overall, I think it was a good all rounder whose flight performances (was passed in diving ability) were first matched by the Mercedes engined Fokker D.VII and eventually surpassed by the same fighter with the BMW engine. All said above, please remember that this is just an opinion and is a possible explaination as to why the Albatross continued in service till the last day of the war. Regards, Vibes

G'day, Please excuse any ignorance on my part and the number of questions for now. If any of this is already in the campaign documentation, then my appologies. Am yet to receive BH&H to guage this for myself, so am putting this into an SEOW parlance and perspective which I'm readily accustomed to. Am actually someone who normally prefers ground attack over fighters missions so am somewhat curious about this topic and its implications in a campaign environment. Some questions: 1. Does the destruction of vehicles, airframes and artillery have any material affect upon the campaign apart from collecting points or racking up ground kills? 2. If I destroy a number of aircraft based at or assigned to a particular airfield, will the same squadron aircraft numbers, operations and seviciability be reduced till replacements arrive? 3. Does the campaign track numbers of aircraft assigned to airfields and are those aircraft not on sorties parked at the airfields? 4. If I destroy an AAA artillery piece at an airfield, will the base defences be reduced till replacements arrive? 5. Does the destruction of vehicles in the enemies logistic tail have any short term repercussions on the campaign? That is, are supply and logistics modelled in the campaign? 6. Can the program keep a record of the supply level at each airfield, which in turn can be resupplied or reduced through subsequent mission sorties? Yes I know these factors won't change the overall result of the war, but am always interested in the repercussions of destroying enemy ground targets. Sorry if asking too many questions on this and certainly don't want to interfere with any work in this area if inconveinient. Regards, Vibes

Thanks Olham, Am still awaiting delivery of BH&H in the mail, but can confirm that my CFS3 is version 3.1. I run a quadcore system, X-52 & pedals, TrackIR3 and will always fly full and all realistic settings for all flight sims. Haven't had any issues running ROF, nor do I find its aircraft models particularly hard to fly. Always figured that if I mastered carrier fliying, takeoff and landing in Lerche's, early jets, X-4 missiles and torpedo bombing with advanced enginine and bombing in IL2 than the rest should be easy. Am still confined to IL2 and will be online flying off the IJN Shokaku on the Slot map (or IJN Shoho on extended New Guinea map) for a three hour mission for SEOW commitments against a bunch of Yanks later tonight. Am looking forward to OFF. Not sure what you mean by "OFF Forum Pilots maps"? Is this some form of worldwide online campaign that you have running? Also, do you guys use Teamspeak, Ventrillo or nothing for communications? Will catch up with later on. Regards, Vibes

Thanks uncleal, Your response was very informative and is much appreciated. I'll keep in mind what you've posted as the use of environmental circumstances are very important aspects in stalking targets. Am glad that Over Flanders Fields has this moddelled. In IL2, the AI has the ability to see you and is sometimes problematic, particularly in nocturnal sorties and campaigns. Essentially I use the HSFX 4.09 B2 version and SEOW for IL2. This is pretty much the "tip of the spear" for complexity, difficulty and realisim in online campaigning with this flight sim. We are talking of long missions, navigation, active land / naval and plotting against human opponents. As such, I've mainly been an IL2 user from 2002 and onwards. However, I can assure you that I've probably spent as many hours flying Avias, CR.42's, Gladiators and Polikarpov biplanes as I would have done on late model Messerschmitt's or Focke-Wulfs. Getting back to the topic of WW1 flying. In the past, have been a user of "Knights of the Sky" circa 1990 and "Flying Corps Gold" circa 1996 for my WW1 flight sim efforts. Am also a user of Rise of Flight for about a year and half now and whilst it's a beautifly modelled and presented flight sim, it is unfortunate in that it is no way yet acceptable for career or campaigning modes in it's current guise. In all sims, am totally over "chimp dogfighting" and rarely use Hyperlobby or the like. Am sure there's an old Spartan warning against the training of your opponents and thats exactly what I see in the gunnery aspect of dogfight modes in flight sims. From personal observation and by reading between the lines on relevant forums, am thinking that its still maybe another year or more off, till ROF comes of age and is up to scratch for campaigning. Hopefully, I'm wrong. All said though, I've had no problems flying or running ROF and apart from the lack of content is a very good aircraft simulator. I am based in Brisbane, Australia, run a half decent quadcore systems and have always used the most realistic flight settings where possible in any flight sim that I've owned. Until a week ago, I was totally unaware of the extensive OFF community. It was only after researching WWI aircraft data and through the periodical update foray on the ROF forum that I stumbled across OFF. Reading the OFF forum and spotting a cheap copy of the CFS3 Battle for Europe, pretty much decided the issue for me. I've taken the plunge and ordered the Between Heaven and Hell patch a few days ago. Still awaiting delivery, but am assuming that BH&H installs right over the top of CFS3 automatically. Not sure of the actual CFS3 version that I have, but it's suprisingly marketed by Ubisoft. Further patches and Hat in the Ring addon from this point? Correct? Okay, so no full gore mode, but am guessing that accurate close range deflection fire hits into the engine bay and crew compartment of a target will put it out of the fight. Will be interested to see how ground interdiction is modelled. Is there any cooperation between artillery and observation machines for artillery spotting? I.e. observer using morse (Y,Z,A,B,C,D,E,F & clock code) to adjust fire? Don't worry, am rambling and will soon find out for myself. Thanks again for advice and will check in with Olham for a heads up, especially on any Australian connexions with OFF. Regards, Vibes

G'day, New to the forum and the "Between Heaven and Hell" patch still in transit from the States to Oz. So please excuse any ignorance on my part, but do AI aircraft have an uncany ability to spot you in any visibility conditions or this factor considered and degraded in the program? Otherwise can only state the il2 approach when flying a Hurricane against multiple 109's. Break into each attack, damage as many as possible to put them out of the fight and cut down the number of enemy runners still in the flight. If you try to concentrate on one bandit, the other is sure to nail you. Regards, Vibes