33LIMA

Flying a Jasta 10 Pfalz DIII campaign, I came back after a period in hospital and found we're transitioned to the Fokker DVII. Noticed fairly soon that with the controls neutral, the right aileron is sitting up, at about 20 degrees - its maximum travel possibly. It's travel limit in the other direction - down - seems to be in the level position. The left-hand aileron looks and moves normally. This SEEMS to be a visual thing as the RH aileron's strange behaviour doesn't seem to affect the way the plane flies ie no tendency to push the right wing down. It doesn't affect the DVII OAW or the DVIIF - their alierons look normal. I've heard of planes being trimmed to fly level, but this is ridiculous! Thinking this is an issue with the DVII's 3d model file, I'm tempted to try copying the m3d file from one of the other DVII variants, in the hope it's much the same and that the texture mapping for skins won't be messed up. Anybody else noticed this, or tried to fix it? Would be good if the devs released the aircraft 3d source files so that modders could fix stuff like this while we're waiting for P4, like the wrongly-pivoted Pfalz DIIIa tailskid, the missing flying wires on the RE8, and LOD distances where the transitions are a bit too visible; but I guess P4 will be the fix for these.

Force feedback is probably a good feature to go for - especially if OFF gives you stall buffet feedback, as there seems to be very little indication your plane is about to depart, untill it does, usually at a highly inconvenient moment. I even tried replacing the stock CFS3/OFF stall sound with a louder one and still heard nothing (tho it might be the stall behaviour of some planes that's the problem, come to think of it, several have a habit of just sinking tail first). Even if just for the sensation of guns firing, wheels rumbling on the grass etc, force feedback sounds like a good move to me. Has anyone got it, and can report how it works in OFF?

Update - copying the DVII OAW's m3d model file and renaming it did not work. OFF decided the plane was 'invalid'. Either I need to bring the cockpit file across too or more likely, there is something inside the m3d file that ties it to the original plane - like renaming it broke an internal naming convention. If I could find a plugin that enabled m3d files to be imported back into gmax I could try to fix it (and some of the other little wrinkles mentioned above) but have never found one that worked. Looks like the DVII is stuck with the 'wonky' right elevator.

Excellent! And where else would you see not one, but two DVa's in flight, side by side? Magic!

Thanks for the advice - I'll go with that. I had already toned down gun accuracy in Workshop (except for ground MGs, which are at Hard/accurate/hi RoF due to flakmod, I need to tone them down too I think). Even with that, I still think that AI gunnery is a bit too sharp - especially when I am the target! When I am, I can see the results for myself - even if I'm stunting, they seem to hit me nearly every time they open fire. There was a post the other day, to the effect that 'Mods are nice, but things are pretty well fine as they are'. Have to say, I tick the 'strongly disagree' box on that one. Like the Romans said, there's no point disputing matters of taste, but in my experience, this set of mods, collectively, is already making OFF combat significantly more satisfying, by taking out or minimising most of the aspects I'd found unsatisfactory and/or frustrating. For example, I flew a QC in a Pfalz against SPAD 13s last night, and without the Empty Weight Mod, it was like back to fighting...well not UFOs exactly, but planes that had about 30 more horsepower than they should (which is effectively what they do have, without the mod). With your DM, so far I'm also getting much better results. Behaviour after a fire is now usually much more realistic, with a variety of outcomes, which is just great. Sometimes the fire seems to go out; sometimes it burns small & slowly allowing the plane to descend under control; sometimes the plane loses control quickly; sometimes the crew jump, sometimes not. When my engine is hit and goes 'clunkety-clunk', again, results seem more realistically variable. It certainly seems to maintain power and/or keep running longer, overall, which is very good. ArcMod means flying 2-seaters, the gunners have a decent field of fire, without being impossible targets when you're attacking them (your rear gun mod will solve tone down their accuracy) and flakmod means I can track enemies more easily, so I never need to resort to labels or the TAC for that. Olham's softer labels & smaller TAC mods mean when I do turn them on, the screen doesn't look like the Christmas illuminations in town. A lot of little things make a big difference. Each to his own, but this package is most definitely the way forward for me, till P4 arrives.

Sounds great HPW. At the moment I'm flying with your DM and all your FM mods (applied to player-planes only so I can use the AI empty weight mod) plus the flakmod and the arcmods. Looking forward to the new versions! I find dogfighting in OFF is already perceptibly more challenge, less frustration. Would you recommend your front & rear gun mods for use at the same time as your DM mod? It's obviously possible as the former work on different settings, whose location I can see from the gun mod folder structure - how did you work that one out! I always hated sniper accuracy (like IL2 rear gunners, also the pilots in Flying Corps Gold had an uncanny ability to take you out every time in a head on pass) but the DM on its own makes planes a bit more resistant to non-vital hits. Do you reckon adding the gun mods on top of the DM, is a good bet? I would not want sniper gunnery to go to the other extreme!

I've just uploaded version 2 of the 'solo' version of the AI Empty Weight Mod, with weight corrections (as per my earlier post) to the Fokker DRI, DVII, DVII OAW, EV, Nieu.11, Pup, & RE8. The Sopwith triplane I had already corrected in version 1, like the SPADs. Have not made any further changes to the Strutter; the OFF versions seem to be generic ones, more representative of the French models than RFC/RNAS, so I have left those as per the original mod. Hopefully a 'merged' version won't be too far behind!

Re the Strutter, Profile Publication # 121 has the info below - the full profile is here.

Not sure how best to deal with the weight errors as regards the player-flown planes. I have already applied corrections to the AI-only planes in a new version of the empty weight mod which I am now testing. So far so good, tho I need to do some more comparisons over the weekend, to make sure any oddities in the AI behaviour - like their tendency to head for the deck rather readily and then do strange things there - isn't any stranger with the mod. As for the player planes...well, I'm fairly sure the AI-only planes use the EMPTY weight in the aircraft.cfg file - I left the .air files alone, and just increasing the empty weight in the .cfg file had an effect. but what about the LOADED weights in the .cfg files? In testing, I experimented with the EMPTY weight data in the .cfg files for the QC1 planes, as it seems both player and AI use these planes, for quick combat. And adding to the empty weight to a QC1 .cfg file did indeed affect the plane, whether I flew it. or the AI did. But that alone doesn't prove we need to correct LOADED weight errors, for the player-flown planes (QC1 and Sqd). My rationale for that is that the player-flown planes don't use the .cfg file loaded weights. At least, I THINK they don't. I think they take account of variations in ammo and fuel load (if less than 100% selected by the player, and I THINK also from fuel consumption in flight). If that's what they do, they must use the plane's EMPTY (not loaded) weight plus the weights of crew and (selected or remaining) fuel & ammo. At least some of these, they look to get from the .AIR file, as they don't seem to be in the .cfg file. Either way it's only errors in EMPTY weight in the .cfg files, that might need corrected. I think the thing to do is to test this premise by adding a massive amount of weight to a QC1 plane's LOADED weight in its .CFG file. Fly that plane yourself, in QC, before and after. If it flies like a bird before and a brick afterwards, then we have a problem and need to correct the QC1 and Sqd FMs if we also correct the loaded weight. But if it flies like a bird before AND after, we can indeed ignore the errors in my earlier post. For Player-flown planes.

OK thanks HPW, will keep an eye open for that. What weight do you suggest we take off? I'd opted for 80 lbs scouts, 150 lbs 2-seaters. We've gone over some comparative figures (complete with my dodgy maths, one was out by 10 lbs I think). What do you reckon? And how do we do this - do you want to edit in the agreed weight reductions to the AI versions of your plane FM mods, and I'll do the others - then one or t'other of us can merge then, we can agree the readme, and then upload? There's the separate question - only affects the player-flown planes, so just your FM mod - what do we do about the very incorrect OFF max weights eg the two Fokkers DVIIs and the SPADs, in the aircraft.cfg files for the QC1 and Sqd planes? Leave them alone? Correct in the aircraft.cfg files? Correct in the .air files (if they are also out)? The AI seem to use the (empty) weights in the .cfg files and ignore what's in the .air files; maybe it is the other way around with the player-flown ones.

Wow! Another great plane - thank you Stephen and colleagues!!! Off to grab it now!!!

Welcome aboard! Re getting started, I think there are five points worth mentioning. First, use the Quick Combat (QC) option - nearest equivalent to the IL2 QMB - to get used to things. You have to create a pilot first, and Quick Combat can kill him (I think the 'pilot never dies' QC option only comes with the HiTR expansion pack). So make it 'Captain Tester' or whatever so you don't kill him off (tho you can hand-edit the OFF pilot dossiers to change 'Deceased' back to 'In service'). In QC, you can fly ANY plane on your pilot's side, fighter or 'bomber'; so you may need to create a 'Hauptmann von Tester' as well. Second, experiment with the game settings in the OFF Workshop. HiTR adds some extras but you can control quite a bit here and it will make a difference. There is no substitute for trying for yourself, as opinions vary. Third, get used to the CFS3-style visual aids that OFF has - mainly, it's 'tactical display' (aka the traditional MS CFS 'radar') and the labels - IL2-like but more conspicuous (Olham's lower-vis mod for these is recommended). And the padlock if you use it. Find out what works best for you. Then there's the OFF map - basically a minor improvement on the really awful CFS3 one. Some use paper maps instead, you can get them here. Others find they can fly without the visual aids. Or just dip into them when needed. Fourth, check out the OFF FM, DM and other mods here on CombatAce, to improve anything you're still not happy with, using Jonesoft Generic mod enabler to enable and disable them. Last, use the CFS3 config option, accessible from Workshop, to set up your graphics options, GPU driver for aniso only, maybe AA as well. BTW HiTR is definitely worth getting, more planes and units, better terrain, more game config options. Re a career, you can choose a paintscheme for your flight (or just your plane, in HiTR) and OFF has thousands available via drop-down lists (no preview tho). You can d/l skins here at CombatAce or make your own, if not available in-game. The stock OFF skins you can choose, include many aces. If OFF has the plane type, your campaign squadron will change to it when your real-life squadron changed. I think I recall seeing Alb DII's takeoff alongside me when I was flying a Halberstadt DII with Jasta 2 in late 1916 so i think some combinations of planes within a unit are modelled (maybe Fokker Triplane and Albatros too?). If you want to transfer to a different squadron, I dunno if you can do in-game that but you could create a second pilot with the same name in a different unit and you may be able to hand edit their dossier (log book) by cutting and pasting from the old one into the new one. This is probably what you'd have to do, to mimic the career of a pilot like MvR, Voss, Ball or McCudden, who switched units over time.

OK let's look at taking off a percentage of each plane's fuel load. Some points to ponder: - for scouts, what percentage do we take off? (my thoughts - somwehere in between 30% and 60%, seems a good enough ball-park figure, given what we're trying to represent) - do we take more off 'Allies', than Germans (scouts) - if so, how much more? (my thoughts - ok go for it, take between half and a third less from the Germans - say, take off 30% of fuel weight fro Germans, 50% for 'Allied') - do we take the same weight off 2-seaters? (my thinking - generalisation - 2 seaters had the same or bigger engines, which had to work harder and sometimes fly from more distant bases; but they had bigger tanks too, so the same % of weight taken off would represent greater fuel consumed; art obs or photo recces often involved flying to and fro in the target area so not unlike scouts patrolling. So am inclined to think take the same % off 2-seaters) - do we treat German and 'Allied' 2-seaters the same?? (my thinking - yes, they flew BROADLY similar missions) Looking at some examples: Camel Current mod - loaded weight 1498 lbs, minus 80 lbs fuel used, = 1418 lbs. Percentage-based - loaded 1498, minus 125 (50% of c.250 lbs fuel & oil load) = 1373. Difference: %-based Camel 45 lbs lighter. Nieuport 17 Current mod - loaded weight 1280 lbs, minus 80 lbs fuel used, = 1200 lbs. Percentage-based - loaded 1280, minus 72 (50% of 143 lbs) = 1208. Difference: minimal SE5a (Hisso) Current mod - loaded weight 2048 lbs, minus 80 lbs fuel used, = 1968 lbs. Percentage-based - loaded 2048, minus 115 (50% of 230) = 1933. Difference: %-based SE5a = 25 lbs lighter Fokker DVII Current mod - loaded weight (corrected) 2112 lbs, minus 80 lbs, = 2032 lbs. Precentage based at 50% 2048 minus 80 (half my estimate of 160, don't have an actual figure, but it was just a bit more than the N.17) = same; at 30%, 2112 minus 48=2064. Difference - 30%-based = 32 lbs lighter; 50%-based = no difference. To be honest, and looking at the above, I don't think a difference of up to 50 lbs (whether plus or minus) in the result, with at least some turning out pretty well the same, makes the more complicated method worthwhile, likewise with taking a few more lbs off German than Allied planes. For some planes, the different weights given in the various sources (including the OFF data files) show a greater variation. For me, the critical factor is that the AI don't seem to notice the extra weight all THAT much. Bumping them all up to loaded weight minus 80lbs, I had to fly repeated missions, before I was convinced it was actually making any difference at all, and that I wasn't suffering from confirmation bias. I was concerned that by taking the AI up to close to their loaded weight, the AI would be stalling out and dropping like dead flies, all over the show. But not a bit of it. I had to do really mad stuff like more than doubling their weight, to get them to the point they could not take off! The extra weight just shaves the edge off; another 50 or so pounds either way is going to make damn-all squared of a difference, from what I have seen.

First thing to report is that I've just changed the AI DVII's (made heavier), Dr1 and EV (made lighter) and flown against them all in a Camel. None of them showed any strange behaviour - no more than usual, anyway. Of the three, the AI-flown EV was the hardest to stay with (I use the 'less aggressive' AI, or 'historical') which result seems to correspond roughly with my favourable experience of flying it (still just stock, so far) last night. So I'm going to make similar corrections to the 'Allied' planes and check them out too. As for a merged mod, you're doing the hard work so it's your call! But FWIW... ...making the AI fly at max (loaded) weight seems to me a step to far - by the time they meet you in combat, they should always have burned off at least some fuel, possibly quite a bit. The main reason I didn't go for a % fuel reduction was partly because it would (unjustly?) penalise planes which had bigger tanks when they would necessarily not have used THAT much more fuel, getting to the combat zone. Distance to the latter should be what the fuel weight usage/reduction is based on I thought, not size of fuel tank. As for using the same, 80 lbs fuel load reduction for all scouts, take the N.17 again, and compare to the Camel F1. N.17 has a 110 hp Le Rhone, & carries 143 lbs of fuel (and oil). Camel has (typically) a 130 hp Clerget and has a fuel (and oil) load of (typically) about 240 lbs. I just took 80 lbs off the loaded weights of both, assuming they had to fly on average equal distances to get into combat with you. I've no info to suggest Nieuports were routinely based closer to the front or given Line Patrols more than OPs or Distant OPs tho that may have been the case. I decided not to make the assumption that the Germans generally flew with full tanks, so applied the 80 lbs to both sides. More importantly, I've made no allowance for different fuel consumption, as the difference that would make seemed to me likely to be marginal, and not worth the effort, especially with a mechanism which is pretty 'broad brush' to begin with. Layering sophistication, on top of something inherently unsophisticated, and producing only minor differences. Which source's laoded weight you used, would make more difference, in many cases. Anyway that was my thinking, such as it was.

Right I've done some more cross-checking and it's a bit of a can of worms; there are several OFF loaded weight figures which are way too low or way too high. Since the AI empty weight mod works back from the OFF max weight figure, these wrong figures will throw the mod out, too, for these planes. The only ones I had already spotted and corrected in the AI empty weight mod are the two SPADs. Granted the incorrect figures MAY (or may not) affect the player-flown planes too, but I'm going do an update to the mod to correct the others. The results of the cross-check are below; sources other than OFF are G&T=Grey & Thetford, M = Munson, PP= Profile Publications, RoF=Rise of Flight. the ones in BOLD are the ones where I'm going to update the mod, to use the correct loaded weight figure: Loaded weight serious inconsistencies (error significantly over 100lbs) DR1 - OFF c.200 lbs too heavy OFF - 1500 G&T - 1289 M - 1290 PP - 1290 RoF - 1256 DVII + DVII OAW - OFF c.400 lbs too light OFF - 1500 G&T - 1870 M - 1993 PP - 2112/1936 EV - OFF c.200 lbs too heavy OFF - 1503 G&T - 1334 M - 1238 RoF - 1236 N11 - OFF c.180 lbs too heavy OFF - 1230 M - 1058 RoF - 1056 RE8 - OFf c.450 lbs too light OFF - 2190 M - 2678 PP - 2592/2678 (NO bombs) RoF - 2717 Pup - OFF c. 270 lbs too heavy OFF - 1500 M - 1225 PP - 1225 RoF - 1224 Triplane (1-gun) - OFF c.190 lbs too heavy OFF - 1728 M - 1541 PP - 1541 RoF - 1537 SPAD 13 - OFF c . 400 lbs too heavy (Mod already uses correct weight) OFF - 2200 M - 1808 PP - 1807 SPAD 7 - OFF c.450 lbs too heavy (Mod already uses correct weight) OFF - 2100 M - 1550 RoF - 1548

Nice Nieuport there, and I haven't seen a light blue Halberstadt in FE yet! The BE is also nice, tho i hope one day wel will get a more 'mainstream' 1916-17 BE2c or 2e with the later undercarriage and the rounded sump housing under the engine. The pics also remind me that FE/FE2 would I think benefit from an OFF-style treatment of 'the Lines' with blotches of green amidst the brown/earth colour, and not this big brown 'snake' aross the landscape. I know ROF has the same as FE (only darker) but I think the OFF depiction of 'the Lines' just looks a lot more realistic, all it needs is some water in some of the shell craters. We all know how fast grass and weeds grow and how hard they are to eliminate! I have no skill with paint programs but looking at the FE tiles I am tempted to give it a try.

At the end of the day there's maybe not a lot of difference, like you said in your earlier post, maybe 100 lb or so. But I do think taking off just 80lb for fuel used is more than enough - for the N.17 that's 80 out of 143 lb! Of course, for planes with more fuel like the Camel 80 lbs is a lower proportion, but it's simulating the same thing - fuel used to get from airfield to combat area and altitude, so I think 80lb per scout, regardless of type is about right. Insamuch as anything is really right, short of getting the AI to model fuel consumption (and ammo use but that's a much lesser deal). Your suggestion of reducing German scouts by less is of course reasonable (if anything, I would do that, not than take even more fuel weight off 'Allied' planes). Tho again, that's assuming the Germans generally flew with tanks full and (a) I've no info on what they did, either way and (ii) I know I don't, in OFF's equivalent to their position. Early days yet but I'm finding the balance is about 'right' with the 80lbs reduction. But I need to fly some more. Last might my current early 1918 Pfalz campaign had several encounters with SE5s and they seemed to go to the deck rather often (it looked VERY deliberate, not at all like the weight was somehow 'dragging them down') while some Bristols we met at low level did some fairly wild low-level manoeuvres. I think this is most likely an AI issue (and/or FM issue in the case of the Brisfits), not weight. As you say, the extra weight doesn't seem to stop the AI from doing their usual thing - whatever that is, be it good or not so good - whether it's 'ramp weight' or 'gross minus 80 lbs fuel'.it just shaves off the edge they get from effectively getting more HP than they really had.

I checked many of the empty and max weights and used corrected ones in very a few cases. In the DFW, the stock OFF max/empty as you say is wrong, at 3146/1431 lbs. Gray & Thetford give 3146/2134 loaded/empty. HOWEVER, the mod works back from the loaded ('max') weight so the incorrect empty weight made no difference (tho it may have meant that un-modded AI DFWs had a massive advantage over player-flown ones!). Again as you say, the DVII stock max/empty weights in OFF are grossly wrong at 1500/1441 loaded/empty (above source says it should be 1870/1540). Clearly also, the DVII wasn't one of the ones I cross-checked as I worked from the stock OFF 1500lbs gross weight! Probably this needs fixed as it means that the mod still gives AI Fokker DVIIs a big advantage, unless doing that would clobber the OFF FMs for both player and AI - testing needed? The Bristol Scout is a strange one. The OFF aircraft file says it's a Scout D with a 100hp Gnome Mono, and has empty weight as 1650 lb. The Profile Publication gives the Scout D's 'loaded' weight as 1442 lbs (incl 80 lbs 'military load') with a 110hp Clerget, , compared to 957 lb for the Scout A with 80hp Gnome, 1195 (again with 80 lb mil load) for the 'D' with a 80hp Le Rhone, and 1089 for the 'D' with an 80 hp Clerget and no 'mil load'. No figures for a 100hp mono. So in the end I went with the OFF figure, as I think it allows for a Lewis and isn't massively bigger than the 110hp Scout D loaded weight given in my quoted source. If ramp weight = max weight minus 'military load', I would still be inclined to favour the original solution, of using loaded 'weight minus some fuel'. It's fairly clear the OFF 'max weight' is not some kind of 'max take-off eight' as it (generally!) corresponds to the figure for 'loaded' weight in most sources. And 'loaded wright INCLUDES (guns and?) ammo - 'the military load' (but probably EXCLUDES a bombload). So I think fuel is the more realistic thing to tinker with and the thing to do is to take some off the loaded weight, not take off the weight of (guns and?) ammo. Besides, I don't think it would make much difference, to taking 80 lbs of fuel weight off scouts, more off 2-seaters. Take the Nieuport 17, for example. My source gives the following figures: empty - 825 lb; fuel and oil 143 lb; pilot and military load 264 lb; loaded 1232 lb. Other sources give 180 lb as a weight for the pilot. So 'ramp weight (loaded weight less military load) = 1232-84 lb = 1148 lb. my solution, take off 80 lbs for fuel used to the combat zone, 1232-80=1152. In this case, in the mod, I went with the OFF figure of 1280 loaded and took the 80 off that. I didn't want to mess up the OFF FMs so only substituted my own figures, where the OFF ones were badly out (missed the DVII, tho!). The SPADs i recall were planes where I used the weights given in my sources, not the OFF weights. The only thing I think is worth doing differently (apart from correcting those Fokkers!) is making a deduction of fuel weight, that represents a percentage of the actual plane's fuel weight, rather than a fixed weight across the board. That was my original plan. But when I looked at that, I decided the differences would be so modest as not to make it worthwhile, not least because it's a fixed allowance for something (fuel used to the combat zone) that in real life is going to vary considerably. Despite that I still think reducing fuel load that way, is on principle better than taking off ammo load, tho in practice both probably end up with a similar result, as in the N.17.

File Name: ArcMod for Over Flanders Fields Phase 3 File Submitter: 33LIMA File Submitted: 18 October 2011 File Category: Modding Tools and Add-on Software ArcMod alters the arcs of fire for the observers' guns in all OFF Phase 3's 2-seaters (except the the twin-Lewis-gunned FE2b and the fixed-Lewis BE2c). The aim is to provide a better experience for 2-seater missions and campaigns, whether flying or gunning, and without making life too much more difficult when flying scouts and attacking them. The spur for this was the quite severe limits in the stock arcs, which sometimes prevents gunners from firing when it looks like they should. If manning the gun yourself, it becomes very clear how severely how your arcs of fire are limited, downwards in all directions, especially. The main change is that ArcMod increases the depression limit for all aircraft (exceptions above) from 10 degrees stock, to 25 degrees. Elevation has been changed from 30 degrees (stock, except Brisfits) to 45 degrees (roughly the same as the stock Brisfit), again across the board. This will obviously give all observers a significantly better field of fire, including yourself when manning the gun, and thus a better chance of survival when attacked. Lateral fields of fire have been adjusted a little. Stock, there was a fair bit of variation but I have instead put planes into two groups - those with observers sitting roughly level with a wing trailing edge get 90 degrees either side (0=fully aft) while those who can fire ahead over the upper wing (just the Hannover, Brisfit, Roland) get around 160 degrees, leaving just a small-ish gap dead ahead. These new arcs are all somewhat arbitrary of course. Greater tho they are, they are still less than the theoretical maxima; but I hope they still take some account of the practical limits for effective fire, within the limits of the game engine. For example, I realise observers had some field of fire forward between the wings, but I have stuck with something close to the stock OFF approach, limiting the ability to fire ahead to those who planes whose observers can readily fire ahead over the upper wing, without risk to struts or wires - the Hannover, Brisfit and Roland. ArcMod still leaves a significant 'blind spot' underneath in all directions, but it is naturally a smaller one and on balance I think is much more realistic. There is still a considerable blind area ahead as well, except for the Hannover, Roland and Brisfit. By comparison, the Rise of Flight DFW CV has much greater depression and has 360 degrees traverse (tho it will damage its own aircraft, unlike OFF). Readme with installation instructions included (JSGME recommended) Click here to download this file

Done - thanks to HPW there's now a version of Arcmod that works woth HPW's DM 1.25, here. And the latest Arcmod for the FE2b has a version which is also compatible with the DM, here. Ok it's seaprate mods rather than a merged one but they can now be in use together.

File Name: Flak Mod for Over Flanders Fields Phase 3 File Submitter: 33LIMA File Submitted: 13 November 2011 File Category: Modding Tools and Add-on Software This mod improves your ability, without visual aids, to locate (and react appropriately to) aircraft being engaged by AA fire. It does this by permitting use of the 'Hard' Workshop setting for ground guns (which setting reduces the 'spread' of AA bursts by increasing accuracy), but reducing both rate of fire (which 'Hard' setting also increases) and lethality. With FlakMod, it's easier to make out if enemy planes under AA fire but which you can't yet see are higher or lower, coming or going, so you can make tactical decisions while you still have options. Thanks are due to Bletchley, for permission to modify and use some files from his excellent 1917 Mod. If using the latter, FlakMod probably needs to be enabled/installed on top/afterwards. Click here to download this file

Yes HPW, it reduces the blastradius (can't recall how much exactly) and cuts the rate of fire by half. This I found was needed to enable the 'Hard' ground gun setting to be used and get tighter groups of bursts. 'Hard' increases both accuracy and rate of fire according to workshop, so this is probably still roughly equivalent to the medium setting. With blastradius reduced, but the original 'Hard' (increased) rate of fire, I found flak casualties were still much too frequent, even if I took a fair amount of evasive action, so I cut both.

File Name: FE2b ArcMod for Over Flanders Fields Phase 3 File Submitter: 33LIMA File Submitted: 19 November 2011 File Category: Modding Tools and Add-on Software This version of ArcMod increases the arc of fire for the Fe2b. It includes only this aircraft. It's recommended for use along with the main version of ArcMod, which does the same thing for the other OFF 2-seaters (except the fixed-gun BE2c and the FE2b). Though I left it out of ArcMod originally, having since flown the 'Fee' more often, I decided to do an Arcmod for it, too. The changes I have made to the arcs of fire for the FE2b's front and rear Lewis Guns are as follows: Front gun: - max elevation reduced from 60 degrees to 45 degrees; - max depression increased from 20 to 25 degrees; - max traverse increased from 90 degrees left and right, to 110 degrees (0=straight ahead) Rear gun - max depression increased from 0 degrees to 10 degrees The main results are the front gun has a better all-round field of fire, including very slightly to the rear (except upwards, where the unrealistic 60 degree limit is somewhat reduced); and the rear gun can now fire slightly down to the rear, between the wings and the lattice tail, reducing somewhat the very wide blind spot. Flying or gunning a Fee, you will now be a more dangerous foe; attacking one, you will no longer be able to sit behind him in safety, but will need to come in lower to avoid return fire. Click here to download this file

My pleasure!

By all means tinker with the weights - I had also thought of slightly reducing the 'Allied' weights to allow for longer cruising distances, but I didn't, partly because making that difference would have involved also making the assumption that the Germans generally started off with a full load of fuel. I have nothing to prove either way, but given the choice in OFF I know that I rarely fly German missions with more than 75% fuel. From what I've read, both sides missions operated to a programme, so you'd know the sort of operations you'd be flying, the day before, enabling fuel loads to be decided accordingly. So I thought I might as well just apply the extra weight equally!