33LIMA

Wow, that is great news. I'd have been quite happy with an AI RE8 to fill the gap in the RFC lineup, flyable is better still, but the ability to adjust artillery fire and do some real 2-seater stuff, now that will be really something, which would give RoF a unique selling point. Then we can find out what it feels like to be the hunter (doing the important work) rather than the hunter (getting all the glory). Good stuff!

The 190 looks like this one, tho it lacks the canopy armoured glass panels: http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/Dekker3.htm I see that this IL2 skinner attributes the plane to a different pilot in the same unit: http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=5731&start=0&finish=15&printertopic=1

Sorry but it's a fallacious argument - a variant of what's known as a 'strawman argument', in debating circles - to express the choice as between (i) getting 'crap' in one or more of your chosen categories of A to G or (ii) getting even a single representative RFC/RAF 2-seater to provide a semblance of realistic air operations involving that service. It's also a fallacious argument to suggest that desiring such a relatively modest thing, if not at the outset then by now, is some form of unrealistic perfectionism, to the detriment of anything less than perfection ever being produced. Another strawman argument. If anything, I'd certainly have preferred an RE8 (for example) to the sort of aircraft gadgets or modification packages that RoF's developers are spending time working on now, which is taking the work on RoF in a direction that will make me less, rather than more, likely to buy it, even when I have a graphics card which will enable me to get good results with it. I suppose I should be glad that 777 are not working on a Cliffs of Dover-style girl to sit on the pilot's lap - I'm still hoping that 1C didn't actually do that and that it's just a story put about to discredit CoD :) http://simhq.com/for.../3280783/1.html RoF's planeset may be fine for those whose priority is MP action; or for those who are content to fly US, German or French ops only but it is inadequate for a would-be SP virtual flyer who, like me, wants primarily to fly a realistic range of sorties for, or against, the RFC/RAF. The planes that did most of the real work in WW1 were the 2-seaters - mostly on art obs or photo recce duties, sometimes on bombing or contact patrols - and the job of the scouts/fighters - the job you should find yourself regularly doing, as a virtual scout pilot, in a WW1 sim - was to bring them down or otherwise stop them. A WW1 air combat sim that doesn't provide at least one representative RFC/RAF 2-seater is no use to me. That's my view - expressed in moderate and rational terms, in a thread titularly designed to ellicit such views. It's a perfectly reasonable view, shared by others, whether you like it or not. I'm not going to change your views and you're not going to change mine, so let's just leave it there.

Done it already and glad I did, despite already having FE1 and running it fine on vista 64 bit. FE2 is a must-have for any serious WW1 airwar fan.

Two things I want to try: 1. Planning map - compared to CFS3, this is really quite a good map but especially for FE, it is spoiled by being blotted out in places by the intrusive and 'gamey' symbols for friendly airfields and ground units. this isn't to bad for the other SF titles but for the crowded Western Front it's just a big mess of conventional symbols. What I would like to do is: (i) replace the 'cross and cockade' airfield symbols with a simple, much less obtrusive black plane silhouette, the same for both sides. 'Ownership' will be evident from which side of the Lines it is on, tho it could be made blue or red, I'd go for just black for both sides. (ii) replace the (ground) unit symbols with ones without the blue and red bacgrounds, just the divisional symbol , 'wire frame' style, with a transparent background. I think this would make the planning map not just better to look at, but much better for orienting yourself before the flight - identifying landmarks for navigation, especially re your objective area, that sort of thing. I haven't seen a mod for this but if I manage to crack it , I'll post it up if there's any interest - I'm not much use with paint proggies but can probably manage this, assuming it's about locating and editing the 'offending' .tga files. 2. In flight map - this is too much like having an AWACS; fine for the modern era, even WW2 when you had planes operating with radar-equipped ground controllers, but not for WW1 without radios, let alone radar. This REALLY needs to change; it's about FE's least satisfacory single feature, right now. I'd like to see: (i) as a minimum, no enemy plane icons. (ii) preferably, no friendly plane icons either, just your own plane and flightpath. (iii) best of all, no icons or markings at all, so you can navigate by eye, which looks very possible, considering the short distances involved and the fact the map can be related quite well with what you can see in the 3D world. This would introduce a whole new level of realism and interest to FE, not everyone's cup of tea but would be a big keeper for me (and I'm no study sim grognard). I saw on the forum here that (ii) can be done but can't find where or how. Any thoughts/suggestions/pointers, guys???

Re the audibility of gunfire, don't forget that MG rounds make an audible mini-sonic boom - a 'crack', really, it sounds like a dry twig being snapped briskly - which you can hear if the bullet passes close; known to infantrymen as 'crack and thump' with the latter being the sound of the weapon being fired, heard after the 'crack' of the round passing close. Many pilots eg AG Lee in 'No Parachute' recall being alerted to the fact they were being fired on by hearing the gunfire - "...i was banging away with the hammer [to clear a stoppage] when I heard a loud and rapid crak-ak-ak-ak-ak-ak: Tho it's not clear whether they were hearing the crack or the thump, or both together, given that ranges would have neen very short. I would expect that a hit on a plane would also often be audible to (or felt by) the pilot, even if the bullet just passed through fabric, let alone hitting aircraft structure; a strike on tautly-doped linen would be a bit like hitting a drum, very hard. A combination of background noise, adrenaline and tunnel vision might mean that hits were not always noticed. A sim which gave you no indication that your plane was being hit would not I think be realistic and is one I would not want to play.

If you're fairly new to the WW1 air war, and want a reasonably good, concise primer, this looks like a good bet, select 'click here to begin the journey' then use the drop-down list to work thru the different chapters. http://www.wwiaviation.com/ Would also endorse Olham's recommendation of "No Parachute" - it's about the best pilot memoir of WW1. Other recommended books: 'Full Circle" by RAF Spitfire ace JE Johnston - the WW1 chapters are a great intro to the WW1 air war, easy to read and written with a fighter pilot's insight and sense for what's important. "Richthofen - the true story of the Red Baron" by William Burrows, brings von Richthofen and his times and battles to life in a way other books don't. "The Friendless Sky" by Alexander McKee - a short but atmospheric history of combat in the air 1914-18, written as only McKee can. And of course I must mention "Biggles of 266" or "Biggles - Pioneer Air Fighter" by WE Johns, short stories written for a young audience to be sure but by an RFC/RAF WW1 vet so there's a genuine portrait of what it was like to be on ops; his advice to Algy on his posting to the squadron would have stood any real WW1 pilot in good stead.

My invitation obviously got lost in the post; somebody will end up in the Tower for this! Must have a quiet word with my new near-neighbour Baroness Carrickfergus next time she's in the barony.

Ditto with the Ju88 (I did a 'Wellenmuster' skin that made it into the ETO expansion) and more recently with Beaufighters. Tho I still hate the CFS3 ship AI that doesn't evade, loses its wake and after a bit stops shooting, plus you can't do anti-ship in instant action. Still fun tho, and the ETO expansion's flak is even scarier than Firepower's, but not as 'sniper' as IL2's. If you haven't tried it, I'd heartily recommend the ETO expansion, many of the new planes are exquisite, including a magnificent Boston. - http://www.ww2aircombat.com/ Aah, Full Canvas Jacket! Re-installed mine recently, with a separate install for the Hell's Angels Super Patch. RB3d with mods had a lot going for it, tho I'm finding now I get a bigger buzz from First Ealges, and hope to do so from OFF P3 once I get my new graphics card. Apart from the uber-Rolands, how are you finding the OFF Phase 3 AI, generally? In Phase 2, even allowing that the CFS3 AI was designed for planes with 1000-2000hp engines not 100-200hp, I hated the roller-coaster, limitless-energy, on-the-deck manoeuvring, the frequent post-takeoff crashes (even in Pups, for crying out loud), and the crap formation flying. RB3d did the ground level roller-coaster thing too and had other AI probs of its own, but heck, that was a 1998 sim.

I don't know what the Vintage Aviator's DH2's markings represent, have no info on 7855. Blandford's 'Fighters 1914-19' illustrates a Red 4, serial 5967, of 29 Sqdn at Bertangles with red & white outer interplane struts but it has a khaki upper & front nacelle and plain doped linen wing uppers. I only have OFF Phase 2 at the moment and its AI 2-seaters seem at times like they're flown by drunks who think they're flying UFOs. I had the impression Phase 3 improved on this but wonder from your description if there is still room for further improvement here. It was certainly there in CFS3, tho perhaps less pronounced with the WW2 planes. I remember finding out that the AI planes in CFS3 were believed to fly at unladen weights - no fuel or ammo anyway - so they were just too agile in any given situation. Became obvious when Me110s could out-manoeuvre Hurricanes etc. I came to the conclusion. shared with others at the time, that what was needed was AI-only planes with additional 'ballast' in their data files. I tried this out on a 3rd-party Me-110 and it definitely produced what I thought a more historically-accurate result. I never got around to doing more as I like to fly CFS3 as a fighter-bomber sim and was never impressed with it for dogfighting anyway. I daresay the Roland C IIs were good machines, Ball callled them "the best German machine now" but a 2 seater routinely doing rolls and loops on 160HP sounds more UFO-like than Wallfisch-like to me. Putting some lead in their AI a**es might help, provided the CFS3 AI routines could cope with that in a WW1 plane like it could from my experiement with the 110.

1. Well that;s JTB McCudden again, in the afternoon of 9 November 1916, when after the bang he looked around and saw that '...the lower right-hand boom had been cut clean in two...and that all that was holding my tail on was a diagonal 10-cwt tail-boom bracing wire.' Hairy, or wot? 2. That was the morning of the above incident I think, when McCudden's DH2 took 24 hits apparently, presumably during the big air battle during the bombing raid on Vraucourt. Jasta 2 didn't claim any of 29 Squadron's DH2s so it must have been a Jasta 1 pilot, guessing Hans von Keudell who is credited with a DH2 in the morning plus another in the afternoon. 3. Not quite clear on this question; obviously, pushers like the MF7 'longhorn' were used by the RFC before the likes of the DH2 or FE2, and in the case of the Farman, field of fire for an MG was not a design or procurement factor, the pusher layout would have been seen more as offering a good field of view for observation, the main role envisaged for early planes. If by scouts you mean fighters, then I'd say the reason for the pusher layout WAS for the obvious answer - for the field of fire, since the first British pusher deployed to the front (Feb '15) as a fighter/scout was the Vickers FB5 'gunbus' and its pusher design was adopted for the field of fire, clear of a tractor's airscrew, not of observation.

On reflection you may be right about the struts signifying Flight within squadron, as there seem to be hints of that; my source is JM Bruce in Profile Publications #91 who says the red & white struts were 24 Squardon's 'individual marking' (and that by the Somme Battle their DHs were doped khaki overall and that the squadron also used that coulor to produce a 'saw-tooth' effect either side of the nacelle's underside). The unusual thing about the windscreen is that it was fitted not onto the nacelle, but onto the pintle-mounted Lewis MG (at the near end of the barrel jacket tho some moved it leven with the spade grips)- as can be made out in this pic, amongst others: The pilot who came down behind German lines in a prototype was Capt R Maxwell-Pike; the one whom MvR may have claimed by mistake was no less than Jimmy McCudden (according to Franks et al in 'Under the Guns of the Red Baron'). Do you want yo go next?

Agree re the last bit - as the Romans said, "de gustibus non est disputandum" - there's no point duspiting what are matters of taste. However, it's worth recording that it is what's known in debating circles as a 'strawman argument' to characterise this particular matter of taste as "few 2-seaters = total fail'. I didn't say that, and I don't see anyone else saying it. What I'm saying is that a lack of representative 2 seaters is major omission - NOT a 'total fail' - in a WW1 sim. Opinion, yes, and a perfectly reasonable one, apparently fairly widely held, and worthy of some respect rather than being objected to, in somewhat petulant terms, especially in a thread seeking views; as opposed to simply saying 'I disagree/hold a different view'. I also said that the lack of 2-seaters deters me from buying RoF, which bit at least is a statement of fact. Anyway despite that I do respect your defence of RoF, it's a great product in many ways and is getting better; and it deserves to be defended from anyone handing out an ill-considered or intemperate bashing. I expect I'll get it when I have a graphics card able to run it decently/at all, and play and enjoy it along with OFF and FE.By which time it should have at least an AI RE8.

1. No, not wing leader's stripes, in this case anyway; it's not too hard to guess, especially if you bear in mind this was from a time before markings which served this particular purpose, were standardised by the RFC in the form most people would recognise; that's a fairly strong clue but I still want the specific thing the red & white stripes signify, not just the general. 2. There was a windscreen, it's where it was factory-fitted, was the unusual thing, which may not be apparent from pics, especially given the level of field modification to the DH2's 'wobbly mount'. 3. Bit obscure I agree but nobody told me these things had to be easy to find! Will settle instead for the name of the future RFC ace whom recent research indicates was claimed shot down by MvR iwhen flying a DH2 aka "Vickers" but was actually taking evading action because of stoppage in his Lewis.

Wot, no takers? Are all the DeHaviland afficionados on leave in Blighty, camped out along the royal Wedding route or what? Surely ('Don't call me Shirley!!!') somebody must at least be able to answer one of these?

Can't have these SPADs and other French planes having it all their own way...take THAT, you bounder, and don't come back!!!

OK let's go for the somewhat-unkindly-nicknamed 'Spinning Incinerator': 1. What precisely do the red and white outer interplane struts on this DH2 signify? 2. What was really unusual about the production DH2's windscreen (leaving aside field modifications, I should say)? 3. What was name of the unfortunate pilot who presented DH2 protoype 4732 to the Germans in August 1915, albeit unwillingly, upside down and slightly bent?

Thetford & Gray provide 2 pics said to be of the C1 with the MG rails visible on either side of the forward 'pit, and one pic, said to be of the C Ia, without the rails and with what looks like a pintle MG mount for the rear 'pit. Actually I see from their pic of the later C III that it also has the rails and the observer in front. Anyway depending on which source is right the plane is an Aviatik C I or a C Ia, whichever one had the observer in front; look forward to finding out which source is correct! Reminds me of this story about an Aviatik CI C227/16 (or CIa?), some great detail pics; the P Grosz letter refers to it as a CI and it has the MG rails so i'm inclined to think Grey & Thetford are right and that it's the C I, not the Ia, which has the observer in front; http://www.bamfbamrs.be/Bamrs/Aviatik-en.htm