busdriver

#14 remarks near the end about whether to claim those two Albatros scouts without having a witness: IRL guys like Bishop would make the claim and get credit. I think regular guys file the claim and have it denied. In a situation like yours, I file the claim if I see the bandit on fire screaming toward the ground, crash, or make a forced landing even if it most likely will get rejected. Then I edit the claim details in the Pilot Log Editor to indicate an observation balloon (giving its location relative to NML) witnessed the victory. Like you, I'm not very concerned if I get credit "c'est la guerre." Nice video.

The MODS folder resides here (in my case the WOFF folder) You can see what I've got in the MODS folder And when you double click JSGME you see those same two options in C:\WOFF\MODS The take away is that in my case, Jerbear's skin packs 4, 5, and 6 are not in the MODS folder so they are not available.

Currently flying several RFC reconnaissance careers. I can't remember, but seem to recall that the RE8 while carrying a camera is missing the artwork for the camera. I don't see it mentioned in the Recon Wars notes I've printed. Am I correct that this has been mentioned before?

Done. Good luck

Been away from BH&H2 for six months or so. I successfully uninstalled/clean installed and patched to V1.22. Flew a couple of uneventful Recce sorties, geez that's a whole lot of flak! Figured I'd see what the historically populated airfields mod looks like. I thought I followed the guidance...highlighted in red text. According to JSGME they were installed in the proper order. When prompted to open the Mission Editor by WOFF, I did so. Found the proper folder & file, I didn't get any pop-up instructions when I opened the mission, so I simply clicked save. I clicked "yes" when asked if I wanted the airfields populated, but got this. Who wants to be the first 1GCCFP to tell me what I did wrong, and how to correct my error? Much obliged in advance.

@Becker02 thanks mate, we're on the same page. The mods were the current versions from Sandbagger's site. I had checked steps 1 and 2, and I can't honestly say if the CCFA mod works for me. To be fair, I have not paid close attention to the airfield environment. My current career is assigned to Hesdigneul with 2 Sqn. The airfield looks the same with and without CCFA installed. Perhaps if I were flying from a custom airfield I would notice a difference. It's all good. Thanks for your time

No worries mate, read that bit of red text in my OP out loud.

There is so much to appreciate and admire about this simulation. I am grateful to the OBD team for their efforts over the years. @Jara4's nifty Pilot Log Editor is one of my favorite things. The ability to write a short mission narrative that highlights the mission events adds to my enjoyment of this franchise.

The unmodified sim works fine, the historically populated airfield mod does not. Initially avoiding using the "easy" setting in an attempt to evaluate how nasty "normal" is. Normal is pretty brutal when trying to meet the parameters required for a successful Recce sortie. It is what it is.

The game with v1.22 plays just fine. I might have to dial down the effectiveness of flak, I keep having to make forced landings due to fuel leaks. I just figured if others were using these mods they might notice something obvious that I had knackered. It's no big deal.

Yes if your unit is not yet operational. It's like you're the only available pilot, thus you get to fly solo. Thus the message about taking your plane up around the field.

It's all good. And if you're interested in adding to your library I'm giving away a new edition of Bergstrom's Vol 1 of BC/RS feel free to participate if you're interested.

LOL, no offense taken. Having a healthy skepticism of other forumites is a good thing. But apparently, you think that WWI air combat is in a class unto itself with no analogs or corollaries to later methods and tactics. WWI air combat fought with underpowered, thrust limited airplanes required a fighter pilot to get within range and apply a proper amount of lead to get a gun kill. That's no different than WWII, Korea, SEA, the Six-Day War. The concepts of lead, lag and pure pursuit apply to WWI. The concepts of turn circles, flight path overshoots, and the maneuvering egg apply to WWI. This is something that EVERY fighter pilot knows intuitively, and most hardcore 1GCCFPs that have cracked open their copy of Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering or took the time to read Dicta Boelcke... 1. Try to secure advantages before attacking. If possible, keep the sun behind you. 2. Always carry through an attack when you have started it. 3. Fire only at close range, and only when your opponent is properly in your sights. 4. Always keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses. 5. In any form of attack it is essential to assail your enemy from behind. 6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to evade his onslaught, but fly to meet it. 7. When over the enemy's lines never forget your own line of retreat. 8. For the Staffel (squadron): Attack on principle in groups of four or six. When the fight breaks up into a series of single combats, take care that several do not go for the same opponent. In case it doesn't jump off the page at you, #5 has an unstated corollary to check six. Sure you check six, except when in close engagements, when bandits pose their biggest threat (they're freaking close to you and get on your tail unseen). IMO once you're in the furball that's when you need to check your six more often, but you play the way you want to play. Okay, you got me, looping works for you against AI that doesn't fight in the vertical plane as a human can. This is major critique I have of your method of BLINDLY looping. I would encourage you to test your tactic against other 1GCCFPs on an MP server playing Rise of Flight (ROF) or Flying Circus (FC) then report back on its efficacy after a few engagements. I also posit that on an MP server your head would be on a swivel rather than your natural propensity to fly HUD BFM. Yes I know WWI airplanes don't have HUDs, it's simply the tendency of many WWI 1GCCFPs to fly whilst looking through, near, around their gun sites. Again, I don't do it in WOFF because IMO that is simply an exploit against an AI that can't fight terribly well against a vertically maneuvering target, and I would NEVER do it against a human on an MP server. I'd get my brains blown out as I'm pulling up into the vertical as I present a fat dumb and happy target to another 1GCCFP. You have made that abundantly clear, and it works for you in WOFF. Not so much in air combat sims against human opponents. I play 1GCCFP as I would against humans so I don't develop bad habits that will bite me in the arse. You PLAY the way you want to play, it's only a game. Have fun...and don't check six.

Nope didn't miss that at all, it's in parentheses in your OP...I read it, comprehended what you wrote, and watched your video three times. And just to add to the discussion, IRL that specific remark would be called "an alibi" by fighter pilots looking at your HUD video. That's why I specifically posted, "if your first video is representative of your gunnery skills, then checking six is a good idea." I stick by that observation based upon your OP video. IMO if you don't check six when engaged that is a recipe for a short SP career but, you PLAY the way you want to play.

Oh no, not at all. A very long time ago IRL I was a USAF fighter pilot for 9 years. After every mission in the F-16, we reviewed HUD video tape and honestly (often brutally) critiqued each others bombing, strafing, and air-to-air (missile & gun) gunnery. It's how we got better. I was offering my observation that you're gunnery skills are pretty average for a 1GCCFP. You're not terribly close to your target when you open fire, thus you might consider pulling more lead. It wasn't meant as an insult. If you can't kill a bandit quickly, then a smart 1GCCFP should periodically check six rather than waiting for the bullets to go zipping past his ears before he reacts. By all means, PLAY the game the way you want to play. Have fun. I shall refrain from commenting on your posts in the future.

Okay, but if your first video is representative of your gunnery skills, then checking six is a good idea. You sound like you're describing the way IJN Zero pilots thought their heniri-komi maneuver couldn't be countered. A bandit has no need to turn a tighter loop, they can shoot you on your way up without the threat of you reversing whilst going uphill. I'd much prefer shooting a guy going uphill rather than one going downhill where I risk getting my nose buried beneath the horizon. But I'll defer to your experience.

No disrespect intended, it's generally considered good form to look behind you (check six) periodically, especially when you're tied up in a close-quarters fight. IMHO there is no way to know if the enemy on your tail is "fast and persistent" without looking for him. In the case of your video, you simply performed a blind (WRT to the shooter) loop. If your bandit was not AI, and was "fast and persistent" he would simply follow up uphill and gun your brains out or relax the g he's pulling near the apex and stay above you. That's what we taught and tried to practice (it was very hard to keep this discipline when closing for a gun kill on an F-15). Again no disrespect, but you have a SPAD out front (not necessarily your bandit) because there was another at your two o'clock (in a level turn) that may have been your bandit. Once I'm in a turning fight I have a terrible time searching for bandits in this wonderful air combat simulation. The darn wings get in the way and pretty much result with us 1GCCFPs (1 G Comfy Chair Fighter Pilots) performing HUD BFM. That's when we're maneuvering so as to keep the bandit near the gun cross. But it doesn't keep me from checking six. To answer your poll, I'd go with other. I do try to use the vertical to get above a bandit, but in a defensive maneuver against one on my six my tendency is a level or descending break/hard turn. If the AI would try to loop when out in front of my guns, I would follow him uphill. Good question!

Actually he didn’t post it, he sent it to me explaining he hadn’t tested it since he didn’t have BH&H2. I included the beta label.

Observation: Currently the "Mission Hour" feature only allows you to delay the mission start time by up to three hours. When squadron activity is low (one player sortie per day) this frequently means you cannot fly an afternoon mission. Advancing to the next day or week when flying activity is low does not change this limitation. When flying activity is high, you must still fly in the morning in order to fly in the afternoon (you might get a second morning sortie). It appears to me that the player is required to fly in the morning. At least this has been my experience with a handful of short British & French careers in 1916. My Observer/Gunners hate flying before lunch, mostly they're useful just prior to afternoon tea. Suggestion: Modify the "Mission Hour" to permit delaying the mission time well into the afternoon or evening. This would allow a player the flexibility to fly either in the morning or afternoon. Squiffy, Geoffery and Basil thank you in advance.

LOL, thought it was my imagination. Cruising back home, hear the occasional sound of fabric ripping with no other airplanes around. The sound of crashing airplanes is equally perplexing, causing me to pan around looking for the poor bast@rd. By watching the rest of B Flight in the landing circuit (whilst I’m sitting with my engine off), I noticed the sound of their engines goes away when they’re beyond 1.5 miles (just when they turn base leg).

I’ve noticed this in the Strutter and Bristol F2B, but that is the limit of my game play thus far.

Just installed CCFM, playing BH&H2

Suggestion: When B Flight is "in transit" back to base, please program an enroute descent so the formation arrives over our airfield at a nominal pattern altitude of 2000 feet (or 600 meters) rather than arriving at their patrol altitude. My observer is a bit of whinger, and he's tired of freezing his bollocks. He tells me that the nominal lapse rate is about 2C per thousand feet (1.5C saturated lapse rate and 3C dry lapse rate) so we would be much warmer and save 10 to 15 minutes getting to the bar. Think of it as a win-win.

That oddity of the rudder pedals axis defaulting to the throttle is something I experienced as well. Glad you got it sussed out.