Fortiesboy

Hello Crockett12 - I too found similar problems re campaign v time, so i haven't played it enough to be expert in campaign to help you. No doubt someone will. I elected instead to play QC via CFS3 in workshops, where little scenarios can be created. I look forward to the replies on this - may persuade me to go into campaign a bit more too.

Si - How are you? Soonas i saw your question I was thinking along the same lines of Parky above. It sometimes happens to me. Check whether this happens if you have left the computer on a for a while without using Joystick or trackir. e.g. Hd a flight of OFF then gone and done something else leaving the 'puter on. As I understand it, some USB port go to standby or shut down as a while unused and stay that way till re plugged in. Try a google on USB power management. despite all i've said, i still haven't managed to get mine to work properly at all times-lol, so take my advice as possibly "the blind leading the blind"

Hmm It will be interesting to see what comes from the poll. I have found that the new releases from the Devs do change the DMs from whatever i am using at the time. I invariably find two things- and the latest is no different. 1. It takes too many bullets on target to destroy an enemy. 2. It takes too few bullets on target to disable the player. As a result of the first I created my DMs which,naturally- , I consider made the DM more realistic. I have always said that IMHO the big thing to aim for in RL WWl air combat was for the pilot (talking fighters here ) to get behind his opponent. If he did and got near enough, then his opponent was likely to be a goner, or at least knocked out of the action. All right, so the bullets were not cannon, but they were hitting relatively delicate structures. I don't think this is acknowledged enough in the sim. The bullets may not knock off a wing but you can bet they weakened it many times, enough for the stresses of continued combat flying to cause it to fail and probably come off. And unlike WW 2 aircraft, there was no damage prevention built into these first planes. Pilots and engines readily took hits if the bullet was on target. IMHO, I get the impression that the thinking is that a half decent hard core flight sim pilot can too readily get into a killing position of an AI enemy. Which, with the limitations of the AI, is true. So- to even things up a bit the ability to damage the plane and to fly as fast and as high ( the fuel debate ? ) will favour the enemy plane. That way, we won't have an arcade sim. In an online-only sim where all planes are flown by humans, those considerations don't have to be made. Everyone can have the same scenery, same planes, same FM and DM and away you go. In an AI sim, it then becomes a matter of opinion as to which compromise is the less unrealistic. 1. Do I make the FMs of the planes such that it is harder (almost impossible? ) for the player to get behind the AI, but give "realistic " DM for him to achieve, when he does get to shoot him? -- Or, 2 Do I give him a FM where his superior plane will outfly the AI and he will quite readily get on his 6, but the DM will mean his bullets won't easily kill the AI.or 3. Do I try to achieve a balance on each? Whatever is chosen, it creates the most talking points to be found in any combat sim forum. If the DID guys are flying " full real", ( as i understand they are ) no labels, padlock, TAC, external views, always cockpit with no HUD view etc - then my hat is off to them if they regularly survive dogfights involving more than one EA. I nearly made a thread headed "Less aggressive my A...", re the latest Less aggressive setting in the patch. Don't misunderstand me here- that is a compliment to this AI . In QC, One v One, you can handle the EA who stays high and isn't too aggressive. Sure you can. BUT- set it up with two or three EA,(Aces), against you and see if you don't get shot up. With aids on, you can readily see where they all are, but you try to find where that second bugger is, against that scenery, with No aids,whilst you're catching the first one.! And if you do see the second one lining you up and break off to deal with him, try finding the first one shortly after! And if he does get behind you, his two or three hits do for you. This is good combat simming- I like this setup, which can be achieved in CFS3 QC with weather and location and plane of your choice. So, when I do finally get these chaps in my sights, I don't want to use half or more of a magazine to smash into one plane and not disable or destroy it. Therefore I change the DM. In fact, I also tweak the FM on a couple of models to catch'em quicker! I don't fly campaign much so much of what I have said may not be too relevant to that. Just my 2 pennorth.

Exactly right!! Using the new non aggressive AI I have just made a pilot career in a Dlll early ( amongst other things to see why the Alb now flies heavy )and my first sortie was scramble. There I was, trying to get height with a full tank ( all right ,in RL, we may have been caught with the plane fully loaded anticipating a long flight,but, also it may have been parked with just a quarter tank, too ) How unrealistic is it though to always be in that situation with a full tank? Anyway, I manage to get some height and then find a Spad to chase. Talk about a dog chasing its tail, -the AI is now designed it seems to fly just that bit higher and faster, that you almost can't get a bead on it without stalling. IIRC that was exactly what it was like in phase 1. Now some of you may think this is a fuel thing- Me,? I'm not sure...I'm beginning to think it's a case of "the player must not have a level playing field because the AI is not human". Back to the scramble - I had pumped a lot of bullets into the Spad, yet he still climbed faster and higher than me......then his mate was behind me - I took THREE hits and my engine was spluttering and that was me out of the game. Again, is that because of the same thinking? "the player must not have a level playing field because the AI is not human". Now it's a fair point that the AI isn't human, but it grates me to see too much compensation the other way, taking us beyond credulity...Because, IMHO, that's what the sim is doing in certain areas. (All this discussion about whether in RL there was or was not fuel management- levels of DM etc etc, are red herrings. Come on, of course there was different levels of fuel, for different tasks.) The problem is that the sim has AI built into it- and that requirement makes it very hard, if not impossible, to write a fully realistic sim IMHO, the sim is written in order not to make the objective, i.e. 17 hrs, too easy. And in order to do that, these "compensations" are used to offset the limitations imposed by coding. I mean, writing an online-only sim where there is no AI at all, must be dead easy in comparison. All the planes can be to the same parameters- ALL have full fuel or half fuel etc- ALL cause the same damage if they hit the same place the same number of times.etc etc. But we are fighting AI in this sim, and thus the devs have Mission Impossible. Personally I'd like to see it easier to progress in campaign, if that means credibility isn't too strained. E.g fuelling can be put in the sim, and three bullets doesn't always disable the player, and AI is not USS Enterprise with shields up ! Having said that, The new aggressive AI in QC is as good as it's been so far. It certainly is better than the original 1.32g in QC. Against likely odds in lifelike scenarios, i.e. engaging more then one enemy, I should think you would rarely get to the deck where, right at the bottom, there still remains a little yo-yoing. However, before that, it is good as it can be, I suspect. My 2 pennuth

My vote is based on QC flights only. I do get the impression from some posts, ( nearly all are making extremely valid and well thought out points, BTW ), that when i try campaign that the AI will seem less a change than it seemed from QC flying. Perhaps you guys are in a dilemma like me, - what to say if we have to stay with present AI or go back to 1.32g. -lol I hated that Yo yo ing on the deck.Don't want that back. But one v one in new AI is soooo easy. Think I'd keep the latest version and in QC I'd fly versus more than one enemy...

I agree with this post. Olham - That's a bit out of order,old boy, asking folks who have paid good money not to comment on the AI aspect of the add on. There are some good points coming out here, and I'm sure the Devs don't mind the folks giving their preferences and suggestions. The comments are coming because Pol's post indicated that the present AI will be dumped and the old 1.32g AI will be put back. No? I'm sure the Devs are interested in what seems to be a growing number of guys who are finding quite a few positive aspects on this new AI. It may be that the better parts of the two Ais cannot be welded into a new AI, and that we must have one or the other, - I don't know the limitations of the programming _ But it is interesting to see what the chaps would like, and indeed whether such comments as are being made would prompt the Devs to make the new intended patch "reversible" ( Now that would be nice , if technically possible ) In any event, there's no point in confusing comment with "destructive criticism" - I haven't seen any of the latter.

Gous S! "Anyway I still believe the AI mentality should be workshop controllable." Like you, I'd like this to be so in the future. However, it nominally is controllable, or at least gradeable., in QC - ACE thru to Rookie. Olham S! "Aces gave me an incredibly great fight." Can't say I'd go that far! Like you, I won't revert, but in QC, 1 Versus 1, is unbelievable easy.

Yep, that's as how I understand it. However, I'm beginning to think I'll keep this version with the so called lethargic AI. I have just had three QC scenarios, my Tripe versus 3 Dr1s ( once ) and then twice against 2 Dr1s. Each time I lost. Whilst getting behind the first, I could'nt seem to locate and keep an eye on the other(s), and so inevitably, the bugger got me with a few rounds and then it was make your mind up time. Smoking, I decided to go for a landing and twice made it. The third time I got shot up on the way down. I wsa particularly impressed with the hits I took not killing me but giving me a chance ( and a decision to make ) and so I needed to fly quite well to survive. This whole scenario is what I like to think it maybe was like in 1917, What I had done, as Pol says, is go down a notch on the detail – scenery and terrain at 3 now, and the max FPS set at 30. I think I'll prefer this to going back to the 1.32g AI. However, if the patch just ups the present aggressiveness a little, I won't complain-lol But if it reverts to 1.32g, then I'll pass on the next patch.

Gous S! Ref the above. Am I missing something? In Workshops in my installation, I don't have " Aggressive AI, Normal AI and Defensive AI, and a "Random" option," at all, to choose from. Where is that seen by you exactly? The version shown in workshops , bottom right, is Phase3 V1.4li, That's what i have- is that what you have?

That would be brilliant to have a re- load facility, but if betting, my money would be on that you jammed earlier and then it freed.-lol But I'd love to lose the bet!

Well, a slightly different opinion as to why the planes are taking a full mag to go down? This latest version has reverted my version, which used my DM xdps, back to the devs idea of DM. Even if you didn't use my DM xdps or Prop- Wasche's, I would have thought it was easier to kill the EA in this new version,( in QC certainly ), because they fly a lot less aggressively. As it happens, i quite like this less aggression, because before, against more than one EA in QC, it nearly always happened that one of the EA got a couple of bullets in you- and then you were toast.- just with a couple of hits. Now, with the ability to retreat when damaged and try a landing - ( no sudden exit ) one's being hit doesn't mean inevitable death. All in all, so far, I like the add on - (wind effects, engine sounds gradually coming in etc ) I can always change the DM a bit later.

Hmm- my first limited impression is that the DM is back to the "fill it full of bullets and still don't break up" - Not yet seen what the other significant changes are unless they relate to the AI behaviour? That is now much less aggressive in QC on a one v one. My setting says the AI is Ace but it's flying like a Rookie. ( Pol - I suppose I am set against Ace- is there somewhere to double check this?) However, please note I am not displeased with this.If I set to fly with more than one E A in the sky, then things seem right. Before, someone always managed to get a couple of bullets in you and then you were toast. Now- the hits you may take do come realistically ( I imagine ) later, and the return to being able to land wounded etc really gives top immersion. I'll stay a little longer with this vanilla version before loading my DM. xdps. I love the wind effects and the gradual sound of the EA engine.

Well the update is that I've managed to download it on the fifth attempt.! What was od was that before i started the thrid attempt, the Avangate site said I still had two attempts available. This must have been so, because the third attempt got to 34.7mb and stopped. As it was saying I had two attempts still, ( I wonder if their site must not count incomplete downloads? ) I had another go. As Winder so succinctly puts it (lol) it crapped out at 187mb. The fifth attempt achieved success. Before the thrid attempt i had downloaded something from another site - Avsim- and that download went as sweet as a nut, thus reinforcing my belief that maybe Avangate needs a "bigger engine"-lol Anyway, thanks again for the reassurance from Winder.

thanks for that re-assurance.

This is causing me some apprehension here, I have just tried to download and the first download stopped at 313mb The second has stopped at 386mb I have one attempt left. What happens if i don't get the full 409 on the third attempt? I find this not very good at all. I have paid money here.

What is it about these puritan traditionalist types that won't accept anyone doing something in a slightly newer,easier manner? "I did it that way, so you have to do it that way." - I've heard this for years. I am not a builder, but i can fly and I have done for years- and i have known a lot of builders( who you refer to as modellers ) who will never be able to fly a model while they have a hole in their ---- But I don't knock them - if their enjoyment is building and not flying, then fine. In fact, I envy their skill in building, but I want to fly - and I do. But you want to tell me that I am therefore not a true modeller.-- I once saw this attitude at its worst at our Model club's monthly meeting, some years ago. We had invited a local model maker and seller to bring along his kits to show to the club members. He, of course, was pleased to do this in the hope of taking a few orders. These were not ARTF gliders, but kits which still required a fair bit of building skill. At the end of the evening as this chap was packing things away , there remained with him a few Club officials, including one who was a real die hard traditionalist. he built only, from scratch, models which he had designed and drawn up himself. That was his speciality- he produced some beautiful gliders ( PSS ) - they were immaculate, and much admired, including by me. However, whilst this chap was packing his wares up, this clown took it upon himself to pick up a bundle of balsa wood, waving it in the air and declaring, in front of this chap, who had spent all evening entertaining the club members by showing his kits, " This is the only true kit. This is the only way to do modelling " How rude and bigoted was that ! Sure,for him, that was modelling- but not everyone is him. nor could be him for various reasons- time, skill, inclination etc. Why should they not be able to be modellers then, if they happen to do things not his way? Making and flying RC planes is a "broad church" There is room for ALL facets of it. I have seen many newcomers attempt to enter this hobby and try to learn to fly model gliders and planes.Some guys teaching them insisted on wood models only, none of this new fangled foam stuff... And over the years, 90 per cent of the newbies never went beyond six to nine months - got fed up with taking bags of wood home, week after week. Says it all, IMHO You enjoy your way BH, and let others enjoy their way.

Happy Birthday, Simon. And many of them. D.

Until a year or so ago, that was sound advice. however, there have been drastic changes in the making of models and the materials, etc , as witnessed at our flying field. There is a substance now called Elapor, used a lot by Multiplex- damn near indestructible foam type stuff. They are making all sorts from it, including trainer types etc and most of these planes are now using electric motors as opposed to I C engines. That's the way to go. you can land- well crash, really, - these things and they don't break. ideal to learn on. Get a RC flyer mate, use a buddy box - i.e you both have identical transmitters with a cable connecting the two. He can hit a switch and take immediate control of the plane you are flying if you ( and you will ) get into difficulty. This makes bad landings/ crashes a rare thing. Soon you can go solo.

I hate to tell you, Simon, but I've got one. The chap I bought it from has fitted a retract undercarriage. Flys better than the BF 109 i had, which has now moved on to my mate. Mind- if you haven't flown RC model planes, you can't start with a Spitfire. There's a fair learning curve involved. much like learning to drive. cheers

Was I seeing things or was there not a topic reporting the death of actor Richard TODD, who happened to be a WW ll veteran of some distinction and who played Guy Gibson in the Dambusters film, thus making a sort of link with Aviation combat history.? It seems to have gone. Didn't seem to be anymore OT than a lot of stuff here?

Yes RIP and thanks for all you did. Spoke like a gent and was a gent, by all accounts

Now that'll confuse 'em! lol BTW - well done

In another post I have made the same point which Siggi has made here. I also think Pike Bishop has made a valid comment too. I know exactly how he feels-lol. But the best post in this thread is the above one. To have the words AI and awesome in the same sentence from the "creator" is really whetting my appetite. Doing AI right must be the hardest thing to attempt in a combat sim. Must be damned impossible really- Which is why so many only want to fly online in human v human. But the history of OFF is that it has always improved in each version- so, roll on the next!

That's great news Winder. The AI is very good except for when the enemy get low to the ground. When that happens, the enemy seems to stall around, somewhat disinterested in the player's plane. There may be nothing much that can be done about it, but if it can be improved i would love to see it. Thanks again for the best sim there is.

Oh, yes, - magic! You'll notice the policeman wanted to meet for a discussion. No assurance that he would see the incident for himself and deal with it.! Obviously high ranking material!