DukeIronHand

Very interesting and clearly much work. I'll save that to my history folder for future study and I'll try to seek trends and causes. Thanks Dej! Edit: Grammar...geesh.

Profile downloaded. Thanks BH!

Thank you for your thoughts streakeagle. X-52 Pro it will probably be then. I could spring for the more expensive stuff I suppose but then I would be in the doghouse for a while with the other half. She thinks OFF is just a "game". Silly woman!

Hmmmm...sounds kind of lukewarm here though the "price/performance ratio" thought is compelling. Well does anyone have a suggestion for s stick in the $100.00 price range that I could look at? I do know there are better sticks/combos but didn't want to spend $300.00+ at the current time. EDIT: Yikes streakeagle!! Just went and looked at a Warthog. $475.00!

Huh. 4.5/5 for 17 reviews per Google. 4 out 5 for 63 reviews at Amazon. Where are you looking?

Olham, Been finding myself quite entranced by the visual quality of you screen shots lately and, if memory serves, you just got a new system. If you don't mind me asking what video card and CFS3 sliders settings are you using? *Sorry for the minor thread hijack but it seemed silly to start a new thread*

I've been around the world seven times but am feeling like a new guy here! Lou - what is a "black-n-tan"? Shiloh - "Warsteiner"? A micro brew I will presume?

"No Parachute!" is an excellent book. I have owned, one copy or another, for probably about 25 years and have read it several times. Highly recommended!

I would fully agree with the above. And please Javito1986 follow through with your plan. Can never have enough WW1 aero stuff!

The one "cheat" I seem to use consistently is the TAC screen but I keep the range low in a attempt to put some "realism" into its use. With that being said at what range (in good weather in real life) would one expect to see another airborne aircraft? Tried to give it some thought and realized I didn't have a clue. I would guess about 4 NM but thought that I would get some opinions from the old hands here.

I, like most, have multiple pilots going. I always have a N17 pilot whom I start with 60 Squadron though usually in March 1917. It is a sweet little bird with much history. In any sim I have ever played it always compares favorably with the Alb series though historically, depending on the author it seems, books often give it a mixed review. Perhaps I will have to do a little editing and add a "Sgt. Creaghorn" to my squadron roster.

Yes, I have the Nat Geo map and it is indeed awesome. I often check it out while reading WW1 accounts. Probably a hang-over from my military days but I have always had a "map fetish" and like a good map. Luckily that fetish is not against the law! I have also d/l'ed and looked at the other maps. Perhaps it is time to get them again and take another look. Has anyone ever posted a shot of an actual map used by aviators while flying in WW1? Was there a "standard issue" map for an area of the front where a pilot was expected to fly issued by HQ or was it left to the imagination of the various squadrons or brigades to piece something together?

Yes, I have always wanted to use that point system for pilot abilities and skill in OFF. Be a nice touch I think. Anyway for those that offered an opinion it seems like two miles is the thought for TAC range. And yes I do use the TAC screen (and only the TAC screen for you purists) for two reasons: 1) For navigation purposes a.k.a. "the blue line". The in-game map is worthless. Which paper map corresponds to the in-game landmarks? 2) I have a great, big, high resolution monitor and TIR 5 and still find it "unrealistically" difficult to spot them. Even knowing where to look (from the TAC screen) it is still very hard to see them.

Took a quick jaunt with Flieger Test (my test pilot for QC) to check on a "sound mod" I made up and the test the HPW rear guns mod. Not to make it too stressful I took a Alb/DIII against a flight of poor BE/2's. Anyway I forgot, until now, something else I want to change. Does anyone know the name of the .bmp file that controls the debris that flies off your target when your hitting it? I am hoping to just delete the .bmp files that controls the graphic for the debris. I know its also controlled in the effects.xml (somewhere!) but that may be a tricky change...especially finding it in that huge file.

Thanks for the tip. I do have Creaghorns mod but I don't mind the tracers...got a graphic mod for that too that someone made. Smaller red for the Germans and smaller green when I fly Allied. I was going to try Creaghorn if I couldn't do an easy .bmp file deletion.

Well duh...after looking for several minutes before the above post I went for another look and found it right away in the effects/fxtextures file. Unfortunately there are about ten .bmp files controlling debris. Anyone know which one of them is for debris from hitting aircraft?

I am always somewhat surprised by how flat and open the terrain is. I have been all over the world but never France. Trees come and go of course but hills not so much - least in 100 years. Kind of shows why the MG was such a killer - with artillery helping mightily of course - and why, based on then military hardware and tactical thinking, the concept of trench warfare developed.

Dumb question in that I know there are a hundred variables and everyone's system is different but... What Nvidia driver do you find gives the best performance for OFF? Downloaded the latest Nvidia offering and have experienced a 20% frame rate loss in OFF compared to my previous (and forgotten!) driver version number. Rather then d/l and experiment with the dozens of driver versions available I hope someone here has found a driver "sweet spot." Running an older (but quite serviceable) Nvidia 7950GT card if anyone else has this card still. Also on Windows XP. Edit: Oops...can't fix my spelling error in the post title.

Boy - I could get back about 3 years of my life if I could just follow that advice! cptroyce - Interesting that the 197.45's worked fine for you. Those did not work well for me as previously stated. I can see why software programmers/hardware designers get gray hair trying to make PC games work. So far the 260.99's seem to be best for my system though interestingly (or perhaps not) I really do not see a huge difference in any of them. Nor does changing any of the card settings in the control panel or cfs3config.exe settings as I discussed in a previous post. All the more reason to stop goofing and play...least till my new computer arrives. EDIT: See we posted at the same time Major - maybe I'll try those if I experience any more trouble. Some of my programs (ME2 for one) needs older drivers to avoid graphic issues.

I will guess not but it is easier for a German pilot to get a kill confirmed in OFF since the bulk of combat is behind their lines? Be neat if the program takes that all into account (simulating friendly ground units, AA batteries, etc) but that may be expecting too much!

Just d/l'ed the 182.06. I d/l the 260.99's and give them a shot also. In looking at the list those may be the ones I was using previously. Then maybe I'll just play the damn game and stop obsessing. Thank you gentleman!

Maybe I will give that one a try. Did try 197.45 and experienced graphics anomalies (blue terrain squares) and popping clouds for he first time. And Rugbyfan1972 you are certainly correct. I have long assumed that any direct driver support for my card is done but always try new ones once in a while in the OCD quest for perfect OFF graphics. And I can't rollback because of another OCD thing of mine- unneeded file deletion. I must forced myself to accept that newer is not always better!

That is what I was looking for. Thanks for your OFF mod work - its much appreciated!

Olham, Was that claim accepted (narrative-wise) like you wrote it here? I will admit to being somewhat intimidated by the claim form (plus the thought of being cheated on a victory) that I have been using the "Easiest" setting for them lately. Is that all the detail that is needed? If so I will go back to filling them out. Somehow, from previous posts, I thought that filling out the form, and having it accepted, was kind of tricky - that all kinds of numbers were needed (long/lat, etc).

Bump for the this question. C'mon HPW....been "dying" to try this!