DukeIronHand

Oh, no doubt. If I had to guess, based on my decades of reading (and forgetting!) WW1 aerial history I would guess the most "active" pilots (those seeing the most action per flight hour) would be a Jasta pilots flying opposite the British.

Guess I'll throw it a "double-ditto". OFF has certainly given me many hours of enjoyment and fueled my rabid WW1 aerial interests.

Perhaps the old saw "Combat is 90% boredom and 10% terror" applies to WW1 aerial combat also. It would be neat to see such stats broken down by month for the British.

Well, that's not too light! And well above a "historical average" I would guess.

OFF's biggest failing, and perhaps its only one IMHO, is the AI in dogfights. For a simulation where "immersion" and "being there" are critical this is huge. The number of old-time players here who state they rarely make it past 3 missions is astounding. Yes, I realize that real life was tough on the Western Front but, good lord, if OFF was running history the air war would have been over in a week! The high AI and player loss rates, the players tally per mission, etc are constantly being worked on by DM tweaks, gun settings (See "Gun Setting" thread), or removing the players tracers, etc in a valiant attempt to bring about some "historical" results for the AI and player. But as long as the AI continues to fly and fight to the death these things are just making the fight last longer and not fixing the problem. I think that some "survival sense", or whatever you wish to call it, must (must!) be built into the AI. Are the AI routines strictly controlled by the CFS3.exe?

Huh...I must need to broaden my OFF horizons. Which A/C models the pilots body?

I am sure that with all the movement and elevation variables that needed to be taken into account that aerial gunnery was very tricky when compared to ground gunnery and I suspect that the "150 yard" limitation is certainly more of a comment on the gunnery skill of his observer and not a gun or ammo issue. 150 yards is "point blank" for any MG on the ground. In the air banking, climbing, diving not so much!

I have multiple times and, frankly, I like the "feel" of it but I read here that when using it the AI flies their A/C in a "gentle" fashion (low bank turns, shallow climbs and dives, etc). Any truth to this is anyone's experience? My SA hardly allows such a detailed analysis of AI behavior!

Hehe...good one. Thank you gentleman for all the answers and information. Should have known I was good hands with OFF. If you happen to come across the chart Bletchley if you could post it here. Very informative and interesting to see the "ebb and flow" of the ground war. And interesting thoughts about the AAA. On "Light" what percentage of your war flights are experiencing enemy contact?

At this point, without seeing a picture of the well-done cockpits with the pilots body, I would probably say go without. Most attempts that I have seen to add the pilots legs and arms/hands, for example, always come across looking quite "gamey" and clash with a well done cockpit.

Welcome back if only for a short while. And I am glad to hear your mother is doing well.

Semper Fi!

All you say with the rounds in OFF is certainly true. I spent 8 years in the USMC infantry and a dozen years in law enforcement where I teach firearms. Not to make a big speech and to keep it short: To say tracer rounds are lees accurate is kind of a misnomer. With their different (slight though it may be) weights and ballistic properties than ball ammo (which a gun is usually "sighted in" with) it would be more correct to say that tracers "fly" in a different ballistic arc than ball ammo. In modern ammo this property is well known (and has been for decades probably) so good quality ammo tries to keep these differences minimal. Cant say about WW1 ammo but... As a gaming (and perhaps real life) note I would say the difference in the ball and tracers ballistic arc at "typical" WW1 dogfight ranges is probably minimal.

Ah...well that explains it then. And I had forgotten that the HP's were really not the main plane of the IAF...at least in the daytime...which may say a lot about their actual (or perceived) chances against fighter opposition. Under load they could not fly that high IIRC and probably weren't that fast hence their use in the night role. Its funny how you study and read about a subject for (literally) decades, in my case, and then have to re-learn it because of all you forget. Guess the subject will always be fresh! EDIT: And, as a Part 2, the bombers mentioned in Mitchell's diary were almost certainly DH4's and 9's and not the HP's. Thanks BH!

As an addition to my previous post reference use of the HP's at the front I just re-read portions of Mitchell's book so to amplify on my previous: The "brigade" mentioned was 3 squadrons of bombardment planes and 4 squadrons of single-seaters - types still not specified. The raid was conducted in broad daylight from an altitude of 200' and British losses were 12 bombers. Fighter losses, if any, were not mentioned. This attack was close enough to the front that it was witnessed by U.S. ground troops. This is per Mitchell who was quite opinionated and has no love for the British while he talks up the French but he seems to always have a grasp for the facts...at least in WW1.

Upon further reflection there must be an "AI trigger" in OFF reference ammo. The AI bomber A/C have a target, they fly to it and drop their bombs and leave right? They don't keep circling their target I think. I wonder if this could be adapted for fighter A/C? The next step would be using this AI "go home" trigger in the DM to say "if you have 50% structural damage to this part" or "if you receive a wound" then break off and go home. This is strictly wild a$$ conjecture on my part having zero knowledge of programming.

Interesting! If I knew the AI did not possess unlimited ammo in OFF I must have forgotten it. I know in some sims the AI possesses unlimited ammo to make up for their poor or deficient programming. And yes - I would be very curious also about "AI triggers" that make them do this or that and when to do it.

Just a bit!?! Well I am relieved then. I thought I was spoiled a whole lot by the excellent work of the devs! Thanks Winder. You and the rest of the team are the best. Even the user base is pleasant to be around. Does this make me a "fanboi" or a "OFF slappy"? Not sure which I prefer...

I hope you are too! And, objectively Hellshade, you may be correct in the comparison to other sims. I sometimes forget there are other WW1 sims! In every sim there are complaints about the AI and perhaps I need to remember we are not recreating the life of a real live WW1 pilot (though we may try mightily) and that ultimately its is a "simulation of WW1 air combat" not real life. To expect "real life" results with all the possible variables (planned or unplanned, programmed or not) inherent in a simulation that must be taken into account may not be possible. I may be expecting too much out of the poor old CFS3 engine...or any game engine for that matter. Still, for immersion and playability reasons, some tweaks would be nice though! Hopefully the devs have some tricks up their sleeve for P4.

Well Hellshade and CaptSopwith, you are both correct that a fleeing AI would presumably be "easy meat" for the player if he has a higher performing plane or the AI A/C is damaged. But again I would presume that if the AI is attempting to flee because of damage or a bad situation it would be "easy meat" in "real life" (oh, I hate those words in sim forums) also. And I will bow to your probably superior stick time Hellshade and say that I have never seen an AI plane flying and thought to myself "He is running away" though situational awareness may be a factor here. Perhaps because of simulation limitations the human player is too aware (or perhaps not enough depending on your game settings) of what is going on around him...especially if you are using the Tac screen. And we also don't have oil on our goggles, aren't cold, just saw our best friend burn all the way down, afraid of getting lost, rough engine, etc. Ultimately, we are not fearing death or pain for our stupidity or misplaced aggression. Clearly though the AI shares that lack of fear! But yes, some AI tweaking would be nice for P4 which is the real reason for this post. P3 is set in stone I am afraid. Edit: Is the AI routine strictly controlled by the CFS3.exe? Can this .exe be modified? Both technically and/or legally?

Well thanks uncleal, your insight is astounding and helpful as always!

This is the main A#1 problem in my book. If some "survival sense" could be built into the AI a lot of these problems would be gone or, at least, easily dealt with by tweaking things such as the DM or bullet spread. As long as the AI continues to fight like possessed demons the end result (decimated flights, high kills for the player, etc) will be the same.....it will just take a little longer. Gun and DM tweaks are just "delaying the inevitable" IMHO.

In regards to the tactical uses of the HP series I just re-read (for the umpteenth time) a section of Billy Mitchell's war diary. Never paid much attention to this passage until now. He speaks of requesting help of British "Bombardment aviation" (A/C type unspecified) in the summer of 1918 and the British responding with a "brigade" of bomber A/C and several squadrons of single-seater escorts. IIRC the IAF had Sopwith Camels attached to it for escort purposes. Wonder why the Camel and not the SE5 which, on its face, would appear to be a good (or better) escort plane? Anyway, Mitchell states the British were used in a "low level" raid just behind the front targeting ammo dumps. Time of day for the attack is not specified but he states the British lost 12 aircraft - type not specified but you are left with the impression it was bomber A/C. As an additional tidbit he states a British "aviation general" (IAF CiC Trenchard?) accompanied this force. Sounds like the IAF to me.

Interesting - I have never read an account of them at the "front". Daylight tactical bombing? Or transportation centers behind the front? If not flown at night I wonder how their losses were against frontline Jasta's. Fully armed was not their ceiling about 15,000 feet?

Just back from checking out the screenshots again. The Type O/400 wasn't really used at the "front" as we traditionally speak of it in OFF terms IIRC. Was it not used mostly with the Independent Air Force or on special raids - like on zeppelin sheds? I know this flies in the face of that historical opus: the latest Red Baron movie!