-Hawkeye-

Wow thanks guys I'm on it

Well I got my $15.00 US off and got the early release of FC for $54.99 US. With the setup I had for RoF, I found FC much harder to see in, with the higher resolution that I'm using. It seems that the pilot's position in the cockpit is further forward; in other words, I can't get a FOV that's as wide as I used to get in RoF. This is evidenced by the fact that the default position is higher, and the gun sight no longer is lined up with the "X" wires on the Dr.I, but instead is shooting above them. I found Barton's comments while flying the Dr.I interesting, saying that they don't require as much lead...but actually the lead was pre-programmed in, as he was lining up the wires, but the bullets were going far forward of that...at least that is what happens in my resolution. I can see that he has a 16:9 aspect ratio, where as mine is much wider (though not taller). What I did notice is that this game seems to eliminate the "fish eye" effect which is the result of stretched video in RoF, when you turn your head, when using the wider aspect ratio that I have. One thing I was disappointed in, and is probably is a result of the basic engine, is the "hit flashes" that appear on the structure of the enemy plane you're shooting at, when your bullets hit home. This is great for the shooter, but is a big disadvantage for the the flyer or maneuverer. I'm very sure this is realistic for WWII fighting in which large caliber bullets are hitting metal structure; but I highly doubt that wood and canvas makes flashes when .303 bullets hit them....and this was my number 1 reason for staying away from OFF (Over Flanders Fields), which was also based on a WWII flight/damage engine. I know this is an early release, but with the integration with the WWII (IL2) sims, wonder whether it will ever be possible to change that without affecting everything else. Oh well, if not, we'll all become very used to it. In the end, it will reward the shooting end, and penalize the escaping end....which is I thought was one of the best aspects of RoF....the ability to escape damage or harm through flying skill or maneuvers. This is nothing that is specific to FC, but is specific to IL2. It pisses me off that the game will not recognize the integrated "switches" which are incorporated into each lever axis of a CH Thottle Quadrant. Here is another thing that worked perfectly in RoF, but doesn't work at all in the IL2 series. In other words, I can't program a blip switch (or any other function, like engine on/off or prop feathering) to any of my quadrant axis switches, because the IL2 games do not see it when trying to map it in the IL2 controls mapping utility. This would not be a big deal if those particular switches were able to be mapped to different key within the CH Control Manager; but those particular switches which are integrated into the control axis, are not able to be remapped; in other words, they can only work in "DX (Direct X) mode. Just about any other switches are able to be reprogrammed. So I am wondering whether others (maybe Barton?) have no trouble mapping those switches using other throttle quadrant hardware. Perhaps for some reason the IL2 game recognizes Saitek quadrants and not CH quadrants. What's up with that? Regardless, I'm wondering if there is a time that us current owners of FC can get together on a MMP server and try to kick some @$$ , or at least host our own server and practice against each other. S!

One of the many controls problems I have in the IL2 series is that my TIR hotkeys don't work in the game. In RoF they always worked fine. For view centering, I have the "home" key entered in my TIR program, and for pausing, I have "End" chosen. Both have "enable", "toggle" and "trap" checked in the TIR program. Still, when in IL2, they don't work. Any ideas?

The subjective things, you can't measure...turning ability (there is no published facts that would be useful in comparing one plane to another)....ease of flying, etc. However the basic parameters that are generally agreed upon, OR, if not agreed upon, just pick one you're going to use: These are either met or not met....who cares what engine is producing the effect? I mean things like top speed at sea level, climb time to a certain altitude, stall speed, etc. In other words, if your SPAD, at sea level, doesn't fly at a speed any where near what it's supposed to fly at, or what it did fly at in RoF, is that a better thing, or a worse thing? Only going by what I've heard second hand, based on the reports from people that have flown the FC planes first hand have made. I guess what I'm saying is that, if you blindly shove the old FM's into a completely new flight engine and it doesn't come out doing what it's supposed to do and have no plans to adjust it to end up with a product that matches historical performance at least as good as the RoF planes did, that can't be a good thing.

Maybe true, but I heard from your guys that the SPAD XIII you tested is too slow by far. Since you are an alpha (or beta) tester, it seems possible to me that they have evaluated what you've been given, and (based on your feedback?) found it lacking; and possibly just given up and made the decision to just use what's already been developed? Who is to be believed? Either they're using the RoF flight models as is, or they're not. Which is it?

I'll say this: using the same FM's is one thing, but it goes back to the same old attitude they had for RoF. If they can't make better ones in the first place, for the planes that need them (not that many, IMO), then it's basically an admission that they're incapable (incompetent?) to make new ones, and are just afraid to mess with the old ones; so it's obvious that they'll never fix any issue having to do with FMs in FC. What does that imply? They'll never make any plane that they don't already have in RoF. Really? The best I can expect is that someday, after spending a ton of money, is to get back to what I once had with RoF? That guy's statement has me scared off, already. He's ALREADY saying that it's possible they won't support FC, just like how they quit on RoF....before the new sim has even come out! "Keep forking out the money, or we'll stop it dead right where it's at". Well, that wouldn't be such as big deal, EXCEPT that nobody can determine exactly what they consider adequate support; you and everybody you know could pour all of the money into the sim that they offer you to pay for, and they STILL could say "sorry, it's not enough, we're not making any more planes". It's all based on their own perceptions or business model, and we have no idea how viable it is. To put this into context, we should consider that I, and a whole lot of others in this squadron, DID put everything that we possibly could into RoF, and they STILL ended all development and (update) support for it; all based on what they considered adequate support. There is one HUGE factor that now needs to occur, if the planes are going to fly just like they do in RoF: they better have a response curve utility incorporated into the sim that's equal to, or better than what RoF already has, which is adjustable for EVERY INDIVIDUAL PLANE, just like it is now. If they go to some lame thing like they have in BoX which is one size fits all, it's going to make it IMPOSSIBLE to proficiently fly many of the planes, thereby making them useless, nobody will use them, everybody will gravitate toward the "easy to fly" planes like the Albatros series. Almost EVERY PLANE in RoF does not fly level at neutral stick, and that makes a huge difference in how they maneuver and how controllable they are in combat. That one parameter alone is IMPOSSIBLE to adjust in BoX, and not nearly as necessary because the planes have trim adjustments, something almost every plane in RoF lacks. There are only 2 ways to overcome the FMs in RoF, and by extension, FC: 1) you compensate for them using the response curve feature, or 2) you buy an expensive, long shaft joystick and expensive, wide-stance pedals to naturally desensitize the controls through the entire range, like guys like 1PL_Sahaj has been doing since day one. In short, you'd have to recreate the controls they had in WWI on these planes. How many people do you think are going to pour that kind of money and physical setup effort into a duplicate of RoF, if it's unnecessary in RoF itself? Honestly, I think I'm going to hold off from buying FC until one of you buys it, and tells me that the response curve feature is part of the game. One other thing, for them to force you to buy the new sim, they're going to have to end all support, meaning server support, and free game downloads, for RoF. Expect that shortly after FC releases; they have to, they can't have their old game competing with their new one.

LOTS of pilots getting well deserved awards! Great to see, stay hungry for more! Congrats, everybody. S!

If you have any questions about FAA Tech Ops, don't hesitate to call me. I'm not sure of your technical background or qualifications, if any, from the military; or if you're even interested in that kind of career field. One thing that I can tell you is that the Gov't generally doesn't screw people the way some companies do. It's not that they don't enact changes; but normally they only do it for people coming in after the changes are enacted, not retroactively. That's been their history; but I'm not saying that it couldn't be "Trumped" by some new policies. You could also be an Air Traffic Controller. Job opportunities are nation-wide. They have a separate union (NATCA: National Air Traffic Controller's Association) and a better deal than Tech Ops (PASS: Professional Airways Systems Specialists). However, I've seen what they do and worked hand-in-hand with them. I would only want to try it at a low-volume facility. That said, a lot of people do it and I believe you can retire in 20-25 years....no age limit. I worked 34 years because of the lower age limit. And I will also say this: the high volume facilities are always the first to get the newest and best equipment, and get higher priority when it comes to modernizing and renovating their facilities. The people that work at those places think the entire FAA is like that, LOL. If they only knew. I am in tight with some pretty high-ups in the CSA (Central Service Area: HQ: Fort Worth, TX), but unfortunately, they just retired. However, I can check with my buddy and put in a good word if there's a position open somewhere that they have influence in. S!

Guilty, as charged Hard to beat the money in the FAA, you should have veteran's preference, benefits (health, retirement, etc), they send you to their own schools, even pay the lodging and travel, and the job security is second to none. The thing is they want experience, so if you have some from the military, talk yourself up and get your foot in the door.

Well for Pete's sake, that kind of persistence deserves a reward!

Something tells me the power and speed scale are a bit off

Congrats, all recipients; special good wishes to Baron, for the highest order! Thanks to everyone for the recognition! All the credit goes to my wing men and squadron mates! @ Ricky, streaks are still alive!

Been gone Thursdays and Fridays a lot....reserving time for FiF on Saturdays. Sure would like to see 103rd back in FiF, but this week's is the last one for a long while. Hopefully the week day situation will change. Great work in the videos, Baer. I always enjoy your videos. I didn't remember that you were PaulLMF. Keep on making them, I don't take the time to film and upload much anymore. S!

Many thanks. Now that I'm experiencing the exact issue you posted above, this will be very helpful. My suspicion is that the compatibility mode is the big one. I never had trouble in Win7. However if you know the Vista mode works, who cares which one it's using, if they're any different at all. Honestly we should be happy we even have this option. Remember life before it? Sometimes you just had to write off a program, or even a piece of hardware!

True dat! Yet somehow it does sharpen your skills, practicing against many, in various situations. I suspect you've benefited from similar practice, also (?) Certainly practicing against a single AI enemy is always a waste of time, except of course for total newbs like me in the BoX sim.

The video analysis applies as much to RoF as it does to BoX, and I'm sure it will continue to apply when FC comes out. I think it comes down to this: The AI doesn't use the correct tactics for the type of plane it's flying, AND ALSO, adjust those tactics, depending on what enemy it's flying against. A simplification that it could use, but apparently doesn't, is that either it's flying an energy fighter, or a turn fighter; and that the enemy is flying one or the other, also. Of course that's an oversimplification, as a plane may sometimes use either of those tactics, or a combination, to the extent possible, depending on the starting situation. A simple formula that it could use, which I feel would produce some improvement, would be to fly in accordance with situation A (turn fighter vs. turn fighter), situation B (turn fighter vs. energy fighter), situation C (energy fighter vs. turn fighter), or situation D (energy fighter vs. energy fighter). That alone would produce AI behavior that would at least be an improvement. Instead, what we have is that generally, for most planes, the AI uses the same tactics, whether they're appropriate or not for that plane; and regardless of what type of plane it's fighting against. For example, an S.E.5a flown by AI in RoF does not use BnZ tactics. You can see that it does attempt to maintain altitude, but that is even more dismal as it loses all speed and hangs itself out there for you, one of the easiest targets in RoF AI; then it turns slowly within gun range, making it an absolutely worthless opponent to practice against. Other AI planes in RoF do better by making themselves at least hard to hit, but few are worthwhile planes to fly against, in a field of many. It seems that when you set an AI level in these sims, it has far more to do with the AI's ability to hit you; to the extent that, as Barton pointed out, some of the shots are way outside the realm of human ability. It almost acts like the AI plane has a "hit cone" out in front of it, and if you enter that cone in any way, shape or form, you're hit, no matter how improbable it may seem. The higher you set the AI level, the larger this cone becomes, and/or the more severe the results of the hits on you become. Therefore at Ace AI level you end up with the AI hitting you on the backside of a loop, adjusting fire while inverted to do it, and triple-wounding you and oiling your engine all in that one shot. The only aspect of improved flight tactics seems to be how much the AI presents itself to you for a shot. The extreme becomes when each and every time you produce a shot solution, the enemy jinks wildly, exactly when the shots are hit solutions. It know EXACTLY when it's in your sights, without fail. With those settings, in the end, the only time you actually hit the AI is when it's physically unable to maneuver out of the way. All of these actions are the result of the GOOD (not stupid) AI planes. But in all cases, the AI always has fatal flaws in it's tactics that make it's actions predictable in every case. For example, the AI in RoF always sacrifices altitude in order to obtain the absolute tightest turns possible. This guarantees that it always ends up below you, no matter how good it is. The last aspect seems to be one of the goal of the AI. It doesn't prioritize staying alive like a real opponent would; instead, a major part of it's actions seemed aimed at staying within your general area, and either giving you a target to shoot at, or attempting to hit you at any cost; even offering up some of it's own flight members just to lure you into a position that it can hit in, with another plane in it's flight. This is something that's it's very good at, more akin to playing chess, with absolute cooperation between all of the pieces; again, not like a group of human players would act. This last aspect of it's behavior is possibly ordained on-purpose: for example, would you want to fight against an AI S.E.5a with you flying a D.VIIf, if the AI acted rationally, made one pass, then extended away and never returned, because it could never outclimb or outmaneuver you, and you chasing it futilely, never able to catch it, as it stayed out of gun range forever? Hmmm.

Couldn't quite make out all of the lyrics, so looked them up. [Version 1] Wake up, son of mine Momma got something to tell you Changes come Life will have its way With your pride, son Take it like a man [Pre-Chorus] Hang on, son of mine A storm is blowing up your horizon [Chorus] Changes come Keep your dignity Take the high road Take it like a man [Verse 2] Listen up, son of mine Momma got something to tell you All about growing pains Life will pound away Where the light don't shine, son Take it like a man Suck it up, son of mine Thunder blowing up your horizon [Chorus] Changes come (Changes come) Keep your dignity (Keep your dignity) Take the high road (Take the high road) Take it like a man (Take it like a man) [Outro] Momma said like the rain (This, too, shall pass) Like a kidney stone (This, too, shall pass) It's just a broken heart, son This pain will pass away I liked it.

Like a cube, the numbers are a lot different, depending on which way she's facing

What a fighter that would have made in WWI !

Congrats on landing that job, Larry! Good health to you. S!

Fantastic work, gents! S!

Geez that goes good with Irish Whiskey Good! Yeah. Thanks!

What you'd want to hear in any bar, late summer night, America. Love it! Yeah! Great stuff.

Reminiscent of the Cars. Good find! That's how I dance, LOL

Nice. Nice! Almost forgot what my sound card was for