Does anyone ever get "support" from the Support flight?

It's hard to tell in the swirling world of aerial combat I suppose but I THINK I have seen it once in dozens of combats.
Perhaps the wording of their role during a mission briefing can be changed to "...will take off after you and might be in the area and then maybe help you during combat."
I am being somewhat "tongue in cheek" here but am serious about removing the word "support" from the briefing unless someone sees something different then me.
Also I am trying to avoid the use of the "AI Always Engages" in the Workshop for obvious reasons.

Maybe change the wording to "moral support flight?" I'm sure they are rooting for you!

In my experience,the "support" leave the flight and steer somewhere else after a couple of waypoints,I have never seen them follow all the way to the objective,except a couple of times,with RNAS Campaign,and they were all Airports strikes,they stayed up there and engaged a Hun patrol coming to harass us.

I usually cycle through missions until I get one without the "support". Leaving a support flight sometimes even adds to the squadron causalities because I never see them to know how they died.

Also, while reading the combat reports from RNAS, I have not come across any hostile aircraft, deep offensive or line patrol missions where both A and B flights flew the same path. Often times, one would fly in the morning or afternoon and the other would fly in the early evening hours. Also, I'm not certain, but there are too many planes that fly the mission during times when there is no offensive especially in 1916/1917.

Me thinks that it would be cool to simulate real patrols in WOFF.

"Moral Support Flight"...ha!

And that would also be fine C57.
Let "A" flight have their own mission and their own waypoints. Remove "Support" from the mission briefing.
If there is a campaign need for a "squadron size" patrol then put them all in one "flight" to reduce AI oddities.

I would rather have that then watch them continuously fly on by, sometimes quite close, while myself and the rest of "B" Flight fight for our virtual lives.

Simultaneous post with you OldHat.

I tried your AI awareness trick in a very minor manner (decreased by one number) but I think I will ratchet it down quite a bit.
The difference is subtle, and not being an AI mind reader, may be tough to quantify.
I will certainly say I saw it make a change in AI behavior on one occasion. A Hun patrol broke off their landing pattern to attack me because I was passing by. Never saw that before.

I suspect they will attack or aid you if they are within a certain range. What the effective range is remains unknown to me. I have often lead my flight back to keep "A" flight close to us when patrolling. Sometimes they help and sometimes not. If there is a critical range that affects "A" flights decision to help, I wish I knew what it was and I could use it to advantage.

Well, maybe it's possible to code the AI of A-Flight in a way, that the Leader switches from "Follow Mission Waypoints" to "Escort Player Flight" every 10 Minutes. As soon as the Waypoint "Player Flight" is reached, it switches back to "Follow Mission Waypoints" again. This Way, they stay close to you, but drift away every now and then, like they are inspecting something, that requires a look or two...

I think you are partially correct Robert.
It is, almost certainly IMHO, a combination of a unknown (except by OldHat IIRC) "AI awareness radius" plus the timed "Is the enemy around?" check mentioned by OldHat.

1 in 12 sounds generous to me. I*'ve tailed them and stuck very close to them. EA have passed very close to us and even then they seldom attack. They seem quite happy to lead the EA to us then flee for the nearest airbase while we clear their tails of attacking EA.

Well, after looking at the simulation.xml file, I maybe wrong, but I think this is how it works...

Click to reveal..

An AI plane will "scan" the sky by cycling through 4 views (front, up, right and left - not below since they can't see through the craft) every 12 seconds (or as dictated by the file). So, it will "scan" in front (~60 degree angle) for 12 secs, then to the right for 12 secs, etc... By the time it scans in front again, then almost 1 minute has passed.

This explains why "A flight" will never see the enemy (or you) below them unless they are in a position to "see" and are scanning the sky at that time.

The distance range is the same as it is in workshop for label ID. That is why the AI will not react to seeing AA inside their territory because the flight is too far away to be ID'd. If the AI can ID each other, then they will engage or run away.

Well I see it's not only me then.

I get AI limitations, etc, but the performance of "A" Flight is quite the "immersion buzzkill" and needs immediate attention.
A change may be quite simple...I think?
What makes this all particularly odd is it seems the enemy AI flights have no problem hunting you down - or joining a dogfight already in progress.

Uh oh.
I was trying to be vague to avoid a move to the "forum of death".
Maybe the use of the "Spoiler Alert" will circumvent that!

Since I usually make a shortcut by skipping the "circle and climbing phase" using the "next waypoint" command, I'm usually way far ahead of the "support flight" and leave them live their own life...

Quite right,if enemy AI spots you even at a lower altitude,why not Support? I think that support as I said before,does its job only when "it's around" in fact the two times I had support from A flight,they were on site and well above us.But as I said,most of the times,even though they are meant to go all the way to the target as per briefing,usuaslly leave the party after a couple of waypoints.Probably they go back to the Bar for a pint!

Maybe we're reading it wrong. Maybe we're "supporting" them!

1 in 12 is quite generous MudWasp especially when I said "dozens"!
Hehe...

EDIT: Almost forgot. Thanks OldHat! That tidbit will be another cut & paste for the knowledge library.

Ah, I must have miss read ya, or had a minor brain fart... My apologies... I've only had them help me a handful of times in approximately 500 flights with 4 pilots I fly often from various nations.

I seem to remember from OFF BHaH, that the escorting fighters would defend your flight if you managed to keep up with them. Maybe more out of the fact that when the enemy planes descend in a screaming dive on you the escorts 'see' them first. I don't recall if there were settings in OFF to adjust this loyality.

Have some questions for you OldHat but I will send you a PM when I get them in a coherent fashion.

AI in OFF is nothing at all to do with WOFF AI which is utterly brand new.

I'm reviving this dead topic because of information which is new to me that I read and would like to share - to perhaps convince the devs to change their viewpoint on the role of support flights.

Historically, the support flight would always engage. Examples,

"German KTB data shows that the majority of 1917 Jasta patrols were between 5 and 10 machines - but often in the upper & lower patrol configuration. Jasta 2 look to have pioneered the upper & lower patrol formation "

"On 1 June 1918 a notable Allied ace, flying alone, dove on a solitary Fokker triplane, unaware of the others waiting above for just such an opportunity. His wrecked SE5 was found near the village of Lievin."

"Lieutenant John Wright, C Flight, 4AFC. During the afternoon of 6 September 1918, Camels of 4AFC, SEs of 2AFC and Bristol fighters rendezvous over Foret De Nieppe then patrol together. He describes the formation as the 6 Camels at 12,000 ft, the 6 SEs at 14,000 and to the rear of the Camels and the 6 Bristol fighters at 18,000. He spots 7 Fokkers 1,000 ft above the Camels and the Bristols engage another formation of Fokkers higher up"

"On 9 Nov 16, 12 bombing BE2's (pilot only) went over with close escort of ten 11 Sqn FE2's and six 29 Sqn DH2's, with further top cover of 12 Nieuports from 60 Sqn . These were engaged by upwards of 30 German machines, with fighters from Jasta 1, Jasta 2 & Jasta 4."

"the big air battles over Polygon Wood had multiple flight patrols from several British squadrons clashing with multiple Jagdstafflen."

I only ever see A flight near the beginning of a flight..then they are either miles back or no where to be seen. They are def NOT top cover.

Guys this has been covered before - they DO NOT FORMATE and stay with your flight.
They provide support at the target or top cover at the target.

Players are advised to actually formate with them....otherwise you will not have their support at the target they may well arrive before you or indeed after you.

The only time two flights formate and stay together is ESCORT

Read here:

http://www.overflandersfields.com/features-Dev.html


Basically:

Supporting Flights:

AI will fly to the same target and attack it - if possible.
They do not formate or stay with player flight

Top Cover Flight:

AI Will fly to target and loiter at altitude over the target (Top Cover) and attack any incoming enemies - if possible.
They do not formate or stay with player flight (they also may not get there).

Escort or Escorted:

AI will track your flight and aim to protect you or vice versa - they will stay with you and do their best to protect or you must stay with them and protect them.
They formate and stay with player flight in protective role all the way to target and back as best as possible.


Remember they may not make it to the target - just like you:
They may be attacked by other aircraft
They may be hit by archie
They may suffer too many failures

But if you fly with them you will see this unfold....


Bottom line: yes they do go to the target and either attack it or loiter above it and scout for enemy craft.
Its up to you to get there with them.

WM

I appreciate your detailed explanation Winding Man and I don't mean to sound dense, but as I'm reading more I'm still trying to figure out what is historically correct.

So, based off of OBD's WW1 knowledge, do you think it would be more historically accurate to have either top cover or support aircraft to behave like the escort(ed) ones?

It sounds very appealing to have 20 to 30 aircraft engaged in a dogfight during the later part of the war.

Its a game - we have tried to make the AI behave as well as we can within the context of that.
Its one of the best AI out there.

No I wont make that function escort - because in WW1 even formation keeping was in its infancy and often times the flight never even made it to the target never mind all together.
Now some folks will post quotes 'proving the opposite' - really? - well its tiresome

The fact that two years on some folks dont believe that support or top cover flights dont carry out their duty is frankly a bit worrisome - well we have seen it so many times

Its one of the reasons why we are mulling another phase - TBH I think there is too much in WOFF already and most users have not seen it yet or dont want to believe it because of they have not seen it

I suspect we will be moving on to other pastures - we have made a game that has almost 70 player craft - has over 1000 targets per period of the war - in 12 periods - thats over 12000 targets - has up to 250 machines going about their business, 100s of real historically accurate squadrons to choose from, and a living moving front line, and thus gives the player one of the most immersive WW1 rides he can have.

I think its done.


BTW what you are wanting is larger flights - on Patrol - and there is a real CPU/GPU limitation with that.

Yes in the latter stages of the war there were such large flights - we need more power to do that in campaign.

Maybe 2020

WM

I didn't understand your answers at first, so I re-read your post.

I have had escorts break off and engage distant HA, and next day do nothing at all. Just don't count on them thats all.

Quite so!

Im currently reading Raymond Collishaw's book Air Command. According to him the top flight was usually attacked first, so as to remove any chance of helping the lower flight.

I tind if I just imagine this is what happened it can be a little less frustrating when they watch you get shot up.

Thank you for the details, Winder (which have already been all there, if we only had read them...)

My tip to everyone who has problems with Escorts:

First make sure you REALLY meet them at the meeting point.
They circle there for a while, and only when the meeting really happens, they switch into "escort" mode.
You can see that when you have LABELS on, set to "Activity".
Their LABELS first say something like "...on transfer"; then they will show "...escorting unit X"
Only then they have really met your flight and escort it.
If the meeting doesn't happen, they may fly home.

If you are flight leader, make sure you fly close enough to them, until that "switching" happens.

Hey WM,

Thanks for the response.

I guess I understand that these requests get tiresome after awhile. But I think you need to understand that people get pretty obsessed over this game.

From that standpoint, I'm not sure that you would want it otherwise necessarily; first from what is says about how well OBD has done in making a truly immersive sim and second from the fact that most people on this forum will pay pretty much what you ask just for you to continue turning out more good stuff.

The consequence of course is that the people who love your sim for its laudable realism will, frequently, hound you for more of it.

It's certainly understandable that you have designed the AI to act in a certain way, based on your own perspective on history. To be honest, it's less understandable that you expect that fact to be inherently obvious. WOFF is a great sim. One of the very best I've played and I started playing them on a Timex Sinclair in about 1981.

But like any sim, WOFF has its limitations. The necessary assumptions of the claims system to keep it from simulating Godlike omniscience comes first to mind. So, when a fan who is absolutely steeped in his Flanders alter ego sees something like a "support" flight as often as not not, you know, supporting him, I'm not sure that it's entirely unreasonable for him to ask himself "why?" or "Is this a bug, or a stroke of genius on the AI's part?"

That is just human factors and no different than watching people repeatedly push the elevator button because the doors don't open immediately. Maybe the elevator is going through a thorough series of safety checks. Maybe the button is broken. Maybe something in between. But, without knowing, one can only wonder...and ask.

As for the fact that this was explained previously, perhaps it was. But naturally these things slip from the collective consciousness after awhile, and that's if everyone had read them in the first place. For my own part, that was before my time here. So, I would hope that you would forgive the masses their poor corporate memory.

In the end, it's sad that OBD finds itself debating on whether to continue the series because of the (sometimes wearying) enthusiasm of its fanbase. If you guys don't enjoy what you are doing anymore, I personally would not consider asking you to continue solely for my enjoyment. You've done a tremendous job and I don't think anyone would argue the point.

But consider, that OBD has proven itself a victim of its own success (though I generally loathe the phrase). The only way to avoid it on the team's (or individuals') next project(s) would be to fail at them.

With Regards,

Deacon

Well said Deacon.
BTW, can I hire you if I ever need a lawyer?

Some good points from the users' point of view, Deacon - which often are quite different to the developers' of course.

But my memory fails me where this was said:

"...it's sad that OBD finds itself debating on whether to continue the series because of the (sometimes wearying) enthusiasm of its fanbase..."

I didn't see any such reason named for their thoughts about making a final version.
But that may be due to the fact again, that we never seem to read ALL posts - perhaps you can guide me there.

As WM says it's top cover, not an escort. They are flying higher hoping to clear the sky there. If you are flight leader follow them or keep closer, and see what happens. They are a flight like yours and things can interfere on their way, many of which you will not see.

We did put too much into it, that's a fact. I don't think it's acceptable just because we put more in than most flight sim companies to say therefore it's our fault that people look for more and more, usually picking on niggly bits that aren't quite to their taste and forget about the massive positives in front of their faces.

Guess it's like you go into a cafe and they have coffee or tea. You choose coffee, it's Ok and does a job, no comments. Any fancy one opens with 200 different drinks people point out the one they don't have.

Well truly that was a summation of what I read in WM's second post. I gathered that the arguments against the AI were considered a bit tiresome and were causal (in the aggregate) to the potential conclusion of development for WOFF.

Of course, the arguments might be tiresome AND WOFF was concluding, those two points being unrelated. If so, I would certainly be inclined to apologize for putting words in anyone's mouth.

In any event, I'd be sad to not see more from OBD, particularly if it was because of some miscommunication between the developer and the community. I can certainly sympathize with OBD's frustrations, though I can't share them never having undertaken a similar project. But, I was hoping to present the player's perspective in a different light.

Hi Duke,

Forgive my ignorance, but what are the "obvious" reasons for not using "AI Always Engages"? I suppose it's not historically accurate and allows pilots to rack up quick kills?

because "AI Always Engages" turns out the human factor completely and makes them attacking zombies or terminators. Always engages off makes AI consider many factors if attacking or ignoring enemy flights. When to go home, when to break off attacks etc. Like humans would do. They want to survive, break off fights in time to go home etc. Always attack means a single AC would attack a Formation of 8. He would never consider going back home but always fight until he crashes. Also they don't sense if they are behind enemy lines or not, how low they are etc. Nice for QC but neither historical nor realistic in a way in campaign.

yeah in the old days whole flight/squads would be wiped out because of mental dogfights to the death.

I need to clarify two points.

In my opinion, WOFF's AI IS NOT FAULTY, BUT IT CAN BE IMPROVED.
There was a discussion that I started about the AI behavior and what I noticed still stands. For example, Take any DVII squad on any mission including escort and they will always run away from SPAD XIIIs (unless ambushed). Not 99% of the time, but 100% of the time no mater their skill level, fatigue, injury, altitude, which side they're flying over, etc... Same applies to other aircraft combinations where one is much more superior than the other. This doesn't mean that the AI is faulty. It just means that from my point of view (and maybe others) it could use a bit of tweaking. There are other AI behaviors which have been mentioned like "going home" and "landing" routines as well. Again, the AI is not faulty, but it can be improved in this regards. It's just my point of view which people can agree or disagree.

In my opinion, WOFF's FM, DM, SHADERS, ETC... ARE NOT FAULTY, BUT THEY CAN BE IMPROVED.
This doesn't need examples, but they do exist.

I understand that no more improvements like I mentioned above will happen to the current WOFF.

Imagine if not a single person who has bought WOFF never pointed out what they would like to see improved and everyone always praised WOFF, would that make WOFF seem any better? I don't think so.

Bottom line: WOFF stands on its own merit and it's the best WW1 sim whether I or anyone else says it or not. But it doesn't mean that it can't use improvements..... in my opinion, of course.

Well said.

In fact, I found a balance between "always engage" and "always run away" by reducing the AIs vision in simulation.xml file to about 100 meters so that my flight stays and fights which works out pretty well. Sometimes the EA will run away with its tail between its legs....

Hey Pol,

Not to belabor a point here but I don't think it's a matter of placing fault. If you took that from my comments, please accept it as my tongue in cheek manner of phrasing.

But, to return to your analogy, what you have captured with the WOFF community is not people who like coffee. What you have are people who %$*&ing LOVE coffee. People who like coffee are going to be happy with a 2 buck cup of swill that tastes like someone washed their gym shorts in it. People who LOVE coffee are going to pay 5, 7, 10 bucks for mountain grown, freshly ground, French-pressed nectar of the gods, served in a Ming vase.

They don't drink coffee, they revel in it.

But they are always going to crave more, because that's human nature. They aren't coffee drinkers. They are coffee aficionados.

True, not everyone is as nice as they could be when they ask for change. The nature of the Internet I'm afraid. But, my personal observation is also that you're not going to find all that many forums that are quite as complimentary either. Wander over to the ROF forum or even the DCS forum. You won't see too many posts saying "This sim never fails to surprise" or "Sometimes screenshots in this sim have the feeling of a good oil painting" (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea). There are an uncharacteristic number of compliments on this forum. Just because people gripe doesn't mean that they don't appreciate the good parts. Just the fact that they are spending the hundreds of hours that would be necessary to even notice these issues, should say something.

Anyway, I didn't want you to think that I was blaming OBD somehow for the player's desire to improve the sim. I was just trying to explain that when people love a thing, they take ownership of it. They want it to be perfect. And the better it is, the more the small flaws stand out.

Well said, Deacon.

Hello all,

In B flight if you are not leading and your flight is not an escort, should you then stay in B flight formation or leave and follow A flight to the target destination?

Just wondering what the more experienced pilots in WOFF might do.

Many thanks,

Tango

"B" flight is always your flight and, if you are gonna play semi-historically, you should stick with them.
"A" flight is in their own world doing whatever their AI minds tell them to do.

As was said earlier they are around (sometimes) but forget about them and do not base your tactical decisions (attack/no attack) on their presence. If they manage to attack something that is great but do not bet your sim pilots life on them.
I've been chased before by multiple foes and led them through "A" flight who ignored them and they carried on their merry way. And this is not just once or twice. I suppose it is the same "task ordered thinking" that locks them into a landing pattern despite your presence on their tail and shooting. They will dodge if you don't get them the first time but then they go right back to a leisurely landing pattern.

OldHat and Deacon, I understand you better now after your last posts.
You had me worried first, but I see you are true lovers of WOFF.
And don't we always find something about our loved ones, that they could improve?

Yeah, just don't tell them that, or you'll get a hissy fit.

Ha!

Thanks Duke!

That is what I usually do, stay in formation and just keep my eyes moving around.

Tango

Yep, and that is what happened here .

Deacon Understood.

Olhat we totally are aware of many areas we can improve. We'd need more sales to help us achieve all these minor improvements.

Fullofit - if you keep telling them, yes they will get a hissy fit. If they hear disproportionate amount of comments about the bad stuff they will start to dislike you.

Pol, would OBD consider making "ini" files for users to tweak AI, claims, squads, and other parts of the sim on their own (also make the simulation.xml - or any other file that controls the sim's internals - in understandable language to users)?

1) Could be easier than adding everything to the workshop.

2) MODs and tweaks can come from the community while OBD focuses on more content...

3) WOFF will last for years with people adding their own tweaks and MODS...

WIN..WIN situation.

+1

I have been thinking the same - why not help OBD with modding/tweaking and let them work on content.

It's always possible, but as WOFF has grown over the years there are many files some internal and settings are in various places - sometimes in the code itself based on internal variables. I think it would be a fair amount of work to find the many places move them to be all in user friendly files and test and so on.

For whatever its worth...

It's great to bring up ideas for the devs to sort through and see what's possible. That's what the Wish Thread is for and I am certain that they are going through that. I also completely understand the whole "if GOLD is going to be the final major overhaul, I need to get my wish in there now!" line of thinking. Believe me, there's things I'd like to see in there myself and I'm certainly not saying that many of the wishes and requests being made aren't perfectly legitimate or that they wouldn't improve WOFF even more. They would! To some extent though, it turns into a little bit of a feeding frenzy because people are beginning to understand that, well...it's now or never. Trust me, I get it.

For whatever it's worth, here's what I decided for myself. When I compare WOFF to other WWI flight sims, I realize that for the most part there is no comparison. The AI, however imperfect, still stands head and shoulders above the competition. So does the single player dynamic campaign. So does the historical accuracy and the immersion factor. So does the plane set, the number of squadrons to choose from and about 100 other things. None of those things are perfect in WOFF. They never will be and to some extent, nobody feels that more keenly than the very people who have literally devoted the last 10 years of their lives to bringing this sim to life.

The thing is though, for every great idea that the devs want to implement, they alone know how many hours it will take and what other great ideas will have to never come to fruition because of the ones they've chosen to make happen. Even as they are working to make many of the wishes people have come true, in their heads they can probably already hear the complaining of those that they haven't. It's a tough business and there's little thanks in the way of financial rewards to cap it off. That's why you often hear the devs say "with enough support there are a lot of things we'd like to do." Look through the complete list of patch notes from all of the various versions of W/OFF and see how many user requested Features they have given to us for free. It's a lot. And yet still the devs hear complaints about the price before they have even announced one.

So I am going to do everything I can think of to encourage WOFF GOLD to actually be produced, and while I am going to hope that some of the things I want are somehow going to be included, I'm not going to worry or be too disappointed if they are not. I know the guys at OBD love WOFF as much as we players do and so they will make the best choices that they can with the limited time and resources that they have. What makes it in makes it and even with whatever doesn't, in my personal opinion WOFF will still be far and away the greatest single player WWI flight sim ever developed. For me, what it boils down to is this:

Even if none of my wishes make it into GOLD, I'm still going to have many enjoyable years of flying WOFF and discovering new things. I'm looking forward to GOLD and whatever you decide is the best of the best that you can put into it. Thanks to the devs for all that you've done.

Ever thought of becoming a preacher man, Hellshade? (Mmuahahahahaaa!!!)

Naw, seriously now: my very thoughts expressed here - I also thought during the last days,
that it must often be hard to be a dev of a sim.
The "rewarding" positive comments and praises are often less than the complaints and the nagging,
and the gratitude for what was built is often less than the disappointment about what isn't yet.
And the money?
For ten years of development, I guess you wouldn't want to even start calculating, how much (or not)
you have earned per working hour. You really wouldn't want to know.

I therefor queue up with you for a deeply and honestly felt "THANK YOU".
And I beleive to know, it is NOT over yet.

Hellshade and Olham, I wholeheartedly agree. OBD deserves all the praise they get and money they earn.



1) Don't need to do it all at once. Why not start with a simple one like AI behavior only. Then if that's successful, the rest can be released in iterations over time.

2) Testing don't necessarily need to be done by OBD.... that's why MODDERS like to tinker, test, crash, curse, retest, crash, drink, etc...

Right, OldHat! Let´s go and do something! I can offer my coding experience in C/C++ and patient testing/debugging. I hate jus to sit, cry and wait for someone to give me everything under my nose. That is my nature: if you want something, do it yourself. Maybe that is due to our (Czech rep.) socialism/communism past. Due to lack of goods, services and money, people were forced to be selfsufficient and independent.

That's what we are doing JJJ65 !

No decent WW1 sim, OK we make one.

I think you misunderstand him, he wants to help you.

If I was a company and had made a complex and complicated product like an air combat simulation,
I would not want that many other people would get their bits and mods into it - simply because
I as the responsible company would have to guarantee that the product works fine for everyone.
But how could I do that, how could I give sufficient support, if I had no control about what's
been done by others?
Try to imagine the sim would be your baby - would you want to share her with everyone around?
I definitely wouldn't.

The time for the modders comes usually, when the developers have given up working on a simulation,
like in the case of "IL-2: Cliffs of Dover", where TEAM FUSION did a great job to make it work
as it was once meant to work. But there, the money lenders had closed the "money tab", the devs
had to release an unfinished, catastrophic version which failed - and only when the devs had
given up on it, TEAM FUSION modders were given the codes.

"Wings over Flanders Fields" is - in my humble opinion - far from any such point.
It is alive and well, and still being continued - even if some already sing "swan songs" here.

To answer DukeIronHand's original question; no. If anything, I've needed to babysit 'A-Flight' because they have a tendancy to lose aeroplanes and cause a squadron shortage. In a recent DiD campaign mission, I completed my balloon attack, then found and joined A flight (to make sure they got back across the lines) they were attacked by 5 Albatri and two of A flight didn't even fight, but just carried on their merry way, while I fought off the Albs with the remaining Pups.

But I'm not having a go at OBD. It is not the nature of most satisfied men to give feedback. So by human nature most of what you hear is going to be gripes. I can appreciate that this can get to you. Hell, I get this every day at work.



Perhaps the time for that is coming. I can model, but I haven't worked out how to get a model in game. Even static ground models are harder than the casual observer might imagine. But I am working on it. OBD started out as RB3D modders...




So I understand, and long may it continue. OBD- we love you guys!

Honestly, Pol, your (OBD) capacity is not unlimited and our wish list is increasing. That is why I offer you help and I am sure I am not alone. I can not support you with money, but offer other resources - my time as coder, tester nad debugger, free of charge. I am sure many talented 3D modellers and 2D graphics are around willing to help you just for the pleasure to improve WOFF and see/fly their wished fatures/planes in WOFF.

Olham - I propose other approach: everything must be finalised and assembled only by the OBD to guarantee bug free and compact product. That is a standard team work today in game development.

Thanks for the offer I understand exactly JJJ65, just we are not in a position to make it easy to get to with no cost to us currently. Maybe we can later who knows.

3D modellers I think I covered that already, great if more appear that do actually want to make more than half a completed aircraft unlike the previous 27 or so. Even adding aircraft models to the original CFS3 is a steep learning curve plus since then we have added to for WOFF's requirements. To be honest I am not sure having a few nicely made 3rd party models for a free download is going to help WOFF to attract new customers.

We shall see anyway.

OK Pol, I got it. I can understand you - sometimes is easier to do it yourself than explain everything to someone. Especially, when it is undocumented. But, anyway, if you will need any help (maybe to find some variables or routines in cfs3 assembly code), you know where to look for .

JJJ65, I just sent you a PM.

The point I am trying to make here is WOFF is a game selling for 40 - 60$ nominally.

If we were ever to put in the many details asked for here and in many threads on this board (often stated as if we were unaware of what happened in WW1) we would have to raise the asking price - by a lot!
And often for details that to the average gamer would go largely unnoticed.
Details that would take time to code and a lot of time to test..

The software would move out of the gaming category and have to be sold as 'professional software' - think Adobe pricing etc (300 - 500$ bracket)
And we would sell very little.

Already we have actually included far too much for the typical game asking price.....its a marketing balancing act and one that we have already unbalanced.

And it also is not about 'getting help' either - its a business decision.


WM

If you make a "DIH Fantasy Edition" you can have my $300.00 no sweat.
The quality and subject matter make this a lifetime investment for me.

Well, Duke, by buying new stuff as add-ons over time, we could still get there.
And even in steps, which may make it easier for those with rather slim purses.
And this leaves the freedom of choice for those who rather not want this or that new content.

Well yeah over ten years $300 isn't enough but WM is talking of the BASE price being 200-500 plus any add-ons of course for that base product to do all these things.

Fine by me.
You gentlemen clearly underestimate what a World War I aerial geek I am. Or how much I think WOFF is great. Not perfect but great. There will never be a game in this genre, in my lifetime, that will even come close. I hope that partially explains my oft-times annoying passion for WOFF to be the greatest.
But based on concerns often expressed here about $25 I can't imagine I am in the majority.

I hear you Duke. I'd be willing to fork over a few hundred for the Ultimate Edition WOFF, but I doubt that's the norm. Times are tough and that's a lot of dough.

The flight sim fan base is not what it was in the 1990s and certainly the WWI fan base today is just a very tiny fraction of those who do fly virtual planes. I'm guessing titles like World of Warplanes make up the majority of people paying money to get some stick time in. I do wonder why WWI was so popular in the 1990s but has drifted off since then.

Eh.
If I was forced to guess I would say consoles and mindless FPS's are the bulk of everything anymore. And that's where companies and developers are putting the resources. That's where the money is. Quick adrenaline fix for the short attention span consumer that suits many in our modern society but that's for a whole other discussion I reckon.
For the old time war gamer/history buff the computer simulation was the next logical step but I suspect I am a dying breed.

Oh I certainly agree that FPS and console games are the bulk of games being made these days. I was saying "World of Warplanes is where most people go to get stick time" - that is if they plan on doing any virtual flying. Hardcore sims are not exactly burning up the market even among those who do prefer to fly.

Well I'm a younger member of that breed, I'm only 24 and I've drifted deeper and deeper into sim-land as time has gone on. I don't even own any of these consoles. So there are a few of us.

Well if we could clone you x 10,000 we could get WOFF Platinum Edition with every damn thing in it!

So who says the youth is lost? Good boy, Mr. Pengwin!

If these changes that were mentioned are too much work for return on investment, then I wonder what changes WOFF GOLD will include to keep it at a reasonable cost?

Whatever WOFF GOLD includes, I'll still buy it since all of OBD's products are top notch.

Back to the "Question!!!

The support flight is not worth the FPS hit. I have yet to see but very few positive interactions to any
of my thousands of missions. And some times yhey have cloged up the "furball" causing "air to air" accidents.

On the "Other Stuff" above ( and slightly off topic--- but interesting ) count me on on the Gold or Platinum
WOFF. This "old gezzer" plans to spend his money and the kids can have whats left.

I think Ace of penguins is exactly the type of person I'd like to hire! Good man.

Haha what am I being hired for? :P Currently I pay for my sims by working in IT and fixing computers for a university.

Wholeheartedly agree. As someone in my (late) 20s, I grew up with flight sims of the early 90s (I'm thankful I was raised right) Kids today do not have the attention span for anything close to WoFF, which is really a shame; the more you put into this sim, the more it gives back. Couple short attention spans with a general lack of interest in anything history (WWI, WW2 or what have you), and it's easy to see why the Call of Dooty 10s sell like hotcakes. Mindless entertainment for the drones.

Slightly off-topic, but still relevant to what I said above:

A few years back in college I had signed up for a US Civil War history course. On the first day the professor went over the syllabus with the class. While he explained that the course would focus on the military campaigns of the North and South, a girl sitting next to me leaned over and asked, "we had a civil war?".


GM

Give them time - the good things with a depth like "Wings over Flanders Fields" are rather something for the more mature people;
not the sensation-junk-food for teenies, I would think. But we all get older, and so there might be a good chance...


The way time is healing all wounds, I suppose.
Unfortunately it also makes us often repeat all the mistakes that had already been made before...

Way to put a nice spin on it Olham!
I am often shocked how basic, world changing, historical events are unknown to a lot of people.
And it seems the younger they are the more "ignorant" they are about anything - from modern events to epic history - though I have seen the rare older folks who make my jaw drop when history is discussed.
Actually kind of depressing especially when I think of the lives, blood, and treasure, expended to make sure these fools are able, and willing(!) to post what they had for breakfast on Twitter/Facebook like its a big deal courtesy of the sacrifice of others. I really wonder what this country will be like in 100 years. I fear for my children frankly...

Duke, this is pretty much what an ancient Roman (forgot which one) said about the youth of Rome.
That was ca. 2000 years ago - and the world is still there.
So don't worry!


EDIT: ...though you might argue, that the Roman Empire actually DID have a deep fall...

Yes it seems it is always thus, Olham.

Just did a mission and A flight flew top cover the whole patrol,then they flew back and landed at same time as B flight.The whole time I was in landing pattern I was thinking oh dam this is notgonna go well but instead the planes alll flew nicely and landed together.The squad leader of A flight actually passed all of us in B flight in the landing pattern due to his faster EIV.WTF?

In my British Centenary DID pilot I've seen 'A' flight actually do something once and that's flying since June 1.

Maybe its best to just not say A flight will provide top cover?

As it is now "A flight " needs to be removed! In all of my years of this game ,I have NEVER seen A flight do any thing to help my flight.

All of us could use the FPS gained by A flight's removal.

Well, my Experience is otherwise...
Most of us use the "Skip-Waypoint-Function", when it comes to the Point of circling right into the Stratosphere or to avoid Waypoints, that are not in a more or less straight Line to the Target Area.
If one sticks to the Waypoints, A-Flight is usually in your direct Proximity... and the Rest is up to the individual AI-Characters. Some might help you, others won't, some may even start the Confrontation or go Hunting by themselves... and others might simply run away...

I never get support. The only way is to 'force' it when I'm 'lucky' enough to be chased by enemy and everyone else is in a landing pattern so that I can fly right through them and cause a melee!

^This. I will follow, or not follow the waypoints depending on whether I want A Flight's assistance or not.

Lederhosen, everything is going right for you because I never get help. I guess it's just sort of random whether they help or not.

While making the Gotha mission, I kept getting stumped as to why an aircraft would fly a few hundred meters past the enemy and not engage. Then after fiddling with flight directives, skill, morale, etc.. trying to get over 50 aircraft to battle each other in the same airspace and without resorting to "always engage" in the workshop settings was a challenge, but not impossible. It does heavily depend on the right combination of directives, plane numbers and other factors...

Today was another good escort thingy.

I had 6 DV's as escort.
One lone Spad 13, much lower, decided to have a go. When the Spad reached co-alt one and only one DV broke off to engage.
I watched the fight and the Spad quickly got on the tail of the DV. Now here's the nice part. Another DV broke off to help his friend.
The fight was quite sharp and went all the way down to floor level. End result....no one was shot down and the 3 scouts went home. The rest of the escort stayed with me till it was bye bye time.

Great example for an interesting, "human" AI, Lederhosen!
Thanx for sharing!

I think there is a difference between escorting flight (from different fighter squadron) and Flight-A from the same (yours) squadron.
Escorting flight must fulfill escorting duty (it has defined and assigned target to escort - recon/bomber flight), while Flight-A is usually doing just routine cap (air patrol).
Just my 2 cents.

Not yet! Not ever in all of my years of WOFF. They just wander off to parts unknowen.

I use "Start in the Air" and if my flight and "A" flight are attacked at the very start, they will fight.

IMHO the are a waste of CPU usage and a loss of screen visual performance.

Agree..... seems that "A" flight" doesn't even protect itself!

Most other "escorting" flights may, big may here, fight....mostly not.

Guys, don't get "A-flight" and "escort flight" mixed up!

A-flight usually follows their own patrol path, which mustn't necessarily
be the same as for B-flight - they have differing tasks.

The "escort flight" must be met, at waypoint 2 or 3, after the climbing waypoint.
If you fly as leader, and you miss the meeting point or correct altitude, they will turn home.
But if you meet with them, they will fly to the lines with you.
When you encounter enemy flights, they will decide wether they stay near you
or attack the E/A. If they attack, they will mostly be gone after that,
and you must fight the rest of the way through on your own.

My experience with *escorts* as a two-seater pilot has usually been very negative. It doesn't seem to matter what the quality or numbers of the escorting fighter squadron is - in most cases they will disengage and leave the two-seaters alone as soon as enemies are sighted. Only rarely I've actually seen them do their jobs and fight the attackers.

I can't remember having such problems in OFF. It must be the new AI that's causing this behaviour.

Just like they mostly did in 1917. Have a read through CPO Bartlett's "In the Teeth of the Wind"

Cheers,
shredward

By disengaging, I mean fleeing. They don't even attempt to fight the enemy, but head straight towards friendly lines. Presumably they are going back to their own field. Surely this is not the intended behaviour in all situations?

Fighters seem to behave much more aggressively when there are no two-seaters nearby.

Mind you, I'm not trying to bash WOFF. I'm simply interested in understanding behaviour that I find odd.

I mostly fly as the Germans, so I don't have enough experience to comment on how things work on the other side of the lines.

The Cap , A Flight,: I have seen then attack ground targets and engage a/c over the target area while I was close escort. These were rare occasions. In the Poor rated Sqns I have seen them split for home instead of attacking. All in all, Its catch as catch can, But I am happy with it.

I fly mostly 1915 parasols or 1916 the Fee, but sometimes in 1918 a German two seater. What you explain I had several times. The escording flight of Albatros fighter is just running away when. a flight of Sopwith or Bristols are apearing on the sky.