Request: Youtube Videos of Combat Maneuvers

J

jaa

Guest
Hi,

May I make a request for some youtube videos of combat maneuvers. Clever tricks you do like forcing stalls etc. It does not necessarily have to be in combat.

Could you do a longshot, so you can see the effect the maneuver has and an in-plane shot with maybe some writing explaining what you are doing with the joystick, speed control, rudder etc.
 
You Might find some useful information by reading the STICKY OFF Tips & Cheats #5

Also you could learn how to search U-tube . . I've never heard of such Videos:ernae:
 
Kinda like a how-to film, sort of like a flying manual for WWI Birds.

Not trying to be a wise-guy, but around here they're very big on on-the-job training. Much the same way it was in 1917, the pilot got out of school, and into combat. He learned what to do, and what not to do
( if he lived long enough )
That 17 hour life expectancy, was with the on-the job-training.

Basically depending on your settings
Enemy MG's can hit You up to 1500 feet up

AA MG's 2000

AA Cannons, you can't fly away from them ever

Around 1915 your chances of NOT getting hit were pretty good, by 1918 they were pretty good at it.

As long as you follow these basic rules, your chances are as good as the next guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYMZlrLVosA&feature=related
 
Hey Gimp, Even in FLYBOY's they gave them some training ... tat-a-tat-tat-tat! .... But then again, on the first mission they lost half the squadron.

WF2 :icon_lol:
 
Regarding the training...

from what I've read .. one of the major 'training' needs for people was not so much stunt flying practice, but it was to get used to seeing/spotting and classifying the aircraft around them .. it is surprisingly difficult .. :173go1:

fortunately OFF lets me have big yellow brackets and labels.. and .. if I havent noticed anything a red list of damage reports acts as a hint that I've missed something!

besides which.. if you use a camel all you really have to learn is how to get it in and out of a spin (the first bit's easy, coming out of the spin in the right direction is the hard bit.. ) :wiggle:
 
Thanks

Thanks.

The Dicta Boelcke video I had seen before. Its very good for the overall plan towards combat.

The www.geocities.com/ww1fighters/media/maneuver.htm link is excellent. This was exactly what I was looking for. I did not know what I was meant to be doing with my joystick and this explains. (In a very basic sense its the ww1 equivalent to multi-button powerups you get in kung fu games.)

Thanks to everyone.
 
On this topic of maneuverability, do you guys think the roll rate of the AC in OFF is accurate? Thats one thing thats always seemed a little slow to me. Any opinions?

ZZ.
 
Huge difference, between a Mustang with 1200 HP. And a Strutter with 130 HP. :ernae:
 
You have a keen grasp of the obvious, but even amongst period craft, which is all we are referring to here, I'm suggesting that the roll rate may need be a touch quicker. Perhaps not though, thats why I'm asking for the opinion of others. Part of the reason being is that biplane, and even more-so triplane types, usually have shorter spans than monoplanes, and thereby the roll rate is much quicker. Maybe its fine as-is and its just an "appearance thing" where they are really moving fast enough in real time, but just seem to be floaty hanging there in space on your screen with no point of reference. Just asking for frame of reference.

ZZ.
 
Way Back in Phase 1, a survey was carried out, if 100mph over a measured course, FELT slow or fast. As I remember, the results were pretty dang close to 50/50.

Anytime you seek a definate point of referance, to something that no-longer exists. It'll be a 50/50 :kilroy:
 
Yeah, what you're saying is kinda where I ended up too.....its veeeeeery subjective.

ZZ.

Thanks for playing though. : )
 
Hello,
discussing the flight model is always interesting - since i always flew with other pilots, and only heard stories of the handling of those older crates second-hand, it is certainly hard to tell how their real behaviour was.
So real pilots invited to discuss this ...


Following is only my opinion, and only subjective, so ... :kilroy:

The OFF team is at it for quite a long time, flightsim-wise, that is. Some of them already altered the flight model (fm) in RedBaron 2, and 3d, to a more "real" touch - what ever that is, in a simulator. Somehow i think the fm regarding gliding, turning and some aerodynamics in RedBaron is still more up to the real thing, but maybe i'm spoiled - and starts and landings in OFF are anyway far better than in RB.

What they did is to search old texts, listen to banter and hearsay, and tried to apply this to the planes in OFF. They used some typical characteristics (of e.g. the Camel being a beast in stalling, and spinning) of planes, and arranged it in a way that the planes differed from another following those handed-down properties - Albatros with its in-line engine flying straight and turning bad - in relation to a Nieuport - where again a N11 is more nimble that a N17 - and so on.

Changing one feature of a plane will change the overall relation to the other planes, so you would probably have to adjust the other fms of the other planes to keep the advantages and disadvantages of the planes relating to each other.
I wonder if someone understands what i'm trying to say :icon_lol:


That said i think some of the planes were "better", or at least more manoeuverable in reality, than they are in OFF.
A lot of planes of WW1 (even before the war) were able to fly loopings, barrel rolls, and upside down - yes indeed.

Let's take the Albatros for an example:
Its normal cruise pressure tank along with the Argus injector would allow flying upside down without causing the engine to conk out. The Albatros flown by Udet behaved like an aerobatic wonder, and even if Udet was a good pilot - try to fly simple loopings or just barrel rolls in an Albatros in OFF... all pilots who lived longer than a few days did it with this crate. The Albatros series would have been toast against a well-flown Nieuport in OFF, but it was not in reality).
The only reason for scoring in an Albatros against Nieuports or Camels is that the AI is virtually non-existant in phase 2. If the Albatros was so bad the german pilots must have been real aces - all of them - or all Entente pilots were bad - and i seriously doubt both.

As well some of the planes more seem to "hang" in the air, than they "fly", which is probably due to the CFS3 engine (?). Apart from the Albatros it is especially the SE5a that behaves strange in a way - maybe this feeling is generated by the engine smoke that somehow tends to "fall" a bit behind the plane.

For a change the AI RE8, and the AI "Biff" (probably because dl'ed and added as a non-OFF plane) outclass any one-seater scout, and even if the german Rumpler or the Roland "Walfisch" is said to be a good performing plane even at high altitudes attacking other scouts and shooting them down i at least doubt the RE8's chasing abilities ...

Greetings,
Catfish
 
ZoomZoom said:
On this topic of maneuverability, do you guys think the roll rate of the AC in OFF is accurate? Thats one thing thats always seemed a little slow to me. Any opinions?

ZZ.
Click to expand...

... OFF is pretty close. A roll in any of these aircraft always starts with a dive for maneuvering airspeed before stick input. These plane loose energy very quickly, then they stall. Best example that most people will understand is a J3 Cub. ..... but there is way more to consider too.

WF2

P.S. Fly inverted? ... only if it was a positive-G maneuver.
 
gimpyguy said:
Way Back in Phase 1, a survey was carried out, if 100mph over a measured course, FELT slow or fast. As I remember, the results were pretty dang close to 50/50.
Click to expand...

This survey was not much use as it was purely subjective, and as you say, concluded nothing either way. If I recall correctly, the OFF team then did actual time and distance measurements within the game and proved that the true speed of planes in CSF3 is less than the indicated air speed (as shown by hitting the 'z' key for example).

I don't believe this has been fixed as it is a major undertaking and there are more important matters to attend to. If it has been fixed then I expect one of the team members will let us know.
 
ZoomZoom said:
On this topic of maneuverability, do you guys think the roll rate of the AC in OFF is accurate? Thats one thing thats always seemed a little slow to me. Any opinions?

ZZ.
Click to expand...

For what its worth .. I think so.. and I think the stalls are a bit too benign as well :wiggle:

I find it hard to believe there isnt a set of numbers for the different types.. someone test flew these planes didnt they? Somewhere there must be a little book with yellowed pages .. Camel (Bentley) roll rate Right roll rate Left.. Vna 136 ... Vr 70?.. Just what were the Xwind max components?? or didnt they care about these things?
:kilroy:
BTW I noticed that the Nieuports weigh (without the guns or pilot) not much more than a microlight (450kgs MTOW).. and I guess flies a bit like them too (60deg bank max?, maybe not)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top