+TexMurphy 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Ok here is a updated file so that the N28 AI uses rudder.... Im posting it here as EmlD is the one who has to update it on the download section and you might want it before its updated.... Also Ive added the compression characteristics that you can see on the N24 and will se on the N11 and N17 as well. For other planes if you want them to have AI rudder you need to: a) wait for update by creator b) <plane>_data.ini file remove the [AIData] section and hence have the plane use default [AIData], then download and update when creator has posted new update c) <plane>_data.ini file add to the bottom of the [AIData] section RudderForGunAttack=1.0 RudderForHeading=0.5 RudderForYawRate=-0.1 this will allow you to use the AIData of that plane and AI Rudder until creator updates. Tex N28_data.txt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EmlD 3 Posted February 20, 2007 I updated the Nieuport 28 package in DOWNLOADS section. Some other editions done, check the readme_v1_01. EmlD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Tailspin 3 Posted February 20, 2007 Hey guys. You all know how I feel about the great job you are doing on the Nieuports so please don't take this request the wrong way. Would it be possible to have a choice of whether or not to install the "compression" effects? A seperate .ini or just a post on which values to change in the .ini file? Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Monty CZ 209 Posted February 20, 2007 HERE I found this: Performance Combat experience showed the N.28 to have outstanding manoeverability, an excellent rate of climb and a respectable top speed. Major Hartney, the comander of the 27th Aero (and later the 1st Pursuit Group) summed up the aircraft when he described the Nieuport 28 as "a fast moving, fast acting gem" (7). What this means in absolute terms and how this and other early airplanes actually performed is a matter for debate. However, there are clues available in the writings of the day. Included below is a summary of comparisions distilled from books that were written during or shortly after the war. At the very least the table below indicates how pilot's in that day and age viewed the airplane they flew as it compared with other aircraft. N.28 vs Speed Climb Dive Manuever Spad 180 hp same (8) N.28 better(8)(9) Spad better(9) N.28 better(8)(9) Albatros D.V DV faster (10) mixed (10)(11) DV better (12) N.28 better(11) Camel N.28 faster(13) N.28 better (14) - - Fokker D.VII - N.28 better (15) - N.28 better (15) Rumpler (C Type) N.28 faster(16) - N.28 faster(16) N.28 better (16) Albatros(C Type) N.28 faster(17) - - - Pfaltz D.III - - D.III faster(18) - The N.28 clearly benefited from good manueverability and an impressive rate of climb, however it was not considered as rugged as the Spads which replaced it. A flight test (19) of a prototype which weighed about 48 lb less (20) than the version the USAS adopted yielded the following results: Altitude Time to Aprox rate Speed m ft min fpm mph 500 1,640 - 1356 - 1000 3,281 2'42" - - 1500 4,921 - 1159 - 2000 6,562 5'25" - 123 2500 8,202 - 894 - 3000 9,843 8'92" - 121 3500 11,483 - 729 - 4000 13,123 13'42" - 117 4500 14,764 - 475 - 5000 16,404 20'33" - 111 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted February 20, 2007 Hey guys. You all know how I feel about the great job you are doing on the Nieuports so please don't take this request the wrong way. Would it be possible to have a choice of whether or not to install the "compression" effects? A seperate .ini or just a post on which values to change in the .ini file? Thanks. Ill sleep on it... However Ive done a few things on the other Ns and that is to further increase high speed drag and to laten the compression... this results in the compression not appearing as suddenly as accelleration above 140mph is much slower now... Tex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Monty CZ 209 Posted February 20, 2007 Next link: http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/AIAAPaper2005-119.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bandy 3 Posted February 21, 2007 ... Ive done a few things on the other Ns and that is to further increase high speed drag and to laten the compression... this results in the compression not appearing as suddenly as accelleration above 140mph is much slower now... Tex This sounds like a great compromise. Have you included the compression in the N28 FM re-write? It wouldn't be quite correct not to have it there if it is in the other earlier Nieuports, wouldn't it? A question to you Tex, and an honest one (ie not trying to be inflammatory in any way, shape, or form...), how do you see/envision the new Nieuports performing in combat verses other planes that do not use compression? Will they be competitive or will they be hamstrung by it, afterall, each plane has its drawbacks and the opposing AC must have their weaknesses even relatively accurately modeled if the Nieuports will have theirs modeled as you have made it so... Should each FM have some compression??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EmlD 3 Posted February 21, 2007 Tex, could you tell us, the MaxControlSpeed line in every control section, is this a compression, that you added? If not, where is it to find in the data.ini? EmlD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Tailspin 3 Posted February 21, 2007 Actually the MaxControlSpeed is the speed at which a control surface is most efficient. Efficiency increases with speed until the MCS is reached then falls off gradually as speed goes higher. IMHO MCS is often set too high. For example Thirdwire's Fokker DVII's ailerons have a MCS of 80. Thats nearly 179mph! A speed only reached in a dive. I don't think that is right. MCS should probably always be less than MaxSpeedSL. As for the compression, personal opinion here...and you know the old saying about opinions , I don't think its a very good substitute for structural weakness. This is why I asked about maybe providing a way (separate data.ini?) to remove it for those (like me) who don't want it. After all, as B Bandy notes, none of the other planes model their structural weaknesses, ie. the Albatros' and Dr. I losing wings in dives. That said, I can certainly live with it and will say no more as it is entirely up to the modders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted February 21, 2007 This sounds like a great compromise. Have you included the compression in the N28 FM re-write? It wouldn't be quite correct not to have it there if it is in the other earlier Nieuports, wouldn't it? A question to you Tex, and an honest one (ie not trying to be inflammatory in any way, shape, or form...), how do you see/envision the new Nieuports performing in combat verses other planes that do not use compression? Will they be competitive or will they be hamstrung by it, afterall, each plane has its drawbacks and the opposing AC must have their weaknesses even relatively accurately modeled if the Nieuports will have theirs modeled as you have made it so... Should each FM have some compression??? There is another thread that discusses how they stack with the rest but.... N24 and N17 get their butt handed to them by a AlbatrosD3... AlbatrosD2 vs N24 is the closest you get but still a Alb win... N11 is a bit of a loner... it doesnt have a natural enemy atm as the Fokker EIII isnt ballanced at all and in fact is more compareable to a FokkerD7F then a N11... so the only thing one can compare with is a DH2 and it does perform much better then the DH2 but still gets totally owned by a N17... Problem with moding is that many weaknesses cant be modeled... For example the N11, N17 and N24 all had the same weakness and that was the bottom wings twisting in steep dives giving very bad dive characteristics... This was due to the V strutt only having one mount point on the bottom wing and hence not stiffening it up rotation wise.. Compression isnt really a way to model it but it is definatly a way to model poor dive characteristics... That was how I got started with this effect. Then I realized the secondary side effect of this which is that it forces more vertical and more throttle management to get the most out of the plane. Tex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted February 21, 2007 EmlD As Tailspin says the MaxControllSpeed is somewhat similar to this effect but it just gently fades contrll surface effectivness at speeds above the assigned value. It doesnt do much for our low speeds think its more suited for super sonic speeds. What I do is that I use the MachTable´s for the Cmq value (pitch damping) on the stabs... the dampning increases with speed which is effectivly the same thing as decreasing effectivness of the controll surface with speed... I wanted to do this directly on the Cmdc values (pitch moment due to deflection) but it didnt seem to have a MachTable... Tex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted February 21, 2007 Tailspin On a side note to this... when we look at diving... My opinion on the subject is that taking a WW1 fighter and diving it straight nose down drop to earth like a stone from 9000 feet, reach speeds of 250mhp+, start the pull up at 1000 feet and easily level out before ground level is just plain wrong... First I think the accell at high speeds is way to high hence increase in drag at high speeds... Still just doing that allows you to dive it down from 9000 and pull it up with ease at 500... This is where compression comes in it forces you to be more gentle in the dives... Alternative is TK´s "if you go to fast you will auto level" which imho is even worse... I was playing a plane with compression in a campaing and had a DFWC5 as my primary target... I was at 7000... it was at 1500 and its escorts where at 6000... without compression I would have just dove down and killed the DFWC5´s.... now I couldnt do that I had to work my way down there and avoid the Albs..... Tex Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Tailspin 3 Posted February 21, 2007 Tex...I don't disagree that some of the planes IRL had bad diving characteristics. Your idea does have some merit in that you must watch your dive speeds to avoid loss of elevator effectivness. However overall game balance is important too. Now, about the N11. I can't seem to get it to reverse its turn as it doesn't want to roll out of a turn. Since it also it loses altitude in a turn very quickly its very dangerous to fight down low. Any ideas? I was expecting it to be light and nimble but it seems very heavy on the ailerons. Maybe I just need more practice. ps...we really need to get the Eindecker fixed too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+TexMurphy 0 Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Tex...I don't disagree that some of the planes IRL had bad diving characteristics. Your idea does have some merit in that you must watch your dive speeds to avoid loss of elevator effectivness. However overall game balance is important too. Now, about the N11. I can't seem to get it to reverse its turn as it doesn't want to roll out of a turn. Since it also it loses altitude in a turn very quickly its very dangerous to fight down low. Any ideas? I was expecting it to be light and nimble but it seems very heavy on the ailerons. Maybe I just need more practice. ps...we really need to get the Eindecker fixed too. I definatly agree that game ballance is THE most important thing and Im no stranger to patching if needed... Its a bit of a shame that there hasnt been more feedback on the N24... All in all Ive gotten feedback from what 4-5 on the forums and 2 more via PMs... I think people are still a bit weary about discussing mods in public... not that strange after all... but I want to encourage the discussions as they improve the work... The N11 was very hard to ballance as it doesnt really have any counter part... Its created of the N24 with a weaker engine and smaller wings... Also nimble is relative... nimble compared to a E3... definatly... but we dont have a E3... nimble compared to the later planes that have better ailerons, elevators rudders, aerodynamics and engines? Im not so sure.... Imho that one is definatly the hardest to judge where it stands as it doesnt have a counter part... but please compare it to the DH2 and say what you think... Tex Edit: Roll rate was one of the final things I was adjusting as I felt its roll rate was a bit too high... Though even if I go back to the old values we stilll have the bad low speed roll behaviours which is what your experiencing... This I would assume comes from the EmptyInertia as the N11 compared to the N24 has less roll damping as it has small wings and has a bit smaller ailerons... Edited February 21, 2007 by TexMurphy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Tailspin 3 Posted February 21, 2007 I've tried the N24 and I like it. Think it will be OK at least IMHO. My thoughts on the 17 are it should be very manoeverable, just not fast and manoeverable. Really my only question about its FM was the reluctance roll out of a turn. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firecage 1 Posted February 22, 2007 Tex and EmlD thanks for some awesome work and nice planes.... " Its a bit of a shame that there hasnt been more feedback on the N24" I have been flying the 24 and the 28 for a while but I was kind of waiting to get at least 3 of the NXX planes so I could get an over all idea of the progression from one model to the next. I am very glad you have had such a hand in the FM if not totally so at least the same brain is on all three planes. I think that makes a big difference! All of your planes have a certain feel to them so It tends to give me the effect of real time that the same company is upgrading ideas each time. Funny part is you did em backwards from the 28 down This patch has thrown off a few of the planes alot and some weathered it fine. I just got home a bit ago and I got the Mug of coffee and dinner around me so I can fly them all and see how they feel being able to upgrade in line of production... Once again thanks to TK for a sweet patch in only a bit over a month from the last one. Nice work Same for Everyone and anyone I didn't mention on the nieuports ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
