Its time for feedback guys..........

[+Laton 4]

Hi guys,

 

Hopefully I'll get a chance to have a play with your new FM's over the weekend.

 

On the issue of Eindeckers being able to out-turn the DH2.

 

Is the issue one of pitch authority or roll? It was my undertanding that the Fokkers were slower than the DH2 to roll into a turn due to wing-warping but once they were at the right angle they were very quick in bringing the nose around to a new heading because of their good pitch repsonse.

 

On the gunners, in the AIData section:

 

[AIData]

.....

GunnerFireChance=90

GunnerFireTime=2.5 <------ this line (I think) reduces the time taken between the gunner firing bursts.

GunnerAimOffset=0.0050

.....

[+peter01 2]

Hi Laton, looking forward to you trying them out, your usually spot on.

 

Actually your to blame for this thread in a way - once i started getting your suggestions and feedback on the moranes/pfalzes/eindeckers, my FMs started improving!!!

 

Probably needed that different view and objective assessment, and needed to be more challenged - one reason I started this topic.

 

With the GunnerFireTime i thought increasing it actually increased the time the ai gunner or pilot fired bursts - that is once they start they continue a bit longer.

 

Does anybody know more about this parameter?

Edited June 1, 2007 by peter01

[+Laton 4]

With the GunnerFireTime i thought increasing it actually increased the time the ai gunner or pilot fired bursts - that is once they start they continue a bit longer.

 

Does anybody know more about this parameter?

 

When I was messing about with the 2-seat MS and Pfalz variants I got the impression that it changed the amount of time it took the gunner to detect, aim & fire and an enemy aircraft.

 

Try setting it to 0.5

 

Its hard to say what the effect is, esp. as the AIRCRAFTOBJECT.ini file had a burstlength parameter for each of the AI levels.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Laton

[+peter01 2]

When I was messing about with the 2-seat MS and Pfalz variants I got the impression that it changed the amount of time it took the gunner to detect, aim & fire and an enemy aircraft.

 

Try setting it to 0.5

 

Its hard to say what the effect is, esp. as the AIRCRAFTOBJECT.ini file had a burstlength parameter for each of the AI levels.

 

 

Interesting.

 

When i did Albs, I increased to 7.0 or so and found that the ai pilots really blasted at you once they had you lined up, unlike usually when they shoot only a few bullets.

 

Maybe, its different for the ai pilot and ai gunner?? if its the "amount of time it took the gunner to detect, aim & fire and an enemy aircraft" for the gunner, it would be very useful to use together with the yaw and pitch rates to improve or slow gunner response.

 

Edit: Actually now thinking more on this it could be both - if higher value, ai shoot longer but take longer time to recover, so for single seater it'd be better to increase, for plane with gunner if you wanted a more responsive gunner, you would decrease??? And and ....and maybe the Burstlength then modifies that again on skill level....getting complex I guess, but the more I get into TKs games, the more I realise is there.

Edited June 1, 2007 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

I don't know what amazes me more, the depth and breadth of the .ini system or the lack of solid, definitive documentation on how it works. A lot of it surely isn't too intuitive, is it.

[Southside Bucky 1]

Hi Peter.

 

Just a quick disclaimer: I'm not going to be able to contribute much in technical terms...When people start talking about pitch angles, roll rates and such, my eyes glaze over. I'm more of a history kinda guy, so I always go look for original pilot views and official reports on how a particular crate actually handled in flight/combat.

 

As you requested, I set up a quick 1 V 1 mission, DH2 Vs Fokker E.III (Laton's), using the DH2's original FM, on Hard settings.

 

The E.III literally flew rings around me! Hard turning or weaving in the DH2 only delays the inevitable. After three attempts I think I can safely say the DH2 is the inferior A/C at the moment.

 

In terms of challenge and AI aggressiveness though, the E.III is a fantastic adversary, so don't change anything with that!

 

Then I reversed roles and flew the E.III. The DH2 AI seemed to fly it better than I could, putting up a half decent fight, but eventually (two minutes or so) I managed to get behind him. again I tested this scenario three times...Same result each time.

 

A couple of observations:

 

I don't wanna complicate things but it's occured to me that the original DH2 FM would be quite close to how I imagine the FE2b should handle...It feels heavy and slow to turn, so maybe you could use it as a sort of template for the FEE?

 

The Fokker E.III:

Although it feels right and flies well, I did notice that the rudder response is a bit weak. I'd imagine that in real life any A/C with only a rudder and no fin such as the Eindekker had would be very responsive in this respect...Quite twitchy in fact...Just an observation? Like I said the E.III does fly really well as an AI opponent...A real challenge.

 

So to sum up, I think you can disregard my earlier view on the DH2's original FM being quite close...After reading up on it a bit more, I now think it should feel lighter, more nimble, quite a bit quicker in the turn, yet still quite slow (90MPH at 5000ft). What I said about it being tricky still stands though...I think, with it's four quite large ailerons, it was sensitive to the slightest touch, and would've needed the pilots full attention.

 

I'm not expecting you to replicate all of these aspects of course...Just letting you know a few of it's characteristics from what I've read.

 

Bet you're sorry you asked eh?

 

Bucky.

[+peter01 2]

Hi Bucky, sorry but have to ask, what do you mean by the "DH2's original FM" - are you using mine or the actual original one done a while ago??

[Southside Bucky 1]

Aladar's. The one it came with when first released.

 

I'm thinking that it has to be the benchmark by which any of yours have to be compared.

 

Regards.

 

Bucky.

[+peter01 2]

Hi Bucky, my new one is buried in Post #13 - I was after feedback on this one. Its a new FM. Give it a go

[+peter01 2]

Hi Bucky, thought I'd add a few more comments while your thinking about my last .

 

I just re-flew my Dh2 against the E3, and vice versa. The Dh2 is superior both for player and AI. The AI is just as aggressive as the the E3, that you said you like as AI - its a beauty as AI isn't it, real fokker scourge stuff?

 

On Original FM as Benchmark. The original was good, I loved flying it - the model and FM. As I said earlier in this thread it was probably right in terms of capability and performance, but it was the first 1916 plane - all the rest were 1918 planes basically. What happened was people started doing Alb D1s and Alb D2s (conversions from Dva) and Nieups and others (mine for Borts) for the earlier period and the Dh2 was completely outclassed. I know against some of these it should be, and as player it was not an issue. AS AI though it was no fun at all, and really not realistic to me - any real pilot would put up a fight.

 

Several months ago while still learning about FMs I upgraded my version of the original improving climb and pitch (turn). Its fine for player, but you can't do this easily to a FM either this one or any including mine without completely stuffing up the AI -stalling, tight circling and in the end the AI was much worse.

 

i'd suggest if any plane needed an upgrade - whether it be a new FM like this one I have done or upgrading the original correctly so no Ai problems, good aggressive AI - it was the Dh2. I did a new one rather than mod the original mostly to ensure the latter - a very good AI.

[Southside Bucky 1]

OK...Sorry for the confusion.

 

1V1 against E.III using your FM. Definitely feels lighter, so that's good.

 

Found it quite easy to get on his tail after a little while so maybe the turning circle is now a tad uber? I do mean just a tiny bit!

 

Considering the DH2's large rudder size, A little more response from it might be more authentic I think.

 

Overall, just a little too easy to fly. Maybe make the ailerons just a little more sensitive?

Definitely getting there though Peter. I'd be interested in what the other guys think?

 

Oh, and somehow, in the VC view, I've lost the complete centre section of the top wing...including the auxilary fuel tank. Great for getting a proper rear view though!

 

Hope this helps.

 

Bucky.

[+peter01 2]

It does help, thanks. And its good feedback.

 

Re rudder, you may be right, i do tend to underdo this.

 

how do you mean make ailerons more sensitive - is that more responsive? lighter? better? i'm interested in what you think but sorry, not sure what you mean.

 

in terms of easy, haven't done stalls yet, makes a difference, nor added a lot of torque which i intend doing, but can't make it too "realistic" - I know that anyone trying a new FM, including me, will respond on feel maybe realsim..... and I am certainly after that sort of feedback, but just letting you know too that the ai cannot handle many quirks (actually very few)

 

what do you mean "vc view" - i did change the physical structure of the FM, so I could easily have stuffed something up.

 

thanks for the feedback

Edited June 1, 2007 by peter01

[Southside Bucky 1]

VC view = Virtual cockpit view...Centre section's totally missing when I look behind. Nothing wrong with the outside view though.

 

Re: Aileron sensitivity. Yeah, more responsive...The way I interpret the reports that I've read, I would take to mean that the plane wasn't at all stable...The slightest movement of the ailerons would bring an instant response. Kinda 'twitchy' if you will.

 

Yeah, I do tend to forget about the delicate balance between the AI and player FM...All you can aim for is a decent compromise I suppose, and as you've said already, once you get close, it's gotta be very tempting to leave well enough alone. You must have the patience of Job!

 

Looking forward to testing version 2.

 

Bucky.

[+peter01 2]

Been away couple of days - still a bit quite here, didn't take me long to catch up.

 

Thanks Tailspin and Bucky for trying out the Dh2, and posting thoughts. And I really appreciate that your flying now in Hard Tailspin, just to give them a go, as well as trying it out against earlier and later planes.

 

Gave the Dh2 a quick spin taking on board some of the comments, and I'll make it a good deal less nimble (but still about equal in that respect to E3), improve rudder, try to do some things on feel.

 

Re "delicate balance between the AI and player FM" Bucky, I know you don't mean exactly what I am about to write , but..... to get some discussion going maybe, and to let you know how I see the the FMs a bit more, what I am trying to do....its probably of no interest to most, but maybe to some.

 

Building an FM from scrtach would only now take me a few hours (it would be fine too, feel, consistent in terms of performance, AI as per most), but doing one where the AI is what I would like takes a lot more - maybe 5-10 times that. And I build it for the AI first - actually 2 different AIs and a player model all in the same FM! I tend not to use AI parameters or AI controls much if at all - its in the basic FM. So why bother with this - balance, min AI behavior problems, AI aggressive. Too long to go into all of it, so just like to elaborate on what I call balance, but they are all interrelated.

 

Balance - I have mentioned this before, basically mean that the AI flies the plane as well as the player in Hard FM, and plane not overdone for player.

 

Not really sure this explains it, or why its important to me at least in the game. Best way is by an example - take the Eindecker E1, Eindecker E2, Dh2, AlbD1. Obviously the capability of these planes is in that order, and if the palyer/ai FMs were balanced (they are/will be in this case ), if you were flying the Dh2, you should easily beat the E1, Have a good dogfight against the E3 but win nevertheless, be shot down generally by the Alb. And if you are flying the E1 against the Dh2, it should be hard, E3 should be tough but winnable, Alb superior.

 

Thats what I think, thats how I'd like the game to be. Of course its a easier for the player in Normal FM, thats what Normal is largely about.

 

If not balanced, there are 2 scenarios - if the player plane fits in terms of the capability with the E1, E3, Alb examples, and the AI is weaker (don't think its possible to make it better! but you never know), well, if your flying the E1 you will easily beat the Dh2 say, slaughter it in the E3, and lets not even talk about the Alb. Second scenario is that the Dh2 is made a lot better for player, to have an AI that maybe can put up a fight and possibly even fits in terms of capability with other planes as AI. But then as player you will easily beat maybe not only Alb, and probably a lot of other, even much later planes.

 

The best test for whether the FM is balanced for AI/player is to fly the same plane against the AI - if its tough to win in Hard FM then the FM is balanced, how tough then depends on the AI being well behaved and aggressive as well - the latter two are additional work. Try the E3...if it wasn't for the damage modelling, and the fact that the AI gives up when a few hundred feet from the ground (this must be the only game where this is the case), it would even be harder.

 

Thats why I try to get them balanced, and what I mean about the FM can be different for player and AI, why i spend so much time on the AI (not always successfully, it is hard, its the extra 10 miles, not one) - not building them to fly alone, building them to experience dogfights, immersion in thats its harder and how you would think - if you are in Morane H you should be worried about taking on a Eindecker.

 

Of course thats not for everyone, and its probably not even how TK sees the game, at least since the patches.

Edited June 6, 2007 by peter01

[Bandy 3]

Peter,

I think it is very important to know the thinking behind the FMs anybody creates, to understand that you're as serious about it as you are.

 

I've recently gotten into trying out some WWII/Korea era campaigns in SF, and find some of the FMs all over the place (and I can't even see my way to start tweaking them to balance things). For me at least, it is fantastic that this isn't turning out to be the case with FE --but it easily could have been-- though some people may find it hard to stomach such "influence" in the hands of one person.

 

Thus, it is great that the community is getting involved and voicing opinions, and that you are so welcoming of this constructive critique --heck, even demanding it!!! Most would agree that better things come about when heads come together... BUT don't forget that many of us find it difficult to squeeze in the time to fly with life, and our other day jobs, getting in the way.

 

QUESTION: you mentioned that it is difficult to work in particular quirks of aircraft, since the AI find it hard to handle them, BUT how much do you try to make the aircraft FM act like how the real aircraft did fly according to historical accounts?

 

Tough question, I know, since all we have are these written accounts (historical opinions are notoriously biased) from the time, and these are written about a certain aircraft mostly without the benefit of hindsight ie: comparing it with better aircraft down the road. Thus, an opinion that this AC handled/climbed "the best" is influenced by memory of previous AC, but not by those to come. And then, how do you tease out individual pilot skill from these accounts? Perhaps I am being overly analytical here, but that is my day job

 

Anyways, I think all of the third party work and posts in the forums are doing wonders for the game and community at large, and I will endeavor to provide comments from the peanut gallery whenever possible.

 

Best regards, BB

[+Tailspin 3]

Thanks for sharing your ideas Peter. IMHO, you are definately doing a great job. It surely must be difficult to balance the early war machines because the real differences were sometimes stark. This is where my only concerns about what you are doing arise. Early A/C development and improvements seemed to come in leaps and bounds, especially between different designs. Parasols vs. Eindeckers, Eindeckers vs. DH2s and N11s etc...for the most part. Not always the case with other designs though. For instance the Fokker DI and DIIs were supposed to be an improvement over the Eindeckers when actually they weren't appreciably more capable. Also within the EI, EII, EIII, EIV series, progression wasn't always improvement. The EIV was a total failure. Anyway, getting back to the "leaps and bounds". Personally I don't want to get TOO far away from the historical perspective in favor of evening out gameplay. Having to fight against the enemy in an outclassed (sometimes TOTALLY outclassed) aircraft was a very real aspect of the air war in WWI. Which bring us back to the Eindeckers and the "next generation" A/C....particularly the DH2. I always like to find quotes from the period and think this one will suffice.

 

"... the de Havilland machine has unquestionably proved itself superior to the Fokker in speed, manoeuverability, climbing and general fighting efficiency." Sir Henry Rawlinson, 23 May 1916

 

So, please don't "dumb down" the DH2 too much.

[+LloydNB 212]

What a great discussion. As a fan of the early-war aircraft, I particularly like that you're concentrating there. It also makes for a good baseline for comparison when it comes to late-war aircraft.

 

I'm really looking forward to the end result.

 

 

LloydNB

[+peter01 2]

LloydNB, glad you see value in it, everyone posting different opinions/questioning etc is good I think too.

 

Thanks for your support Tailspin, and re the Dh2 you are right. But I now have two versions and not really sure about the way to go. Maybe others have a view too?

 

Should explain the reason for my dilemma a bit more.

 

When I reflew the posted Dh2 , it seemed that it really did turn too tightly, a bit more perhaps than realistically possible - and with improved rudder, this would be even more so. I did try to make it quite superior to the E3 - realistic, yes in comparison capability wise as you say - but, maybe its the Eindeckers that are overdone? However, am reluctant to redo these, at least at the moment - busy with others, people don't want constant revisions and they work very well, to me anyway .

 

The other thing about plane superiority, is how you fly them. I mentioned earlier that when flying against some of my planes against the same AI plane, it was very hard to win, without lucky short bursts blowing off their tails or wings (arrrggg!) or forcing the dogfight to a low level. Realised along the way and I presume like everyone (maybe wrong presumption), just went into the dogfight full throttle with the same tactics I use in every dogfight. Started to modify this and started winning a lot more. It is obvious, and its true in most flight sims I play but somehow I lost in this one, for me at least. A lot of the planes turn or roll better at lower speeds (the ai uses this), and its best often to reduce speed, use the throttle, eg let them overshoot. If you have comparatively better roll or climb or turn, you should use this as well eg Morane L against E1, really no chance, unless you use a lot of roll - and then you end up doing what the ai does often, rolling from side to side while in this case it is the ai taking potshots at you (often very successfully). Eventually you can get him wrong footed, and it gives you an opportunity to turn the tables - doesn't last long tho, you need to really make the most of that temporay advantage.

 

So.... bottom line, is yes, some planes were better than others historically, and like you I tend to go with reports of the time, preferably pilots (unfortunately you don't get a lot of exactness in terms of specifics, eg, better climb ok, but what is the climb rate, whats the best climb speed, sustained climb or zoom climb etc etc?). But then the planes had to flown well of course - and that is entirely historical, some planes were not successful for that reason, some very successful because they were (the germans I think were very good at this esp in earlier years). So superior right, but if flown well only - if not flown well, maybe not so superior, at least in Hard FM.

 

Not implying you or anyone aren't of course, just saying that this seems a good thing in the game for the player to have to modify tactics and style based on the planes capability and their opponents plane, for them to be actually superior, this IMO is both realistic and good for gameplay.

 

Edit: I know this is just an example quote by you Tailspin, and I tend to agree, but it does highlight the general difficulties and raised in bandy's post.

 

"... the de Havilland machine has unquestionably proved itself superior to the Fokker in speed, manoeuverability, climbing and general fighting efficiency." Sir Henry Rawlinson, 23 May 1916

 

The Dh2 was only a few mph faster, so superior isn't greatly superior. In terms of climb, my understanding based on time to climb to various altitudes was that the E3 was superior, so there is more there than just published performance figures, which may be wrong as well of course, And maybe the heart of it is the " general fighting efficiency" - the Eindeckers were without a doubt very difficult to fly, but that cannot be implemented in this game, so some way of modifying the performance is maybe necessary to offset that? It does get hard...

Edited June 7, 2007 by peter01

[+peter01 2]

It surely must be difficult to balance the early war machines because the real differences were sometimes stark. This is where my only concerns about what you are doing arise.

 

Clarification Tailspin, I am not trying to balance the planes against each other if thats what you mean - it may not be.

 

My earlier post was about balancing the AI and player capability for the same plane. Eg, if Dh2 is superior to E3 for player, then the AI flying Dh2 should be superior to player flying an E3. But to me, thats how it should be. Consistency in differences esp capability for player between planes, similar consistency for those planes for AI, and consistency between AI and player (preferably same). Trying to make people aware that this doesn't just happen - a lot of work is needed to make that the case, and for example TK goes out of his way to make the player planes better, ie, weaker AI, not from not wanting to do a lot of work of course, he could do this easily i imagine, its how he feels the game will be successful probably.

 

Its why i was very surprised you can do very good AI - we all follow TK, but that aspect isn't there. I sort of stumbled across it, if you like, then extended elaborated on it. I do hope others do FMs and I am thinking of writing some of the stuff up to help - not cd0 means this or that, others have done this, but more on what to do and how to do it to get a plane working/flying , the type of tests you need to run to ensure AI is okay, ways to improve or weaken AI and/or player plane. Not saying i am an expert, just to contribute to the body of knowledge, which isn;t extensive I'm sure everybody would agree.

 

If you mean I tend to balance realism with gameplay (a bit!), that is true. i'll try to keep it mind so I don't overdo it, but it does exactly relate to your very well put phrase "real differences were sometimes stark" - you know, do we have a game as a game for that period? I presume I am not alone - but i like to fly the E3 say against Moranes and Dh2 and N11s and Pups and Tripes. if the differences were more I'd probably only like to fly it against one or two planes - the rest would be too easy or too hard - the 1917-18 period is a lot different. And there is a lot more consistency there as well in FMs.

 

But point taken.

Edited June 7, 2007 by peter01

[+peter01 2]

Interesting post Bandy

 

glad you agree consistency is important, and my last post related to AI consistency. Often overlooked or even unknown, but just as important. Consistency is about the only reason I am doing FMs (maybe also to have both hard and Normal modes working for most planes), and the inconsistency was really only there for the early period - 1917-18 happily seems quite good, and am waiting for TK to fix the AI stall stuff, and it should be fine - for my own game, I'll then just beef up the AI and make them work in hard FM.

 

Re quirks, it was something I tried to do early, but despite the fact the AI finds it difficult, and despite what I or others think maybe, its not going to make a great diffference to the game anyhow. I am comfortable not worrying about it. To make it worthwhile ie to get the right feel for early planes the basic game needs a lot lot more in it or done differently - stress modelling, higher stalls, better control of stalls, wind effects (prop wash, buffetting, other more subtle fluid dynamic effects) feel (vibration/tensions), even sounds, engine micromangement (feeding fuel to Engine in E3, DH2 unreliable engine, overheating), gravity interrupting fuel to engine effects etc etc. Actually there isn't a game that does all this I think, and for wwi, thats whats needed to really simulate the feel, for me.

 

With influence, blame Tex - i followed what he started, and used his FMs as baselines in terms of everything to do with performance. At the moment as there are few modders of any type currently producing things (its a real concern to me, I do like the game), anybody that puts in the effort is going to dominate that arena - how many campaigns are there, how many missions are being developed? Also, I think that Bort and Laton with their large output and focus on the early war period they have had a very large influence in getting more people interested in those years (tho most prefer the later period). the planes are the most important things by far, I'm just glad they and others have allowed me the opportunity to contribute as well.

 

With the "question": maybe all the above, and the posts relating to the Dh2 may be explanation enough. Obviously performance is largely unknown, there are many different opinions, complicated by the quirks that made planes successful or not. I just start with turn, roll, climb and how the plane should fit with others, then modify to get a better or sometimes just different experience - eg, dive maybe different, energy retention may be different. Is this correct for that plane?? well its one of the reasons I am seeking feedback, perhaps you should try them out too.

Edited June 7, 2007 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

If you mean I tend to balance realism with gameplay (a bit!), that is true. i'll try to keep it mind so I don't overdo it, but it does exactly relate to your very well put phrase "real differences were sometimes stark" - you know, do we have a game as a game for that period? I presume I am not alone - but i like to fly the E3 say against Moranes and Dh2 and N11s and Pups and Tripes. if the differences were more I'd probably only like to fly it against one or two planes - the rest would be too easy or too hard - the 1917-18 period is a lot different. And there is a lot more consistency there as well in FMs.

 

But point taken.

 

Yes. Thats the point I was trying to get across. IMHO it should be too hard to fly the EIII against the Pup or Tripe because you should get killed most every time. The Pup and Tripe were better than the Halberstadt and Albatros DI and II. Taking the EIII into early 1917 is a bit too much of a stretch, again IMHO. But in the greater scheme of things this is a minor issue AFAIC. You have already demonstrated great interest and care in making the game playable at different levels. The player FM work you have done so far is excellent. Your work with the AI is indispensible. That alone has made the game more enjoyable. Bottom line is its FUN. I haven't enjoyed a flightsim so much since the early days of EAW. Thanks to you and everyone else who contributes, that is.

[+peter01 2]

Thanks tailspin, think we are on same wavelength.

 

I probably should stop posting, give others a chance which is what I really really want but...........

 

If the AI is as good as the player in the same plane, then relatively minor differences in performance (less than they should be as you correctly stated) mean you will still find it very hard to beat a plane the AI is flying if superior. ,If on the other hand the AI isn't as good, its easier then you do need bigger differences to make it work. BUT, its a big but, how do you scale up from a Morane H to the Fokker D7 in the same game, without making planes uber (unrealistic) terrms of climb and turn and roll. Also I didn't start from scratch - i had to use existing models for some consistency. Oh, forgot to mention, the AI can only handle well a certain amount of roll and turn most especially -we see the repercussions of that - so scaling up in these indefinetely is not productive either.

 

Tailspin, please try the morane H or L against fokker E1 in hard FM. Let me know if it was a challenge. If you have more time try the E1 against the E3. The differences in performance are not substantial across this range, but I bet you get shot down - I do!!

Edited June 7, 2007 by peter01

[Firecage 1]

Pete, glad to see ya getting into this project. Sorry I haven't been around much but between RL job and the new band going im running out of hours in the day 8(

 

I will try out the Fe2B this weekend and throw ya some feedback as soon as I can.

 

Thanks for all your hard work.

[+Tailspin 3]

Peter...I fly the Morane L all the time and am quite successful against the Eindeckers. The main problem with the AI is still lack of gunnery skills. They can't shoot and I have discovered their "achilles heel". There is a certain spot to aim at where you will get a major fire and crash almost every time.

[+p10ppy 2]

Some of my musings on the FE flight models to date (Hard FM)

There are some givens imho in the stock aircraft (bearing in mind I'm no expert)

 

1 They all climb better than they should (game play most likely)

2 They probably roll slightly better than they should (same, game play most likely)

3 In most other regards they are reasonably accurately modeled for a computer simulator

4 Tk chose (so far) to only model late war watercooled aircraft (and the best of those at that)

5 the AI is "adequate" with those aircraft (barely)

 

Its not a great starting point for modeling the quite different earlier aircraft

However I "think" given that the game engine currently models such a wide range of aircraft, the relatively small differences of WW1 should be attainable…

AI is another matter…. (I guess we all hope for great things with the next update)

 

Now… (Gulp)

I look through the 3rd party flight models (my own included of course ) and I don't see much basis in reality I'm afraid …

I'm not trying to be ultra hardcore, but almost none of them have a worse drag factor than a P-51 and a lot have better drag (less) than a modern fighter

In fact in a lot of the coefficients, stock aircraft are worse off than the 3rd party ones

 

I think we have just wandered away from reality a bit with each new FM just a little bit further away from it than the last… (Check out the scouts with the 17 m wingspans)

 

And there's nothing wrong with making aircraft that feel different and are fun to fly (hard flight model tho??) but I kinda hope we can get a little more accuracy in there (at least for some of the basic easyish to derive numbers)

 

And I know it's very hard to reach a consensus on the relative performance of 90-year-old aircraft

I for example mildly disagree with a lot of the E.III vs DH2 discussion going on here (and there is reasonably good basic FM data on both these craft available on the net)

 

Peter don't take this as directed at you, all the planes are equally afflicted and I think you are doing a wonderful job (it takes me weeks to do a fm)

I just wonder if we shouldn't examine our goals in terms of the fm's and how far from reality we want to get…(of course I'm not forgetting the blasted AI)

 

Maybe a few different relatively accurate (subjective) baseline craft that we can model the others off of (early war, mid war, mono, bi, twoseater etc) doesn't seem like much when you say it fast

 

And when all is said and done I just happy that we have so many craft and there is so much potential…

I hope this doesn't sound to whiny/harsh (it wasn't meant to) or that anyone feels got at

Thanks for your time

Link to a spreadsheet of most of the FE FM for comparison

mite be useful to some one