What do you think?

[Bandy 3]

Unrecoverable dive (or nearly so) with partial elevator damage

 

Hi again Peter,

Had a chance to fly some more last night. Again, trying to keep things consistent, so flew the stock "warm up" 1 vs 2, and 2 vs 2 missions. (as an aside, I think my success against the SPADs is because I'm so accustomed to these missions, and I've figured out a winning tactical approach, thats all...).

 

I've found that the SE5 (and to a lesser extent the DVII, perhaps SPAD but not sure) goes into an unrecoverable dive if only 1/2 the elevator is shot off ( to be clear, the part that moves not the whole side of the tail). I was in an attack dive with an SE5, perhaps 150 knots, and an Alb got a lucky shot and took 1/2 my elevator. I immediately throttled back, but could not pull out.

 

I hit refly mission, and wouldn't you know it happened again. Again I throttled back and couldn't pull out, but this time I also applied negative pitch (went deeper into the dive) and went inverted, then rolled to right myself, but to no avail. I certainly had enough speed to carry me through the maneuver, but it didn't work...

 

While flying the DVII later, I again had 1/2 the elevator shot off (not a great night) but perhaps I didn't have as much speed, and its flight characteristics are different, so I did manage to BARELY pull out with no throttle on. However, it did not want to climb at all. I had a SPAD after me, so I banked over and applied rudder to gain altitude. This worked well, but I'm not sure why I was climbing as well as I did given my wings were nearly vertical.

 

On the AI side, one time I shot off the complete side of the tail on a SPAD (to be clear 1/2 elevator and associated non-moving portion), but the AI continued to dogfight, and to do it remarkably well...

 

On a separate issue, I shot off the complete rudder assembly of 2 SPADs and both went into a sideways sliding attidude (the long axis of the a/c nearly perpendicular to the direction of motion).

 

Unless there is something wrong with my install, I think something funny is going on when control surfaces are damaged, especially with player a/c as the AI seem to still be effective regardless (except when missing the rudder). Anyone else experiencing this???

Edited August 18, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[Bandy 3]

No, it appears the SPAD is not as affected by loosing 1/2 its tail/elevator assembly (like SE5 and DVII), as I just had it shot off, and it still climbs very well.

 

Also noticed the AI SE5 and DVII (and others in this batch?) will "porpoise" when not in combat and flying level. A very minor point, but perhaps related?

 

Somebody tell me I ain't loosing it...

Edited August 18, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+peter01 2]

Bandy, mmmm....lots of stuff. Just woke up and have to think about some of this.

 

Have to say first thoughts are:

 

- many/most of the observations of the aircraft would have been true of TKs stock FMs too. For example, there haven't been changes to damage modelling on these planes, or things affecting porpoising (they always did). Not saying this is all right, just that I haven't changed everything.

 

- some of the difficulties experienced as a player with damage anyway seem right to me - the Se5, for example, as discussed previously, tightens up in a dive - done on purpose. So yes, it would be more difficult to come out of a dive having lost half an elevator. What you say about DVII also seems right to me - not sure what the issue is here.

 

- the ai is I think always less affected by damage than the player. As they are more aggressive now with my changes, they will fight better (and fight better when damaged too!).

 

Initial thoughts are that every thing is fine despite your concerns , but I probably should think about this a bit more and try some test dogfights.

Edited August 18, 2007 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

I know Peter hasn't looked at damage models but it seems to me that some planes have really good damage models and some don't. The Nieuports are good and so are Laton's planes. The Fokker DII is really weird when you shoot it up. Often it simply hangs in the air at less than 20mph and floats to the ground like a leaf. (Not trying to single anyone out these examples are just a few that come to mind.) You can shoot off a lower or upper wing on some and they fly on unaffected. I don't know how extensively you are rebuilding some of these FMs, Peter, but I do know that some of the original FMs on some of the planes were not very well designed.

[+peter01 2]

Bandy, tried out the planes you posted and you are right about how they perform..I'd say tho thats how it should be - or at least some aspects are how I have designed them to be.

 

Have already mentioned why with Se5a, and with DVII it seems right as well. if you managed to get in a climb missing an elevator, once in a climb you will climb in this plane - its a feature i have added if you like and I think a realistic one in that it will stay in the vertical better than most even in Hard (but not necessarily climbing continually).

 

Damage modelling per se is exactly as per TKs however, so the effect of losing one or two elevators should be the same, other than the changed flight characteristics. TBH when I read your post my first thought was .... yes, perfect....how do I do similar things for other planes now! Reason is I find when you are damaged in many planes you can effectively continue, and with the weaker AI previously I'd still manage to shoot down several despite bits and pieces missing. Its harder with my AI, you need to be on the ball and flying with all the bits and pieces to survive, but I still don't like the fact I am hardly affected with most including my FMs (often, not always).

 

Porpoising is not related to what you described, and in fact should be a tad less than TKs stock FMs.

 

But porpoising is an issue to me in a different way really than perhaps yourself and others. It relates to compromises, and how TK has done the game.

 

Porpoising occurs because of how the game is designed (or because its based on a Jet Sim), and also on how the FM itself is done. Its controlled by most FM'ers using the PitchDamper= value, usually between 0.5 to 0.9. Higher values, less AI porpoising. It can affect the AI more generally in dogfights as well.

 

Unfortunately it affects the player plane too. When I design an FM I put a value of 0.5 initially, knowing that without some value like this the AI will go up and down in level flight, then in the end, increase or decrease as required. Shouldn't need to really, the program should be able to handle it. Pitch dampening = smoothness, a travesty for wwi planes!! Prefer to have it all in the FM, let the AI look after itself. It makes most of what is done on pitch too bland. IMO it would be easier doing FMs and the planes would be far more like WWi planes should be, if it could be be left at 0.0.

 

If its too galling for you or others, increase the value a bit....but the plane will perform and feel slightly different for you as a player too. I don't recommend it.

 

On damage modelling Tailspin, you are completely right. But its also more complex too.... some things I have or have not done with EWS (not these, except Alb as Nick pointed out) ), have either made some worse (not much really than before) or better, but not necessarily the best. The FokD2 suffers from Alb DVa problem as well as some other things that can be improved. Maybe another post. I am aware of the problems, how to fix them, it was a time issue when finishing EWS - all the last month at that time or so, the most intensive part, was grappling with AI changes and the fairly huge consequences.

 

BTW I did improve damage modelling on many planes in EWS (hit boxes) and do change damage effects at times. But I will never again look at collision points - its too tedious without a graphics package, and even then...mmm

Edited August 19, 2007 by peter01

[Bandy 3]

Peter,

I sincerely and whole-heartedly agree that damaged bits should compromise flight integrity; it is a part of "reality" that has been missing on so many occasions in my experience with FE combat results (!!!). Also want to say briefly I'm STILL loving the new FMs, but just engaging you in a constructive way here. OK?

 

That said, it is rather disconcerting to have shot off many of the control surfaces of an AI opponent to barely see any effect to the way it can perform, when in contrast you can be hit by a damn-lucky single AI bullet, have 1/2 yer elevator shot off, and then auger in because you can't do a thing about it... Then while flying an engine heavy plane like the SPAD, and getting ALL of one side of the tail shot off, not have the same thing happen! While I truly understand your desires and reasoning on this issue, especially with the nose heavy SE5, IMHO it doesn't make for game balance. [edit: not sure why I'm "defending" the SE5 here, it isn't even a favourite plane of mine...].

 

If I can draw a weak analogy here, perhaps relevant only in my eyes, BUT when FE first came out last Nov. the ack-ack was murder. It likely was modeled quite accurately, but it was a pointless game-death and only served to frustrate. [As an aside, TK obviously dumbed archie down (IMHO too much), so now it barely impacts and is more like window dressing].

 

As you say, part of this issue is the result of making good AI. Perhaps an answer may be in your suggestion to lessen the damage done by bullets--make it so AC require more holes before things happen to them, like elevators falling off . Nifty bit of laterally thinking there that I will likely implement in my own game.

 

Hey, just my thoughts, would love to hear other opinions.

Edited August 19, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+Tailspin 3]

Perhaps we need to look at what the damage factors are for control surfaces. They have no hit boxes in the data .ini. Do entries like Armor or StructuralFactor affect them?

[+p10ppy 2]

I do think its been a real problem since the last? patch

Control surfaces detach almost instantly

Tk may be looking at it??

http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4249

 

As for the AI I'd imagine the lack of effect has got to do with their more relaxed flight regime

[+peter01 2]

I don't think I'll have much time in the next couple of weeks, so changes and the next lot will have to wait at least till then.

 

Its not much effort to finish, but some RL issues need my involvement and attention at the moment.

 

Cheers

Edited August 21, 2007 by peter01

[+peter01 2]

Well, despite earlier post, thought I better finish them now - it'll be a couple of weeks before I look at them again, only a couple of hours to finish, and I'd probably forget what I wanted to do.

 

Anyway hope you like them, let me know what you think....I'll update them before posting to the CA downloads section.

 

Cheers

 

Alternative_FMs_For_The_Ateams_1917_18_Fighters.zip

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Thanks, Peter. Will give them a spin in the next week.

[+Tailspin 3]

Thanks very much Peter. Trying them out now.

[gambit168 27]

like um a lot Peter totally forgot they were there (in my install) , just wondered why i was getting more satisfying dogfights

then I remembered

Cheers M8

[+Tailspin 3]

Peter...getting some strange behavior with the Camel. In at steep banking turn it seems to me that rudder input causes a reverse roll. In other words applying left rudder while banking and turning left causes the plane to roll right. Rudder works like it should in level flight.....

[+peter01 2]

Thanks for trying them out, and well spotted Tailspin.

 

Included this to make Camel a little more quirky or difficult (too easy, can't do that much). Camel wasn't difficult as such, done about 4 different versions, but getting something not too good & reasonably interesting was, and still is.

 

You can manage the effect once you are aware of whats happening - coordinating aileron with rudder. Alternatively, change line in [Rudder Section] of Controls Section of data ini as follows:

 

Cldc=0.1935 ----> to 0.0935 should reduce considerably, lower to even elimlinate.

 

Actually, there were some planes still somewhat undecided about, would have taken some flying and a fresh look to see if they are really how I want, inc. Camel, not as easy to fly as most (tho pretty easy), maybe too tight, more roll?

 

It gets pretty iffy with final tweaks and changes, takes many hours, and ran out of time for present. Can make planes quite different, but just difficult deciding best way. So good getting feedback.

 

Let me know what you think in the end so can consider all of that for final download.

 

Cheers

Edited August 22, 2007 by peter01

[+peter01 2]

Decided to zip up a couple of more Camels before going to work for you to try or not, as you like.

 

I use these 2 extra Camels for my own game. i don't know about anyone else, but I can't get enough of camels. try dogfighting dr1 in current one - a design criteria - a challenge whichever plane you fly.

 

With extras, one is called Camela, "a" for alternative or short for AFC, and of course its a bit better in performance for that reason! Maybe a bit too good, the reason I didn't upoad this initially, and slightly different feel - you may not notice straight away, but more springy, affected by sudden rolls too.

 

Other is Camel2F - Bentley 150hp version. similar to Camela but little different in feel again and slightly better climb, hence more capable. Fantastic dogfights flying in FokkerD7s against these - a lot of fun to me.

 

If you want to use them in place of standard camel just rename data ini eg Camela_DATA to Camel_DATA, without the "a" and place in camel folder. Or similar for camel2F_data.

 

If you want to use either or both in addition, create folders by copying current "camel" folder, and rename copied folders exactly as "camela" and "camel2F". Included in the zip are camela and camel2F ini files that should also be placed in the respective folders so it works. If you delete extra aircraft skins from new folders the overhead isn't much at all in creating extra folders. But don't delete those skins copied from the default Camel folder - may have trouble with decals unless you know how to fix. I use the RNAS skin for Camel2F Bentley, AFC skin for Camela.

 

I guess that I am really looking forward to TKs version - everyone is learning about FMs for FE, including TK i'd say, so I'm holding out great hopes for this one (and the Dr1 too!). He is the FM guru of course, no doubt. But you never know...different design objectives maybe.

 

Cheers

 

Alternative_Camels.zip

Edited August 23, 2007 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

Thanks Peter, will give em a go.

[+peter01 2]

All done, will be uploading.

 

Thanks to everyone who gave me feedback - very useful.

 

A few points about these FMs, and the changes.

 

Firstly, they are very good, in all ways, of course!! But their not perfect. And they are still beta - any major issues you or I find, and whatever comes out of TK's new release, I'll fix or update.

 

Some issues i am aware of:

 

Takeoff is good in Hard for all except Brisfit. Sorry, but press autopilot for first few secs.

 

Looked very closely at damage modelling, and followed TKs way of doing it. But now i am testing for it, do see some issues on occaision. Not sure if its just the game or my FMs as such - haven't tried others but do recollect having issues even with TKs many months ago, so not sure. Anyway it is as it is...

 

Some other points:

 

Many of the later war A-teams FMs are still, if not nearly entirely, Charles and the A-teams work. But all have been changed in performance and feel, optimised for hard FM, AI tweaked, and a couple are completely new.

 

Roll on many of these (maybe all!) is a bit good. Have spent time looking at the roll on each plane, and in the end, this is best to me for many reasons - mainly due to various compromises such as feel, consistency and ai.

 

There are 19 FMs, and the changes to those already posted here on the forum or in downloads section are briefly:

 

FokkerDr1, Dolphin, Snipe, Schuckert are unchanged.

 

Fe2b is unchanged - just thought I'd include it in this upload as well.

 

FokkerD7, FokkerD7F are unchanged.

 

AlbatrosD3 a bit different. More capable.

 

Pup, Tripe changed somewhat. And these and the Dh2 have more pitch and/or range of pitch. Quite a bit. Have found dogfights better like this, both player and AI can climb and dive more. Climb reduced a bit to keep them balanced in terms of capability and consistency with other planes.

 

Fe2b brisfit is quite different to fly, same FM however. Greatly improved in feel, was too smooth before. same gunner traverse as my previous version - 360 degrees - i like it.

 

Camel reverse rudder roll reduced.

 

PfalzD3 is completely new to that previously posted.

 

PfalzD8 is new, in that haven't uploaded my version before. Its nearly the same as that done by Charles, mainly the feel. You may like the original better, so back it up!

 

Spad7 has been redone - actually my current favourite. Similar to Spad13, but quite different too, and for those that like a challenge.

 

AlbatrosDva's pitch and pitch range improved, more competitive for player now (AI is comparatively the same as it was), fixed some damage modelling and the pilot is the standard one now.

 

Spad13 roll has been reduced, takeoff is fine now. AI improved.

 

Se5a is now a better ZnB fighter. Doesn't tighten as much on the dive, so can recover and use climb/dive in a dogfight.

 

Cheers

Edited August 31, 2007 by peter01

[Bandy 3]

Thanks Peter,

 

I know you mention that FMs are never finished in your eyes, and I understand that you are waiting to see what TK comes up with re: stalls/spins in the next release (to that I say when??? ), and this makes perfect sense. Are you thus anticipating re-vamping ALL the FE FM's all over again?

If so, you have much dedication and deserve much thanks. :fans:

 

Waiting for the new a/c behavior of course explains the relevant aspects of the previously posted Camel FM's, which I've found will not stall; the Camel keeps climbing with the airspeed in the low 30's (I think this was just Camel, not Camela, or 2F). It will be interesting to see how TK interprets the Camel and its idiosyncrasies ... You have worked in some really nice and quirky handling characteristics.

 

Not sure if this would be of interest to you, but I witnessed an AI Dolphin in a near vertical orientation descending to an airfield at about 5 knots like a helicopter. It just hung there, then had a real bouncy landing. Bizarre. This last observation obviously is some strange landing effect that will not be encountered often, as I very rarely see AI actually land at their base after a mission, but may be symptomatic of something else and speak to you (since you speak that new language...).

 

RE: damage modeling, what do you mean by "followed TK's way" [just curious that's all]. Rather than add structural factor to ALL those various control surfaces to avoid that one-shot-knock-off effect, as you mentioned would it be more parsimonious to reduce bullet effectiveness as an overall remedy? In any case, either approach might not work if control surfaces "falling off" are part of the critical hit category...

 

Best regards...

Edited August 31, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+peter01 2]

Hi Bandy,

 

Generally i'd say I'm pushing the FMs to their limits, including the AI. All changes have consequences. many can be fixed, but takes time for issues to become evident, identify causes, and fix of course.

 

Are you thus anticipating re-vamping ALL the FE FM's all over again?

If so, you have much dedication and deserve much thanks.

 

Yep, its a bit frightening to me too - but I think when TK releases his new update I'll be all fired up again, so hoping it'll give me the impetus!!

 

Waiting for the new a/c behavior of course explains the relevant aspects of the previously posted Camel FM's, which I've found will not stall; the Camel keeps climbing with the airspeed in the low 30's (I think this was just Camel, not Camela, or 2F). It will be interesting to see how TK interprets the Camel and its idiosyncrasies ... You have worked in some really nice and quirky handling characteristics.

 

Thats pretty correct re Camels and variants, as well as why. Thanks re characteristics, I am at this point concentrating more on this with nearly all the planes. I'm not sure that anyone notices, so its good to hear you say that, but many of the planesare really quite different to what has been done in past. Getting that smallish difference consumes quite a bit of time, and you really have to explore! But, I am finding that I just liking flying the planes around now, so its worth it to me, so doing more missions as well as straight out dogfights. I guess it means I feel that the AI and the consistency/balance thingy are working very well, and now concentrating on other things.

 

Yes, the FMs are a lot of work. To do a simple one in a standard way I'd guess would take me a day or two from scratch now. To do one thats really good, completely tested, and all stuff done well (stalls, a few other things on the list that nobody has raised), well, thats at least two weeks really. And if you are doing a set thats reasonably consistent where there was no real consistency (EWS), you could double that for each plane - because you go round in loops modding performance which then affects everything else. Hence, continual new versions.

 

Not sure if this would be of interest to you, but I witnessed an AI Dolphin in a near vertical orientation descending to an airfield at about 5 knots like a helicopter. It just hung there, then had a real bouncy landing. Bizarre. This last observation obviously is some strange landing effect that will not be encountered often, as I very rarely see AI actually land at their base after a mission, but may be symptomatic of something else and speak to you (since you speak that new language...).

 

It is...but this will have to wait, until I redo stalls...it sorta relates to that. I do know why these things happen at times, tho its really only a minor irritant to me and doesn't happen that often, and redoing is not much work. But it is a lot of work if I have to constantly redo. Not meaning to sound flippant, but its one of the reasons I consider these beta.

 

RE: damage modeling, what do you mean by "followed TK's way" [just curious that's all].

 

Nothing complex here, just did things for some planes differently to TK early on just thru lack of awareness that it was actually different, and repeated that error for a few. FMs. Its not a biggie, but as the AI becomes better it becomes more evident.

 

Rather than add structural factor to ALL those various control surfaces to avoid that one-shot-knock-off effect, as you mentioned would it be more parsimonious to reduce bullet effectiveness as an overall remedy? In any case, either approach might not work if control surfaces "falling off" are part of the critical hit category...

 

I wouldn't change TKs damage modelling anymore. I am convinced that damage modelling is different for the player and AI - damge modelling as distinct from the Flight Model, which is also different, and complicated by changing AI parameters (which are or should be different for each plane). So it would be a very complex time consuming task to improve anything here. Not me!!

 

The benefit of reducing mg effectiveness is its more satisfying, damge effects are not so immediate or spectacular, takes better shooting, and as you say I don't experience many damage effect problems (I think), because you don't blast away wings, you need to hit critical components which usually results in the damage modelling working out. The AI are fine too, if you use mine. Actually it could be better - I do like tough AI, but I guess from previous post you like me want to survive. So this to me works exremely well in many ways.

 

BTW it could be that mg effectiveness is as it is in stock versions for many of these reasons: eg, AI not made overly capable possibly due to "implications" in ai damage modelling. Conversely reducing mg effectiveness would mean AI would need to be quite good. For TKs target audience this may be the best approach. He certainly knows what he's doing.....but I am hoping he's going to take a chance and push the FMs a bit more - feel, AI, extra WWI planes quirks, tree top fighting, gyro effects. Shouldn't build my hopes up, but....

 

I was at first a little disappointed when I found out TK was doing a Camel and Dr1, I'm happy enough with the A-teams, and would prefer new planes on balance. But on reflection, TK has to do these quite differently, make them interesting. Se5a, D7s and even Spad13 are a different story. So, thats why I am hoping some good things could come out of the next release from an FM perspective.

 

Cheers

Edited September 1, 2007 by peter01

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Not sure if this is what you intended, Peter. The damage model seems a bit too forgiving. Was able to easily land this cripple. I'm thinking that the damage rating of wings might need to be changed to destroyed rather than disabled - at least for me.

[+peter01 2]

Just found a problem with the Brisfit, basically AI wingmen have trouble after takeoff.

 

Set some AI parameters too aggressively, they try to climb too quickly.

 

Fix is to change following in data ini in [FlightControl] section near top:

 

Is:

 

CruiseSpeed=44.96

ClimbSpeed=44.49

CornerSpeed=46.61

 

To:

 

CruiseSpeed=42.96

ClimbSpeed=24.49

CornerSpeed=36.61

 

 

Alternatively, heres a zip with changes, or wait till I upload a fix later today maybe to downloads section:

 

 

F2b_DATA.zip

[+peter01 2]

Not sure if this is what you intended, Peter. The damage model seems a bit too forgiving. Was able to easily land this cripple. I'm thinking that the damage rating of wings might need to be changed to destroyed rather than disabled - at least for me.

 

Hehe, deserve an Iron Cross at least 2nd Class for that I'd say.

 

Now this is interesting. But takes some explaining why.

 

As your flying the plane, eliminates the AI parameters as a problem here of course.

 

In terms of destroyed versus disabled and heavy - this was the mistake I made previously not following TKs approach. Destroyed doesn't mean destroyed, I think it means that enemy AI "thinks" you are destroyed. What I have now is standard.

 

I haven't made any differences to the aerodynamics and allocation of lift etc to the original. So a question is: did this happen before - I don't fly anytrhing but my own, so don't know.

 

If this wasn't the case, then its the thing I mentioned earlier about something I'll redo when looking at stalls - seems odd I know that they seem related, but it may be a very minor thing I have done, that I will need to do slightly differently to get the best stall effects if you like.

 

But will not be doing this now, and can't be 100% positive, but couldn't be anything else, at least not logically - its either that, or it was that way always (and hence the game engine), or something doesn't work in the game as it should.

 

BTW this happens with other planes I fly. I am postive it was happening before too, but maybe not.

 

Cheers.

[+Tailspin 3]

Just wondering aloud but I wonder if some of the problems we are having with damage modeling and planes flying too well with wings, parts of wings, tail surfaces, etc gone is the lift coefficients for wing sections being too unbalanced. For instance lets assume the mid wing sections have lift values of 4 and the outer wings have value of 2. Thats a total of 6 for each wing. Shoot off an outer wing and you are only losing 1/3 of the lift in the wing. However if you have both sections with a value of 3 then you lose 1/2 the lift of the wing. A recent game experience may back this idea up. The DR1's top wing is made much like this. I shot both outer wing section off the top wing of a DR1 (much like the shots shown above but the center top wing was still there) and it continued to fly, climb, and maneuver much like it didn't have any damage at all. Well the top center wing sections (theoretically) make up 2/3rds or more of the lift for the entire top wing. Make sense? Add to this the "relaxed" flight models of the AI and you get some pretty silly results sometimes. Then again there are models where you shoot off a wing sections and the plane rolls over and spirals in just like it should. For sure the damage models need looking at. Perhaps after the upgrade/new release and we (I should say Peter, I suppose. ) get the new FMs working good we can tackle the DMs.

[+peter01 2]

Spot on Tailspin.

 

Just to recap:

 

On the AI side, damage will always be a little less pronounced - I believe its the damaging modelling for the AI in the game engine. I think its been done this way for good reasons too - perhaps not place to elaborate, but basically relates to the AI's ability to fly a plane when damaged. Different or better AI parameters will exacerbate this - its a tradeoff, but a very minor one to me at least - I wouldn't even play the game without decent AI opponents.

 

On the player side, forces, especially lift/drag can be placed anywhere in the FM (not all tho), and the plane will fly the same. However, the placement of the things are important to stall behavior, so if I do that, it will mean rejigging things, not redoing FMs per se. And as Tailspin points out this is probably important for damage modelling. So hopefully, keeping fingers crossed, they will work when done "right". Of course it could well be that to get interesting stalls, there may be a tradeoff in damage modelling too.

 

Now having said all that, I am not looking at stalls or damage modelling now, or even redoing things. It will have to wait until TKs new release. And at the moment still (leisurely) exploring ways of changing the feel for some, and adding some quirky features - and having fun too.

 

But its good its been raised. If it can be addressed, and if I try, the time will be after TKs release. But just don't get expectations too high - the FMs are full of compromises, and there may be more doing this.

 

And of course....

 

Shoot off an outer wing and you are only losing 1/3 of the lift in the wing. However if you have both sections with a value of 3 then you lose 1/2 the lift of the wing.

 

Perhaps the real problem is that wings are shot off!! The game is designed to give extravagant (can't think of any other way to describe it) damage effects. So in this example perhaps if you get hit in the outer wing, you lose 1/3 lift (harder to fly), but the wing shouldn't fall off, or if it does (maybe random), then the whole plane is actually destroyed. Its a game engine thing.

 

I don't get these types of things in my game that much anyway now. Due to reduced mg effectiveness. Maybe thats the way to go too.

 

It gets complex doesn't it?

Edited September 1, 2007 by peter01