Bite sized chunks

[+Tailspin 3]

Thanks for the pointers Peter. I'll fly the DVII some more before I make the changes. By all accounts I've read the DVII should indeed be sensitive on the controls but also stable and well behaved with gentle stall characteristics and reluctance to spin. I think you've nailed the stall and spin characteristics. :yes: I'm not sure "edgy" fits the description of the DVII. Doesn't seem to be too stable a gun platform right now.

 

I know what you mean about some sims and the differences in sticks too. I recall the original Rowan BoB sim was a twitchy mess when used with my old MS stick and nothing would fix it. Then I bought a new "digital" stick and all was well. I've already had to turn my stick sensitivity way down to fly the EP but I don't think this is a stick issue as most other planes in the EP don't have this problem. Anyway I'll double check to see if I haven't increased the dead zone or something.

[+Tailspin 3]

Ok, another bone to pick. (You may get tired of hearing from me, Peter. )

 

Its about the N28. I see you've reintroduced the "compressibility" thing to try and simulate the problem with wing fabric shedding pulling out of a steep power on dive. I'll refer you to this link for some clarification of the "problem". See the section on Service Issues.

 

http://www.airminded.net/n28/n28.html

 

 

Anyway, regardless of whether or not I personally agree with this approach (I don't BTW), if you are going to use this to simulate diving problems then IMO all the Albatross series needs to have this incorporated too. The Albs were well documented to have a problem with breaking wings during high speed dives and the Germans never really totally solved the problem even in the V series. I don't have an issue at all with wings and tails breaking under too much stress, in fact this happened to me when I dove too fast in the Tripe. The tail broke off when I pulled up too hard. Great feature IMO. I just don't think the inability to pull out at all is the way to go for the N28. However if thats the solution then it should apply across the board to other planes that had the same sort of deficiency. IMHO, of course.

[Gr.Viper 131]

They even show why N.28 had wing problem - somewhere at 1:00

[+Tailspin 3]

I'm not saying the N28 didn't have wing problems...just that the Albs did too.

 

Sort of a related issue....I've been testing a few planes and there seems to be a disparity as to how much stress the planes can handle and how they behave in dives. For instance the Alb DIII will "automatically" start to pull out of a power on dive at @ 200mph unless you roll it while you are diving. Then you can dive it a speeds approaching 250mph. However you can pull as much as 7+ Gs and it will suffer no damage. You can dive the Tripe that fast (probably not realistic) and pull out at 7+ Gs and it will literally disintegrate! Not saying any of this is Peter's doing either. Its just an anomaly I've discovered. Note that the Tripe is an add-on plane and the DIII is a stock model. Maybe worth looking into the differences for future damage model considerations. Now I'm curious to find out if this trait carries over to other planes. :yes:

[+Tailspin 3]

Did a few more test flights diving various A/C from 6500ft. to speeds over 230-240mph and it doesn't seem to be any particular maker's model rather its dependent on the A/C. I did find that the old N28 FM that doesn't model compressibility does break under high g-load so I'll use that one. :yes: However I couldn't get the Albs to break...up to 8Gs and no damage at all. The stock Dr 1 does. The Snipe is reluctant to pull out (compressibility I suppose but not as bad as the N28 ) but it did and didn't show damage. Pfalz DIII only slight damage. Dolphin no damage. Didn't try them all. Maybe a bit of compressibility is good as surely at high speeds the control response did stiffen up but in the case of the N28 maybe its a bit overdone and not entirely necessary to achieve the desired effect? Also I think we need to "spread the love" where its applicable. Again JMHO. I'll shut up now. Thank for listening.

[+peter01 2]

Ok, another bone to pick. (You may get tired of hearing from me, Peter. )

 

On the contrary, its good you are trying them out and posting. It helps me with the FMs too...there's always a lot of decisions/tradeoffs, things I lose sight of, and just last minute changes that can then have other effects.

 

The N28 falls into that last category.

 

Just to clarify, I didn't add compressibility, say as Tex did for different reasons on his initial FM. Tho to all intents and purposes it does seem like compressibility .

 

I eliminated wing shredding for the N28 in the new FM. Whilst doing this lot, started to see difficulties, mainly with the AI handling this (in Albs especially, I had it in for them too). Its not that it doesn't work in the game, it does, but requires some fine tuning from both a player and AI perspective. The AI side is time consuming, you have to have many dogfights etc to force them to pull high Gs etc. I guess its a matter of learning more about how various things work...a refinement down the track AFAIC at this stage.

 

But, as I took this out of the current N28 FM, an underlying "type" of compressibility issue remained, that I overlooked (its in the previous FM too, just your wings fall off before it happens so never really noticed ).

 

So the solution is to either eliminate the underlying type of compressibility issue, or include "wing shredding". I'll look at it some point in time, its a combination. I do like modelling stress type effects, its a game enhancement, especially for early Nieuports, and probably will find how it works exactly, whats good in game, etc when I do these.

 

A quick fix to get the current FM to how it was with the previous one on wing shredding, which then reduces any compressibility issues:

 

1) Change the values in [FlightControl]

 

MaxG=

.

.

MachLimit=

 

to what thwey were before.

 

 

2) Find MaxG= ... added to certain wing sections in older FM, and copy that to similar places in new FM. This causes wing shredding. It can be become quite refined.

 

 

Done.

 

 

I don't recommend you change all the FMs for yourself, and I won't be changing any at the moment myself. Its a hassle for everyone to update continually, and as per the other thread its a moving target, there are many changes ahead. IMO its best everyone keeps changes to a minimum at the moment.

Edited March 21, 2008 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

Ahh....I see. The way the N28 behaved in the dive was exactly like the modification done by Tex. My mistake. What contributed to that error on my part was that, oddly enough, of all the planes tested the N28 and the Snipe, to a lesser extent, were the only planes that exhibited this behavior. But as I said, I didn't test them all. I did find that breakage only seemed to occur, in those that it occurred at all, at extreme speeds and extreme G loads. It does exist in some stock planes, the Dr. 1 at least, and in the Tripe and Pup. I've flown "normal" maneuvers in most of these planes and they rarely pull more than 3 or 4 Gs at most. Perhaps there is a happy medium in there somewhere. Maybe I'll get lucky and find it.

[Firecage 1]

For instance the Alb DIII will "automatically" start to pull out of a power on dive at @ 200mph unless you roll it while you are diving. Then you can dive it a speeds approaching 250mph. However you can pull as much as 7+ Gs and it will suffer no damage. You can dive the Tripe that fast (probably not realistic) and pull out at 7+ Gs and it will literally disintegrate!

 

Lol im not sure why but I have this idea I dont want to fly in a plane with you much

[+peter01 2]

Yes, Tex did it differently.

 

The things you just pointed out are pretty true for many planes, less so for Spads, Se5a I think, because they were more effective at high speeds.

 

Its not really compressibility, in my FMs and TKs, its mainly control surface effeciency (and partly how the FM is built), that causes planes to be less effective at high speeds. And thats probably how it should be - it was a problem too for many WW2 planes.

 

I'd say many pilots in WW1 experienced problems (maybe deadly!), not just wings being lost, but losing CS effectiveness. All planes were optimised for flying in certain speed ranges, and even tho say the Pup was pretty robust, it was not recommened that it been flown at say speeds approaching 200 mph or even close to it!! No doubt pilots could reach these speeds....just a matter of full throttle and pointing the nose down really, but ahh, consequences greater then just simply restarting the mission. Se5a, others were different...maybe due to control surface effeciency, as well as robustness, steadiness (fluttering?), and other things. For example you mention that you have had many planes going at 200 mph - but there are blackout, redout type effects I presume? To me, these are not as strong or prolonged as they could be...but maybe thats just me .

 

Whether its overdone, consistent etc may be an other matter, so it is really good to hear what you think, and there may be a "best way" to do it . But like I said there are many tradeoffs, and many alone in this particular area too! They relate to general FM limitations, how you can make planes feel and fly differently to one another (a major limitation also, its why the FMs will indeed change considerably going forward, they are sorta half done to me, albeit quite well and an improvement to me to pre-EP), and very much to game play as well.

[+peter01 2]

Lol im not sure why but I have this idea I dont want to fly in a plane with you much

 

 

lol, good one. I think I was saying something similar above, but geee, wish I could have put it that way....lol

[+Tailspin 3]

Lol im not sure why but I have this idea I dont want to fly in a plane with you much

 

 

LOL. I was just trying to prove a point about the inequity between the N28 and the Albatross where both had the same sort of problem with diving and wings breaking. Actually the problem with the N28 came as a surprise. I was diving on a bunch of Fokkers a couple thousand feet below and wasn't really pushing it that hard and it refused to pull up. So I thought, "Which planes do this and which can I break on purpose?" To my surprise the Albs won't break. Part of the problem may be that they won't dive as fast as other planes so its harder to get the sustained G forces to break them. My opinion is that if you dive them too fast they (the Albs) should break as is documented in RL.

 

Peter. As I said so far as I've tested most planes don't exhibit the lack of control response. You can yank the stick back in a 240mph dive and they will pull up...and fall apart. Its not so much about the ones that will break....its the ones that won't. Anyway, I'm not trying to get you to change them as you've done quite enough and are to be commended. I'm just commenting on what and possibly why so I might get some ideas from you on whats going on. In case I want to try and "fix" them myself. I'm reminded of Red Baron where you couldn't just "jerk" some planes around with impunity because you'd get structural failure. This is one of the problems I have with the EP FMs...to easy to just yank and bank. Of course thats a personal preference I suppose.

 

BTW...I'm not getting any blackouts. Redouts on the nose over, yes, but no blackouts.

[+peter01 2]

I'm reminded of Red Baron where you couldn't just "jerk" some planes around with impunity because you'd get structural failure. This is one of the problems I have with the EP FMs...to easy to just yank and bank. Of course thats a personal preference I suppose.

 

Thats a good point, and its a good discussion.

 

Until changes are made to Normal Mode so it is performance wise like Hard Mode, with options like Stalls, Stress Modelling - for example like "Hard", "Normal" and "Off" - possibly true gyro effects as options too to change the difficulty or realism, nobody will get personal preferences as they like. Its all a sort of compromise for everyone: new players, players that like it easier, and players that like it tougher. Luckily its not that bad a compromise currently (or we have got used to it).

 

I predict (you heard it here first ) TK will do this sometime, maybe soon. With the new style FMs, its impossible to do them nicely for both modes because of performance differences (normal mode currently is hopeless), the FMs need to be finely tuned (not for one mode or the other, unlike pre-EP), there will be real differences in Modes with stalls and stress modelling now they are implemented and working properly/better, and its more in line with every other game.

 

Its a big thing for FE, but whether it happens depends on how much different the jet simmers find the difference between the two modes, and if the new style FMs are okay or not in Normal for WOI. Should try it I guess....

[+Tailspin 3]

Hmmm....Peter, I don't know how much time you've already spent on the stress damage issue but after playing around with it a little bit it looks to me like this can be fine tuned somewhat to achieve a reasonable effect and be tailored to specific aircraft such as the N28 and the Albs. Perhaps if you find the time you could PM me with your discoveries relating this and the AI etc. I'm very interested in working on this but I don't want to waste too much time going over what already been hashed out...if you know what I mean.

[+peter01 2]

yeah, know what you mean. Not much more I can add to this particular area in any case.....or inclined to either.

 

Best to wait and see if TK changes things, as currently, I have been following the way he has done things for example on stress modelling .... its safer, unless you spend a fair bit of time testing everything.

 

And did try both stock Albatros DIII and DVa, they perform as you described my version of Alb D3 did in an extended dive (FMs are done lots differently to TKs, BTW). Dive limited to 200 mph, then roll and nose down again, goes to 220-250 mph. Pull up okay.

[+Tailspin 3]

Ok, thanks. I think I'll still play around with a few things just to satisfy my own curiosity.

 

I think I have discovered why the new N28 won't pull out of the dive...the lift coefficients for the elevators are lower than in the previous version. Now, I ain't b**chin'. I know its tuned for dogfighting performance and not high speed dive testing.

 

....can ya tell I'm bored?

[Bandy 3]

Hi Peter,

I was looking around inside your latest version of the aircraftobject.ini you provided, and found that the ChanceUseVertical values have the opposite pattern to what TK used, ie: yours decline with experience, TK's increased (see below for convenience). Did you find something out here? Funny thing, I had a wingie do an Immelman in an SE5 with your A-C Obj ini, never saw that before...

 

Peter01's values // TK's values...

 

[DogfightNovice]

SafeAltitude=70

LookoutAngle=120

DefensiveAngle=120

ChanceDefensiveTurn=75

ChanceBreakTurn=100

ChanceHardTurn=100

ChanceTurnDirection=100

ChanceContinue=50

ChanceCheckNewTarget=40

ChanceUseVertical=100 //0 <<<opposite pattern to stock

FightWithoutAmmo=0

CannonFireAngle=10.0 //30 <<<

MaxPitchInput=0.8

MaxCannonRange=800

OptimalCannonRange=70

MinCannonRange=20

MaxRollForGunAttack=360 //45 <<<

CannonBurstLengthShort=1.0

CannonBurstLengthLong=2.0

MaxRudderForGunAttack=1.0

MaxRudderForManeuver=1.0

 

[DogfightGreen]

SafeAltitude=70

LookoutAngle=180

DefensiveAngle=120

ChanceDefensiveTurn=85

ChanceBreakTurn=100

ChanceHardTurn=100

ChanceTurnDirection=100

ChanceContinue=50

ChanceCheckNewTarget=20

ChanceUseVertical=100 //0 <<<

FightWithoutAmmo=0

CannonFireAngle=10.0 //20 <<<

MaxPitchInput=0.8

MaxCannonRange=800

OptimalCannonRange=70

MinCannonRange=20

MaxRollForGunAttack=180 //60 <<<

CannonBurstLengthShort=1.0

CannonBurstLengthLong=2.0

MaxRudderForGunAttack=1.0

MaxRudderForManeuver=2.0

 

[DogfightRegular]

SafeAltitude=70

LookoutAngle=150

DefensiveAngle=120

ChanceDefensiveTurn=75

ChanceBreakTurn=100

ChanceHardTurn=100

ChanceTurnDirection=100

ChanceContinue=50

ChanceCheckNewTarget=20

ChanceUseVertical=40 //10 <<<

FightWithoutAmmo=0

CannonFireAngle=7.0 //12 <<<

MaxPitchInput=0.9

MaxCannonRange=700

OptimalCannonRange=60

MinCannonRange=20

MaxRollForGunAttack=360 //75

CannonBurstLengthShort=0.50

CannonBurstLengthLong=1.0

MaxRudderForGunAttack=0.9

MaxRudderForManeuver=2.0

 

[DogfightVeteran]

SafeAltitude=50

LookoutAngle=180

DefensiveAngle=120

ChanceDefensiveTurn=85

ChanceBreakTurn=100

ChanceHardTurn=100

ChanceTurnDirection=100

ChanceContinue=50

ChanceCheckNewTarget=30

ChanceUseVertical=25 //50 <<<

FightWithoutAmmo=1

CannonFireAngle=6.0 //8

MaxPitchInput=0.95

MaxCannonRange=500

OptimalCannonRange=50

MinCannonRange=18

MaxRollForGunAttack=360 //90

CannonBurstLengthShort=0.25

CannonBurstLengthLong=0.8

MaxRudderForGunAttack=1.0

MaxRudderForManeuver=3.0

 

[DogfightAce]

SafeAltitude=50

LookoutAngle=180

DefensiveAngle=120

ChanceDefensiveTurn=85

ChanceBreakTurn=100

ChanceHardTurn=100

ChanceTurnDirection=100

ChanceContinue=35

ChanceCheckNewTarget=40

ChanceUseVertical=15 //100 <<<

FightWithoutAmmo=1

CannonFireAngle=5.0 //6 <<<

MaxPitchInput=1.0

MaxCannonRange=400

OptimalCannonRange=50

MinCannonRange=15

MaxRollForGunAttack=360 //180

CannonBurstLengthShort=0.25

CannonBurstLengthLong=0.5

MaxRudderForGunAttack=1.1

MaxRudderForManeuver=3.0

[+peter01 2]

ChanceUseVertical is a euphemism for a hard extended dive (as a defensive maneouvre). 10 etc means 10% chance, based on who knows...

 

Once an AI dives, it loses the dogfight, as it then comes back up to continue (if it wasn't like that I'd consider it an smart "exit strategy"), and is at a severe disadvantage. Reducing this means the AI stays and fights, not giving away a height advantage for no good reason (except a die roll , pun unintended), trying other maneouvres such as turns, sideslips, climb.

 

Seems far better for more experienced pilots (who will dive after trying other things to shake you if you are on their tail, but not usually immediately). And to me higher is better for less capable AI that find it harder to sideslip out of harms way, outturn you, etc - they will dive pretty quick.

 

Cheers

Edited March 25, 2008 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

Looks to me like this works nicely. Combat tactics become more important. You have to think twice about chasing someone down in the weeds as you will quickly take yourself out of the furball. When the Enemy AI stays at altitude its very difficult if not impossible to climb back and catch up.

[Firecage 1]

Im really impressed with some battles in this new FM you cooked up. Its a blast in an Alb3 vs the Pups in large furballs. Im using the hard FM set you included and the AI can be rentless at times and especially in groups of 2 or more. They tag team VERY well if your not carefull.

 

Excellent work on the D3 thats an amazing plane now. Some of the twists and turns you can perform now are wild. I like the feel of the stalls myself, just my opinion. They can be used to a great advantage in turning if you can control them, THey also seem to turn better as you throttle back some for short inside moves.

 

Just hit the campaign where I got the OAWs so I will drop a line on the match ups there. I think its spads and the tripes. Im guessing things turn south for the germans for a bit

 

As you all were talking about the spins and stalls are a good part if we had the structral damage from yanking aorund planes that would be great!!

 

Just a thanks for all the endless hours on this.

[+peter01 2]

Yeah, stress modelling is good, but maybe later.

 

Glad your enjoying the game and the the stuff I have done.

Edited March 26, 2008 by peter01

[+peter01 2]

Just finishing off a few more FMs, and probably will upload in a couple of days.

 

These are likely the last lot for a while, tho theres one more half done, just taking some time, so maybe add it later. If I finish it!

 

Reason I'm giving it a break isn't due to TKs patch possibly/likely introducing changes - though the more I do, the more I worry about that - but just a wee bit FM'ed out at the moment.

 

Bit late tonight, so I'll post more details in the next few days.

Edited March 26, 2008 by peter01

[+peter01 2]

A few was probably an understatement , there's 28 FMs.

 

Mainly 1916-1917, plus several to complete the later period.

 

These are some things want to say about these before uploading, so couple more posts.

 

But firstly, they took about 4 months on and off to do, been tinkering continuously, and then finished them in the past month. They are pretty good on the whole to me, but, some may need some more tweaking or testing - not as completely tested as I'd like (just a bit worn out), eg, Be2C/Ds use TKs default AI parameters and seem to work but bombers can be tricky AI.... ,and these are earlier planes, so did some a bit differently, took some experimention. But as I said, they seem good to me...at moment I'm enjoying this era as much as the later.

 

Let me know what you think of them, any improvements or issues. I take it all on-board, just may not change or fix immediately.

 

Thanks to all the modellers, a truly talented bunch.

 

There are 2 alternative FMs for TKs planes. RE8, DFWC5. Done for player takeoff, and to improve turning - they were a bit frustrating.

 

And 2 extras - Albatros D2 version based on TKs Albatros D3 3-D Model, and a DFWC1 based on the DFWC5 model.

 

24 addon plane FMs.........

 

Nieuport 17 from MontyCZ

 

Nieuport 24 and Nieuport 27s from EmID - 6 variations in total

 

Fokkers E3, E3a, E4, E4a from Laton

 

Dh2 from Aladar

 

Morane N from P10ppy

 

Fokker D2, Fokker D3, Martinsyde G100 from Bortdafarm

 

Fe2B (and extra FE2c), Halberstadt D3, Roland C2, Breuget 14, Be2C, Be2D, Aviatik C2 from the A-Team.

 

Sorry, no Nieuport 11/16. Not yet anyway.

 

Cheers

Edited March 26, 2008 by peter01

[+whiteknight06604 931]

cool news,thanks again for the hard work you have put into these.

[+peter01 2]

Last post before uploading, on w/e sometime. The Readme is pretty comprehensive, and recommend you read that.

 

More generally however, these together with the other FMs done are close to all the FMs for the add-on planes we have, plus TKs of course, that were flying from mid 1916 to the end of the war. The Somme to the Armistice!

 

Wanted to get this complete so I could relax and fly (had to do all to enjoy it and relax!), do RL things, and wait for TKs patch. So, maybe a bit rushed, could be issues, but seem pretty good to me....the FMs are getting a lil' easier with experience.

 

Am interested in what you think, any issues, improvements. I'll probably tweak or change things leisurely for myself, and this is often the best way, but won't be updating and reposting again for a while.

 

There are now 30 FMs, couple more included, N11 and N16.

 

Cheers

[+peter01 2]

Uploaded, just in time for the weekend

 

Should be available shortly ..... here

 

Have fun.