Bite sized chunks

[Tooner 0]

Hello Peter01,

 

I've read your post on the Thirdwire forums ( and TK's reply ). Flying the DVIIF and DVIII a lot, I agree there's some loss of 'snappiness' overall and in vertical manoeuvring in particular, also fast thight banking turns seem a little step back. I liked the 'feel' of the aircraft better before the patch.

BTW: has the patch affected AI performance ( skill/ agressiveness )?

 

Regards,

Tooner

[+peter01 2]

Hi Tooner,

 

Really appreciate your post here .....the changes are so slight its so hard to pinpoint, and at times I thought I was imagining it.

 

Yes, there are a couple of changes. Did a fresh install, patched it, installed TKs unpatched Spad7 FM, and again it felt slightly "flaky"- never had the feeling before with that aircraft. And its really only at altitude (above a couple of thousand feet, so important), hence hard to spot unless you fly a bit. And not all planes, depends on how they are done.

 

Looking thru what TK has changed in his FMs, and trying it out, it seems like there is an easy solution. Changing the Altitude tables, and increasing Pitchdamp. Thats what TK has done consistently for all his, and it seems to work with mine.

 

But there's 70 FMs, each will take 30 mins plus to change (as the specific changes needed to Pitchdamp would vary between planes), fly pre-changed first at various alts, and then test low level, various altitudes after changes, tweak as necessary. Tedious. But seems okay. Some planes will be sightly better maybe, some slightly worse, some exactly the same. But the resulting changes are hardly noticeable, even for me, and it does get rid of that lightness and flakiness, so seems okay.

 

Doesn't seem much, but these new style FMs are very very sensitive on pitch and at altitude.

 

I won't rush it...I'll probably upload in a few weeks.

 

The patch has improved the AI in terms of skill, yes, considerably. Not aggressiveness. Aggressiveness is largely determined by the skill level stuff in the Aircraftobject.ini, which hasn't changed. Probably best you use the skill level stuff from my previous one, but make sure you use an newly extracted Aircraftobject.ini. I'll get around to explaining this sometime, the parameters in the Aircraftobject.ini are quite simple, but trouble is I feel the need to put all these warnings and qualifications on it too...because you can really stuff up your game.

 

BTW, I don't think gun damage has changed much. I still use a reduced ammo weight gundata file.

 

Cheers

 

Oh, forgot to mention with AI......if you use TKs FMs, they won't be that good really as AI, nowhere as good as mine. The AI stuff is not just the Aircraftobject.ini, its the [flightcontrol] and [AIdata] sections in the FMs themselves too - they all work together. I do a couple of things differently to the default stuff in the FMs that makes them better, more interesting, and most importantly, so that you don't get a "sitting duck" type scenario - and you do, with TKs, all the time, arrrggg. You can also get different AI planes to do different things by modding all three ai sections, and now that you can include skill level stuff in the FM itself (overrides the Aircraftobject.ini), you can get different skill level AI to fly the same plane somewhat differently too. Its all pretty neat, don't think there is any flight sim that firstly has such good basic AI (for dogfighting), and even better, where you can mod it yourself to make it better/easier/different. FE is an absolute standout in this area.

Edited April 14, 2008 by peter01

[+sinbad 27]

Thanks for hanging in there Peter01.

 

I'm using your previous (most recent) FMs now, and will stand by for the revisions. I fully understand what you mean regarding the time involved. I tried and quickly abandoned an effort to mod the Bort Alb DI FM using a file compare/revise program. Since I absolutely know nothing about it, and had that demonstrated as I installed my abortive attempt, waiting is the prudent thing to do.

[+Tailspin 3]

A point about "sitting ducks". Raw pilots with very few hours in the cockpit and poor situational awareness in combat were a very real part of it. There's not much available from WWI but I've read and seen interviews with RAF pilots from the Battle of Britain describing returning to base to find bullet holes in their planes without having ever heard or seen any enemy A/C or having any idea they were being shot at...and they had radios. The sky was not full of Aces or even above average pilots. In fact I think it was quite the opposite. Perhaps the real problem with the sim and unskilled pilots is their apparent lack of action even when, as the tracers are zipping past their heads, it should be obvious they are being attacked? Regardless, IMHO, "sitting ducks" are just as much a part of the "reality" of the air war as the skilled, wily veteran...probably more so. This is not intended as any sort of criticism of your work, Peter...which is fantastic. Just a different point of view and maybe not so different after all?

[+Tailspin 3]

Another point. Most of these A/C didn't perform well at high altitudes so it should be very much "aircraft specific" when we consider this. The DVIIs and Dolphins are mentioned as good high alt. planes, there are probably a couple more but the rest just couldn't generate the horsepower or didn't have the best airfoil design (again the DVII) to fly well near the ceiling.

[Tooner 0]

Hello Tailspin,

 

I've all my game settings on Hard, use Peter01's Hard AircraftOject.ini and reduced ammo weight gundata file.

In a single mission I shot down 6 out of 8 Camels (130) with a Siemens-Schuckert D.III, and the Camels weren't 'sitting ducks', on the contrary it took all my flying and shooting skills to get it done ! When I finished, there was a sense of accomplishment : that was cool.

 

My point being: although I've read a library of books about WW1 airwarfare and I agree that ace-pilots were the exception and FE is a flight-sim; for me the fun of dogfighting isn't shooting down easy or average adversaries.

No offense intended but just a different point of view, for me FE is hard dogfighting, the level of reality ( or history ) is of a minor priority.

 

Regards,

Tooner

[+peter01 2]

Sorta started on tweaking the planes for the patch, and would like to know what you think is the best way to go forward.

 

But first, some background.

 

I'm not that committed to doing these FMs, I'm playing the game more (unpatched) and doing FMs less, just a bit sick of it at the moment. So, as the mood takes me, I might just do some tweaking here and there. The changes are more significant then I mentioned previously, all require non-trivial changes, and some planes are far harder to do. So unlike what I usually do, work on a set, its more pick and choose, some early, some late etc.

 

Jumping between patched EP and unpatched EP, IMO, the FMs I did for the unpatched EP work very well in the unpatched EP, as good as they can be in many ways. The tweaks I'm making to the FMs for the patch means they are just a bit different. A comparison of the two IMO in comparing previous FMs on unpatched FMs to tweaked FMs for patched EP (sheeesh, sorrry about that): some are better now, some aren't, but its all very marginal. BUT the FMs tweaked for the patched version are far better then the previous FMs if used for the patched EP. However, you know, its this endless tweak scenario ....admittedly easier, because of TKs changes - they are less sensitive, the change was good in the end :), and because I know what I'm doing pretty well now too.

 

Mmm, hard to explain, so what I am saying is....how should I make these available. Options..

 

1) Make available in smaller sets here on this thread....saves me doing readmes etc, I can get feedback, they are available quicker. The previous ones still work, and no problems in AI, so its like an incremental improvement over time. And its basically mainly for the community that does play the game a lot, visits the forum... most of you guys I guess. And later collate into sets in d/ls section for more general community.

 

2) Make them available say as beta in downloads section. Tweak any necessary, and collate them later into sets. Similar to 1) in terms of I can get feedback, they are available quicker. The previous ones still work, and no problems in AI, so its like an incremental improvement over time. This option maybe better for people that haven't downloaded the previous ones that I have now deleted....and maybe I should make these available then in the interim, despite my "artistic" concern that they don't work as they were designed...

 

3) Wait till they are ready, ie, completed sets (similar to previous packs, basically two d/ls), and I feel I have done enough to not call them beta. This may be a few weeks, but could be a few months because some FMs are just a pain. If I do this, I won't make the others done previously avaialble...those that didn't get them will just have to wait.

 

Let me know.....appreciate your thoughts on this.

Edited April 16, 2008 by peter01

[+sinbad 27]

I vote for 1, but 2 would be OK. I am a compulsive upgrader and have no problem making changes. After all the pilots and crews constantly tweaked the planes, some to get the basics stable and correct, some (e.g. McCudden) to significantly improve performance.

 

It is a real part of the game.

 

IMHO, for those that just want to jump in and go, they can do that without any fuss, so no real need to do a "full service patch." That is something TK must do, not you.

[Barkhorn1x 14]

Do what you think is best here.

[+Tailspin 3]

Well the patch did fix some things that needed fixing (the Army Co-op CTD bug comes to mind) that affected basic gameplay so, IMHO, if you are going to fly the EP you need the patch. We already have a good set of FMs for the pre-EP, pre-patch version of FE and I think those should remain available for those that want to use them. As I see it, if you are going to patch the original FE to "EP standards" it makes no sense not to buy the EP too so we are back to the EP + Apr.08 patch scenario. Personally, I wouldn't bother with trying to update FMs for those 3rd party planes that are available in the EP ie. the Camel, DR1, Spad 7, etc. We really only need two versions of FMs. One set (already done) for the pre-EP/pre-08patch version and one for the EP1+04/08 patch. I don't think its going to make much difference where you release them as far as feedback is concerned. No. 1 sounds good to me.

[+whiteknight06604 935]

I would go in the order you listed them.but anyway is really fine in the end.

[+Tailspin 3]

Hello Tailspin,

 

I've all my game settings on Hard, use Peter01's Hard AircraftOject.ini and reduced ammo weight gundata file.

In a single mission I shot down 6 out of 8 Camels (130) with a Siemens-Schuckert D.III, and the Camels weren't 'sitting ducks', on the contrary it took all my flying and shooting skills to get it done ! When I finished, there was a sense of accomplishment : that was cool.

 

My point being: although I've read a library of books about WW1 airwarfare and I agree that ace-pilots were the exception and FE is a flight-sim; for me the fun of dogfighting isn't shooting down easy or average adversaries.

No offense intended but just a different point of view, for me FE is hard dogfighting, the level of reality ( or history ) is of a minor priority.

 

Regards,

Tooner

 

Interesting POV. IMHO, from a strictly dogfighting perspective, history plays a major part in terms of A/C performance and fighting ability and the very real differences between A/C as both sides leap-frogged each other as the war progressed.

If you don't care about history or a certain level of "reality", why not just make all the planes fly the same...leaving it solely up to the human pilot's capabilities? That wouldn't be much fun either. What is far more interesting to me about the air war in WWI is the ebb and flow of technology as it applied to fighting. Add to that the, again very realistic, random aspect of not knowing whether the pilot you are about to engage is some Killa ACE or just "meat" makes for a better simulation. Some kills were indeed "easy". Thats just the way it was and to remove that from the game is not desirable to me. I'm just glad we have a choice to play the game as we see fit.

[+sinbad 27]

I think I am going to revert (again) to two installations. One for late war (mid 1916 - 1918) with EP and all updated object.ini and FMs and another pre EP early war (up to mid 1916) with as many ancillary patches for terrain etc. as can sensibly be loaded. There is an entirely different feeling to engaging the early war A/C, and this sim has a very diverse inventory for the early war period. Not all of the early birds are up to the same quality levels for cockpits, LOD's and skins, but the early war install offers something particularly appealing, IMHO. That late war EP version fully patched has more eye candy and on odd numbered days I may prefer it. I really cannot see any way to effectively balance the two periods without two installs, especially since the FMs for the early war are not compatible with the EP version.

 

If anyone has advice about getting the most out of the non EP "early war" version, I would be grateful.

[+Tailspin 3]

sinbad....That's pretty much the way I have it. I still enjoy the early war stuff too. The ideal solution would be to incorporate stalls/spins/spin recovery without having to change the FMs so drastically. Don't know if thats possible? I really miss the forced landings too that have been eliminated in the EP too.

[Longestpants 1]

Mmm, hard to explain, so what I am saying is....how should I make these available. Options..

 

1) Make available in smaller sets here on this thread....saves me doing readmes etc, I can get feedback, they are available quicker. The previous ones still work, and no problems in AI, so its like an incremental improvement over time. And its basically mainly for the community that does play the game a lot, visits the forum... most of you guys I guess. And later collate into sets in d/ls section for more general community.

 

2) Make them available say as beta in downloads section. Tweak any necessary, and collate them later into sets. Similar to 1) in terms of I can get feedback, they are available quicker. The previous ones still work, and no problems in AI, so its like an incremental improvement over time. This option maybe better for people that haven't downloaded the previous ones that I have now deleted....and maybe I should make these available then in the interim, despite my "artistic" concern that they don't work as they were designed...

 

3) Wait till they are ready, ie, completed sets (similar to previous packs, basically two d/ls), and I feel I have done enough to not call them beta. This may be a few weeks, but could be a few months because some FMs are just a pain. If I do this, I won't make the others done previously avaialble...those that didn't get them will just have to wait.

 

Let me know.....appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

You must do what you feel is right, of course.

[bezpete 0]

peter01,

It occurs to me that if you do option 1, you might tend to get more timely help throughout your tweaking process in the form of feedback from the forum members. This might be a help to you and also make you feel a bit less alone on the work than if you worked on a larger number of FMs before releasing them. You could get more immediate positive reinforcement which could give you a more accurate read on how much us guys (and gals) here appreciate your efforts.

 

Also, if the FMs were released in larger sets, as in options 2 and 3, it would take longer for the pilots here to spend enough flight time in each plane to start noticing any bugs and report back in a timely fashion.

 

This is just what I was thinking as I read your explanations on the process you were going through on each separate plane.

[+peter01 2]

Thanks for posts guys.

 

Been reflecting on the patch over the past couple of weeks.

 

Its a bit of work redoing the previous FMs, and don't feel the patch changes are an improvement to the FE FMs.

 

More than likely there will be similar changes down the track for WOI (IMO) that again impact FE FMs - even minor changes have major effects on FE. If you are looking at it from a FE FM POV, as I do of course, its a bit like the tail wagging the dog, and I'll be spending a lot of time re-tweaking FMs just to keep things working ok .

 

So, drawing a line in the sand, so to speak, and I'll be sticking to the unpatched version.

Edited April 25, 2008 by peter01

[Tooner 0]

Hello Peter01,

 

I think the combination patch + FM's is a step back. I'm considering running 2 different installs on my pc.

 

Regards,

Tooner

[guitarclassic55 0]

This whole original install/patch1/Expansion Pack/Apr2008 patch debacle reminds me of the advances in aircraft technology in WWI. Just when we think we've got things figured out, along comes something new that we have to deal with, adapt to, and then try to better.

 

To my regret I was busy working on menu screens and failed to download your latest FMs while they were up, peter01. I can certainly understand why you pulled them and why you're drawing the proverbial line in the proverbial sand.

[+Tailspin 3]

I've got three installs. Pre-EP for the early planes. A modded Pre-Patch EP and an unmodded Post-Patch EP. Don't think I'll ever get rid of the original version. IMHO it has a certain "character" that is somehow lost in the EP. However, again JMHO, the future of the game is with the patched version(s). TK will likely continue with updates now and then. Thats the reason for the unmodded copy. I'll keep it pretty much "stock", except for some adding some ground objects and targets. Then the other install is the last "standard" as far as mods to the EP go. Not ideal but eventually things will settle down, I think.

[guitarclassic55 0]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that TK is continuing to update things. It should make for an ever-better experience in the long run. But FM-wise it sounds like things are not quite as good now as that brief "pre-latest patch" moment when everyone was raving about peter01's latest FMs, how more rudder was used, how AI diving had significantly decreased, etc. etc. Seems like posts have dropped off a bit, maybe just my imagination... if so, I wonder if it's because people are playing more now, or are just a little frustrated. In the meantime, I'll try to exercise patience as I decide how many installs to use and what modifications to include.