Smoke from the engine

[Basher11 0]

This might be a silly question. But does anyone know if it is normal to have white smoke trails coming out from every aircraft in WoI? I am currently running WoI and beginning to realize every stock aircraft happens to discharge white or grey smokes. s it a problem with my ATI graphics card or it is by default given by the game ?

[+Gunrunner 314]

A picture might be needed for a definitive answer, but the answer's probably yes.

 

Jets from that era had smoky, or even very smoky engines, even today most engines aren't completely clean.

At high altitude you also have white condensation trails.

[Basher11 0]

A picture might be needed for a definitive answer, but the answer's probably yes.

 

Jets from that era had smoky, or even very smoky engines, even today most engines aren't completely clean.

At high altitude you also have white condensation trails.

 

Really appreciate your caring to reply, thanks. So is it possible to do an ini edit to get rid of the smoke trails? If that is possible, which ini file should I start working on it?

[+Gunrunner 314]

Yes, if you wish to make clean engines you'll have to edit the /objects/aircraft/[aircraft]/[aircraft]_DATA.ini (or extract that file from /objects/objectdata.cat and place it there then edit it).

 

The lines you want to edit are those starting with ExhaustEmitterName

 

Then you have 2 options, the easy one and the hardest one.

a) The easy is simply replacing the line by a void line :

Change "ExhaustEmitterName=DirtyExhaustEmitter" with "ExhaustEmitterName=" (you should think of adding the void line and commenting the original one for easy reference, meaning the entry would look like :

//ExhaustEmitterName=DirtyExhaustEmitter
ExhaustEmitterName=

b) The "harder" would consist of the same as above, but instead of removing the emitter name, you would change it to something like VeryCleanExhaustEmitter, and then create a INI file for this emitter in the /effects directory.

That would also allow you to add emitters either dirtier or cleaner, per plane, instead of using the same for every (class of) plane, but that needs a little more work and is not necessary if your goal is to completely get rid of those trails.

 

From a realism point of view, I advise not removing them, and making checking some replacement effects for "more beautiful" trails, I think Deuces and CA Stary made some.

 

I never tried removing condensation trails so I can't give you pointers for these, I doubt they are plane dependent and are probably something you'd find in the FLIGHTENGINE.INI

[+russouk2004 6,958]

You can actually add

ExhaustEmitterName=CleanExhaustEmitter

You also can edit the denseness and even colour of the smoke emitted...

[+Gunrunner 314]

CleanExhaustEmitter still has smoke emission IIRC, the absence of emitter is actually the solution used by TW for the A-10A in WoE ^^

[Basher11 0]

No luck. I used the stock F-15A as test aircraft.

 

However, if I choose to play the Single Mission (i.e. generated by the game), the plane has no trailing smoke.

 

Now I am a bit confused. Which file controls the trailing smoke I wonder? In custom-made missions, trailing smoke is there, in mission generated by the game, no trailing smoke is present.

 

What should I consider next ?

[Basher11 0]

You can actually add

ExhaustEmitterName=CleanExhaustEmitter

You also can edit the denseness and even colour of the smoke emitted...

The stock F-15A has its emitter set to CleanExhaustEmitter, and it shows no smoke in Single Missions generated by the game. But smoke is present in use-made missions. A bit irregular there which makes me unable to find any clue and guess.

[Basher11 0]

CleanExhaustEmitter still has smoke emission IIRC, the absence of emitter is actually the solution used by TW for the A-10A in WoE ^^

 

I tried this:

 

//ExhaustEmitterName=CleanExhaustEmitter

//ExhaustPosition=-0.70,-6.50,-0.00

 

for both engines of the F-15A. No smoke now. But no afterbuner flame either. I don't know what to take now.

 

Edited May 10, 2008 by Basher11

[+Gunrunner 314]

That's because you commented both the ExhaustEmitter and the ExhaustPosition, which is needed by the AB IIRC as there is no specific position for AfterburnerExhaust; Use :

//ExhaustEmitterName=CleanExhaustEmitter
ExhaustPosition=-0.70,-6.50,-0.00

and

//ExhaustEmitterName=CleanExhaustEmitter
ExhaustPosition=0.70,-6.50,-0.00

for the other engine and you should get the AB back.

 

Also, it is strange that you would get smoke in static missions but not dynamic ones with the same plane, there's no way to tell that to the engine AFAIK, I'll test it.

 

PS : Couldn't reproduce it with a stock, patched install; The F-15A uses the CleanEmitter in both cases. Are you sure you were not in afterburner when you didn't saw the exhaust trail, or that you were not shot by something, it may happen that a lucky shot kills your engines without setting you aflame, you then would effectively be flying without engines and thus you wouldn't have exhaust trails, which might be more logical if you didn't saw it in static missions, as the stock ones pit you against close bogeys on a frontal approach, giving them a chance to shoot you fast.

Edited May 10, 2008 by Gunrunner

[Basher11 0]

You might not believe this. I think I am very lucky today, discovered it only by sheer luck. I was sitting in front of my 17" CRT idling. Just couldn't make out anything. Then I just wildly browse through the all the folders. Suddenly I recall some time ago someone on this forum mentioned to me to check out some of the stock missions to see how things play out. So I went opeing up F-15A_vs_MiG-23MF_(1v2).msn.

 

There are many different lines. In fact I am using Le Missioneur 2006 so there are some lines which are not present in the stock mission but in the one I created myself. I removed everything which are not in the stock mission and put in things which are not in my mission but in he stock mission. It works!!

 

Next step I thought would be isolation, so I did. I tried everything, adding removed lines back in ONE BY ONE and each time ran the mission again. Guess I have been repeat running the mission like that with re-addition more than 12 times.

 

Finally guess what...it's the weather!!! :fuk: After almost 5 hours troubling shooting and asking your help. I still don't know which part which line of the weather section that must be present in a user-made mission to get the emitter work properly. But at least I know it is all about the missing weather. I must take some rest now and continue after some sleep.

 

Thanks anyway for your great help. You even tested it out for me, thanks beyond words!

Edited May 10, 2008 by Basher11

[Wrench 9,848]

Based on that picture, somebody don't know the difference between contrails and exhaust smoke. Contrails (or condensation trails) are created by the water in the exhaust, left over as part of the combustion process. Don't matter if it piston or turbine -- there's always water in the exhaust. At higher altitudes (and/or colder temps), the kinda 'freezes' out of the exhaust mixture. Just like your car on a cold morning (or a well working catalytic converter, but I digress).

 

Contrails are (for the most part) white, exhaust trails are dark brown or black, depending on fuel types.

 

The mission builders have a little button or window you can set contrail altitudes at...

 

Good Idea: leave the emitters in the data inis ALONE!!

 

Wrench

kevin stein

[tank03 1]

That pic looks like contrail rather than exhaust smoke. Using Le Missioneur you can set the contrail altitude in the environment settings.

Edited May 11, 2008 by tank03

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

I dunno. Basher's "contrail" in that pic is showing up rather low,about 11k feet. Maybe the contrails are set too low. They replace the exhaust smoke above the defined contrail level.

[Basher11 0]

Hi Lexx, Wench and everyone,

 

Thanks for your comments and generous help. I just wake up from bed! Too many testing hours on WoI.

 

The whole story goes like this: I am still doing some trial and error on the air-2-air missiles. I am almost there, currently I am refering to other flight sims like EF2000, F/A-18 and F-15 for some data reference. Soon I will report my finding on AIM-120C. While I was setting up aircrafts here and there specially when they got in close dog fighting I find my screen full of while trails now I know they are contrials.

 

The formation is due to my slack set up of missions. I don't bother to put additional information into the weather section via Le Missioneur 2006. Normally I just put CLEAR or BROKEN or OVERCAST when I want to see the enhanced 3D clouds.

 

I think if you leave Contrail Altitude out, the game automatically set up a value for you as to what is the value I wouldn't have an idea. But in the picture the contrials come out at 8,000 ft or above.

 

Anyway many thanks everyone for your help.

[+Gunrunner 314]

Basher>

Oh, you changed the picture, too bad I didn't see it earlier...

 

Wrench>

He actually WANTS to get rid of contrails and smoke emission for whatever reason, probably "immersion", like having thousands of missiles launching at extreme range, with all seeing sensors...

Or maybe just because in a sim he knows already, things aren't done that way; in which case I don't quite get the point of playing another sim if you are going to make it a replica of the game you left.

 

I don't get what he wants or why he would break a game to the point of it being utter nonsense, but I just don't care anymore, it's easier to help him in his "experiments" than trying to talk some sense into him.

[+Jug 99]

A picture might be needed for a definitive answer, but the answer's probably yes.

 

Jets from that era had smoky, or even very smoky engines, even today most engines aren't completely clean.

At high altitude you also have white condensation trails.

 

Actually, condensation trails are a function of the atmospheric conditons and are not always visible. Pardon a small correction.

[+Gunrunner 314]

No problem Jug, especially since I never said otherwise, my wording was just far too imprecise.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

 

 

 

Gunrunner::

He actually WANTS to get rid of contrails and smoke emission for whatever reason, probably "immersion", like having thousands of missiles launching at extreme range, with all seeing sensors...

Or maybe just because in a sim he knows already, things aren't done that way; in which case I don't quite get the point of playing another sim if you are going to make it a replica of the game you left.

 

I don't get what he wants or why he would break a game to the point of it being utter nonsense, but I just don't care anymore, it's easier to help him in his "experiments" than trying to talk some sense into him.

The best modders conduct XtremE limiting experiments and break their games to see what works and what fails.

 

Downloadabout one of my Specialty Moldings if you wish to see the result of game breaking experiments.

[+Gunrunner 314]

Lexx, there is a difference between pushing the limits of the engine to reproduce something making sense (even in strange contexts, such as introducing planes and weapons from Macross/Ace Combat...) and another to just touch everything seamingly at random and with goals not making much sense to my eyes...

 

I come from software, meaning I favor a methodic, controlled approach to tinkering, not just changing things at random and make conjectures at what happens even though you don't understand how it was working beforehand.

My philosophy is to first understand the system, and then only push its limits, not do it "accidentally"; blind tinkering is for me a desperate action.

 

And I'm very aware of your own experiments, some are very very interesting indeed, I like your cirrus particularly.

I have nothing against tinkering, I just see Basher's experiments as anarchic, uncontrolled, with little understanding of both how the stock game works (knowledge he acquires with his experiments, that's one way of doing it, just not mine) and how things work in reality (adding smoke trails to smokeless missiles, removing contrails...), but that doesn't mean it's wrong, his ideas are stupid or that tinkering in general is a problem, just that, at the present moment, I can't understand what he is after and why.

 

Basher, don't mind me, keep experimenting, we all have our own way to learn and work, that I, or anyone, disapprove of yours doesn't mean you should stop, on the contrary, we're all happy to benefit from what you may learn or discover we wouldn't have thought of with our own methods.