To anyone flying Baltika's BOB campaign

[Heck 496]

I just downloaded Capun and the A-Team's Spanish Civil War campaign and noticed something looking through the Me109E-1's data.ini. The 109e-3 and 3b in the BOB campaign are about 1000 kilos overweight in their empty weight. Looking into various online and offline sources, I confirmed that the true empty weight of all these early 109's should be about 1900 kilos, not 2919. It makes a world of difference to the handling of these aircraft, and you'll discover why many 109 pilots felt no Spit or Hurri outturned them during the Battle of Britain. I know the E-3 was heavier than the E-1 because of the cannons and ammo, but it wasn't 1000 kilos heavier. If you can get hold of this download, you might also want to add the E-1 to your list of aircraft, because a number of sources I've seen state that a number of E-1's were still flying during the Battle of Britain. And if you use p10ppy's little data.ini trick he presented in this thread, http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showtopic=31385 , you'll be able to eliminate the wing cannons from the model to make it look like an E-1.

 

Thanks for the Campaign, Baltika. It's a great one.

 

Heck

 

Opps. Forgot to mention. Reduce your power to SLPowerDry=876197.4, or she'll climb like a jet.

Edited September 6, 2008 by Heck

[+Baltika 84]

Hi heck,

 

Glad you're enjoying the campaign, thanks for the heads-up re the 109E-3. Somewhere in the distant past B Bandy RFC & I had a discussion about the variants of the 109 which flew in BoB, their armament and their engines, etc. I stuck my head under the hood of the FM and poked around a little, and certainly the points you raise are all valid. Bandy also produced an E-1 FM developed from Russo's E-3 _data.ini, but I don't think that made it into BoB v0.60. The Emil variants included in the BoB campaign pack were built by Russo, and he does mention that he took a "generic" approach to things like armament, rather than go down the path of multiple versions for every little difference. It looks to my untrained eye a lot like the base FM for the Emil has similarities with WOLF257's Gustav (things like unloaded weight seem pretty close to the mark for that model) so it may be the Emil in the BoB pack is overweight, but also overpowered, and certainly overgunned so far as the nose-cannon is concerned.

 

I got as far as modifying an alpha FM from the base Emil with the proper engines, thrust values, dry weights etc etc but as ever, RL and other stuff got in the way so it wasn't taken further. Also, that stuff is complicated I recently was given a present of the Bf-109 recognition manual with blueprints, specs, data and all sorts of useful hard info on all the variants, and hopefully will get around to incorporating some of that into a new set of FMs covering the variants which appeared in BoB.

 

Something else for the changelog for BoB v0.61 - just don't hold your breath

[Heck 496]

Having great fun with the campaign, Baltika, so I'm in no hurry for the update, because I can only imagine how difficult it is to get everything to work correctly. I've brewed up a new E-3 data.ini using Russo's new E-1 as a base, because further scrutiny of the two side-by-side revealed that the only areas of the ini that change are the [Flight Control] section, the [Aircraft Data] section, the engine power, and the armament. I haven't done an exacting line-by-line comparison of all the values, but a skim inspection seems to indicate that these are the only sections that changed. I'm having a blast flying the Emil now, and I know the acute frustration of the Luftwaffe pilot who said, "There seems to be no way to nail the bastards, they can make such infernally tight turns." I can come close to matching their turns, but can't quite pull enough lead to get the sights on them. I'm going to putz around with adding mach lock to my aircraft, so their controls freeze at high speeds, which was a distinct problem for all three of these early war fighters. I wish there was a template for the Emil, because I'd like to see more BOB skins for this aircraft. I'd even try to do some myself, although my skin painting talents are non-existant. Still, it would be something new for me, although I'm sure the results will be frightening.

[Wrench 9,767]

Templates aren't that hard to make...it's just time consuming.

 

Basically, and this is what I've been dooing on a LOT of the skins I've recently done, you create layers for the panel lines, rivets, stains, wear, chipping fading and all the rest right off the existing skin bmp, converting it to a layered psd file. You follow the existing lines as best as you can, extrapolating when necessary. That's how I did AD's Zeke, Geo's Hellcat, the Tony, Scorpion, B-17, Avenger, and a soon to be released Wildcat.

 

Of course, having really good sources for profiles, interior detials, etc, is a MUST (thank the Maker for the Aero Detail and Detail & Scale books!!!!)

 

Wrench

kevin stein

 

ps: I'll put the Emil on my to-do list. Unless, of course, Russo still has the layered template somewhere. Maybe we should ask him?

[Heck 496]

Templates aren't that hard to make...it's just time consuming.

 

Basically, and this is what I've been dooing on a LOT of the skins I've recently done, you create layers for the panel lines, rivets, stains, wear, chipping fading and all the rest right off the existing skin bmp, converting it to a layered psd file. You follow the existing lines as best as you can, extrapolating when necessary. That's how I did AD's Zeke, Geo's Hellcat, the Tony, Scorpion, B-17, Avenger, and a soon to be released Wildcat.

 

Of course, having really good sources for profiles, interior detials, etc, is a MUST (thank the Maker for the Aero Detail and Detail & Scale books!!!!)

 

Wrench

kevin stein

 

ps: I'll put the Emil on my to-do list. Unless, of course, Russo still has the layered template somewhere. Maybe we should ask him?

 

You know, Wrench, I just might give all this a try. It'll take some time for me, so prepare... to be horrified.... I'll pm Russo...

 

Heck

[Bandy 3]

Hope this is still on topic for you guys, and I'm glad somebody brought this up again.

I lifted the following text right out of an old email conversation I had re: BoB and the Bf109 data.ini

We managed to get much of the details resolved (proper armament if not the viewable mesh,

engine HP) but the rest of the 109 min/max extent values I think need correction (see last paragraph below)

Any thoughts?

 

>>>

RE: Bf109

I have done an initial look at the Bf109 E-3/E-4 DATA INI and

found some perplexing code. In brief:

 

1) the code for the [Nosecannon] is active (I checked in game) and that

armament configuration is not supposed to be in place until the 109 F or G

model. This entry can just be // to inactivate... Also it looks like the

"SLPowerDry=1492000.0" value in the E-3 data.ini is lifted right out of the

Bf-109 G-10 data.ini file, and as the Gustav had a significantly more powerful

engine, and that doesn't seem right for an E-3 or E-4.

 

2) both the [Fuselage] and [Tail] have no Max... or MinExtentPositions, or

CollisionPointValues and what this means is unknown to me...

It could be that the FM was coded differently, with these areas covered

elsewhere in the flight model (such as fuselage), and in fact areas like the

wings have up to 8 collision points, where the Spitfire has only 3 for the wings.

But no Max Min extent values...???

 

3) There is no [Rudder] code, though listed as a SystemName 001 in the

[Tail] (or was it [Fuselage]? I don't have a copy of the INI here at work).

 

4) There is a [MidFuselage] Component, or System listed in the Fuselage, but

code for it does not appear anywhere else. The [Tail] lists MidFuselage as

its Parent Component...

 

There are some other hierarchical entries that don't make sense to me as

well, but hey, I've never made a flight model, so there are likely other

ways to skin-the-cat... That said, other FM's are not made hierarchically

like this... Bottom line, the Bf109 currently flys and is playable, so....

 

Also, I've noticed several times when up close on the tail of a 109, that my

tracers are making "hits" with chunks coming off the A/C where there is no airplane

parts in view to hit. I think this might be a Min & Max extentposition miscoding as

mentioned above.

Edited September 11, 2008 by B Bandy RFC

[Heck 496]

Bandy, for an interesting comparison, download the E-1 from Capun's Spain campaign if you can get it. I think the tail was removed to "mimic" the lack of rudder trim on this aircraft, but, and this is my personal taste, others may disagree, I think it overmodels it. So, I just copied in the aerodynamic data from Wolf's 109f for that tail and it works fine. Just don't alter the min max extents. Now my 109e swings on take off, but not excessively, and her tight gear does make her kind of wobbly, which I think it was. I'm much happier with the altered version that I fly now, and by using p10ppy's trick for removing parts I've made her into a passable E-1 (still has bulges under the wings though), which was still common in the summer of 40. I love flying prop planes in WOI. I love the departures, spins, etc., and I've even had the prop slowly stop when I ran out of fuel hassling with a mass of Hurricanes, leaving me a guest of the RAF. Definately alter her weight, tail, and engine power, and you'll see a different airplane; a light, nimble aircraft that will come close to turning with those infernal big wing RAF jobs, but miss by just a bit, which is frustrating. Just what many a 109 pilot felt during that summer. This may be just my imagination, but in her original form, she behaves like a big, heavy airplane with a huge engine pulling all that weight, much like a P-47, when the 109e was a light airplane with ample power, but a relatively small wing and high wing loading, which somewhat compromised her sustained turning ability. To me, the "altered state" just feels right...

 

Heck

[Bandy 3]

Thanks for the reply Heck, and sorry, I'm only back to the forums very sporadically...

Change of topic slightly, but still very much BoB related.

 

A few months ago, I was inspired by a member's post (may have been Baltika--thanks) discussing the addition of hit boxes for bomber pilots in BoB, and how it affected interceptor tactics such as the head-on attack. It really does make a difference.

 

I was re-reading Peter Townsend's BoB book looking for a piece of info, when I was struck by his personal accounts of how the Luftwaffe aircrews suffered horrible casualties under the intense concentrated fire of the 8 x .303's (with suitable convergence of course ). Memories of that scene from the BoB movie also come to mind with the bullets flying through the He111 canopy and striking the bombadier/nose gunner. These aircrews also had little to no armour that early in the war. On inspecting the data.ini's of the bombers, I saw that gunners also do not have hit boxes! Made me think.

 

Putting one and one together, I inserted some hitbox values for each of the aircrew positions (using suitable X-Y-Z ranges lifted from the hitbox values of one of TK's gunners from FE...), and then positioned them at the co-ordinates of their respective guns (according to the muzzle position values in the data.ini). However, I was not sure how far back from the muzzle to put them (and whether it would make a difference anyway), so I simply left the hitboxes right on top of their gun, so not entirely accurate, but perhaps close enough for Sim-light. Opinions most welcomed...

 

I think this will work, though to tell you the truth, with all the tracer flying around those formations and the required BoBing and weaving, it's hard to tell if the gunners are being put out of action. IF it does work, this means that fuselage hits will likely have MEANING, something that always bothered me before...

 

ANYWAYS, I modded all the Luft. bombers and their gunners in this way, and would like to know if anyone would be interested in having a try.

Edited October 3, 2008 by B Bandy RFC