FMs for Nov 2008 version

[Southside Bucky 1]

The Hanriot:

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=5730

 

It's in the "WW1 Aircraft" section, right at the bottom of the "Add-On Aircraft" page. There's also a twin Vickers, and an Italian version too. It's a very nice model, with an excellent cockpit.

 

 

The Tripe FM's in this pack:

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...p;showfile=7234

 

BTW...I don't think you'll find the Pfalz Dr.I FM, I think I'm using part of the Fokker Dr.I DATA.ini for that one...I can't remember for sure.

 

Hope that helps.

[nestor 0]

Ups, that helps Southside Bucky 'cause I already presumed Alzheimer was a bit early, for me that is - ok maybe not exactly early, still in denial about my age .... lol

 

I think the Pfatz dr1 came stocked with the Tripe's FM from the A-team and while I can just about keep it airborne enemy A1 is each time shredding me & the whole squat I bring along to pieces .So maybe you gave it also the Pfatz dr1 FM from Peter?

[Bleddyn 0]

Thanks for the help Bucky. I was going to borrow some of the Fokker FM for the Pfalz Dr.I as well. One question though, do the animations on the Pfalz machine guns work properly for you? They don't move in the right direction on my end... was wondering if others may have fixed that.

[nestor 0]

That probably is 'cause it is the Fokker's fm so it will have to be reconfigured to work properly in the Phalz.Like the Tripe's, which I'm trying out has only one Vickers while the Phalz two Spandau. So using the Tripe's fm for the Phalz gives only one muzzle fire between his two machineguns while trying to stick the internal gun data from the original Phalz' fm into the one of the Tripe does not work at all , something else must still interfere ... some pointers here?

[Bleddyn 0]

I actually had the problem on the Pfalz Dr.I before I ever tried using anything from the Fokker FM in it. The problem is with the animations of the model itself. I just have no idea how to fix it.

[nestor 0]

Did you know the A-Team released 2 new WWI betas?the Bristol Scout in 4 varients .

 

I saw the tread with your posts about the Bristol Scout beta's on the A-teams FE forum but I do not find the beta's among SkunkWorks downloads - while registered on both I still am trying to find my way around over there & here also ...Sure would appreciate a pointer :yes:

Much appreciate your work on those fm's, Peter - they sure are complicated and it must be hell to get them to work properly!

[nestor 0]

I actually had the problem on the Pfalz Dr.I before I ever tried using anything from the Fokker FM in it. The problem is with the animations of the model itself.

 

 

Hi BleddynIf you get back to the original PfalzDr1_Data.ini, you should get muzzle fire from both guns in stead of out of nowhere somewhere in the middle when borrowing the Tripe's or Fokker Dr1 data.

Only the fm on that one is real hard.When I took Peter's fm for the Tripe and went trying it out I got in a mission with PfalzDr1 with their original fm and they got shredded as much by my A1 as by by me, that should tell something.However there is or was something off with the animation of the A-Teams PfaltzDr1: firing the Spandau's made the hammer kick inward instead of backward.There is a post about that on the A-team and they were about to correct & update, it should have been done by now.

[nestor 0]

OK I got those beta's with the Bristol scouts from Skunkworks:http://cplengineeringllc.com/SFP1/down the page. Sorry guys, I got the page with the regular stuff bookmarked without a side frame/menu and so it was impossible to get around on the site an to the beta's ... corrected it now.

[Bleddyn 0]

Hi BleddynIf you get back to the original PfalzDr1_Data.ini, you should get muzzle fire from both guns in stead of out of nowhere somewhere in the middle when borrowing the Tripe's or Fokker Dr1 data.

Only the fm on that one is real hard.When I took Peter's fm for the Tripe and went trying it out I got in a mission with PfalzDr1 with their original fm and they got shredded as much by my A1 as by by me, that should tell something.However there is or was something off with the animation of the A-Teams PfaltzDr1: firing the Spandau's made the hammer kick inward instead of backward.There is a post about that on the A-team and they were about to correct & update, it should have been done by now.

 

I have not actually had the issue with muzzle flashes, just the hammers not working properly. I didn't see anything at the A-Team forum about it so I posted a question but it has not been replied to. Some other posts in that forum make it seem as though capun has lost interest in WWI projects and will not be returning to them in the near future. I have just been living without the Pfalz because of it, far too distracting and I try to keep to models that look finished, buggy animations are unfinished.

[Mike Dora 171]

Peter

 

I have a question about all the extensively-modded FMs you have been developing for the FE community. I haven't tried installing these yet, but do they do away with the sometimes jerky, almost cartoonish changes of attitude of the AI-flown ac? Using the Nov 08 patch, I do find it a bit odd to see eg an Alb DV "instantaneously" changing bank and direction, so that from being in a nice comfy tail-chase situation, suddenly I'm seeing the target ac heading off at 45º (or more) to its previous line-of-flight (with its wings still attached!)

 

Thanks

 

Mike

[+peter01 2]

Peter

 

I have a question about all the extensively-modded FMs you have been developing for the FE community. I haven't tried installing these yet, but do they do away with the sometimes jerky, almost cartoonish changes of attitude of the AI-flown ac? Using the Nov 08 patch, I do find it a bit odd to see eg an Alb DV "instantaneously" changing bank and direction, so that from being in a nice comfy tail-chase situation, suddenly I'm seeing the target ac heading off at 45º (or more) to its previous line-of-flight (with its wings still attached!)

 

Thanks

 

Mike

 

Hi Mike, I think mine are generally the same, but maybe more variation then TKs. Some of mine would be more like that, some less like that.

 

Just some more general comments :)

 

Although I agree with what you are saying (see below), my thoughts are that in real life these planes would have been thrown around quite a bit in dogfights, at least by 1917, and strong rudder would have been a part of evey manoeuvre. Despite some feeling that these planes fought in a sedate leisurely slow manner, I don't believe it. These planes were probably easily the most manoeuvrable planes flown in any war. And most were robust.

 

Its very unlikely these planes would lose wings etc from sudden extreme manoeuvres, or even say very extreme violent spins going for several thousand feet (tho engine recovery may have been difficult) - these don't cause the extreme stresses (high g's) on planes like for example pulling out from a high speed dive sharply. Sure some planes that first went into action had problems - as in every war - but many got sorted relatively quickly (except Nieups).

 

I'd guess a typical WW1 tactic would be to dive out of trouble, as in all wars. In real life I think what would happen is firstly the attacked plane would often dive then exit and survive to fight another day. The attacker probably would be wary of following a plane into a steep dive esp to low altitude - losing his wing mates, losing altitude advantage etc, being followed down by another EA (common). None of these actually are the case in the game, eg, a plane that dives comes back up to fight again, you can always find wing mates, dogfighting altitudes are too low in the game generally compared to what was happening in late 1917, 1918.

 

So its all a bit of a compromise, and if they didn't do extreme defensive manoeuvres in the game they are too easy to shoot down. Lots of compromises in this game, lots of compromises in every game.

Edited February 15, 2009 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

For everyone's perusal. Advanced Flying by 1918 standards.

 

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft...l#content_start

 

 

I don't think you could yank these planes around any old way without breaking them. Some of the warnings seem to suggest that also.

[+peter01 2]

Good article, had a quick look. You mean this?

 

 

LOOP THE LOOP

Looping the loop is a comparatively simple and effective air evolution. A height greater than 3,000 feet should be selected and the descent begun at a more gradual angle than employed in the nose dive. When, with the aid of the motor, a speed of 75 miles per hour, or better, has been attained, a firm backward pull on the control stick causes the airplane to rise and turn over. The backward pull should begin at point 1, Figure 100, and the stick be all the way back at point 2. When the airplane is upside down and the ground visible below, the motor may be cut off (point 3, Figure 100), in which case the airplane will describe the smaller loop along course A. The stick is held back steady until point 4 is reached, when it is steadily moved forward to center, the motor being switched on at point 5. The loop can be made with the engine on, but the recovery will not be as quick, the airplane following the course B.

 

 

Special cautions—Control movements in looping should be steady and firm; jerkiness may produce dangerous stresses and lead to possible collapse.

The aviator's safety belt should be securely adjusted and seat cushions removed.

Looping is best done against the wind.

 

 

Any high-G manoeuvre produces stresses that can cause failure - presume this is what they mean, getting speed up in a dive to do loop. raising the nose in those situations can be dangerous, ww1, ww2, modern lights etc. Looping the loop would probably require some speed initially in many planes.

 

But planes like the Tripe could do endless loops and it didn't need to get speed up - compare to ww2 planes, two consecutive loops were considered "amazing" eg Ki-43 could do 2 consecutive loops, and impressed allied airmen. Probably doing several loops was the case with many ww1 planes, even early ones - I have seen videos of this.

 

Voss turned around his triplane in 180 degrees flat turns in his last flight. the dr1 was not noted as particularly robust.

 

There is a lot of information on stress and manoeuvres - its a fact that mainly high speed dives and pull up cause higher stresses. for example say pulling 1g is normal stress, pulling 5g may cause problems in std planes and ww1 planes, violent spinning causes only stresses of 2-3g (I think from memory). Surely this is more violent then yanking the stick around in a dogfight, no?

Edited February 15, 2009 by peter01

[Heck 496]

Good article, had a quick look. You mean this?

 

 

Probably doing several loops was the case with many ww1 planes, even early ones - I have seen videos of this.

 

What video did you see this in? I would be interested in watching it. Thanks.

[Heck 496]

For everyone's perusal. Advanced Flying by 1918 standards.

 

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft...l#content_start

 

 

I don't think you could yank these planes around any old way without breaking them. Some of the warnings seem to suggest that also.

 

Great stuff, Tailspin. Reading it caused me to pull out the old copy of "Practical Flying" (1918) that I have and start reading it again. You get a true impression of what was real and important to them at the time from reading it, especially those who were teaching others to fly. I had forgotten that I had it. Thanks.

 

Oh! Reading PF again reminded me of a 1918 instructional poster that the fledgling RAF printed to warn pilots about breaking their airplanes from too aggressive a pull out from a loop. Not entry into the loop, pull out from the loop. And you'll never guess what airplane the RAF chose to show as an example of an over aggressive pilot breaking the horizontal stabilizer off (this is what usually broke in these circumstances, not the wings) in this poster. An SE5A!

Edited February 15, 2009 by Heck

[+peter01 2]

What video did you see this in? I would be interested in watching it. Thanks.

 

Seen it in 3 videos, but my interest in ww1 goes back many years, don't have links to them.

 

First was of an airshow exhibition in the early 20s in the US. Not sure what plane, even if it was a ww1 plane, but it must have been similar. Did 3 loops, and close to the ground.

 

Another from 1917 or 1918, american plane probably a Nieuport, did 2 loops plus quite a few other things. I saw this one quite some time ago, maybe 6-7 years ago, and memory of this is fuzzy as was the video.

 

Third is Pegoud after parachuting from the plane (a first, 1913?), the plane continued to do loop after loop on its own. Its what gave Pegoud the idea to do a loop for the first time (maybe, disputed I think). A very early plane as in VERY EARLY. Its in a video called "4 Years of Thunder", well worth getting. Many excellent videos, also shows many other very neat and impressive manoeuvres, one I recollect is a N11 - fantastically manoeuvrable, almost unbelievably so.

 

Of course Cecil Lewis wrote of the Tripe, and its ability to loop continously without using the throttle thru the loops at all - my reading was that looping was not unusal, just that the Tripe could do it almost indefinitely!

[+Tailspin 3]

Application of the principles of aerobatics explained in this chapter should be preceded in flight by some hours' practice in climbing turns and stalling turns at altitudes of 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Getting close upon other airplanes without being seen is also valuable maneuvering practice. Not every pilot is successful in learning aerobatics; comparatively few, in fact, are designated by the instructors to master these air evolutions; but the heady man who is physically fit takes to this form of flying readily and is fairly certain to come out with a whole skin if these two primary rules are rigidly observed:

 

1. Always leave a wide altitude margin between the airplane and the ground.

2. Do not effect too sudden changes of direction; straighten out gradually after diving.

 

True. Its the speed at which maneuvers are initiated. This is why care while diving is emphasized. The faster you are going the higher the potential G load. The manual says to initiate the loop at speeds above 75 mph. As Peter points out looping can be a relatively benign maneuver...unless, as the manual warns, the pilot is careless and with the controls. Don't forget also the Tripe was an exception in that it had an adjustable horizontal tail plane that enhanced vertical maneuvers.

 

Were these planes maneuverable? Yes. Indestructible during maneuvers? Still don't think so. Terms like robust are relative to the times. The Dauntless dive bomber of WWII was reportedly capable of pulling 12 Gs without failure. :)

[Heck 496]

Were these planes maneuverable? Yes. Indestructible during maneuvers? Still don't think so. Terms like robust are relative to the times. The Dauntless dive bomber of WWII was reportedly capable of pulling 12 Gs without failure. :)

 

It isn't a question of thinking so, Tailspin. You're correct. And the reason lies in the elevator control circuit of these aircraft. A Cessna 150 Aerobatic of the 1970s, flying at similar speeds to any WW1 aircraft, had control throws of less than half the possible control movement of WW1 aircraft in its elevator circuit. Why? So the pilot would have a hard time killing himself during manuvers by misuse of the controls. If you stall your airplane at 3x its unaccelerated stall speed, you place 9gs on the airframe. And few, if any, WW1 aircraft could withstand this amount of G load. The Camel, an aircraft known as relatively robust, static tested at almost 8gs. This was of course a new airframe, not one that had seen any kind of service use. So a Camel pilot, with more than twice the control throw of any modern aerobatic aircraft, had enough control movement in his elevators to stall his aircraft at pretty much any airspeed at which his bus was capable of flying, but if he stalled his aircraft at 105 mph in a loop, or a turn, he would impose one more g than his aircraft was capable of withstanding, with fatal results. I believe the reason that the RAF chose to depict the SE5A in their "don't pull out of a loop too sharply or you'll break it poster" was purposeful. The RAF wanted to hammer home to the scantily trained pilots constantly entering the service the message that a pilot could break even the strongest aircraft that he might be given to fly through the misuse of his controls. The people creating these training books and posters were experienced airman, and they knew that the materials they were creating could mean the difference between life and death, in an era where parachutes were not issued by the RAF, on the grounds that "a pilot might abandon an otherwise serviceable aircraft," so they knew that everything they said had to make the point, and make it as clear as possible.

[+Tailspin 3]

Also, I think its worthy to note that many of the described maneuvers in the manual are preformed "power off". What's the reason for that? Perhaps to avoid building up too much speed? One can easily see the difference in G load and speed in the sim by calling up the debug screen and watching the "G-meter" as you maneuver at various speeds. I haven't tried it with the new patch but previously you could pull 4-5 Gs at higher speed during "normal" combat maneuvers. I set up A/C components to break at around 4 or 5 Gs and it effectively put a limit on such maneuvering. Added more "realism" IMHO. Again IMHO, the AI is approaching the "Uber" stage in some cases. I'd just as soon they had to keep within (as nearly as practical) the same flight envelope as the player did. But, being an enthusiast and still enjoying the game as it is, I'll take what I can get. If TK would quit screwing around (don't mean that in a derogatory sense) with the FMs then we could work on fine tuning. I'm sure Peter would agree on that part regardless of any philosophical differences. :yes:

[Mike Dora 171]

Hi Mike, I think mine are generally the same, but maybe more variation then TKs. Some of mine would be more like that, some less like that.

 

Just some more general comments :)

 

Although I agree with what you are saying (see below), my thoughts are that in real life these planes would have been thrown around quite a bit in dogfights, at least by 1917, and strong rudder would have been a part of evey manoeuvre. Despite some feeling that these planes fought in a sedate leisurely slow manner, I don't believe it. These planes were probably easily the most manoeuvrable planes flown in any war. And most were robust.

 

Its very unlikely these planes would lose wings etc from sudden extreme manoeuvres, or even say very extreme violent spins going for several thousand feet (tho engine recovery may have been difficult) - these don't cause the extreme stresses (high g's) on planes like for example pulling out from a high speed dive sharply. Sure some planes that first went into action had problems - as in every war - but many got sorted relatively quickly (except Nieups).

 

I'd guess a typical WW1 tactic would be to dive out of trouble, as in all wars. In real life I think what would happen is firstly the attacked plane would often dive then exit and survive to fight another day. The attacker probably would be wary of following a plane into a steep dive esp to low altitude - losing his wing mates, losing altitude advantage etc, being followed down by another EA (common). None of these actually are the case in the game, eg, a plane that dives comes back up to fight again, you can always find wing mates, dogfighting altitudes are too low in the game generally compared to what was happening in late 1917, 1918.

 

So its all a bit of a compromise, and if they didn't do extreme defensive manoeuvres in the game they are too easy to shoot down. Lots of compromises in this game, lots of compromises in every game.

 

 

Fair points Peter

 

In fact, after playing 1918 quite intensively lately, I notice that the first reaction of a targetted fighter to bullet strikes (or near misses?) is often to sideslip wildly - which is exactly what V M Yeates' alter ego Tom Cundall recommends in "Winged Victory". Indeed one of the reasons he praises the Camel as a fighting scout is that it "rarely flew in the direction it was pointing", so that an enemy would aim with the wrong deflection.

 

So I'll settle for what we have, augmented occasionally by the excellent work of people like you.

 

Thanks

 

Mike

 

Mike

[+peter01 2]

"If you stall your airplane at 3x its unaccelerated stall speed, you place 9gs on the airframe"

 

Well generally that sounds right. But it's really the other way around.

 

If you apply 9 g at a speed of 3 x unaccelerated stall speed, you will stall.

 

The camel's controls were optimised for maneovring at around 70 mph - responsiveness decreased dramatically at higher speeds. IMHO it would actually be impossible to pull 9g on a camel at 150 mph.

 

now that doesn't mean I don't think you could "break" a camel. I just think that apart from high speeds (and then at that time applying excessive control input namely pulling up), you were pretty safe....LOL, safe in a ww1 plane is probably an oxymoron, but YNWIM.

 

planes "breaking" is true of all - even modern aerobatic planes. it doesn't mean people don't throw them around...they just know when its safe, when its not....the article tailspin linked is just stating that they knew that in 1918 IMO, that planes had speeds now known as "design maneuvering speed".

Edited February 16, 2009 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

I think we can all agree that there were indeed limits on maneuvering due to airframe stress and design limits. We know how that can be applied in the game. The question and debate is what are those limits. Each aircraft was different...sometimes vastly different....and that affected how they were used and their effectiveness in combat.

 

Stalls and spins are another matter that needs more attention, especially departure from controlled flight. What I mean is most of these models in the game don't depart like they should. A stall at any attitude but wings level should result in an immediate spin. Most all these A/C seem to have been easily recoverable with the exception of the SPAD XIII and the Camel which were know for vicious stall characteristics. The Fok. DVII on the other hand reportedly had very gentle stall characteristics and was difficult for even novice pilots get a departure.

 

IMHO incorporating these features to the sim would add a more WWI "feel" to the flying.

 

These are just my ideas. Everything is open to debate, of course. I'm hoping that, as a group, we can reach some sort of consensus. Peter doesn't need to do ALL the work either. I'm pretty sure I can do the stress model testing as far as player A/C go. We just need to come up with a starting point and fine tune it from there. The AI is a different story. Maybe they are "smart" enough to not go too fast.

[+peter01 2]

I agree, stress adding damage is an enhancement, at least for some players. Just a lot of work to do for many planes. But you can easily mod it yourself for various planes.

 

"The AI is a different story. Maybe they are "smart" enough to not go too fast. "

 

LOL. No. I think you need to tell 'em not to lose bits 'n pieces.

 

Can't say this is completely correct, just my conclusions from testing.

 

You tell 'em in the [FlightControl] section, MaxG=.

 

From my testing, MaxG here does two things: tells the AI the max Gs to fly within for the aircraft as a whole, and determines when you hear the stress/straining sounds flying that particular plane. MaxG in the [FlightControl] section will not actually "break" anything...its just there for those two reasons.

 

MaxG added in the wings and other bits will "break" those parts. But g loads are higher I think on wing-tips etc depending on the maneouvre, so to control it best for AI may be to put MaxG on inner components of wings....then it relates to MaxG in [FlightControl], ie its more controllable to design. It can take a lotta testing otherwise .... and any changes to ai parameters or by TK in how AI parameters work in the future, ouch, it all needs to be retested! And Ace skill level AI will tend to break bits much more then Regs etc because they do tighter maneouvres and hence pull higher gs, but still, certainly could be interesting.

 

The stress sound (based on [FlightControl] section, MaxG) is useful as it provides some warning to the player. Also note that the AI do not always successfully stay within MaxG in [FlightControl] - its a guide (I think it works somewhat in conjuction with MachLimit=). So best for noise sounds and for AI, that the value in [FlightControl] is 0.4 - 0.8 below break points (maxG=whatever) you add in wings etc. Result: AI tends to be ok (I think that should be the aim, but thats up to you), you as player get some warning (again up to you).

 

See the latest N11 I did (or N16/17). I only add one maxG to wings - the inner lower wing, left or right.

Edited February 17, 2009 by peter01

[+Tailspin 3]

I reached much the same conclusions regarding the player plane in my testing. You can tie in the stress sound to the MaxG and breaking points of the components. Once you hear the loudest stress sound, if you continue to add Gs you will cause a failure. How quickly that happens depends on fine tuning MaxG for the components. Failure doesn't occur at precisely MaxG. You have to sustain Gs somewhat higher than that. As airspeed directly relates to G forces you can determine a "speed limit" of sorts for extreme maneuvers. Worked pretty well, I thought. The problem is determining the "danger zone" for airspeed. Should it be 150mph? Higher? Lower? I have no idea what would be "realistic" and work with the AI also. Thanks for the AI info. Now all we need are some ideas as to what would be desirable to the community in regards to this.

[Nixou 25]

I think that considering WW1 planes able to withstand any High G maneuvers, or being very solid, is a little exagerated.

 

Nearly all starting aircraft of WW1 had structural problems. ALL sesquiplanes had. Nieuport 11 upper wing did break often. Nieuport 17 under wing was so fragile that diving was adviced to avoid.

 

Fokker triplane, is among those planes that wing failures were catastrophic. Several german pilots died by its fault. Lothar von richtofen's big injuries in that famous accident, that stopped him from scoring kills during very much time, was due to fokker triplane wing failure.

 

Fokker tripe was even forbidden to fly at a moment of the war, until all planes wings had been reinforced. But even after wing failures did continue.

 

There, from wikipedia, was the reason argued:

 

"Postwar research revealed that poor workmanship was not the only cause of the triplane's structural failures. In 1929, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) investigations found that the upper wing carried a higher lift coefficient than the lower wing — at high speeds it could be 2.55 times as much"

 

And that's logic, at that time mechanical enginering on forces and structure resistance/resilience/elasticity were not that developed compared to today, well, i even think no studies were made at all. When engineers needed to make a new aircraft, they builded a motor in a fuselage, of which they attached wings and tried to keep it as solid as possible, then tested it. The most fragile parts were reinforced, at posteriori, but basic theorical structural forces withstanded by planes were not known/done, IMO. As a fact, very much aircraft testers were killed/ highly injured in that era.

 

 

In that RED BARON 3D game, when you were pulling the stick too much at too much speed, you began to hear the wood of the structure "crackle", which meant that more forces/acrobatic maneuvers would result in the break of a part. I think this was very realistic imo, i think it's exaclty what would happen in reality, to any wood constructed plane. (read: any plane less the fokker DVII)

Edited February 18, 2009 by nixarass