Rear Gunner Questions

**Hasse Wind** · October 19, 2011

Thanks.

Unfortunately it seems that there is a conflict between Arcmod and HPW UltimateDM 1.1. The mod manager gives a warning when I try to activate Arcmod.

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 19, 2011

If you don't mind doing a little work yourself, you can combine the two mods.

First, find the parts of Arcmod that are different from the standard OFF installation. These are probably in the .xdp files of the two-seaters. Use a program like Textpad (its free shareware) to compare the two files. Second, copy the lines in Arcmod that are different. Third, paste these lines into the corresponding section of the .xdp files in my DM mod (be sure to make a backup first). As an alternative, just take the values in Arcmod and replace the values in my mod for the observer with Arcmod's values.

Good luck and let me know if you have any questions or problems.

**33LIMA** · October 19, 2011

I didn't realise the DM had modified 2-seaters, as well as the scouts! Looking at the files, I see the dM supplies (presumably modified, otherwise there would be no point) .xdp and .bdp files for all the OFF 2-seaters, as well as the scouts. As Arcmod also works by providing edited versions of these 2-seater files, there's a clash.

I think the solution would be a DM with Arcmod folded in.

Unless I've got hold of the wrong end of the stick, the problem with just editing the .xdp files - which is indeed the source file for these settings - is that CFS3/OFF uses the .bdp files that it generates from the .xdp files, not the .xdp files themselves. Changes made to just an .xdp file will be ignored. That's why such mods - ArcMod, the DM, Bletchley's mods - supply both the .xdp files, and a CFS3-generated .bdp file. To get these new .bdp files, you have to copy your modified .xdp file into CFS3/OFF, then delete the old .bdp file, then run the programme (eg quick combat) so CFS3/OFF generates new .bdp files from your mod-ed .xdp ones. If I got that wrong please someone set me right, about half the time spent on these things is doing that rigmarole! I remember it was the same with various other files in CFS3, like the terrdata.zx file you had to zap and allow to be regenerated, when installing Winding Man's CFS3 scenery.

So I think the solution would be a new version of HPW's DM, with the ArcMod edits folded into it, and new .bdp files based on that. I would be very happy to do this work - time-consuming rather than difficult - but as it would in effect be a new version of the DM, and 90% HPW's work, releasing it would obviously require HPW's permission and it would have to be clearly labelled and described as such.

What do you think, HPW?

Edited October 19, 2011 by 33LIMA

**Hasse Wind** · October 19, 2011

You totally lost me with all those xdp's and bdp's, so I'll just say that a combined HPW DM mod and Arcmod sounds like a great idea. :drinks:

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 19, 2011

Ha, ha HW, as luck would have it, I am currently working on a small revision to my Ultimate DM to help improve the engine settings and (hopefully) deal with the perpetual flamers problem. If Lima would like to PM me his xdp files for the two seaters, I will gladly incorporate them into my DM, possibly creating two versions--one with Lima's changes and one without. Of course, I will give Lima equal billing in the altered DM. Deal?

**33LIMA** · October 19, 2011

Ha, ha HW, as luck would have it, I am currently working on a small revision to my Ultimate DM to help improve the engine settings and (hopefully) deal with the perpetual flamers problem. If Lima would like to PM me his xdp files for the two seaters, I will gladly incorporate them into my DM, possibly creating two versions--one with Lima's changes and one without. Of course, I will give Lima equal billing in the altered DM. Deal?

Yes it's a deal HPW, excellent, good timing there, as it turns out - but please don't give me EQUAL billing as ArcMod is much the smaller and simpler element - that's too kind, it'll be your mod with some bits from me in one version - fair's fair! If a second pair of hands would help with anything, let me know.

Put me out of my misery - was I right in thinking that the .bdp files had to be deleted and regenerated too? If not, I wasted a lot of time, doing that!

I will bundle the .xdp files and email you them ASAP. Cheers!

PS

Taking the DFW's .xdp file as an example, the lines involved are those for the rear gun (the second 'Gunstation' entry, with the gun Type=OFF_Parabellum_air_obs' in this case). The changed bits I have highlighted below in bold:

<?xml version="1.0"?>

</GunStations>

Edited October 19, 2011 by 33LIMA

**33LIMA** · October 19, 2011

Hi again HPW. There's no facility I can see to attach a file to a PM/email sent from here so I'm trying to attach the zip file with the AcrMod .xdp file set to this message - hope it works - I'll find out when I hit 'Add Reply' right after this!

Edited October 19, 2011 by 33LIMA

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 20, 2011

Put me out of my misery - was I right in thinking that the .bdp files had to be deleted and regenerated too? If not, I wasted a lot of time, doing that!

I've seemed to have noticed that when the sim detects an altered .xdp file it tends to automatically delete and regenerate the .bdp files-- but NOT always. Therefore, I think it generally is a good idea to delete the old .bdp files after you have changed the .xdp ones. Fortunately, one day when I was bored, I put together a batch file that automatically deletes the .bdp files for you with only a button push or two! If you want the batch file I can send it to you, after I rummage around to see where I put it. :grin:

I just downloaded your .rar file and will try to take a look at it tomorrow. It shouldn't be too complicated to integrate them into my xdp files.

Salute! :salute:

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 20, 2011

Or, you can look for a file I posted to the website called DM Utilities. It contains several batch files I created to make working with xdp and bdp files easier. It's a little old now, so be sure to check whether it works with the BHaH add-on by looking to see if it deletes bdp's for the new airplanes such as the Fokker EV and the Nieuport 28.

**Hasse Wind** · October 20, 2011

Looking forward to the new DM mod / ArcMod combination. :salute:

**33LIMA** · October 20, 2011

Or, you can look for a file I posted to the website called DM Utilities. It contains several batch files I created to make working with xdp and bdp files easier. It's a little old now, so be sure to check whether it works with the BHaH add-on by looking to see if it deletes bdp's for the new airplanes such as the Fokker EV and the Nieuport 28.

Cheers, HPW, I'll have a rummage.

The CFS3 ETO expansion pack (which has a 'wellenmuster' JU88A skin I did some years back) comes with a .bdp zapper program (batch file, DOS-style) which IIRC you have to use at some point during installation and that could probably be used (adapted if necessary) to do the same thing for OFF.

There's another thing that's possible here, which (depending on which file it uses, can't recall) could well be packaged with one or other of your mods, and that's a 'Lead in the A**' mod.

Many years ago I discovered from an authoritative source - might have been one of the Ground Crew or 1% Design Team chaps - that the reason that in air-to-air, the AI always seemed to be faster and more agile, was that they flew at unladen weight, less fuel and ammo. That same thing has been mentioned more than once here, too. If OFF it means your opponents (as well as your wingmen) might as well have an extra 20 HP (top-of-the-head estimate, but even 10HP extra would be too much). It sort of takes away from otherwise-accurate FMs, if the player is always flying the equivalent of a worn-out or badly maintained plane. I don't like kludges so I am not impressed by arguments that this compensates for AI limitations (lots of real WW1 pilots were not experienced or well trained, for one thing) or that it increases the challenge - I'd just play Crimson Skies if I wasn't that bothered about maximising realism, within sensible limits. And if some players have got used to the 'unladen' AI and like it that way, good for them; I haven't, and I don't. I just find it very frustrating, silly even.

And now we know from the OFF team that P4 is going to tackle this - which is great! But until then...

I hated this so much in CFS3 that I made a CFS3 AI Bf110 clone (from the GC Design version, I think) and added about 70% of its ammo and fuel weights into its unladen weight. Before that, it could literally run rings around my Hurricanes and Spitfires. Afterwards, when I selected the AI Bf110 with the 'lead in the a**', things were much more as they should have been: the 110 was quite sluggish by comparison. I never got around to completing the work, which would have needed AI-only versions of all the CFS3 stock and installed mod planes and the appropriate campaign & mission files edited to use these AI planes, leaving the 'normal' ones for the player.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. In this very thread, Polovski recently confirmed that OFF already has AI-only planes, the first and last in any set being the player-flown ones (not sure about the French Strutter 2-seater, which has 5 variants and a different naming convention for them, IIRC). Anyway, all that would be needed to produce a 'Lead in the A**' mod for OFF is to add some 'lead' to the unladen weights of the AI-only planes, to whatever files has the weights - can't recall but easily found out (the .cfg or .air files, if not the xdp/bdp ones. There might, but might not, be other file editing needed, but if so it's not gonna be impossible to find it and fix it.

It's coming in P4, so it's been deemed worth having by the OFF devs, too. And unless it's going to be an option, those who've got used to flying against unladen AI are gonna have to learn to love it - which since it's more realistic, we all should, IMHO. So - why wait? We can have it now. Ish.

What I'd suggest is I find out which file needs editing. This would tell us which of your mods it needs to go into - I'm guessing the FM mod rather than the DM one, but that might be wrong.

If all else fails I think I'm going to make a 'Lead in the A**' mod for my own use, maybe going for 50% of fuel and ammo load as a 'happy medium'. But how about we collaborate to incorporate one for general use, into whichever of your mods it fits? As with ArcMod, I could do the edits, you could do the incorporation into your 'parent' mod, for example. I think this would be a worthwhile improvement in the CFS3 dogfighting experience. having to throttle back a bit for your flight-mates to catch up is not only a small price to pay, it's realistic! The only real problem is that with their bad formation keeping they might take even longer to reform after turns, but again, you can slow down just a little to compensate.

What do you think?

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 21, 2011

If all else fails I think I'm going to make a 'Lead in the A**' mod for my own use, maybe going for 50% of fuel and ammo load as a 'happy medium'. But how about we collaborate to incorporate one for general use, into whichever of your mods it fits? As with ArcMod, I could do the edits, you could do the incorporation into your 'parent' mod, for example. I think this would be a worthwhile improvement in the CFS3 dogfighting experience. having to throttle back a bit for your flight-mates to catch up is not only a small price to pay, it's realistic! The only real problem is that with their bad formation keeping they might take even longer to reform after turns, but again, you can slow down just a little to compensate.

What do you think?

In theory, it sounds like a great idea, but I'm not sure it works in practice. :sad: You are correct the the issue is an FM issue, and involves the .cfg and possibly the .air files. You are also correct that the human pilot uses the QC and Sqd version of his particular aircraft, while the AI uses the AC1, AC2...SQ4 versions. So, in theory it should be possible to add some weight to the AI planes.

The main problem is that altering the weight is likely to have an influence on the flight dynamics of the AI flown aircraft. Currently, I am working on a revised FM for the Fokker EV. In the .cfg file for the EV, I noticed that the EV has extra settings for oil and ammunition weight. The EV is the only aircraft in OFF with these weights added to the FM, probably because the source was from an actual test flight of a captured D VIII which listed these weights. I felt it was a little unfair for the EV to be the only plane to be carrying this extra weight, so I took it out of the cfg file. Not surprisingly, the revised EV flew faster, had a better turn, and climbed better than the official version. The problem was that other parts of the flight model also changed. Without being able to actually get in the virtual cockpit and fly the ligter plane, I don't know if I would have been able to correct the new problems. Of course, we can't do that with the AI planes, so I'm afraid if I added any extra weight, it might cause some strange and possibly undesirable effects on the AI's ability to fly the plane. The best we can do is watch how the AI seems to adjust to flying the heavier aircraft and then guess as to what else in the FM may have to be adjusted.

In short, I don't think I have enough time right now to devote to such a big project. However, if you are interested in working on your own FM, I can give you some advice on how to avoid conflicts so you don't get the dreaded "this aircraft is not an OFF certified aircraft" and can't be used in QC battles or the main campaign warning. You might also be able to tempt me into working on at least one "test of concept" project to see just how difficult the whole thing might be to implement.

**33LIMA** · October 21, 2011

Understood and thanks for the pointers, HPW. I will press on and see how it goes, and will take up your kind offer of advice I'm sure! My only actual experience of doing this was with that Bf110, which worked as I'd hoped; affecting the dynamics of the AI FM is exactly what I want to do, just not so much that it creates problems. It's hopefully and in most or all cases, liable to be no more dramatic an effect, and possibly less so, than the difference between the DVII and the DVIIF or the different HP-rated SPAD VII and Albatros models, which I'm guessing would be mostly or entirely the same FM but with a bit more, or less, horse power. I suppose that problems are more likely with lower-powered planes like the EIII where extra weight might be the straw that breaks the AI camel's back.

After look at the .cfg files last night, I'm thinking that, while there are some refs to weight elsewhere in the file, the important section (taking the Abl DIII AC1) is this one:

[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]

reference_datum_position=0.000000,0.000000,0.000000

empty_weight_CG_position= 0.000, 0.000, 0.000

max_number_of_stations=1

empty_weight=1484.00000

empty_weight_roll_MOI=945.02000

empty_weight_pitch_MOI=1878.50000

empty_weight_yaw_MOI=1664.51000

empty_weight_coupled_MOI=0.00000

max_gross_weight=2002.0

station_load.0= 180, -3.603, 0.000, 0.000, //pilot

I believe the empty weight is the one I would need to increase, say to half-way to the max gross weight, which latter figure it seems is what the AI disregards. I had assumed the max gross weight by definition is either the plane's max take-off weight OR its weight with whatever its normal, full operational load might be. And therefore, either way, would include full service loads of 'petrol, oil and lubricants', crew and ammo...and possibly also bombs if they could be carried. Maybe the CFS3 SDK will confirm what's normally (supposed to be in) the sim's convention for 'max gross weight'.

So I'm not sure where those extra entries for the DVIII/EV fit in to that max gross weight figure (they seem to be for oil and pilot). While the empty weight in the .cfg file agrees with the three sources I have to hand, the max gross weight is well above what my sources quote as 'take-off' and 'loaded' weights for the EV/DVIII, which they give as either 1238 or 1334 lbs, not the 1503 in the .cfg file. The Albatros empty and gross weights both conform to some of my sources so it seems these weights in the .cfg file are normally the 'book' figures, not inflated for some purpose.

Anyway, I will need to check my sources, and any CFS3 definition of max gross weight, to decide how much to add, not so much for the German scouts, but for those planes whose given max weight might include bombs, if the max gross weight is indeed the maximum take-off weight for that type. Even if I'm only adding half the gap between empty and max, I don't want to add too much, just enough to allow for about half the fuel & ammo and the crew (and maybe a camera or an RT set for 2 seaters) - but definitely not allowing for bombs, except for planes which invariably carried them, on the way out anyway.

Edited October 21, 2011 by 33LIMA

**33LIMA** · October 21, 2011

HPW, would you have the time to have a quick look at the attached plan and let me know if you can spot any problems? I'd like to get this off to a good start! TIA!

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 22, 2011

I'll try to have a look at your "proof of concept" later tonight, Lima, in between watching my St. Louis Cardinals play in the World Series.

You are generally correct about the weight and balance section. In the EV, 97 extra lbs. were alloted to ammo and oil. That doesn't quite account for the difference between your sources and the max gross weight, but it does narrow the gap a bit. Incidentely, I haven't noticed any effect from changing the max gross weight in the cfg file, so I'm not sure it matters anyway. One thing that does matter, however, is the Center of Gravity and Center of Lift being affected by oil and ammo weight. If you look at the cfg file for the EV, you will see that the extra weight is placed a few feet in front of the pilot (I can't remember how much because i am not at my gaming computer). When I removed the weight, it had an effect on the plane's balance. So, if you want to add weight to the AI planes you will have to choose where to place it in the plane's fuselage. Adding the weight too far forward or rearward is likely to have a negative effect on the plane's FM.

**33LIMA** · October 22, 2011

Cheers HPW.

My 'cunning plan' is just to add the extra weight - I think 75% of the difference between empty and max gross, assuming the latter is not unrealistically high - to the empty weight in the .cfg file, rather than worrying about where to put it.

I've now done this for the Nieuport 17 AI planes and am testing, player Nieuport compared to AI N.17 wingmen, and 1-on-1 player DIII early vs AI N.17. Seems to make the AI lag a bit as wingmen and be a bit easier to stay with and/or run down as enemy, a subtle difference and too soon to say if it's wishful thinking rather than real!

At least the AI with the extra empty weight aren't doing anything silly so far. Early days.

Critical assumption is that adding the extra weight to empty weight has some effect, in the first place.

If that's correct, and I think it SEEMS to work after a bit more testing, I'll do all the planes - it's an easy edit - and release it as a complete beta mod, for people to try out, methinks.

Enjoy the game and the popcorn!

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 22, 2011

At least in the player controlled planes, weight definitely has an influence, most notably in cruising speed, turn, and climb.

Be sure to be careful about adding too much weight to the AI planes. One reason I think they do not suffer from weight like the player controlled planes is in order to compensate for the fact that they operate at approximately 70-80% throttle except when they want to climb or under combat conditions. When you wish to climb but they don't, they always seem to lag several hundred feet below you. But when they want to climb, they leave you in the dust! I think this is because CFS3 assumes their engines perform like WW2 engines--100% power reserved only for combat or emergency conditions.

Good luck with the mod and be sure to let me know if you have any questions. :salute:

**33LIMA** · October 22, 2011

Yes I've seen the AI flightmates lag below many times, while AI enemies in combat seem able to stay above you and 'keep their energy' better, even if you're in the more powerful plane; unless they decide to lose altitude.

I'll keep testing the AI N.17s with extra weight. I have increased their empty weight from 825lb to 1166lb, by adding 75% of the difference between the empty weight and the gross weight of 1280lb. I opted for 75% not just to help ensure the effect showed up. Most scouts seem to have about 400-500lbs of useful load, covering bacically pilot, ammo and fuel. If, as seems generally accepted, the AI ignores this weight, no wonder they behave like they have superior power-to-weight ratios - they do!!!

My figures (Profile Publications #49) for the N.17 give 143lb for fuel and oil; and 264lb for 'pilot and military load'. So allowing for some fuel consumption before joining combat, I think adding on just 75% of this is not an excessive figure by any means, and might go a bit higher. so far the effect of this extra weight on the AI appears - 'subtle' is a good word for it; I'm just hoping it's not 'nil'.

Will post the results, and hopefully a beta set of modded .cfg files for the complete planeset, if it looks workable.

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 23, 2011

I think all of the OFF planes already have weight budgeted for fuel, so be sure not to include extra fuel weight into your added poundage. With the exception of the EV, weight for ammo and oil weight are not included in any plane. No plane has a specific weight allotted for "military load," as far as I am aware.

**33LIMA** · October 23, 2011

Thanks HPW; however, cross-checking the OFF .cfg 'empty_weight' values against my sources, with a few notable exceptions where the value is just weird (eg Alb DII, DFW are both very low) this value is the historical plane's weight in pounds without fuel/oil, as well as less pilot and ammo/'military load'. And while the CFS3 SDK 'Aircraft Container' document says the .cfg file's GROSS weight isn't used by the sim (only by the FSEdit utility) it does say that 'empty_weight' is used, except where blank, in which case the .air file value is used instead. Putting this together, I've concluded i need to add weight for pilot, ammo and (at least some) fuel.

The AI-only Nieuport 17s were quite sprightly, even with 75% of the gap between empty and max weights added in; to the extent I've upped the figure to 80%, since pilot and ammo account for a high proportion of the total.

So basically, I'm replacing the .cfg file's empty_weight value with the plane's loaded weight (having checked this against my sources) LESS about 100 lbs (2-seaters will lose a bit more), to represent fuel consumed en route to the point action is joined - a somewhat arbitrary compromose to be sure, but better than all the fuel weight, on top of those of crew and ammo, being ignored completely. In general, this equates to roughly 40% of fuel load being taken out, leaving something around 60%. I've now done this for about a quarter of the OFF planes, and am going to test to see if there are any obvious problems. Early days yet; time will tell if this is a blind alley or a practicable approach.

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 23, 2011

Thanks HPW; however, cross-checking the OFF .cfg 'empty_weight' values against my sources, with a few notable exceptions where the value is just weird (eg Alb DII, DFW are both very low) this value is the historical plane's weight in pounds without fuel/oil, as well as less pilot and ammo/'military load'. And while the CFS3 SDK 'Aircraft Container' document says the .cfg file's GROSS weight isn't used by the sim (only by the FSEdit utility) it does say that 'empty_weight' is used, except where blank, in which case the .air file value is used instead. Putting this together, I've concluded i need to add weight for pilot, ammo and (at least some) fuel.

You are correct here, I think. Weights for aircraft in OFF include empty weight, ramp weight, loaded weight, and max gross weight. It appears that empty weight is the only variable used directly by the sim to determine flight performance. Weights for fuel and for the pilot are included elsewhere in the .cfg file and seem to go into ramp weight and loaded weight, but it is unclear if they have a direct effect on performance, although they do seem to indirectly effect speed, climb, dive, and turn to a certain extent. My main concern is what effect adding to the .cfg empty weight will have on the Center of Gravity and Center of Lift for the AI planes. Since we can't get in the AI cockpit, it will be difficult to determine if this might change a tail heavy plane into a nose heavy plane, or vice verso, for example.

**33LIMA** · October 23, 2011

Looking at the 'balance and Weights' section I THINK the empty weight is centred on the CoG, which is why I think it's relatively safe to add extra weight there, as opposed to trying to be clever and putting it exactly where it should be and then finding i've messed up the FMs.

There seem to be at least two other methods that have been used to add extra weight to AI only planes - (i) creating one or more dummy 'pylons', in the .xdp file I believe, and adding the weight to them and (ii) creating or editing 'stations' in the .cfg file and putting it there. Both of these seem to me likely to necessitate a revision of the FM, due to effect on the CoG and/or CoL. So they might be superior on paper to throwing the weight 'dead centre' - but perhaps only marginally so, and not worth having to re-work FMs for such advantage as there may, or may not, be.

Have just flown some QCs with single and multiple DV 200HP and Alb DII's against Nieuport 17s, all with the modded AI weights, and all seems well so far. I did see one shot-down Nieuport fall nearly straight down on his belly but i think I've seen some odd crashes like that in stock OFF, too. Also tried a DFW formation flight, with the weight added on top of the plane's correct empty weight, not the much lower OFF one, and the AI DFWs all took off, climbed out and turned just fine, despite having a higher proportion of extra weight due to the low stock figure. I did notice that my player DFW, which I did not modify, could keep its c.2000 metre take-off lead at full throttle, with the AI just able to avoid falling behind. Flying scouts at 80% fuel - that is, somewhat heavier than the AI flightmates - seems to enable them to catch up, but somewhat more slowly than before.

I still have not tested enough to be completely satisfied there is any effect at all, but so far my very strong impression is that my Albatrosses, including the DII, can now chase down and generally dominate Nieuport 17s to an extent they could not, before, which is the sort of effect I'm aiming for; hope I'm not imagining it! It all depends on the assumption that weight added to the .cfg files 'empty_weight' value is taken into account at all. I think I will try an extreme weight addition to one plane, just to confirm this.

Edited October 23, 2011 by 33LIMA

**DukeIronHand** · October 23, 2011

I have been following the discussion with interest.

I have not added anything to the posts as I have zero FM programming knowledge.

One area though where the extra weight may show a huge impact is the AI's ability to fly damaged aircraft.

I will assume they are affected somewhat by damage but perhaps not to the degree the human player is?

**Herr Prop-Wasche** · October 24, 2011

In testing my damage mods, I often set the AI against each other to observe the damage effects. Once the AI gets tagged, it tends to flop around a lot, but still manages to somehow fly for the most part. I sometimes wonder how they manage to fly so well against us after watching them fly around like drunken sailors against each other. :drinks:

**33LIMA** · October 24, 2011

Can you clear up one thing for me HPW? From the SDK it seems clear that changes to a plane's .cfg file DO affect its behaviour in game - there's a strong warning about how this could make the plane unflyable/unusable, for one thing.

The SDK 'Aircraft Containers' document doesn't say anything much about the .air file tho.

So let's say I add the weight to the .cfg file, and leave the .air file alone. What happens? When you next load that plane, does the .air file get updated automatically, from the .cfg file? Or does the sim just use the .cfg and ignore the .air, where different? Or must I manually update both .cfg and .air files? The latter may be the safest bet but I don't want to waste time if it's not strictly needed.

I upped the Hannover's weight thru the ceiling (to 6000 lbs, normal loaded weight about 2300 lbs!) in the SQ files to see what happened (it has no AC files, the ones I'm guessing are used for aces skins). BUT in both QC and campaign, it had NO particular effect. I was expecting the AI planes not to be able to get off the ground at that weight. This seems to indicate that EITHER

(i) the AI planes in the player's own flight use the SAME plane as the player (QC1 or Sqd); evidence for this is that, if not using a unique skin, your selected skin gets applied to ALL the player's flight; the naming convention strongly suggests that the usage of the OFF plane variants is 'skin-based', first and foremost' (this may also account for the skin loading issues encountered with your FM mod?); OR

(ii) adding weight to the .cfg file alone has no effect.

I'm inclined to conclude that it's (i) - that edits applied to the .cfg file DO get used in game (even if the .air is not edited in line), BUT that AI planes in your own flight use the same plane as the player, and so will ignore edits to the .cfg (or .air) files for other, AI-flown planes. Pol did say the player flew the QC1 and Sqd variants - that's not the same as saying the AI use ONLY the others and never those two.

This is strongly suggested by the fact my AI flightmates seemed only a little held back by extra weight ('confirmation bias' probably accounting for what I thought I saw) but in combat, the AI are reined in a bit. Could be more 'confirmation bias' at work there too, but I'll set up a QC fight against some Nieuports with some really excessive weight.

This would mean that my mod will not affect those AI planes that are in the player's flight, only in other flights including enemies. I could (a) give up (b) live with this (which is maybe ok, tho not ideal as it gives your flight mates an advanatge over other AI); or © try to fix it by somehow forcing flight mates to use the other planes, not the player's one (which may not be possible, if it's something 'buried' in Workshop or otherwise not readily configurable).

I think I will go for (b) - even if it gives your flightmates an advantage (by retaining their ability to fly at empty weight, while other AI have theirs cut back) this is mainly about improving things for you the player in combat against the AI. In levelling-out the playing field between you and the AI, if it also gives your flightmates a bit of a helping hand, that may be no big disadvantage. And you can put down to your effective mentoring of your own flight and your setting an example of skill, fearlessness and aggression in combat [ambles off into the sunset, humming 'Always look on the bright side of life, de-dum, de-dum de-dum de-dum'].

Edited October 24, 2011 by 33LIMA

Rear Gunner Questions

Recommended Posts

Hasse Wind 46

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hasse Wind 46

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hasse Wind 46

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Herr Prop-Wasche 7

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

33LIMA 972

Share this post