Rear Gunner Questions

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

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.

To be honest, I'm not completely sure. I try to make both the .cfg and .air file the same, just to be on the safe side.

 

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 think this is correct. I believe QC is for QC battles only and are not used in campaign, while the Sqd files are used in the campaign by both you and your squadmates, with the AC files left for AI enemies and friends not in your squadron. I think you can check this by looking at the OFF.log file which is generated after each campaing mission. I can't remember exactly where it is located, but it shows what other squadrons, both friendly and enemy, that are in the sky at that time, along with their aircraft assignments: AC or Sqd, etc.

 

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'].

That indeed is a dilemma. Wish I could help out or give you some other suggestions. Perhaps if you send a PM to Polovoski or an email to OBD support, they may be able to give you a little more help or information.

[+Polovski 414]

Or just hang on for P4 :)

 

hint if you look in the mission file generated you can see which craft are used for you or your squad etc.

You would need to delete any .bdp file after any FM changes btw.

 

FM uses both .cfg and .air files but .air is main one and CFS3 may override or even add other settings into .cfg from the .air file.

Some settings are used from the .cfg file always (such as contacts). Good eh? ;)

[33LIMA 972]

Or just hang on for P4 :)

 

hint if you look in the mission file generated you can see which craft are used for you or your squad etc.

You would need to delete any .bdp file after any FM changes btw.

 

FM uses both .cfg and .air files but .air is main one and CFS3 may override or even add other settings into .cfg from the .air file.

Some settings are used from the .cfg file always (such as contacts). Good eh? ;)

 

Hang on for P4 indeed, oh you ARE a tease, Pol. I might, if you would tell us how long we had to hang on for!

 

Thanks for the tips anyhow; I didn't know about looking at the mission file generated after a campaign mission so thanks to HPW for that pointer, too.

 

B***er those .bdp files, I knew you'd best zap the beggars after an .xdp edit but the SDK describes them as a binary format of the .xdp (damage) file which implies there's no particular relation to the FM files. All very confusing. So while I had thought of zapping the .bdp files after FM edits, I'd taken the SDK to mean that wasn't needed.

 

The strange thing is, as a test I upped the empty weight of the Hannover to a whopping 6000 lbs in its QC1 (player-flown) file without either updating the .air file or zapping the .bdp file, and in QC my plane waggled a bit but would not move even at full power. My flightmates waited for me so I can't confirm if they were unaffected. At 4000 lbs she just about got airborne and no more. So I had concluded that for this parameter at least [empty_weight], editing the .cfg file alone was enough, which is what the MS SDK docementation seems to indicate. But I need to be sure that the AI planes take account of increases to empty_weight, not just the player's plane, of which I'm not so sure. The AI still seem able to fly after I increase it to silly levels, which has me thinking either they ignore it and use something else, or they all happen to be flying a version which I have missed editing. Maybe it's not zapping the .bdp's every time that is the problem, there. But I think it's down to the AI using the same FM files as the player in QC (QC1).

 

It looks like to be sure, I'll have to edit the empty weight in the .cfg file; AND apply the same edit to the .air file; AND then zap the .bdp file.

 

HPW, how do YOU create or generate an .air file after a .cfg file edit? The way I'm doing it is to make identical changes to the empty weight in .air files using the AirEd utility, which enables me to locate and change the empty weight there to the same new value as the .cfg. But it is rather tedious, and in one case I got the dreaded 'not a valid plane' message. Is there an easier way, than hand-editing both files, in succession?

 

I think i'm still heading for option (b). It seems clear enough now that such a mod will not work in QC (if as it seems both player and AI use the QC1 files); and in Campaign, it will reduce the 'lightweight effect' only for (i) enemies and (ii) those friendlies not in your own flight (these two groups being the ones who use the AC [=Aces?] and/or SC files, you and your own flight instead using the Sqd files, in Campaign).

 

I think that would be still be a worthwhile result, as levelling the playing field between player and enemies is the big prize here - while I'm hanging on for P4!

Edited October 24, 2011 by 33LIMA

[33LIMA 972]

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?

 

So far I have not seen the AI with the added weight flying that much differently, damaged or not. The effect is much the same as taking off a few horse power, no big deal, but I need to do more testing to confirm this, especially after finding that this only works in campaign, and seemingly can't work in Quick Combat (where the AI and player seem to use the same plane data, albeit the AI operate at empty weight only).

 

As for damage, Polovski (commenting on the 2-seater arcs of fire) mentioned the AI used the same settings as the player. These settings are in a plane's .bdp files (not the .cfg ones I'm editing for this new mod). As the .bdp files are mainly the plane's damage model, it seems likely the AI and the player take damage the same way, tho the Lead in the A** mod will not affect damage models anyway, and hopefully will not change massively the aI's ability to fly a damaged plane, beyond the legitimate effect of a reduced power-to-weight ratio.

 

I've changed approach from adding a percentage of plane load onto empty weight, to increasing empty weight to the plane's normal loaded weight, LESS a fixed amout, slightly more for 2-seaters, to represent the weight of fuel used up in take off, climb out and transit to the combat area, which is not terribly scientific perhaps but seems the best compromise in the circumstances. I've now got to do a lot of editing (more again if it turns out I really need edited .air files, as well. which i think maybe I won't as i'm just editing this one value) . Then more testing. I don't think I'll need to create .bdp files as well, as HPW's FMs seem to work fine without these - hope so anyway as it's more work and would mean the mod will clash with anything else that supplies new .bdp files, not just .cfg files (like HPW's damage mods and my own arcmod).

Edited October 24, 2011 by 33LIMA

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

HPW, how do YOU create or generate an .air file after a .cfg file edit? The way I'm doing it is to make identical changes to the empty weight in .air files using the AirEd utility, which enables me to locate and change the empty weight there to the same new value as the .cfg. But it is rather tedious, and in one case I got the dreaded 'not a valid plane' message. Is there an easier way, than hand-editing both files, in succession?

 

I'm afraid there is no other way that I have identified other than editing both the .cfg and .air file by hand. After that, however, I copy the edited .cfg and .air files and paste them into the other folders, so that saves at least some work. But then you have to rename at least the .air files so it matches the name of the plane folder: Camel_SC1.air for example belongs in the Camel_SC1 aircraft folder.

 

The .cfg files are a bit tricky because the QC version of the file is one line longer than the other versions (SC, AC, and Sqd) and can cause the dreaded plane not valid error.

[33LIMA 972]

I'm afraid there is no other way that I have identified other than editing both the .cfg and .air file by hand. After that, however, I copy the edited .cfg and .air files and paste them into the other folders, so that saves at least some work. But then you have to rename at least the .air files so it matches the name of the plane folder: Camel_SC1.air for example belongs in the Camel_SC1 aircraft folder.

 

The .cfg files are a bit tricky because the QC version of the file is one line longer than the other versions (SC, AC, and Sqd) and can cause the dreaded plane not valid error.

 

Thanks for that HPW; I'd shied away from that approach in case of differences apart from the title that I might miss. Evidently the files (apart from QC1) are identical apart from title (that text comparison tool you mentioned would have shown me that I suppose). I will try first just with .cfg files, as I'm only changing that one value, and the .cfg file only seemed to be enough, for the test I did with the Hannover, albeit in QC where you can fly the thing yourself and be sure of the effect. If that's not enough I'll tackle the .air files then.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Sounds reasonable. Best wishes on your attempt to add some ballast to the AI aircraft in the game.

[33LIMA 972]

Thanks for that HPW!

 

I think I've now got this working. I took a Nieuport 17 and an SE5 and in the .cfg file only (NO editing of .air file or deletion of .bdp file) I increased their empty weight to their loaded weight, LESS 60 lbs or 80 lbs, to represent fuel used en route to the point of combat. I did this to the Quick Combat versions of both these scouts (QC1) only , so I could test quickly in Quick Combat, instead of having to go into Campaign (even tho the final mod will not work for QC planes as they are used by both player and AI in QC). Then I flew against them in a 175HP Alb DIII.

 

The results were quite definite - the extra weight noticeably decreased the performance of both scouts, to the point my DIII was no longer struggling to keep up with the N.17s, if they didn't give me a chance to cut a corner - in spiral climbs, for example, where before they would tend steadily to pull up and away. The faster SE5a (200HP) retained its ability to increase the range but noticeably less so, with the extra weight.

 

Neither plane showed any sign of the AI finding it any harder to fly; they were able to climb, roll, turn and dive much as before, they were just a little less sprightly. The extra weight has merely reduced the differential that existed previously, slightly reveresed it in the case of the N.17.

 

Of course there's a certain amount of subjectivity about these observations but I've now seen it enough to believe that extra weight added to .cfg files can indeed have a tangible effect, in levelling the playing field between AI enemies and the player. AI friends in my own flight were not affected as they use the same plane as the player but the mod did not seem to give them a great advantage; sometimes they got a kill, sometimes they got shot down.

 

Rather than trying to be too sophisticated I'm going to set empty weight to loaded weight minus 80 lbs for all scouts, and loaded weight minus 100 lbs for all 2-seaters. For scouts, that leaves a fuel load in the plane of somewhere between a half and two-thirds off a tank, give or take, and depending on type. More than that, I think reins in the AI performance just a bit too much.

 

Rather than testing all possible combinations, I'm going to make all the necessary edits to all AI Campaign planes (the SQ and AC ones) and then upload it when it's ready, effectively as a beta, probably by the weekend. If it really needs tweaking, that's the best way to find out.

 

Thanks for the advice and encouragement!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Sounds good. I'll look forward to trying out your mod.

 

BTW, I haven't forgotten about integrating your two-seater gun mod into my DM. I've just been very busy at work and with my Dad in the hospital with pneumonia. Fortunately, he is feeling much better and should be getting out of the hospital later today and I will have a little more time to test the revisions to my DM and integrate your changes into the .xdp files.

 

Speaking of which: do you want to integrate your Lead in the A mod into my FM mods, too?

[33LIMA 972]

Glad your Old man's on the mend, first thing's first!

 

Re integrating the Lead in the A** mod, yes indeed integration sounds like a good idea, since it's using the same files as your FM and will clash otherwise. Very happy to go down that route. We can also have separate versions, as there will be folks I'm sure who prefer the extra challenge of the lighter AI (tho you can always compensate by adjusting available Workshop settings, rather than giving the bad guys another 20 HP or so).

 

I want to test Eindekker and Pfalz DIII and a 2-seater as well, just to make sure it works across a broad range of types, should take a day or three.

 

As I'm effectively opting to apply full loaded weights less about half or more a tank of petrol, it would be good to be sure that fuel was definitely one of the payload components the AI was ignoring, otherwise I would go for a slightly lower loaded weight. I know you had your doubts. I could spend a lot of time trying to confirm by testing but as the results look about right with what's actually a fairly large reduction in fuel weight anyway, I'll stick with what I'm doing. I dunno to what extent logic comes into MS's design decisions, but f the AI are going to ignore anything - and they do! - then fuel is the one that makes most sense to ignore, since its weight reduces with flight alone, unlike the pilot and ammo. And from the figures I have, fuel is no more than about 150-250 lbs of the 4-550 lbs of payload.

 

Short of any late setbacks with testing, I'll aim to have the standalone/beta version up sometime over this coming weekend. You can have a go first, no point integrating it unless you're reasonably hhappy with the results, and it might need a bit of tweaking first.

[33LIMA 972]

OK HPW, you remember you said you could help me avoid those 'invalid plane' conflicts? Well, hadn't had one before now, but I got two now.

 

As with other test planes, I'd cloned the .cfg files for the QC1 Roland, Pfalz and Eindekker. I edited the empty weight value as before. Then tried to fly all 3 myself in QC, before flying against them, to compare stock and modded performance.

 

Like the other test planes, the Pfalz loaded file. but with the Eindekker and the Rolad i get the 'not a valid OFF plane' message.

 

For the Eindekker, here's what I did:

 

Stock:

 

max_gross_weight =1342.0

empty_weight =879.60000

 

Modded:

 

[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]

max_gross_weight =1342.0

empty_weight =1262.00000

 

What's not to like about that? There seem to be the same numbers of lines in both files (from a glance not a count). File sizes are the same. Where the value has trailing zeros, do i need the same # of them in each ie should it be 1262.0000 not 1262.00000?

 

TIA!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

OK HPW, you remember you said you could help me avoid those 'invalid plane' conflicts? Well, hadn't had one before now, but I got two now.

.

.

.

For the Eindekker, here's what I did:

 

Stock:

 

max_gross_weight =1342.0

empty_weight =879.60000

 

Modded:

 

[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]

max_gross_weight =1342.0

empty_weight =1262.00000

 

What's not to like about that? There seem to be the same numbers of lines in both files (from a glance not a count). File sizes are the same. Where the value has trailing zeros, do i need the same # of them in each ie should it be 1262.0000 not 1262.00000?

 

TIA!

Lima,

You are exactly correct about the solution to your problem. Because you went from an empty weight of 879.6xxxx to 1262.0xxxx (adding an extra digit to the left of the decimal) you need to reduce the trailing zeros in 1262.00000 to 1262.0000. You should be good to go after that.

[33LIMA 972]

Phew, that's a relief! thanks again!

Edited October 27, 2011 by 33LIMA

[33LIMA 972]

Sounds good. I'll look forward to trying out your mod.

 

BTW, I haven't forgotten about integrating your two-seater gun mod into my DM. I've just been very busy at work and with my Dad in the hospital with pneumonia. Fortunately, he is feeling much better and should be getting out of the hospital later today and I will have a little more time to test the revisions to my DM and integrate your changes into the .xdp files.

 

Speaking of which: do you want to integrate your Lead in the A mod into my FM mods, too?

 

Right, I've just uploaded Version 1 of the 'AI Empty Weight Mod' at CombatAce.

 

The concept worked just fine in Quick Combat with Nieuport 11s vs- modded Eindekkers, SE5s against modded Pfalz DIII's, and Albatros DIIIs against modified Nieuport 17s; the enemies are a bit less agile but still fly much as before, otherwise. All was well provided I didn't try to fly the modified planes myself - it looks like QC planes need a modified .air file not just my modified .cfg file, to be flown by the player. Have been testing the 'production' version, for Campaign not QC use, in several campaigns last night and today but it is much slower going, by the very nature of campaign missions. So I decided rather than wait while I got more experience of flying the mod in campaigns, to go for broke and upload it; should be approved soon I hope. I'll be playing it myself from here on and will report any issues. Would appreciate any feedback if you get a chance to try it for yourself. And thanks for the advice and support, HPW!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Good deal Lima, I will try to get around to playing around with your mod soon. In addition to everything with my Dad (who is doing much better and is now out of the hospital), I have also been feeling a little under the weather recently, so haven't flown for several days. I also have a couple of my own projects going on--a minor revision of my DM and a revised FM for the Fokker EV/DVIII, so I can't give you a timetable. But thanks for your work, and I will try to integrate it with my own stuff soon.

[Hasse Wind 46]

I hope you can make the AI weight mod work. It would be great to have this feature already in P3. After all, who knows long we'll have to wait for P4!

 

It has always bothered me the AI planes can fly faster and do things that I can't. It's not much of an issue when I'm flying a slow two-seater like the Fee, but when the AI outdives my SPAD, it definitely feels wrong.

[Rugbyfan1972 1]

When the AI outdives my SPAD, it definitely feels wrong.

 

Hasse Wind,

 

Especially when he is flying an eindekker. lol

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Hi Lima.

 

I'm finally making progress on my Ultimate DM update and hope to have a version with an optional Rear Gunners mod ready by the end of the weekend.

 

I've revised the engine HP settings upward a bit for several aircraft and eliminated fires from a punctured fuel tank. This seems to have substantially reduced both the "flying, flaming coffins" problem as well as the brief fire that goes out problem. I also adjusted the fuel tank HP settings so that some planes like the Albatros do not get leaks quite as quickly or easily. Other planes will be somewhat more likely to catch fire than before, as well. Finally, a few tweaks to various aircraft wing settings.

 

I hope everyone who tries it will like it!

[33LIMA 972]

Sounds good, looking forward to that. I like the idea of planes being less vulnerable to those 'silver bullets' that seem magically to hit a vital part of your plane more often than not. Like Olham I've a sneaking suspicion that the Albatrosses in particular have something of a 'glass engine', just a bit too readily damaged, so will not complain if there've been any adjustments there, too.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Yeah, I increased the HP's for the Alb engines just a touch, but I don't know if you will like all of my changes to them.

I found that they weren't catching fire as readily as I would have liked, so I made them slightly more susceptible to that. OTOH, Camels caught fire a little too easily, so i tried to decrease that a bit.

 

I think part of the difficulty with the Alb engine is that the engine hit box is a little more exposed on the Alb than it is for the other inline engine's, possibly explaining why they get hit so easily. You will have to talk to the devs to have something done about that...

Edited November 4, 2011 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[33LIMA 972]

Yeah, I increased the HP's for the Alb engines just a touch, but I don't know if you will like all of my changes to them.

I found that they weren't catching fire as readily as I would have liked, so I made them slightly more susceptible to that. OTOH, Camels caught fire a little too easily, so i tried to decrease that a bit.

 

I think part of the difficulty with the Alb engine is that the engine hit box is a little more exposed on the Alb than it is for the other inline engine's, possibly explaining why they get hit so easily. You will have to talk to the devs to have something done about that...

 

Yeah it's a pity that m3d files can't easily be edited (found a gmax plug-in that was supposed to enable them to be imported but never got it to work). I for one would like to see the Albatros LOD's changed so that the more detailed 3-d models are used further out, especially to reduce the irritating 'undercarriage pop-out' effect, which is quite visible if like me you fly pre- and post-combat in external view (in cockpit view, the higher-poly 3-d Albatros models are used to a greater distance). Many other planes are visibly better. Think it is also something to do with the horrible CFS3 'wide angle lens' external view, which is something I'd REALLY like to see changed, but it's in no CFS3 setting I or anyone else seems to have found. But I digress...looking forward to the new mod, even if I may have to leap from my burning plane occasionally...but i do think you have a point, I think I am very rarely shot down in flames in an Albatros, a type I fly, and have been shot down in, more than any other, or seen many (if any) wingmen flamers, either.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I had exactly the same trouble with Gmax, couldn't get it to work.

 

There is a utility by the CFS3 people which lets you see the hitboxes, but you can't edit them. Grrr.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

33Lima--

 

PM sent re: Arc Mod for HPW Ultimate DM 1.25