Wings over Korea all-in-one pak?

[Do335 382]

I have finally finished building the 6 campaigns and atm making some campaign texts and art. After that it is some testing.

 

To the modders, have you got any new goodies to add for KAW? (have already added everything public released till now.)

 

Wrenchmeister you got anything?

Edited July 6, 2015 by Do335

[Wrench 9,846]

fleas? but I don't think you want those!!!

 

honestly, I don't think I've got anything left ...

 

We are, of course, missing the one thing we truly need ... the straight decked Essex. But, what can you?

[Do335 382]

fleas? but I don't think you want those!!!

 

honestly, I don't think I've got anything left ...

 

We are, of course, missing the one thing we truly need ... the straight decked Essex. But, what can you?

LOL:p Roger that and thank you for all the goodies already Wrench! It is indeed a bit weird to fly off an angled deck in 1950. I'm also pining for a Tu-2 to complete the RedFor OOB but eh can't have everything. It's already a great Korea theater atm!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Campaigns attached if anyone wanna check... could be more edits on the base inis but not much I reckon.

edit Jul. 9. campaign txt and art updated

 

Edited July 8, 2015 by Do335

[Heck 496]

Great work on that 84 canopy, Coupi. My KAW mod is one of my biggest, best, and most enjoyed mods, thanks to the modders here. Hours of enjoyment provided by a great group of people. The only things I'd wish for is a true 86a and a driveable jeep. With Wrench's terrain I can only imagine what I'd find out there on a Sunday drive out of Kimpo.  When I'm flying, I'm too busy dodging flak, or chasing Migs, to notice too much of the countryside, which is a damned shame, but there is a war on, you know.

[Wrench 9,846]

Glad you mentioned the Tu-2...made me look

I think Daniel (Cocas) might have started at Tu-2 (see below). But it needs more 3d work -as can be seen by the props (or maybe it's just ini work?), and a skin of course

 

I wonder it I can get Daniel's MAX files? Then the real trick is to get someone to actually WORK on it to finish it.

(it's also be good for JRL's TSF, too)

[Wrench 9,846]

ok. I now have ALL of Daniel's MAX files ... so, all we need are volunteer(s) to work the problem.

[Do335 382]

ok. I now have ALL of Daniel's MAX files ... so, all we need are volunteer(s) to work the problem.

Roger that Wrench, it is good news! Thanks to Cocas!

The propeller is a data problem. I'll attempt to make better the data ini if baffmeister isn't around.

[+baffmeister 1,205]

I started an FM for the Cocas TU-2 a long time ago but never got very far. Will take another look.

[+baffmeister 1,205]

Took my Tu-2 FM out for a test flight and it needs more work for sure. Personally, I think the model is OK for an AI only bomber but then, I'm not too fussy. It does need lots of ini edits for crew positions, gun elevation angles, min/max work, etc, etc. On the plus side the bomb bay, landing gear and control surfaces work although the ailerons have an oddly placed pivot node.

 

Do335 and Wrench, would you like me to PM what I have? I would like to finish this FM but don't have much spare time this summer so if you gents can get some of the ini issues and min/max damage modeling done and maybe a basic skin I may be able to put together an FM in a couple of weeks.

[Do335 382]

Took my Tu-2 FM out for a test flight and it needs more work for sure. Personally, I think the model is OK for an AI only bomber but then, I'm not too fussy. It does need lots of ini edits for crew positions, gun elevation angles, min/max work, etc, etc. On the plus side the bomb bay, landing gear and control surfaces work although the ailerons have an oddly placed pivot node.

 

Do335 and Wrench, would you like me to PM what I have? I would like to finish this FM but don't have much spare time this summer so if you gents can get some of the ini issues and min/max damage modeling done and maybe a basic skin I may be able to put together an FM in a couple of weeks.

Thanks a lot Baffmeister! I think I can work out the damage model and stuff, if you can get the core FM (aero) part done I think I can work out the rest.

[Wrench 9,846]

if it needs max work, that would be the only problem. I had Raven look at one of planes, and they're all (most probably) max 2009 versions. So, they can only be worked on in MAX 09.

OTH, I do have the max files now, so ... all we'd need is someone with 09 to do the fixing. (wish I know now to work the damn program...)

[Do335 382]

Roger that Wrench. Hopefully the max gurus can take a look at it some time!

[Do335 382]

Question: Aren't carrier groups a thing of SF2NA only?

 

I made a separate install of SF2E, V, I, Exp1, patched to Jul2012 and carrier groups are functioning in campaign mode. Except a missing Gearing Destroyer LOD that comes with NA. Can catapult and land, the ships sail and even their AA defense work. They show up proper on campaign map as well.

 

Am I missing something or was this already established...

[Wrench 9,846]

while NA may have the 'better' coding (I think!), all the others seem to have gotten it as well. I don't know when or how; perhaps as part of the Full-5 merge?? What with all game exes using the same set of dlls and whatnots ...

 

hey, as long as it works, right?

[Do335 382]

hey, as long as it works, right?

Indeed Wrench!

 

Turns out one doesn't need the expansion packs either. The LODs are in SF2E/I base, so just need the inis and add-on skins.

Edited July 11, 2015 by Do335

[Do335 382]

The project continues! Ironing out some strategic node glitches in campaigns. The time needed for play testing is a black hole. Current result looks satisfactory enough. Probably needs one/two more adjustments still.

 

[Do335 382]

A theory to: get gunsight reticle aligned with bullets. Just some simple math + in game mechanism.

 

 

In the TW sims there is a small gap between where the bullets go and where the gunsight reticle is aimed. It is easily explained: there is a distance between your eyes and the gun muzzle.

 

 

So how is it compensated for in real life? A picture of the setup on the Bf109E with two nose mounted MGs and two wing mounted cannons. The horizontal convergence is set for 200m, vertical 400m.

 

Quited complicated! But that's how the pros do it: by tilting the guns upwards a bit. However there's a problem with the in game AI. A simple test shows that far as SF's AI is concerned, it considers all guns firing from 0,0,0 model position. It disregards where the guns muzzle position is set. So the AI also has aiming errors:

 

So what would happen if the guns are tilted upwards? My take: the AI tends to fire from far away, even AI aces will fire at 1000m+ and novices at 2000m+. They are not known for their shooting accuracy, so some spray and pray can at least land them some hits. Angled guns that converge at 200m~400m would increase their aiming error at range, which makes AI's shooting worse:

 

Hence what's left is the other option: tilt the gunsight reticle down in the cockpit.ini. It would only affect the player and do not change the AI.

 

Better yet, do it proper and make the LOS and bullet converge points the same one:

 

The calculations are very easy, just some triangle math with gun position, cockpit position and cockpit offset (if this one is used in cockpit.ini). When done you just write "ViewAngles=0.0,x.xx,0.0" in the cockpit.ini.

 

One big factor that's not yet considered: bullet drop. I luck out here since most of Korean era gunsights are lead computing. I use 1200ft/365.76m for LOS and gun convergence points, and just input "DefaultLeadRange=365.76" in the cockpit.ini. The game automatically computes bullet drop in the gunsight.

 

Certainly not a perfect method but I find it works quite well for shooting. For WW2 and earlier maybe pointing the guns upward is worth experimenting. (*edit*) If a math guru figures out a precise way to do it plz share!

 

*edit*: looks like already done in 2008....

http://combatace.com/topic/28471-gunsight/

 

 

As mentioned in a recent post, I’m somewhat “uneasy” about using aimangles to adjust the gunsight/bullet path convergence
The issue (thanks B Bandy RFC) is that the AI becomes very inaccurate when using significant amounts of this parameter (empirical testing seems to confirm this)
The AI would seem to use the aircraft’s fore/aft axis for aiming fixed guns and aimangles shifts the bullet path away from this axis.

This is fine for vertical adjustments because the AI can be “told” to compensate with the GunBoresightAngle in the [FlightControl] section of the FM (as with the Lewis gun in the stock SE5a)

have thought about GunBoreSightAngle too but when looking at the aiming error diagram above, if the plane has nose mounted guns, changing that angle could mean larger aiming error for AI

Edited January 2, 2016 by Do335

[Do335 382]

So, more nitty gritty stuff.

 

Spent 20 hours on a sonovabitch that's very hard to track and test: Damaged AI flat spin. Hard because lots of values in play and testing isn't straightforward at all because you need to get the AI "damaged" but not "destroyed". Then you need to make it do extreme maneuvers at low speed.

 

So the conclusion is this. As we know AI uses normal FM, which will never exceed "AlphaDepart". But once the wings gets damaged, apparently the AI can exceed it, when it applies full pitch for long time at low speed. Once it does it enters the unrecoverable flat spin. Just like the player does on Hard FM. So to prevent this, test the FM on Hard, go into a horizontal turn and pull full back on the stick. Make sure Alpha doesn't exceed "AlphaDepart" on all speed ranges (and better leave a few degrees wiggle room). If it does the FM needs to be adjusted. It looks like TW default FMs are set up this way also.

 

When both full pitch and roll is applied or prolonged full pitch is applied in the vertical, the stock FMs would also depart. But gotta do it deliberately.

 

 

 

And the previous weeks are spent on campaign strategic node testing for many many hours. It's also very hard to test due to obvious reasons. And there's been little to no documentation on the subject so only way is trial and error. Good thing is the dogfighting's always exciting:)

[+baffmeister 1,205]

Interesting. Have you been seeing a lot of AI spins? I like to keep a bit of an "edge" on the flight models to keep them interesting for the player but don't recall seeing any AI flat spins with my WW2 FM's. Also, are you still getting the rising spin on the Yak-9? I haven't seen that one yet either.

[Do335 382]

Hiya BM! I haven't checked the Yak-9 yet. I'm attempting to make an F-84 FM and came upon this one. But if my conclusion is correct, it should be something simple like reducing the min/maxdeflection on the elevators a bit. I have tried others like moving the lift center and adjusting the CmQ. But the angles are the easiest I guess.

[+Stary 2,427]

I noticed flatspins on many occasions through past 10 years but those were stock FMs I suppose?

[Do335 382]

I noticed flatspins on many occasions through past 10 years but those were stock FMs I suppose?

Just noticed by accident that wing damage will alter AlphaStall.

ULing the vid to youtube.

 

It is a bit hard to see. As set in Data the mig's AlphaStall is 11.50 degrees. This one has damage on all four sections of the wing, and with debug on, it stalls at around ~11.35 deg alpha.

[Do335 382]

Thought I was seeing things before but found hard proof now.. MIA pilots have a chance to return.

In mission 2 and 3, each of the two MIA pilots returned

 

 

 

[+Hans Topp 115]

I see it when my side win one operation and win some terrain, i think the pilot was jumped in the enemy terrain that we captured..

[Do335 382]

I see it when my side win one operation and win some terrain, i think the pilot was jumped in the enemy terrain that we captured..

3 points:

 

ya old guys will probably say "always been like that" but it's new/very interesting for me yet:D:D

 

Ok, about relating to captured terrain, it is what I thought also. the dogfights took part close to the contested strategic node. but i took a closer look and between the first and second mission, there were no frontline changes ie. no ground units was in offensive. yet, one pilot made it back. But we did move forward one node on the 3rd mission. But then again I never remember having 2 pilots return in 2 consecutive missions so it is probably related somehow. Which means the campaign engine remembers the location of bailed out pilots. Which leads point 3:

 

How AWESOME is that?...