FE2 Observations and Musings

[Nicholas Bell 117]

There are a lot of interesting threads on this topic at the Aerodrome, but this is one of the best IMO, if only because Tony Williams got involved.  Nothing like having an well-known expert on the subject weigh in.

 

The myth of German fire superiority?

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13296&highlight=synchronization

 

 

[Nicholas Bell 117]

ace

 

CannonFireAngle=2.0

 

I've been doing testing with opening up the CannonFireAngle rather than down to increase ammo consumption, with success.  This would make more sense if it were labeled MaxDeflectionAngle, because that it was it is - it controls how far off angle the AI will be allowed to fire.  Down at 1 or 2 I've found that aces fire very few times, because of the difficulty in getting directly behind a target within the MaxCannonRanges I am using.  Not so big an issue with the huge MaxCannonRange in stock settings.

 

Currently using CannonFireAngle of 20 for Reg, Vet and Ace.  40 for green and 60 for novice.  Lots of firing, with practically everyone coming home with little or no ammo, except for the aces - which fits perfectly.  No trend on casualties with these settings - all over the place with these as normal  - except no entire squadron wipe-outs. 

[+VonS 1,424]

Thank you for the link to the relevant discussion on Aerodrome, Nick. Will read those discussions soon. I'm pleased to read that you were able to get more firing of ammo in the game with the wider fireangles. Aces are very stingy with the ammo in my current aircraftaidata ini setting - will test further using your suggestions and incorporate the modifications into a version 5.0 of that file. Your results look very realistic, with most novices emptying their ammo during fights.

 

I'm currently tinkering with some of the obscure settings under "Engine" in the individual data ini files - my concern are these entries:

 

GasTempChangeRate=0.1

OverheatTemp=100

DamageTempDelta=20

OverheatDamageRate=

 

Have tried testing with different values here, including for OverheatDamageRate, but there is no arbitrary engine failure showing up. Now I'm thinking that perhaps a mystery "DamageChance," "FailureChance," or "FireChance" entry needs to be included here, or perhaps something like "DamageDelta" - to actually make arbitrary engine failure possible. Will test further with this mystery entry for failiure or some kind of failure or damage delta settings and will post results soon.

 

Von S

Edited May 16, 2016 by VonS

[Do335 382]

 

GasTempChangeRate=0.1

OverheatTemp=100

DamageTempDelta=20

OverheatDamageRate=

 

Hiya Von S i've experimented with them as well and it's possible to do with after damage effect i.e. you can have an engine damaged but it will keep working for a short period and then it stops. For AI they seem unaffected by this or auto adjust engine settings to just below overheat temp or something, basically AI doesn't seem to be affected...

i don't think that TK's sims model random engine failures and such but it for sure would be great if indeed otherwise!

[+Geezer 3,569]

This is all fascinating info., I hope that I can incorporate some of it into further FM tweaks. Can't remember the exact post now on TheAerodrome, but a few years ago there was a big debate over there regarding average rate of fire for guns firing through propeller blades, considering that most props would rev exactly as much as the engine, with the exception of some of the sub-types of Hispano-Suiza that had reduction gears and the four-bladed propeller, later replaced with fixed gears once again. This of course is probably too much for the FE2 code to handle, to have faster rate of fire in a dive with engines revved, and to have slower rate of fire with engines cutting out or not giving full power - but I will see if some kind of "educated estimates" can be brought into the data files, to account for best and worst rate of fire.

 

Von S

 

This is fascinating and caused me to dig up Woodman's reference on WW1 armament.  When I bounced it against the information at the Aerodrome link, it became clear that your fundamental conclusions are correct - but the devil is in the details.  The late war British mechanisms (such as the Constantinesco-Colley gear) that significantly boosted rate of fire, also increased stress on the components resulting in frequent failure of gun parts and holes in propeller blades.  When combined with the Hazelton muzzle booster, guns would occasionally run away, firing as high as 1,000 rounds per minute - but very briefly!

 

Also - as you have identified - the engine speed issue could be crucial. For example, the Austro-Hungarians were limited to 350-450 rounds per minute by the nature of the Schwartzlose gun, and it proved difficult to match the gun to most Austrian engines..  Austrian pilots had to keep one eye on their tachometer in combat and avoid shooting outside the narrow range of acceptable engine/gun rpm.

[+VonS 1,424]

Hiya Von S i've experimented with them as well and it's possible to do with after damage effect i.e. you can have an engine damaged but it will keep working for a short period and then it stops. For AI they seem unaffected by this or auto adjust engine settings to just below overheat temp or something, basically AI doesn't seem to be affected...

i don't think that TK's sims model random engine failures and such but it for sure would be great if indeed otherwise!

 

Hi Do335, thanks for the info. I was testing all sorts of variations today for those entries under the "Engine" section of the data inis and I think you're right that it affects the speed at which an engine is damaged or stops working once it's hit - it doesn't however affect what happens with engines that are working well from what I've been able to observe. Oh well, the good news is that I can focus more now on tweaking ammo loads, rate of fire, also unjam/jam settings. It's possible that a separate application would have to be made that "plugs into" the FE2 code and handles engine failure rates - sort of like ReLoad does for RB3D - this of course goes way beyond my computer skills.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

[+VonS 1,424]

This is fascinating and caused me to dig up Woodman's reference on WW1 armament.  When I bounced it against the information at the Aerodrome link, it became clear that your fundamental conclusions are correct - but the devil is in the details.  The late war British mechanisms (such as the Constantinesco-Colley gear) that significantly boosted rate of fire, also increased stress on the components resulting in frequent failure of gun parts and holes in propeller blades.  When combined with the Hazelton muzzle booster, guns would occasionally run away, firing as high as 1,000 rounds per minute - but very briefly!

 

Also - as you have identified - the engine speed issue could be crucial. For example, the Austro-Hungarians were limited to 350-450 rounds per minute by the nature of the Schwartzlose gun, and it proved difficult to match the gun to most Austrian engines..  Austrian pilots had to keep one eye on their tachometer in combat and avoid shooting outside the narrow range of acceptable engine/gun rpm.

Hi Geezer, yes this is an obscure area of WWI history that I find very interesting. It was treated in some detail on the Aerodrome forums a few years ago but with no clear conclusions. There were some overall assumptions given, that for four-bladed props being driven by reduction-gear Hispanos - where the total rpms of the engine might be as high as 2300, guns would be interrupted twice in a prop's full revolution so that they fired on every second gap rather than every gap of the four blades - and considering that the prop is rotating more slowly because of the reduction gear anyway - this gives an overall rate of fire similar to that for two-bladed props. Perhaps such modifications were possible for two-bladed props as well, to have a shot fired on every full revolution (not shooting on one of the gaps) rather than half revolution - to reduce rate of fire where engine rpms were too high and no reduction gears were being used. The counter-rotating Siemens-Halske engine solved this problem by rotating at around 900 rpms in one direction, with the prop and shaft rotating 900 rpms in the other direction - I think they carried this theory further with their two-row rotaries, having them turning in opposite directions.

 

Then again, considering that a propeller has at least two blades   - let's say fixed to a LeRhone rotary running at between 1100 and 1300 rpms full power - that set up should have a max rate of fire for a machine gun of about 600 under ideal conditions - since the prop is fixed to the engine and rotates at the same rpm. This would be the same theory for direct-gear inline engines like the 6-cylinder Mercedes. Rpms on the Mercedes, depending on what type, would run anywhere from about 1100 to 1300 thereabouts at cruising speeds (similar to the rpms for most rotaries) - considering that it was not recommended to push the Mercedes inline much beyond let's say about 1500 rpms for risk of damage. This should then be the "theoretical" rate of fire approximately for Entente and Central powers rotaries and the often-used Mercedes inline engine - maybe a bit higher for the direct-gear Hissos that have cruising rpms of about 1400 to 1600, top rpms of about 1800 to 2100, depending on what HP variant of the Hisso we're talking about (150, 180, 200, 220, 235 HP).

 

If we then factor in a liberal estimate of rpm variation for engines and props of as high as 300 or 400 at a constant setting, to account for over-revving of engines in dives, also to account for sometimes imperfect performance, defects, flawed fuel/air mixtures...we get, to use the LeRhone as an example, running as slowly as maybe 900 rpms under poor conditions, maybe going as close as 1400 rpms in a dive (anything higher would of course destroy a rotary). This then gives a +/- variation of about 150 or 200 in the rate of fire, half of the variation approximately of the engine/prop rpm variation. The "theoretical" rate of fire of 600/min then ranges anywhere from 400 to 800/min - and this is on a good day and at a constant, "cruising" rpm setting. Might be even worse if other physics of engine, interruptor gear, gun belt problems, are taken into account, and obviously lower-band/mid-power rpms somewhere in the range of 600 to 1000 rpms. The rotaries would of course conk out somewhere below about 400 or 500 rpms if they were well-tuned, maybe already below 600/700 rpm after daily wear and tear. inlines could be throttled back to about 200 or 300 rpms, as low as 100/150 or so in later-war variants - and then there's the prop "windmilling" that also becomes a factor in dives, even with engine at idle or in the case of rotaries "blipped" off - although the smarter thing would be to shut the fuel valve on the rotary and then reopen it again to give the engine life. Lots of fun factors to consider.

 

I'm being very crude with the math here but it gives a general plan for further revisions of the data inis.

 

Von S

Edited May 17, 2016 by VonS

[Do335 382]

Hi Do335, thanks for the info. I was testing all sorts of variations today for those entries under the "Engine" section of the data inis and I think you're right that it affects the speed at which an engine is damaged or stops working once it's hit - it doesn't however affect what happens with engines that are working well from what I've been able to observe. Oh well, the good news is that I can focus more now on tweaking ammo loads, rate of fire, also unjam/jam settings. It's possible that a separate application would have to be made that "plugs into" the FE2 code and handles engine failure rates - sort of like ReLoad does for RB3D - this of course goes way beyond my computer skills.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

Just popping ideas but does FE have Wep mode? perhaps a wep for engines that are limited in time by max output would be closer to what's intended... for ww2 this wouldn't be fair for many engines do have actual wep, but for ww1 mayhaps?....

Anyway this is nice thread(s) for me as FE aims for piston engined guns only aircraft so many functions are similar but different... whatever you discover i'm gonna read on with interest!

[+VonS 1,424]

Just popping ideas but does FE have Wep mode? perhaps a wep for engines that are limited in time by max output would be closer to what's intended... for ww2 this wouldn't be fair for many engines do have actual wep, but for ww1 mayhaps?....

Anyway this is nice thread(s) for me as FE aims for piston engined guns only aircraft so many functions are similar but different... whatever you discover i'm gonna read on with interest!

 

Excellent question. I'm assuming that since it shares code with SF2, there might be "latent" settings for wep mode available, to incorporate from SF2 into FE2 - this might do the trick to "bust" engines arbitrarily. Historically, there was no wep mode in WWI since superchargers were not used on engines until after the war (experimented with in late '18 but never used in combat) - there were altitude-compensating carburators, also sam "ram air" modifications on the Oberursels I think (rarely), and later use of aluminum instead of iron pistons, to save weight and increase engine HP. But no one would "know" that the supercharger/wep code is busting the engines in FE2 when engaged - since from the pilot's end all you see is an engine that has arbitrarily failed or caught fire....this is a very interesting possibility.

 

Having the wep mode be engaged "automatically" in a dive that over-revs and engine would then produce the appropriate historical results in FE2. Sort of like putting the engine into "110%" power in a dive only - this would be a great compromise.

 

The mystery is figuring out what code in SF2, under Engine settings in the data inis, is responsible for wep power - and then tinkering with that code in FE2.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

[+VonS 1,424]

Here's some more interesting info. on rate of fire in WWI, from what I've been able to observe in the excellent thread on the subject over at TheAerodrome.

 

Dave Watts writes: "This would look more logical on a graph chart. The point is the rate of fire for the LMG goes up and down according to the motor rpm and not at a constant rate. You can have the full rate of fire of 440 at 220 rpm and then at 221 the rate drops to 221. Note that the gun remains constant at 440 for motor rpms of 660 to 880. You have a drop again and then the rate is pretty constant from 1100 to 1319." (Some of this correlates with my post above, that max theoretical rof would be achieved at cruising rpms of about 1000 rpm and higher.)

 

Also, it seems that the twin Spandau setups had rate of fire set to about 400-450 on one gun, while the other was set anywhere from between 300 to 500 - this still averages to about 450 or so. The Spandaus could not be set to higher than 700/min, but usually nothing beyond about 550 was attempted.

 

The Lewis had an average rof of between 700 and 800 - although this is largely a theoretical limit since you have to stop and change drums on it, which reduces your rof/min greatly - because of reload pauses.

 

Vickers were initially doing about 400/min, increased to about 550/min by late '17 approximately. Also interesting is that the Constantinesco synchronization gear probably contributed to this increase in rof for the Vickers since it was coming into use by the summer of '17. Muzzle boosters were also often added to Vickers by 1918, further increasing the rof to about 800/min - the usual procedure was to have a muzzle booster on only one Vickers in a double-Vickers setup, giving one gun a rof of about 800, and the other would still be at abut 550. The theory on TheAerodrome is that, by 1918, rof on a twin-Vickers setup would then be better than with twin Spandaus on German aircraft. It's also likely that muzzle boosters were avoided on single-Vickers setups - they increased the likelihood of gun jams - leaving you with no gun effectively if you only have one Vickers and it jams.

 

Also I noticed that the Germans were improving their synchronization gears especially by the time the twin-gunned Albatros came out - planes prior to the Albatros D.I had earlier (Fokker) interruptor gears, the D.I and D.II featured a mid-war type, the D.III featured a newer type, and there were further improvements from the D.V onwards. The transitional period for the Entente seems to have been sometime in '17, when the Alkan-Hamy gear was still prevalent (particularly on mid-war types like the Nieu. 17) - giving way to the Constantinesco particularly on British planes, by 1918.

 

My previous estimate of rof ranging from 400 to about 800 on a good day, at cruising rpms, can then be expanded further, with this historical info, to give us a rough table of static values (since Dave Watts' comment about rof going up or down across the whole rpm arc probably can't be modelled in FE2, so I'll stick with estimates).

 

German planes up to about mid-1916: average rof 350 to 400.

German planes from late '16 to about late '17: average rof of 450.

German planes from early '18 onwards: average rof of 500 to 550.

 

Entente/Vickers planes up to about early '17: average rof of 350 to 400.

Entente/Vickers from mid '17 to early '18: average rof of 550 for Spads and Se5a and Camels, around 400 for Tripes, Pups, and Nieuports type 17, 23, 24, up to about 550 again for Nieuports 27 and 28.

Entente/Vickers from mid-18 onwards: average for twin-gun setup with one muzzle booster becomes about 700/min.

 

I will do some digging into the gun data inis in the "Guns" folder for FE2 (user game folder) to see how close the rof is in those files to what I've listed here - more tweaking and testing ahead.

 

One interesting exception is the Parabellum mounted sometimes on early Fokker Eindeckers and given to observers on German planes - its rof is high, about 800 to 1000/min. With an interruptor gear in place, it's anybody's guess what the rof would drop down too, I'm thinking something like 450 is a good estimate, still making it about 100 rounds faster/min than early Spandau setups on the Eindeckers.

 

Von S

[+VonS 1,424]

Tinkering further with the max. firing angles, I'm pleased that now the novices and "green" pilots are sometimes taking shots at me from 90 degree angles, peppering my fuselage in the process. The moves are reminiscent of the famous Verner Voss fight with perpendicular hits being taken and whatnot. I will incorporate the extended firing angles into a ver. 8.0 update of the general aircraftaidata ini file.

 

Further testing has revealed that it is not possible (for now) to generate arbitrary engine failure in the game. I was rummaging through the data ini for the P-47 Thunderbolt to see if any WEP settings could be manipulated into the WWI data inis, to over-rev engines in dives for example, but from what I've seen there is no magic ingredient in the SF2 data inis that can be "retrofitted" into the FE2 data inis for arbitrary engine damage.

 

However, post-hit engine damage seems to work well, with variety, by tweaking the settings for DamageTempDelta and OverheatDamageRate. The other entries mentioned in my previous posts for temp. rate change are best left untouched, also the overheating point of 100 degrees. The OverheatDamageRate, from further testing, seems to go from 0.0 to 1.0, whereas the DamageTempDelta is a percentage value.

 

A good variation that works...

 

Two-row Rotaries

 

DamageTempDelta=20

OverheatDamageRate=0.3

 

Single-row Rotaries and also Radials

 

DamageTempDelta=30

OverheatDamageRate=0.4

 

Early Inlines

 

DamageTempDelta=60

OverheatDamageRate=0.7

 

Later Inlines

 

DamageTempDelta=50

OverheatDamageRate=0.5

 

The logic is that rotaries, like radials in WW2, are a bit tougher to damage than inlines where things can get hosed quickly. I am slowly applying these changes and will upload in an 8.0 release. It seems to have improved chances for engine fires after damage, as far as I've been able to test. Some pics below...an engagement between German-flown Nieu17bis types and RAF Camels in the Mesopotamian front.

 

 

 

 

 

Also being applied slowly are historical gun-belt lengths (number of rounds) per plane per theatre, more realistic unjamming times (more waiting), and ejection of bullets in all cases except for observers (with cartridge bags) and on some pusher types like the DH.2 that also carry bags (danger of cartridges hitting the prop in the back). Reading some of the big names on TheAerodrome, I've learned that empty cartridges were ejected through chutes even on the Nieuports, the empty gun-belts would be rewound and reused, but cartridges were always ejected on those types supposedly.

 

Also revised were rates of fire for several of the guns, and new gun folders have been installed - this wil take a while now to "link up" the data inis with the changes.

 

Revised now are the following types and rates of fire:

 

Hotchkiss - 450 rounds (these were usually detuned to such values in the field, from the theoretical max. of about 750)

Lewis - 750 rounds

Vickers1 - 400 rounds

Vickers2 - 600 rounds

Vickers2muzzleboost - 850 rounds

Parabellum - 550 rounds synchronized / 900 unsynchronized

Spandau early - 350 rounds

Spandau mid - 450 rounds

Spandau late - 550 rounds

Schwarzlose early - 350 rounds

Schwarzlose late - 500 rounds

 

Also tweaked was gun reliability and accuracy where necessary

 

Also included are new sounds for the Lewis, Hotchkiss, Vickers types, and Spandau types - tempo was changed on the original files to slow or speed up the sound of the rate of fire.

 

Two late Spandaus on the Alby. types sure can make quick lunch of the flimsy Nieuports now, as tested with Alb. D.3 and Nieu. 16 types in the Mesopotamian theatre. Also tested was a left muzzle-boosted Vickers Mk.2 and right Mk.2 (as was typical) on the Camels. The faster rofs are now deadlier, also noticeable is that you - and the AI - run out of ammo much more quickly now - which is a good improvement towards realism.

 

I quickly became a pepper-pot for these new guns on the Camels while testing the Nieu17bis against them, although I could have climbed away and escaped - but it was too much fun. Pics below...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will upload the revisions as one big update (8.0) once it's all done - it's a slow process - instead of uploading the fixed theatres in parts.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

Edited May 21, 2016 by VonS

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Outstanding Von S! The synergism of sharing ideas, experience, and cooperation at work. Your work is bumping FE2 up to another level.

[+VonS 1,424]

A quick update: flamers seem to be happening more frequently now that I've tweaked the post-damage engine settings in the data inis, as indicated in one of my earlier posts here. Had a very good flamer erupt in a one-on-one with a Nieu 16 and Halb D.5 in the Palestinian theatre while testing my other tweaks today. The Lewis Mk2 is now more potent at 750 rounds/min. A couple of pics of the excellent flamer below...

 

Also had a good flamer going with a Fokk. E.IIa as well, in a battle with a Morane N - I've pushed the engine exhaust (and fire) position forward on the E.IIa since previously it was too far behind the pilot and wings - now it's closer to the engine and small fuel tank behind the engine (there was a bigger tank behind the pilot on later Eindeckers, I think the E.III, but the fire far back on the fuselage just looked strange to me). Some pics of that tweak too...will upload with the version 8.0 FM update...

 

Happy flying,

Von S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by VonS

[Nicholas Bell 117]

The friendly AI are attacking now, but the hit rate is not much to brag about, sigh.

Fired/Hit records: 44/8 (1 kill), 20/1, 76/10

Hit accuracy: 5-18%

 

Fired/Hit records: 162/14, 201/11, 231/11

Hit accuracy: 5-8%

 

 

From a sidebar discussion Von S and VonOben are having  under file announcements.

 

These are actually quite good for the AI, and after years of experimenting IMO it's not possible to get higher percentage rates.  Nor would it be historical or desirable - try some late war scenarios with 16-18 planes per side and 75% of them getting shot down by the AI.  Poppycock.  The paucity of AI wingmen victories vonOben describes is much more realistic.  The real issue is that it is too easy for the player to score hits, and anything one does to make it more so only hurts the AI more.  The only real solution is to make it as difficult for yourself as possible - no map, no padlock use, no HUD help at all.

 

I'm using a slightly different AI data file than von S!, with other tweaks to the damage model decreased weapon accuracy I've noted in the discussion above, and and am achieving results I am pretty happy with (note my lack of success!)  These are from a campaign setting (March 1918).  In 17 missions I achieved 11 kills, which although still ahistorically high, is a lot lower than a standard game.  4-5 of those I should not have been credited, but I've discovered that the last player to fire at a disabled plane get the credit.  So I won't do that in the future if I can discern it's status.  Had several AI aces also, and lost 5 pilots.  Still too bloody, but better.

[+VonS 1,424]

Yes, it's still somewhat easy for the player to score hits no matter what AI modifications are used. I'm thinking that the simplest way of making it more difficult is to increase the armor ratings on the planes (this may not be historical to the fragility of some of the types) - but it would make it more difficult to acquire kills.

 

My current armor ratings in the data ini tweaks range from about 20, for the earliest types like the Morane H, to about 26 for the Austrian Albatroses and the SE5a, the Phonix D.2a, etc. Changing the range of 20 to 26 to something like 23 to 29 is worth a try. I remember it being very difficult to shoot anything down using the Zantack damage modelling in RB3D (that was combined with the Greybeard FMs). Then again, this will also make it much more difficult for the AI to get any kills at all - if the armor ratings are too high.

 

A stimulating topic at any rate - will tinker with damage ratings further.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

Edited June 15, 2016 by VonS

[Nicholas Bell 117]

It boils down to AI obtaining kills by critical hits instead of structural failure. Which is pretty much the way it always is given the few hits it takes.   I'd suggest that increasing VolumeStructurePoint is an easier way rather than armoring everything, and it's across the board which makes it easier to test.  I'm using 2000.  A few months back I tried 3000 and the AI got very few kills - didn't seem right.

 

I have all my aircraft with fuselage damage set to disabled rather than destroyed.  You want a tough cookie, try setting them to heavy.  Then the only way to knock the plane down is by getting a critical hit on the pilot, engine or fuel tank.  At VolumeStructurePoint=2000 it's pretty tough to cause structural of wings (which I think is realistic, as the wings normally folded when the plane went into a high speed dive (or turn) if they were going to at all...)

 

Cheers!

[+VonS 1,424]

This is excellent advice - I will tinker with the VolumeStructurePoint and compare results with my current settings. Much more efficient than armoring everything differently, particularly since the armor values seem adequate as they are.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

[+VonS 1,424]

Having good results with VolumeStructurePoint in the Aircraftobject.ini file set to 2000. The DH.2 is now harder to knock down by wing breakage than previously, but not impossible. Then I tried the DH.2 against the Fokk. E.IIa, and the E.IIa is a bit harder to bring down too - requires a pilot kill or getting up really close and lighting his engine on fire. All still possible but a bit more challenging. Knocking down Morane "H" types and Sopwith Tabloids and Schneiders is still fairly easy with the E.IIa but takes a bit longer than previously (this was tested out in custom dogfights and in early single missions in the Middle east theater).

 

Flying the E.Ia and E.IIa - managed 8 kills with about 47 hits on target, fired all 200 rounds on the E.Ia - three of those kills were ground objects. With the E.IIa, managed 11 kills with about 95 hits on target, fired a total of 320 rounds - four of those kills were ground objects. My wingman on both missions got off about 50 rounds only, but scored no hits or kills - at least they didn't get shot down.

 

Will retest with the VolumeStructurePoint set to 2500 and 3000. Will also retest with the general aircraftaidata.ini file removed - to see if wingmen become better shots. And also, ideally, so that I have a harder time knocking things down. Will also compare with increased armor rating settings on some of these early types in further testing, but ideally I'm hoping to find a sweet spot with the VolumeStructurePoint suggestion.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Glad that's working out for you.  After you find the VolumeStructurePoint sweet spot that works for most aircraft, you can always further adjust individual components with StructuralFactor multiplier.

 

In summary for those who may be following...

• The damage capacity of a component can absorb is initially based on the size of its hit box.
• Damage capacity for all components of all aircraft is increased by the VolumeStructurePoint.
• Damage capacity for individual components can be further modified by StructuralFactor (increase or decrease)
• Armor reduces the amount of damage a warhead causes. For solid, non-explosive rounds this is relative to the projectile weight, velocity at the time of impact, and the thickness of the armor.  Long range solid projectile hits will cause less damage. Angle of impact is not considered.
• If the armor is thick enough, the projectile will not penetrate and no damage is caused.
• Projectiles with explosive warheads (WarheadWt in the gun data file) will cause additional damage if they penetrate the armor.  The explosive damage is not reduced by the armor.
• Components that reach their damage capacity change to a new state based on the DamageRating in the aircraft data file.  This can be light, heavy, disabled, or destroyed and each status has a different impact on the functioning of that component.  Components which detach when the reach their damage capacity stop functioning obviously, but those that do not (a wingtip component with a DamageRating of Heavy for example) still provide some functionality at a reduced level.
• A Destroyed status of any component apparently changes the entire aircraft to destroyed.
• A Disabled status on any component of an AI plane to receive a RTB (Return to Base) order.  Heavy damage status may or may not force a RTB - I've not tracked down the specifics on this.  Light damage status AI aircraft continue fighting as normal.
• Damage to control surfaces is apparently controlled by damage to their parent component. Assigning them an individual StructuralFactor (which is not evident in any stock models) doesn't seem to prevent their falling off, although I've not experimented with absurdly high values to confirm.

Because the hitbox modifications I have done in general decrease the size of the hitboxes, aircraft using the modifications will be harder to hit, but easier to damage/destroy.  Thus the need to increase the damage capacity via modifications to VolumeStructurePoint and/or StructuralFactor.  I prefer to avoid major armoring of aircraft (other than where they actually had armor) because the damage inflicted becomes range dependent.  I've contemplated removing the standard wood DefaultArmor (and further modifying the VolumeStructurePoint and/or StructuralFactor) to offset this.  Obviously DefaultArmor is a work-around as planes were not covered with an inch plus of wood.

 

 

 

[+VonS 1,424]

Hi Von Oben (and others following this thread),

 

Here are some stats. using the latest modifications I've made of the general aircraftaidata ini file - fellow flyers now get most of their ammo. out during a fight, and many of them get hits out too - one even got a kill. Overall everyone is now more aggressive and evasive maneuvers are more effective/entertaining. This was from a test dogfight between Nieu. 16 types and the Fokk. E.IV that I just tweaked today. Will upload these latest modifications with an 8.5 update of the FM pack and will scrap the two separate versions (hard and very hard) I had previously for the general ai file.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

 

P.S. Apologies for posting under this thread (was trying to post under the forum for my FM tweaks but can't add attachments there for some reason). Max. ammo. load on the Nieu. 16 was 485 by the way (97 x 5 drums).

[Nicholas Bell 117]

Hi Von Oben (and others following this thread),

 

Here are some stats. using the latest modifications I've made of the general aircraftaidata ini file - fellow flyers now get most of their ammo. out during a fight, and many of them get hits out too - one even got a kill. Overall everyone is now more aggressive and evasive maneuvers are more effective/entertaining. This was from a test dogfight between Nieu. 16 types and the Fokk. E.IV that I just tweaked today. Will upload these latest modifications with an 8.5 update of the FM pack and will scrap the two separate versions (hard and very hard) I had previously for the general ai file.

 

No time to fly much lately, but every once and a while I get a mission in.  In the middle of a SPAD 7 campaign and am disappointed with how all the tweaking I did to damage models and guns for late war (ie 2 gun aircraft) simply do not work realistically with single gun aircraft.  I can barely get a kill and the AI wingmen are unable to score at all.

 

I presume you are satisfied with your mid-war modifications.  Care to share, given mine don't work?

 

Thanks,

Nick

[+VonS 1,424]

Hi Nick,

 

The stats. I've posted above I was able to get in early and mid-war scenarios using the following (latest) tweaks that I applied to the general aircraftaidata ini file (will post this one with an 8.5 update of the FMs but here is the data below for those who are interested). It is difficult to get kills from one-gun aircraft I've noticed too but I find them challenging so I usually fly earlier war scenarios - shots that exceed about 200 meters with a one-gun setup are usually useless - best is to get closer than 100 meters, ideally 50 meters before opening fire. Usually it takes more rounds too since the field of fire is not as wide as on a two-gun setup. I usually try to take out the tail section, the engine, or pilot if you're lucky - hammering the wings and fuselage is usually a waste of time with single-gun setups. Data follows below:

 

Happy flying,

Von S

 

P.S. The gun setups that I'm using are from my big modifications for the 8.0 update with historical rates of fire and ammo. loads whenever possible.

 

This is for the general aircraftaidata ini file....

 

[AIData]

AileronDeltaRoll=1.0

AileronRollRate=-0.8

ElevatorDeltaPitch=1.2

ElevatorPitchRate=-0.04

ThrottleDeltaSpeed=0.06

ThrottleVelocity=-0.06

MaxPitchForAltitude=25.0

MinPitchForAltitude=-15.0

PitchForThrottle=0.1

PitchForAltitude=0.00087

PitchForVerticalVelocity=-0.024

RollForHeading=10.0

RollForHeadingRate=-0.04

MinRollHeading=5.0

MaxRollForHeading=30.0

PitchForRoll=0.23

FormationSpeedForPosition=0.8

FormationSpeedForRate=0.5

GunnerFireChance=80

GunnerFireTime=5.0

GunnerAimOffset=0.080

GunnerAimAccuracy=65

MaxRollCombat=70.0

MaxPitchCombat=55.0

MaxRollFormation=3.0

FormationRollForPosition=0.01

FormationRollForVelocity=0.2

RollForGunAttack=1.0

RollForGunAttackRate=-0.1

RudderForGunAttack=2.8

RudderForHeading=0.7

RudderForYawRate=-0.3

RudderForSideslip=2.5

TakeOffRotationAngle=10.0

 

[DogfightNovice]

SafeAltitude=40

DefensiveAngle=35

ChanceDefensiveTurn=70

ChanceBreakTurn=80

ChanceHardTurn=70

ChanceTurnDirection=90

ChanceContinue=45

ChanceCheckNewTarget=30

ChanceUseVertical=40

RollForGunAttack=2.5

RollForGunAttackRate=-0.15

MaxRollForGunAttack=70

CannonFireAngle=35.0

MaxCannonRange=1000

OptimalCannonRange=120

MinCannonRange=50

CannonBurstLengthShort=6.0

CannonBurstLengthLong=10.0

 

[DogfightGreen]

SafeAltitude=20

DefensiveAngle=45

ChanceDefensiveTurn=80

ChanceBreakTurn=90

ChanceHardTurn=80

ChanceTurnDirection=85

ChanceContinue=55

ChanceCheckNewTarget=35

ChanceUseVertical=50

RollForGunAttack=3.0

RollForGunAttackRate=-0.2

MaxRollForGunAttack=90

CannonFireAngle=30.0

MaxCannonRange=800

OptimalCannonRange=120

MinCannonRange=40

CannonBurstLengthShort=5.0

CannonBurstLengthLong=8.0

 

[DogfightRegular]

SafeAltitude=60

DefensiveAngle=60

ChanceDefensiveTurn=90

ChanceBreakTurn=90

ChanceHardTurn=90

ChanceTurnDirection=70

ChanceContinue=65

ChanceCheckNewTarget=45

ChanceUseVertical=65

RollForGunAttack=3.5

RollForGunAttackRate=-0.2

MaxRollForGunAttack=120

CannonFireAngle=25.0

MaxCannonRange=600

OptimalCannonRange=90

MinCannonRange=30

CannonBurstLengthShort=4.0

CannonBurstLengthLong=6.0

 

[DogfightVeteran]

SafeAltitude=100

DefensiveAngle=75

ChanceDefensiveTurn=100

ChanceBreakTurn=100

ChanceHardTurn=100

ChanceTurnDirection=55

ChanceContinue=75

ChanceCheckNewTarget=60

ChanceUseVertical=80

RollForGunAttack=4.0

RollForGunAttackRate=-0.25

MaxRollForGunAttack=150

CannonFireAngle=15.0

MaxCannonRange=500

OptimalCannonRange=80

MinCannonRange=20

CannonBurstLengthShort=3.0

CannonBurstLengthLong=5.0

 

[DogfightAce]

SafeAltitude=80

DefensiveAngle=90

ChanceDefensiveTurn=100

ChanceBreakTurn=100

ChanceHardTurn=100

ChanceTurnDirection=40

ChanceContinue=90

ChanceCheckNewTarget=70

ChanceUseVertical=90

RollForGunAttack=5.0

RollForGunAttackRate=-0.25

MaxRollForGunAttack=180

CannonFireAngle=10.0

MaxCannonRange=400

OptimalCannonRange=70

MinCannonRange=10

CannonBurstLengthShort=2.0

CannonBurstLengthLong=4.0

Edited August 11, 2016 by VonS