Tweak for more dangerous power dives

[+VonS 1,424]

Hello FE/FE2 flyers,

 

Thought I'd start a new post for this topic since it's something I was thinking of for several months in FE2 - how to make dives and recovery from dives more dangerous/realistic (reminiscent of RB3D). The tweak is a fairly simple one but requires patience. A MaxG value should be included for upperright, upperleft, bottomright, and bottomleft wing values in the data ini files. I stumbled on this while tweaking the Nieu 12 today - there is a general MaxG value under FlightControl in the data inis that I've modified for previous updates of the FM packs - but the trick is to include such values for the wings as well, and to modify those values further - I am assuming that this would work for wing tip entries as well but I have so far tested only with main wing panels - the results are very good. (I will roll these modifications into a future version of the FM updates, once I am happy with the results.) In the meantime, here are a couple of pics of quick (unsuccessful) recovery from power dives.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

 

 

[+Coupi 4,279]

Hello,

 

Great!

 

Is it linked with the structural factor parameter found in the data.ini files?

 

The SF2 TW MiG-15 used it in the [Fuselage] section: StructuralFactor=2

 

Coupi.

[Do335 382]

very interesting! didn't know MaxG works for individual liftsurface as well, will see if it applies to SF2..

 

coupi: structuralfactor is damage modeling param aka how tough is the [fuselage] against gunfire.

[+VonS 1,424]

More updates:

 

Values for MaxG, for wing components, can be set to the same value as MaxG listed under FlightControl in the data ini, providing that that value is realistic/low enough (most of my MaxG values for the FE2 data ini tweaks are fairly low whenever possible).

 

Other things that are important: setting the top wing panels to a lower MaxG value than the bottom wings will guarantee that all wings break off in a quick attempt to get out of a power dive. Leaving the bottom wing values low, and the top wings high, for MaxG - should result in the bottom wings breaking off while the top wing remains intact. A simpler solution is to set all panels to the same MaxG - and to match up with the MaxG under FlightControl.

 

Also, if you include a MaxG value for the LeftStab and RightStab entries - you will be able to rip your elevators/tail assembly off in a dive too - very fun.

 

The slow part will be testing how much breakage is realistic - eventually this will be rolled out into one of my FM update packs (since I have to go back and tweak more than 170 data inis).

 

Edit: I might roll this "flimsiness" into the Nieuport line for ver. 8.6 of the FM pack, as a start.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

[+ojcar 157]

Have done that time ago in the Aviatik DI FM. I had to tune it down a little, because people complaints...

[+VonS 1,424]

Hi Ojcar,

 

Thank you for the feedback. You are right that it might make flying more difficult in FE2 - from further observations, I have noticed that these tweaks don't seem to affect the AI. The AI, being "smart," will never fly above the MaxG limits set in the data inis - so that only the player seems to be at risk for these structural disasters to the plane. I did spot in one of my tests the wings coming off of a MS-N but that was after they were shot down and accelerating - while being flown by the AI, no structural problems occurred to the aircraft, even when I set MaxG values very low to about 0.5, 1.0, 1.5.

 

I tried a few more experiments: considering that the MaxG value under FlightControl is the one that the AI "listens" to - I increased that value to something like 6.0, 7.0, etc., but left the MaxG values for the wing and tail surfaces quite low, around 2.0, to see if the AI would be more reckless and would cause structural failure to AI-flown aircraft. Again I had the same results, with the AI always being careful not to break anything.

 

This means that the player will be at a "disadvantage" to AI-flown planes if MaxG values are set too low, resulting in aircraft that are too fragile. Unless there is a way to implement structural failure risk across player and AI-flown aircraft, like in RB3D - it is best to use caution with the MaxG values for lifting surfaces.

 

I think that a "safe" solution is to copy the MaxG number located under FlightControl into the left/right wing panels attached to the fuselage, also into the tail surfaces (left/right stab). This way there is sometimes a risk of structural failure, making it more challenging for the player to maneuver in the game (and making the AI appear more difficult) - but too much flimsiness should be avoided.

 

One other factor to consider here is the sensitivity of the elevators - stiff ones allow a plane to stay safe even with relatively low MaxG limits. Sensitive elevators can easily rip things apart if the MaxG is too low.

 

I will implement some subtle MaxG limits for the Nieu. types as an experiment (for the 8.6 FM update) - but will avoid too much of these changes for now.

 

Edit: I remember the Aviatik D.I breaking sometimes in steep dives, but didn't make the connection with MaxG values for lifting surfaces until I started tweaking the Nieu. 12 (I always found that impressive on the Aviatik).

 

Happy flying,

Von S

Edited December 18, 2016 by VonS

[+VonS 1,424]

Further thinking on this topic leads me to the following conclusions:

 

(a) MaxG under FlightControl of equal value to MaxG values for lift surfaces = you and the same plane-type AI follow the same "rules" of gforces

 

(b) MaxG under FlightControl set less than MaxG values for lift surfaces = you can be more reckless than the AI in the same plane type

 

(c ) MaxG under FlightControl set greater than MaxG values for lift surfaces = you are at a disadvantage to AI flying the same type

 

Von S

Edited December 18, 2016 by VonS

[+VonS 1,424]

Hi Coupi (and others following this thread),

 

After more testing, it appears that the StructuralFactor value for lift surfaces is related to MaxG forces for those same lift surfaces, to the extent that the values can be made to work together. In other words, lower StructuralFactor numbers, together with a MaxG force limit, can increase the risk of structural failure (even with absence of bullet damage). I did an experiment on the Nieu 17/23 types by lowering the typical StructuralFactor numbers of 2 and 4, for lift surfaces, to something like 1.5 and 3, or sometimes to 2, from 4 - and when implemented with MaxG limits - this further increases the chance of planes falling apart.

 

In my opinion, they then become too flimsy. For the Nieup. types it seems a good option to leave the StructuralFactor values as they are, and to include MaxG limits for lift surfaces. Also I spotted that some of the lift surfaces have a strange DamageRating value of "Disabled" - I am currently going through the Nieu data inis and changing DamageRating to "Destroyed" for lift surfaces - this results in more realistic physics post-damage (from reckless flying).

 

The Morane Saulnier N also had this problem - with both wings broken off it would still fly - changing all damage ratings to "Destroyed" solved the problem - will roll these important changes into ver. 8.6 of the FM updates.

 

Happy flying,

Von S

[+VonS 1,424]

More observations on the maxg and structuralfactor tweaks, for those following this thread:

 

The "magic number" seems to be about 4.4, for the MaxG entry - numbers lower than this increase the chance of breaks in power dives noticeably, while numbers higher than this noticeably increase the strength of lift surfaces. MaxG numbers are of course somewhat relative too, depending on the top speed/weight of the aircraft, also of the sensitivity of the elevators. Can't remember now where I read the info., but I think that the Germans tested aircraft in WWI, in the first couple of years of the war, to about 4.2/4.3 G - so FE2 seems accurate in this regard too.

 

Eventually I would like to incorporate maxg ratings for lift surfaces across all of the data inis, but will "upgrade" this in packages - next up are the Albatros v-strutters and early Pfalz and Fokker types, also the Parasols.

 

Also noticed in a flight recently (I was in a Fokk. E.Ia, attacking an MS-N) - the MS-N was hit several times but then I ran out of ammo. I thought I was out of luck but the MS-N went into a shallow dive to avoid another Fokk., and its wing tips broke off - it then crashed. Perhaps the result of some of the hits it took previously, increasing the chance of wing-breakage, even while still flown by the AI pilot. I'm very pleased to see this greater variety of post-damage results in FE2.

 

Happy flying,

Von S