Tailspin

IMO the main weak point that causes the most damage are the top main L & R wings. Its the attachment point for the rest of the wing components and when its destroyed the entire wing comes off. If you'll add the StructuralFactor to both of these components I think you'll see an improvement. I like a value of 2.0 but you can adjust it to what you like. IIRC the StructuralFactor is supposed to increase the number of "hit points" required to destroy a component. 2 = twice the value, 3 = three times, etc. Of course you can fine tune by using tenths of points. The stock post Nov. patch planes seem to have been thoughened up and don't really suffer from this problem, IMHO. Strengthening planes is fairly easy. Not sure exactly how to weaken them. I don't know if a StructuralFactor of less than 1.0 would work...never tried it.

I've always used StressFactor=2.0 for components I thought were too weak. Of course its another "fix" that has to be added one line at a time. Funny you should mention A/C toughness. Today I hit an Alb. DVa 132 times an he kept on flying. Thats without any mods to the data.ini. I have my bullet weight at 80%.

BB, there are a lot of great sky mods for the rest of the series. Its my understanding the don't work well in FE due to differences in the terrain map (somebody jump in here with the right dope, please ). IIRC third party Horizon Cloud textures work OK and look good but since the EP the blue band has appeared under the horizon clouds. Also, like you, when I go outside and we're "socked in" I just turn around an go back to the barracks. :yes:

Hell, I've been known to ram a German or two after I've run out of ammo after putting 100 rounds into him and he refuses to burn. BB, right now I'm running a straight, bone stock EP1 with the latest patch. Seems to me the AI tend to collide at a rate somewhere around 1 in 6 or 8. Ie, if your flight has 8 planes in it seems at least one will collide with the enemy most of the time (assuming that an N/A beside a kill is a collision) and ocassionally you'll lose two. So a more agressive AI from Peter may indeed increase those numbers. Also, please don't take my ideas as an indepth study or anything. Those numbers are just a guess based on memory from checking most every mission "stat" screen. It may average out a little higher or lower. Is that "realistic"? Collisions were certainly a factor IRL, as they are in the sim. Do they collide too much? Again, I fly mostly single missions so its not a factor to me. However how the collision rate translates into a long campaign may be another matter.

Ya know, I've noticed this before but with this mod its much more evident. Sometimes the game doesn't render any horizon clouds at all. That seems to result in the ugly blue band even with this mod running. Glitch in the game or not? Regardless, your mod works pretty good Firecage. Thx.

Been trying this out FC. Looks pretty good. The improvement in the "Clear" weather sky is worth the price of admission. Overall your mod looks much better than the stock "blue band". I haven't tried it in really fowl weather but so far so good.

File approved. Looks good Laton. :yes:

I'd be happy with just a smoke emitter at the crash site that you can see from the air. A crater is a good idea. :yes: EAW had similar effects. On the return trip you could see several plumes of smoke scattered over the countryside.

For takeoff, make sure you hit all the waypoints...especially No. 2. I usually let "Otto" do it.

About the only time I see a real tendency for the enemy AI to ram you is at the merge in a head on approach. In a game of "chicken" they win every time. You've got to get your shots in and get the hell outta the way. I have not noticed a great loss in my AI mates because of this though. Maybe one or two occasionally but for the most part the friendly AI seem to handle it fairly well. I have enemy skill set to hard but I think collisions are normal.

Sounds good firecage.

I agree B. Its a major distraction, IMO.

Hello people. Please excuse my absence lately. Home PC crapped out. She was due for a much needed overhaul anyway. Should be back online in a week or so. I see we have some new goodies to try out.

Welcome back, Laton. Did ya miss me?

I would consider it a good addition. Wouldn't need to be too graphic, just a slumped over pilot. You never know about TK though. If enough people ask for it he may reconsider.

Hi Mike. I think you are looking for the SE5 AVIONICS.INI. Its located in the Objectdata.cat. Change the camera FOV. IIRC something around 16.0 works well. Of course you can fine tune it to suit yourself. TS

As far as I know its part of the code thats not accessible to modders. This subject has been brought to TK before and he didn't seem interested in changing it.

Welcome to CombatACE, folks.

Other than the occasional unexplained crash of the entire enemy flight when Alt/N I have not seen this with stock A/C or those last updated by Peter for the Nov. patch. Perhaps you have some older FMs in other planes that have not been updated? Then again I rarely fly all the way back home.

Download the SFP1e extract tool and use it to extract the huddata.ini. http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...mp;showfile=343 Just leave the modified huddata.ini in your flight folder.

That reminds me of the NASA site where they used aerodynamic data and computed things like turn rates and such. The best of them were near or slightly over 80 degrees/sec. The worst was the Fokker E at around 50/sec. Accounts of the time say the N11 could turn twice inside Fokker's turn. Perhaps an exaggeration but not too far off the mark. I don't think that data took into account things like torque effect, ect. that made the Camel turn right so quickly so a right turn at a rate higher than 80/sec. is likely.

Heck. You bring up a good point about the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome planes and their pilot's flying experiences. Although they do give a fair account of basic flying, I'm sure those pilots didn't put much stress on their A/C. You don't get that from reading their accounts anyway.

Thanks for that Geezer. I had already read the flutter theory on the net somehwere...lost the link...and basically agreed that was the problem IRL with the sesquiplane design. However knowing, as Peter pointed out, that flutter was not modeled in the sim I figured the only way to practically restrict diving speed in the sim was to try and add in a stress factor that caused negative consequences to the player for not adhering to some sort of speed restriction. (Seems like we both reached that conclusion, separately). Since the stress is based on G-load, that can also factor (perhaps unrealistically) into combat maneuvering. However if you can't dive over a certain speed then it follows (to me at least) that you can't perform drastic maneuvers at high speed either. What I did find was that lower threshold G-limits didn't necessarily cause damage at normal combat maneuvering speeds. They do require you to keep an eye on your airspeed indicator.

Thanks quack! The distortions are mapping issues, no?

Hmmm...I always thought the gunners were too deadly. I ty to make them as inaccurate as possible and they'll still get you if you aren't careful. I try and make a fast diving attack then come back up underneath for another shot. Continue climb and repeat. The AI has always been "rear gunner fodder". Doesn't make intercepts much fun. BTW...I settled on %80 for bullet weight. Seems about right to me.