Tailspin

Ok, thanks. It does rewrite everything though. Thats why I didn't bother with it.

Tin foil? Hah! They don't even make tinfoil anymore. That don't work anyway. You gotta have an electrical field. All you need is a baseball cap, some screen from a screen door (gotta be metal screen not that nylon crap), and a speed control from an old Lionel train set. That way you can adjust the intensity for different satellites. :yes: BTW....its gotta be from an OLD train set. They can make the solid state electronic stuff work for them.

Peter. Is there any difference between the Oct. "b" patch and the Nov. patch? I had already started fiddling with the Oct. patch and never installed the Nov patch because the readme only states the Nov. patch fixed the quick mission CTD.

Oh yeah, FE is date configurable as far as plane types are concerned.

Seemed to be heavily weighted towards the end of the war? The title of the game: First Eagles The Great Air War 1918. Actually there are 4 air arms represented. USAS, RFC, FRANCE, and GERMANY. As for focus the American sector in the first release. The British sector in the EP with new British planes and the addition of more German planes to fly. The French sector will be covered in the next iteration... with new French planes along with more types of German A/C to fly if the previous release is any indication. The focus will likely remain the 1918 time period. The campaigns? Not up to RB3D standards. RB3D is a different game. At least there is some variety in missions and opponents. There are suprises and there is a lot going on in the air. The main problem, IMHO, is the "success" parameters are too stringent. I guess my point is that TK and Thirdwire make no pretensions about the product they produce. It seems to me that too many people tend to expect too much for no apparent reason other than the propensity to compare FE to RB3D. FE never pretended to be RB. The price, IMHO, also tends to reflect content or vice versa. For $30 US you get 8 flyable planes (actually 11 counting the extra Camels and DIII) . With a few easy file modifications you can fly three more fighters (2 SPAD VIIs and the DVa). Thats 14 fighters. Then there are the bombers...not perfect modifications as far as cockpits go but they'll fly and you can drop bombs and hit targets. This is all without add-on aircraft. The AI is very good...again even without modifications. Not too bad a deal, IMO.

First, I don't play online. However I was under the impression that cheating was not possible because of a file check system that required everyone to have exactly the same files. Second, you should have done some research about Thirdwire sims if online flying is your main interest. Thirdwire has never had a very elaborate online system and the developer has stated many times that aspect of the game is WAY down the list of things to do. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't entirely eliminated from all titles in the future. The WHY, to many of your complaints has been stated over and over and over again. Thirdwire is basically a one man operation with a limited budget. It simply is what it is. This series is several years old. I can't understand why people don't seem to have a clue as to what Thirdwire is all about. It definitely isn't about online play or elaborate user interfaces with sophisticated built in mission and campaign builders, ie. not many "bells and whistles". No its not free, but its not a new company with no history that potential customers can't research either. Regarding Zeppelins. They are an add-on. There is no specific game code for Zeps. When you put them in the game, the game "sees" them as normal aircraft. Back to online play. I've been here for a few years and I think its safe to assume that the great majority of all the series fans don't really care about online play. FE is no different. Seems to me that complaining about online play in Thirdwire sims is like complaining that the V6 Mustang you bought doesn't run like a GT. gwar....you've been around long enough to know better. You'd better just wash your one hand and get over it.

Yep. Since these were designed to be fired at and exploded among large bomber formations what I did was make the missile appropriately inaccurate, then fiddle with the fusing until I got the distance I wanted, THEN increase warhead size (I used FAE as the type) until I got the damage effects I wanted. Sometimes you gotta throw the "book" out. :yes:

When I was experimenting with the Wasserfal the proximity fusing worked. Here's two exploding. IIRC the distance was set at something like 50 meters. With the warhead I used that was close enough.

The prime suspect is still probably the SLI set up. Have you tried just using one vid card?

Whoops...Russ beat me to it.

Look in the Elevator section of the data.ini for a line pertaining to reverse control or orientation or similar wording. Not sure, don't have the data.ini available right now.

I reached much the same conclusions regarding the player plane in my testing. You can tie in the stress sound to the MaxG and breaking points of the components. Once you hear the loudest stress sound, if you continue to add Gs you will cause a failure. How quickly that happens depends on fine tuning MaxG for the components. Failure doesn't occur at precisely MaxG. You have to sustain Gs somewhat higher than that. As airspeed directly relates to G forces you can determine a "speed limit" of sorts for extreme maneuvers. Worked pretty well, I thought. The problem is determining the "danger zone" for airspeed. Should it be 150mph? Higher? Lower? I have no idea what would be "realistic" and work with the AI also. Thanks for the AI info. Now all we need are some ideas as to what would be desirable to the community in regards to this.

Nope. I was just fooling around. Nevermind.

Ummmmm..................

Peter...Its the Jan. 09 update I'm using. It looks like the AI is constantly over-correcting pitch input. Steve43...Thanks! I'll try that...and WELCOME to CombatACE! Happy to have you aboard.

Not sure form your post that you actually installed the latest DX 9c or not but you have to do that to get the proper DX 9c files to run the game.

I think we can all agree that there were indeed limits on maneuvering due to airframe stress and design limits. We know how that can be applied in the game. The question and debate is what are those limits. Each aircraft was different...sometimes vastly different....and that affected how they were used and their effectiveness in combat. Stalls and spins are another matter that needs more attention, especially departure from controlled flight. What I mean is most of these models in the game don't depart like they should. A stall at any attitude but wings level should result in an immediate spin. Most all these A/C seem to have been easily recoverable with the exception of the SPAD XIII and the Camel which were know for vicious stall characteristics. The Fok. DVII on the other hand reportedly had very gentle stall characteristics and was difficult for even novice pilots get a departure. IMHO incorporating these features to the sim would add a more WWI "feel" to the flying. These are just my ideas. Everything is open to debate, of course. I'm hoping that, as a group, we can reach some sort of consensus. Peter doesn't need to do ALL the work either. I'm pretty sure I can do the stress model testing as far as player A/C go. We just need to come up with a starting point and fine tune it from there. The AI is a different story. Maybe they are "smart" enough to not go too fast.

Also, I think its worthy to note that many of the described maneuvers in the manual are preformed "power off". What's the reason for that? Perhaps to avoid building up too much speed? One can easily see the difference in G load and speed in the sim by calling up the debug screen and watching the "G-meter" as you maneuver at various speeds. I haven't tried it with the new patch but previously you could pull 4-5 Gs at higher speed during "normal" combat maneuvers. I set up A/C components to break at around 4 or 5 Gs and it effectively put a limit on such maneuvering. Added more "realism" IMHO. Again IMHO, the AI is approaching the "Uber" stage in some cases. I'd just as soon they had to keep within (as nearly as practical) the same flight envelope as the player did. But, being an enthusiast and still enjoying the game as it is, I'll take what I can get. If TK would quit screwing around (don't mean that in a derogatory sense) with the FMs then we could work on fine tuning. I'm sure Peter would agree on that part regardless of any philosophical differences. :yes:

Application of the principles of aerobatics explained in this chapter should be preceded in flight by some hours' practice in climbing turns and stalling turns at altitudes of 2,000 to 3,000 feet. Getting close upon other airplanes without being seen is also valuable maneuvering practice. Not every pilot is successful in learning aerobatics; comparatively few, in fact, are designated by the instructors to master these air evolutions; but the heady man who is physically fit takes to this form of flying readily and is fairly certain to come out with a whole skin if these two primary rules are rigidly observed: 1. Always leave a wide altitude margin between the airplane and the ground. 2. Do not effect too sudden changes of direction; straighten out gradually after diving. True. Its the speed at which maneuvers are initiated. This is why care while diving is emphasized. The faster you are going the higher the potential G load. The manual says to initiate the loop at speeds above 75 mph. As Peter points out looping can be a relatively benign maneuver...unless, as the manual warns, the pilot is careless and with the controls. Don't forget also the Tripe was an exception in that it had an adjustable horizontal tail plane that enhanced vertical maneuvers. Were these planes maneuverable? Yes. Indestructible during maneuvers? Still don't think so. Terms like robust are relative to the times. The Dauntless dive bomber of WWII was reportedly capable of pulling 12 Gs without failure. :)

For everyone's perusal. Advanced Flying by 1918 standards. http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft...l#content_start I don't think you could yank these planes around any old way without breaking them. Some of the warnings seem to suggest that also.

Btw Peter, since you are here, could you check the Pfalz D12 when you have the time? I was watching the AI fight and noticed the D12 was constantly pitching up and down while trailing and firing on another plane. Thx.

Difficult to say the least, Peter. I'm using the Nov 07 FM for the Tripe. Its very "quick". That advantage is offset by the single gun and it seems more vulnerable to damage so its not that much of an overmatch against the Alb. DIIIs that are most often encountered. At least the AI in this sim is capable enough so that you have to watch your six or they will get you.

Hmmm....well I never got around to loading up the Nov. patch. I'm still using the Oct. version. I figured the only thing the Nov. patch did was fix a CTD problem that I didn't have to begin with. I fly the Camels a lot and haven't notice any reduction in performance. I just tried a mission in the DR 1, wound up a 4 on 4 against Camel 150s. I shot 3 down myself and the AI got the other. It seemed easy enough to make a quick turn inside the Camel's and blast em.

quack...Are you putting the modified data.inis in the plane folders?

I'm 5' 11", weigh 200lbs. and in my 50's. BP is good. Cholesterol is good. Doc says to keep it under 200. I just lost 25 lbs. in the past 9 months or so. Not sure I'm up to losing another 20 just yet. I don't diet, just watch portion size. Seems like I can gain 5lbs. in a week if I don't watch it. Sure is harder to lose than it used to be.