Tailspin

Yes, that was the problem peter. Everything is working fine now. I think that was affecting the FM too as the plane seems to fly better now.

Glad the MS L problem was just a typo. I did get a CTD once when ending a mission but not every time so I didn't think it was related. I've just flown the Alb DI and DII, Halb DII and Fokker BI. Based on my opinion on how the rudder should work...for the most part on most of these A/C....the Fokker BI is just about right. The Halb is about the minimum I would expect and the Albs are still a little weak. IMHO I haven't come across any planes where the roll rate or elevator response was excessive. I like these FMs. They are very "flyable". I actually prefer the inclusion of stalls in the HARD model. I just like to be able to use the rudder to kick the nose around...especially with the slower roll rates of the earlier models. Is this realistic? I don't know. I'd like to hear what other people think. Oh...I'll fix the MS L data.ini and let you know if that took care of it. Thanks!

OK. I'll try more types. My comments are based soley on the Parasols, the MS H, and the Avros so probably "general lack of rudder authority" was too general of a statement. I guess I'll have to force myself to fly the "other guys" a little. I can also understand where you don't want to get too overdone with the parasols and the other "wing-warpers" as these types, by all accounts, weren't easy to fly.

Hmmmm.....make sure your stick is calibrated correctly. Sounds like your rudder is out of wack. BTW...you conpensate for sideslip by using the rudder.

I can only echo the previous sentiments and welcome you back also, Laton. Good to see you again.

Yeah, good news. Thanks 101tfs for providing the max files and Charles for getting them in the game.

This one's related to the other thread and I've read it over but how do I fix this? The problem is the bridgeheads are separate objects from the main span. As you can see, the bridgehead on the right sits on top of the terrain resulting in it not matching up with the main span hightwise. I assume to fix the problem I have to make the terrain under the bridgehead the same height as the main span...which is the same as the river? My question is how do you find such a small area on the .HFD?? Alternatively is there a way to lower the object height instead? IMO the way it is now just looks like A**. ps. Obviously this is the first time I've tried to use the TE so please excuse me for being dumb.

Where's the confounded bridge?!? Adding about half dozen bridges for each side as targets. Of course being strategic targets they will be well defended.

OK, we now have V1.1 available. All the Bridge lods and textures are included. Thanks Gepard. See the First Eagles file announcements page.

NP, rotagen. If you still want to make your own, you can see how Firecage did it.

Its certainly possible. Firecage has a campaign out, Planefest, that does just that. Without looking at your files, it sounds to me like you might have a conflict with Dates not matching up....just a guess?

Try asking over in the WOE/WOV/SF section. If it can be done, someone there will know.

Welcome to CombatACE, raffer. Yep, they are default A/C but they are not flyable without cockpits. Adding cockpits isn't difficult. Check out "How To Make AI Planes Flyable" in the Knowledge Base thread in the WOE/WOV/SF/FE forum. The SPAD XIII cockpit works great for the Salmson. The D7 pit for the DFWC is less satisfactory but it not too bad.

While the 3rd party planes are great additions, I don't think you can expect the developer to build his new releases around whats available from outside sources. Even the most popular downloads for planes here number only around 2000, give or take...I hope TK is selling more copies of the game than that. Based on those numbers and forum traffic, I think there are a substantial number of people who buy flightsims who don't vistit sites like this and don't have a HDD full of addon planes.

Yep. I'm looking forward to finding out what else there is in the new release.

Ok, I went ahead and released v1.0. This one doesn't include the Bridge lods and textures. You will need Gepard's Vogesen Terrain to get the bridge files. Hope to be able to include these in the download in the near future.

I agree. There are a lot of details missing that will enhance the sim. I think its just a matter of time before a lot of things like that get done. Sorry Viper, no fly throughs unless we can get someone to chage the 3d models. I won't be using the big railway bridge in this mod anyway.

Don't fly the SE5a much, but IIRC it has the most pronounced sideslip of any plane in the game. I think peter01 is working on the FM too, so its likely to improve. :yes:

Some AI are more prone to try and continue their mission instead of staying with the dogfight. It varies with the skill level of the AI pilots.

The only other thing I can think of that may make a difference is the Collision setting. Do you have it set to Hard also?

Landings are fairly easy in FE even on HARD. However you do bounce and you cannot land at any angle or speed without consequences. Something doesn't sound right.

This summer.

I think I know where peter is coming from. The "Stupid AI" is a favorite complaint about the sim. There are already a lot of "AI mods" floating around and there are a lot of people experimenting with parameters. The thing is you can change something and not find any readily apparent result, yet you could be making a significant but unintended change in another area of AI performance. IMHO peter is just trying to let folks know that you can screw it up worse by feeding the game "bad" information and there are signs that some of this "bad" information is getting into other people's files resulting in misplaced assumptions about the capabilities of the sim itself. I don't think his post is anything but a fair warning. Lets face it. Some people are careful about keeping backups and careful about what they do and how they do it when modding files...and some people aren't. If you're in the former group then the message is just a reaffirmation of what you already know. If you're in the latter, then you have been forewarned.

I think you have touched on one of the problems with the sim and the early (1914-15) period of the war. There were far more two seat observer types being employed for many different purposes and far less single seat "fighter" types in the air. We need more early two seaters. In the meantime we probably should set the BE2c up to do more fighter type missions like offensive and defensive patrols as it was a very common aircraft on the front early on. That would help provide the Fokker E series with the opponents it really earned its reputation against. Because, and I think history is pretty clear on this, when the Neuport 11, DH-2, and even the FE2b hit the skies, the Fokker E was quickly rendered obsolete. I just don't think the EIII was that good when you get past the parasols and slow lumbering two seat observation planes.

I'll echo what peter01 is saying. This sim is FAR more complex than a lot of people think. I forsee a lot of great things happening for FE. Patience is the key.