Tailspin

I took the DH2 on a couple of missions. One against Pfalz EIIIs...slaughtered them as expected. And another against Alb. DIIs...got shot down. Way more difficult against them...as expected. Looks like another good job, Peter.

Huh?

don246. If you look in the Fe2b folder and open up the data.ini there is a [Gunner] section. There's a GunRange=2000 entry. This is in meters and I think this is the maximum range the Gunner will open fire on a target. Realistically it shoul be no more than 500, IMHO. I haven't tried changing the value myself but why don't you give it a try if you have time. I'd be interested in the results. peter. I know you weren't speaking directly to me, although the shoe does fit sometimes. I was thinking more along the lines that we, as a community, need to try and get away from the feeling of tippy-toeing through a minefield everytime we want to comment about someone's work. BTW...I don't think its OK for people to say whatever they want. We do have rules here. Neither extreme is healthy.

Eric. I wasn't speaking to anyone specifically in reference to the freeloading comment.

I'll fly it more over the next day or two to get more variety in opponents. I think maybe the Fe2b was a better performer than the Eindeckers as it wasn't introduced into service until Sept. 15 and it contributed to the end of the Fokker Scourge. The fact that it stayed in service long after it was useful as a fighter speaks a lot to its "flyability". As far as everyone providing input....I do think we can and should discuss this on the forums and not via. PM. Comparing ideas should be productive. I don't think anyone in this group is going to take it the wrong way.

One quick observation on the Fe2B. The rudder doesn't seem to do much. If you apply full rudder the plane turns only a couple of degrees and then just stops.

Like I said before, I'm not a payware guy. Regardless, it seems its here to stay. So be it. What gets my back up, however, are the insinuations that those that are against payware are "freeloaders" or cheepskates just used to a "free ride". Bull! I don't give a damn if it costs a nickle. Its a philosophical difference. Now, I'll crawl back into my hole before I get in trouble.

Peter, I think you are doing a fantastic job. I think the reason I don't make detailed comments is because I fly on NORMAL most of the time. I do so because there are so many planes that I like to fly that aren't set up for HARD FM. As you know flying on NORMAL tends to even the playing field even more so differences in FMs tend to be negated. In other words, when you fly NOMAL all the time you can kill about any AI opponent in any plane you choose...within specific time periods that is. HOWEVER, since you asked, I will switch over to HARD and give em a shot. May take a while since I'll have to fly a few to get a better idea of the differences. One more concern about doing a LOT of work now is TK's comments here: http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4319 The next patch may change things again.

Don't care for payware. Won't be buying this one either. One point I'd like to make. People who think its all about the MONEY just don't get it.

I don't know why anyone who enjoys FE would need to feel sorry about anything. Regardless, we're glad you have found a WWI sim you can enjoy.

I haven't tried it but I doubt it can be done. I think the collision/damage model would prevent it.

That's the problem. The game images aren't what one would call high quality and light and shadows in a relatively low resolution screenshot aren't quite definitive.

There are 3-views here in this thread. See the link in the second post by P10ppy. Even in your photo the shadow causes the bottom curve of the fuselage to look kind of sharp. Without a well lighted side and bottom view screen shot, its still hard to tell how much of a problem there may be. Not to worry too much, IMHO. TK has been good in the past about fixing things if he can be convinced with good evidence it needs fixing.

Without better pictures its not clear if there is a problem or not. I think B Bandy may be right. If its anything the edge is too sharp. Considering the quality of the rest of the Thirdwire models I think it just a matter of their interpretation. I doubt simplicity in design had anything to do with it.

Actually the Gotha pit is just the Fokker D7 pit so I suppose there are a couple of ways to go. Here's how I did it. Copy the Gotha cockpit.ini over to your Staaken folder. Rename it Staaken_cockpit.ini. Change to CockpitSeat001 position to -0.5878,2.7419,-0.2647. Open the Staaken.ini and add Staaken_cockpit.ini to the line: CockpitDataFile= . Should be good to go.

Huh?

Same here B Bandy although its not exclusive to the Bullet. Some other models also have the same type of sound. The center postition is quieter than either left or right. I suppose you could also increase the volume in Windows sound recorder or some other sound prog.

Thanks Peter, much appreciated.

FC, I didn't have either the Staaken or the HP in the game before, but I just loaded up the Staaken, modified the Gotha cockpit.ini (it just uses the D7 pit) and tried it out. The bombs dropped OK for me.

Very "stiff" lateral control due to the wing warp and extremely sensitive in the fore-aft with a high landing speed...from what I read. Problem is, as P10ppy discovered, while it is possible to get a decent more accurate FM the AI cannot fly it. I know quite a few people have tried and they always wind up compromising the player FM to get decent gameplay. I know TK is working on the AI stall behavior so maybe things will improve. Meanwhile, since there are a lot of planes that aren't set up for even HARD settings, I just fly on NORMAL and don't worry about it...unless its something really screwy. While the FM for the Bullet is probably not like the real thing its, as mentioned before, balanced well with the other period A/C. The Fokker E.IV is in the same boat.

0.0,-0.51,0.72

Yep. This is one great package. Definately raises the bar. I've changed the pilot postion in the external view. Moved him slightly forward and up. Looks more like a couple of pics I found on the web. What do ya'll think?

Froggy, thanks for the tip on the directional arrows.

The loss of the targeting arrows is really strange. I wonder if it has something to do with the waypoint finder feature as the white waypoint arrows seem to be missing too?