Tailspin

Soooo....what do you guys think we need for engines for the DH4? Come on....speak up. Don't want to put any more work on Panama Red than necessary. I think definately the USAS Victory. As for the Rolls Royce engines and substitutes the guy in the link in my post above gives the clearest timeline (all I have for reference is the internet) but I don't see any references to the source of his info?

Yes it could be just you. But not this time. Wonder how to fix that?

Those all are very close to or match what I have seen.

No problem. Mine needed fixing too. I was trying to figure out what was happening with the planes exploding on the runway when I saw your post about your planes standing level on their wheels. Then I noticed that right after the game started the tail of the plane was dropping to the ground. That rang a bell...something about ground angle. Both problems solved. You actually pointed me in the right direction.

Check this link out: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_airco_DH4.html Panama Red.....Those numbers are what I see most often. I rember the US version had a cervice ceiling serveral thousand feet less than the Rolls. Something like 18000 to 19000 ft. Many sites list the ceiling of the VIII 22-23 thou. (I never fly that high)A lot of them recite the 143mph figure...maybe something in the mid-130s for the top of the line Rolls? Just tossing out ideas for discussion. I'll look for more info.

Well if your up to it you may as well do the USAS version too. :yes:

Ok, I think I've found the problem. Open the DH 4 data.ini, find the AircraftData section and change the following: [AircraftData] EmptyMass=1085.0 EmptyInertia=1843.9,2386.8,3640.1 ReferenceArea=40.0 ReferenceSpan=12.6 //ReferenceChord=1.78 ReferenceChord=1.68 CGPosition=0.0,-0.5,0.0 OnGroundPitchAngle=5.0 <--------change this to 10.0 DefaultArmorType=WOOD DefaultArmorThickness=28 Component[001]=Fuselage Component[002]=TopLeftWing Component[003]=TopRightWing Component[004]=TopLeftWingMid Component[005]=TopRightWingMid Component[006]=TopLeftWingTip Component[007]=TopRightWingTip Component[008]=LowerLeftWingMid Component[009]=LowerRightWingMid Component[010]=LowerLeftWingTip Component[011]=LowerRightWingTip Component[012]=TailTruss Component[013]=VertStab Component[014]=HoriStabL Component[015]=HoriStabR Component[016]=Nose Component[017]=LowerLeftWing Component[018]=LowerRightWing

Yeah, when you "spawn" on the airfield the tail is in the air then it falls back to the ground. If you have your throttle open the seem to want to explode on the ground. I think I know how to fix this but let me do some experimenting first.

One more question. Is this a high poly model? Something is killing my framerates. I noticed the skins are 2048x2048 but so are some others I use for different A/C and I have not noticed such a hit with those.

I don't know? There are 3 different Camels based on engine performance. A compromise is a good idea too. Since Quack has made a USAS skin I'm planning to modify one version to the Victory 12 specs...as far as my limited knowledge of modding engine data can take me anyway. Lets get some community input. What does everyone else think? Of course it also depends on how much time you want to spend on it. :yes:

Sounds more like it Panama Red. Thanks. Although I don't think the PUMA ever lived up to its factory rating and were, due to mechanical problems, in fact derated for use in the DH 9 in an attempt to prolong engine life....making them even more anemic. I think I'll use those numbers as is.

I can change top speed and hp too but I wondered why ? The engine data in the A/C data ini says Rolls Royce Eagle III 250hp. From the little reading I've done on the net the RR Eagles of all interations were superior to the other substitute engines. By the end of 1917 production A/C were fitted with the Eagle VIII. Do you have actual production numbers on the engine variants.? Regardless, IMHO, players should be given the option of flying the better versions and the USAS needs its own Victory 12 engined A/C. I doesn't make much sense to me that the DH 4 was considered a successful aircraft with superior performance if most of them indeed had the Puma engine....the same engine that rendered the later DH 9 a disaster.

Whats up with the max. speed of the DH 4? Flight data says 106mph @ sea level. Supposed to be 143mph @sea level. This bird ain't no fighter...speed is all she's got to get her out of trouble. Just flew an armed recon, blew up some trucks, got jumped by Alb DVs. Decided to run for home and couldn't make over, well, 106 mph. I had a good lead on the Albs and got run down from behind. edit...OK the 106mph is for the PUMA engine. The Rolls Royce Eagle VIII @ 375hp. 143mph ASL and US Victory 12 @ 400hp. 124mph ASL were much faster. The American version would also give us a chance to use US made armament like the .30 cal. Marlin (need a model) and .30 cal. Lewis.

The sensation of flying sitting in front of a PC monitor? What sensation would that be?

Aren't the streamers available in the loadout screen? Anyway, these screens remind me of what a fine model this one is. Perhaps the best one available for FE, IMHO.

Since Thirdwire has dropped multiplayer entirely from its latest versions of the series, I doubt that you will get that wish....at least in the game's current iteration. TK did mention a series of "dedicated" multiplayer sims but it sounds like that will be a new development and not integral with present games. The view system is what it is. It works fairly well if you learn to use it as it was designed.

Hello. From what I can gather the Brits developed tracer rounds for the .303 in 1915. Brock and Pomery bullets (incendiary and explosive respectively) were used against Zeps and ballons from September 1916 ownward. The United States did not develop their own versions until spring of 1918. What is unclear is exactly what the parties involved at the time considered tracer, incendiary, and expolsive. I've seen references to tracers as the bullets that made balloons burn. I have also seen reference to what I would call incendiary bullets as "explosive". edit...Ok, a little clarification. The Pomeroy was indeed explosive. It contained nitroglycerin and was designed to explode on impact but took a relatively hard surface to ignite it. The Brock was an exploding incendiary designed to penetrate a Zeppelin's outer shell and ignite inside. The Buckingham was the phosphorous incendiary round that ignited as it exited the muzzle of the gun. All were in use by Home Defense by Sept. 1916. This does not necessarily translate to front line use though.

You guys can always post these tweaks, updates, new ideas, ect. in one of the Sticky topics. Thats what those topics are for. :yes:

Mike, I think it has to be a compressed file like zip or rar.

Just FYI, I don't know how SimHQs software works but any moderator here can move a post with or without a "moved to XYZ" marker.

http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/1a/ima...luftkampf_E.jpg http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/1w/ima...lb_Eschwege.jpg http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/image1...k_Sanke1024.jpg http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/1a/images/GothaG4_1a.jpg http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/1a/ima...TM_inflight.jpg http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/image5/aerial.jpg http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/1b/ima...tLinesRecon.jpg http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/1m/ima...pwith.Camel.jpg http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/image3/imag0911.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...ial_photographs

My big wish for FE is for TK to fix the horizon "fog"/ distance issue. Thats just plain ugly and very distracting.

The problem with terrians like Flanders is it doesn't look much like French and Belgian farmland during WWI. Cultivated fields in those areas back then were generally long and rectangular and almost grid like. Broken up only by roads and natural barriers like woodlands, rivers, streams, etc. TK's terrain could stand improvement in those details for sure, but overall the stock terrain is not as far from "authentic" as some people seem to think. Look at actual aerial photos taken during the War and you will see what I'm takinig about. JMHO based on those photos.

Fault or not it is what it is. The alternative to using targeting aids is to manually "scan and zoom". The disadvantage to target boxes is the ~2nm distance the boxes appear. The advantage is that unless there is cloud cover you will always "find" the enemy. The advantage to using scan and zoom is you can see the enemy (the actual rendered A/C not a "sprite") at 2 or 3 times the distance the boxes will appear. Yes, it is awkward and disorienting and not easy to fly and look at the same time. IRL when when something is at the very edge of your vision you limit your FOV. Your eye does this by focusing. In game, your "focus" is the zoom key. You have to look at their attitude, plot their course, "look away" fly your plane then try and pick them up again where you think they are going to be. Once they get closer you can increase your FOV (use less zoom). As distances close it becomes progressively easier to fly and look. Of course your eye does this almost instantly and a game can't compete with the human body. However, I would think this system would work well with something like Track IR as you don't have to take your hand off the stick or fly or use the mouse with the off hand. I will add that, as I don't have Track IR, I prefer the mouse look for extreme distances as its more "fluid" and you can fine tune your focus on specific areas. I suppose the point of all this is trying to inform people that you aren't necessarily stuck with an inadequate view system doesn't render A/C until they are too close. You aren't. You just have to work at it. The sim won't do it for you unless you are willing to accept the compromises and disavantages of "cheating".