Nicholas Bell

Yeah, I know Soviet export versions were always several notches down on features and quality. All I can say is the livery was Soviet, European camo, and the cockpit was in Russian. Not sure if they provided instrumentation in anything other than Russian on export versions. I've been a student of military history and was a wargamer long before I entered the Army when I was 21, so was aware that in WW2 the Soviets didn't waste effort producing finely finished weapons which had a short battlefield lifespan. My impression of the MiG-23 was that they continued that philosophy into the 1980's. (the reason I was specifically not given the origin of the aircraft was because I asked if was obtained by a defector. I didn't ask if it had come through a third world country like Iraq because of the camo and markings. One also has to think about the fact I was on a US military base in West Germany looking at a MiG... If I was at Nellis AFB (where I participated in Red Flag exercises) I might have asked a different question about how we got it.

There are so many free one's available, I could only say to use the one you're comfortable with. I'm using Hexplorer and IIRC it's only because it gives a decimal offset and hex value readout in decimal at the bottom frame of the window, without having to go to other menus. No worries on the smiley - made me laugh. You might be using a much nastier one by the time you get done with this!

I had an opportunity to inspect a MiG 23 while stationed with the US Army in Germany in 1985. I don't know the exact model, but it was in original Soviet camouflage and markings (and badly weathered, so it was not a US repaint). I had a top secret clearance but was not allowed know how it was obtained. What I really remember is the crude construction. Like most Soviet weapon it was built with the expectation of a short life on the battlefield. The panel/skin seams and riveting were really bad, and I can only image the amount of drag they produced. The cockpit was vintage WW2. The fuel tanks were not "internal" but formed the outer surface of the aircraft and when I tapped on them they definitely rang hollow - that is there was no internal self-sealing membrane which would have deadened the sound. Now that makes me think of what happened to the Concord. I've still think it is a really mean looking aircraft.

Herr VonOben, No need to edit your pilot (you), unless you want to zero out sorties or something. All player pilot information remains with that pilot until you delete him. Because of this, it's important to remember not to fly a campaign pilot on single missions or instant action if you want that pilot's record to only reflect his campaign activities. In the campaign save file: If there are 12 pilots including yourself, that leaves 11 AI pilots. Each pilot record is 436 bytes starting with 2944 (the first byte of the first AI pilot). Offset 2944 + (11 x 436) - 1 = offset 7739, the last byte of the last pilot record which is a flag - FF hex, 255 decimal (the end of each pilot record ends with FF FF FF FF). The minus 1 is because the start byte is part of the first pilot record. So copy 2944 through 7739 for your 11 AI pilots into the new campaign save. Don't forget to set the current date back if you want to avoid losing a mission. Hope this makes sense. What's clear to me is often not to others, so let me know. Nick

If you're comfortable with hex editing it's easy to cut and paste the pilot data from one saved campaign to another using a hexeditor. This enables me to play from one month to the next of ojcar's campaigns. The fact that most of the squadron doesn't survive even one month is what drove me to finding ways to reduce casualties other than flying fewer missions. Here's the decimal offsets for the FE2 campaign savegame file and for your pilot. You might recall I did an MS Excel spreadsheet editor for FE1 and the first generation SF. TK changed the file format so that doesn't work in the second generation sims. I can't seem to code newer versions of Visual Basic to recreate that type of editor, and my ability to create a stand alone edit is nil, given coding "skill" got as far as Basic in MS-DOS in 1995. So if anyone wants to code a quick utility for the community using this data, I'm certain it would be greatly appreciated. Although I must say that hexediting isn't anything to complicated (heck I taught myself how to hack files back in early 90s) and encourage folks to give it a shot. I should really upload this to the download section I suppose. To create the environment of 1915 the campaign has to have very few squadrons, and the morale level needs to be real low (20) to keep the number of planes in a flight low. I'd suggest "eliminated" squadrons by editing their aircraft and pilot quantities to zero rather than going through the hassle of actually removing and renumbering the squadrons. FE2 Hex Data.pdf

Martinsyde G102 hitbox revisions of Von S's data.ini file. Pfalz Dr1 data.ini - original dat file with hitbox revisions. Original FM, not tweaked by Peter or Von S (yet... ) Hitbox_rev_20-May-16 .zip

Outstanding Von S! The synergism of sharing ideas, experience, and cooperation at work. Your work is bumping FE2 up to another level.

Your models are outstanding. This is a huge undertaking that will be warmly welcomed when complete. Hope others with skills I lack will give you a hand.

I've been doing testing with opening up the CannonFireAngle rather than down to increase ammo consumption, with success. This would make more sense if it were labeled MaxDeflectionAngle, because that it was it is - it controls how far off angle the AI will be allowed to fire. Down at 1 or 2 I've found that aces fire very few times, because of the difficulty in getting directly behind a target within the MaxCannonRanges I am using. Not so big an issue with the huge MaxCannonRange in stock settings. Currently using CannonFireAngle of 20 for Reg, Vet and Ace. 40 for green and 60 for novice. Lots of firing, with practically everyone coming home with little or no ammo, except for the aces - which fits perfectly. No trend on casualties with these settings - all over the place with these as normal - except no entire squadron wipe-outs.

There are a lot of interesting threads on this topic at the Aerodrome, but this is one of the best IMO, if only because Tony Williams got involved. Nothing like having an well-known expert on the subject weigh in. The myth of German fire superiority? http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13296&highlight=synchronization

A question/ complaint often heard. This is a game limitation, and there's nothing you can do about. Other than get your 3 killed off in which case #4 will step up to the plate so to speak. It will be the same with bombing ground targets.

http://imgur.com/rEyWQCq

Includes: Hitbox revisions to Von S's latest Data ini files which he uploaded early May - ie they are ready to use. -Morane N -MartinsydeG100 -Pfalz EIII Text files with hitbox edit information only: -Gotha GIV -Pfalz EIIIAO (also good for EIIIA model) HitBox_Files_13_May_16.zip

Looks good! Something else to consider is the improvement in the Allied synchronization gear. The data is there, but not used – in the form of Vickers Mk 1, Mk 1_1 and Mk 2 which have realistic ROFs correlating with the improvements in the gear. For whatever reason 3W stock aircraft all use the slowest firing Mk 1s. I use JSME to swap out data.ini’s of aircraft as required to reflect the gear used at the time. In 1916 I use the Mk 1. In 1917 the new Allied aircraft (SE5a, Camel, DH4 & 5, SPAD 13, etc) get the Mk 1_1. Everyone gets the Mk 2 in 1918. Simplified, I acknowledge, as aircraft were manufactured with newer gear or upgraded in the field, but not a lot of specific information is available. One may want to give Sopwith Pups and Tripes the Mk 1_1 in their waning days of late summer 1917. Not sure about when the Spad 7 got upgraded and were used until the end of the war (which was something I didn’t know until recently). Anyway, the Mk 2 firing at 750 rpm will “assist” in quicker ammunition depletion by the Allies – and also make them somewhat more deadly. I cannot say for sure the extra 200 rpm when firing has increased German losses, but then I am using beefed up damage models across the board. The increase Allied firepower may be too deadly for “fun” (TK’s guiding design theme) using stock aircraft data ini’s. It’s worth noting that decreasing the ammunition load (as you mention was done) will have an impact in the simulation, as aircraft gross weight is calculated adding fuel, pilot and ammunition weights to the EmptyMass. You can watch the gross weight drop in debug mode as fuel and ammo is used up. Less weight improves flight performance. Fuel tank capacity is something that needs to put on the list to cross check, especially in 3rd party models. Although I realize the information is difficult to track down, I’ve seen some MaxFuelAmount values that look suspect, and which could well be impacting flight performance.

Just wondering, as I don't fly that era. But given the size of the hitboxes I'd reckon so. Thanks to Mue, I don't think I'll be able to play much until I fix every hitbox on every aircraft...haha. Actually this is the worse stock model I've run across so far. Usually they are not so bad. Tu-22 is close though...

You are correct. The larger the hit box the more damage "points" it takes before being destroyed. VolumeStructurePoint increases the base amount of each hit box as I understand it. Structural factor does the same, except it is aircraft & component specific instead of universal for all aircraft. In the case of the Harrier with it's over-sized boxes, it would be advisable to increase the Structural Factor to offset the decrease in size. Otherwise, it might be harder to hit, but easier to kill the plane. The problem with these oversized hit boxes is that one doesn't need to hit the 3d model with mg/cannon fire to cause damage. I would suspect that the hit boxes also have a role in detonating missile proximity fuzes, making smaller warhead and less accurate missiles deadlier than they ought to be. Apparently it was/is difficult for modders creating new models to see the hit box locations using whatever tools they are using. Consequently many add-on aircraft have really bad problems with hit box sizing and location. I'm definitely not trying to criticize any of these modders - none would intentionally make these errors given their talent and effort put into creating the 3D models. Until Mue's outstanding tools we were none the wiser. But it's hard to understand we didn't, as they have to have a visible impact on the damage modeling. For example, a double "==" or a space in a value "0 .05" where their ought not be one creates hit boxes that stretch to infinity in 2 dimensions. A missing or added negative "-" in the wrong place puts a hit box all on same side of a plane. I've noted hit boxes that are sized properly but off in the z axis, eg you'd have to aim way above a wing in order to hit it. I've noted pilots and gunners that are giants and extend 10 meters in height above the cockpit. I could continue, but you get the idea. What is amazing to me is I've noted some of these issues with 3W stock models, indicating a lack of quality control (although most are very good).

That is some crazy detail. Outstanding!

Great stuff, Von S. Thanks for sharing it. I also separate AI data and work to only leaving aircraft specific AIDATA and DOGFIGHT* in each aircraft data file. I cut the MaxCannonRange by at least half without impact positive or negative, other than the improvement of not seeing the AI pilots shot at impossible & ahistorical ranges (even for novices). I would recommend increasing the MinCannonRange a bit for Ace and Veteran AI as the often the sub-50 meter values result in collisions between attacking fighters and 2 seaters– even with my eliminating the wing collision points. I acknowledge this is ahistorical, as aces would fire from even less than 10 meters. I’ve also increased the CannonBurstLength’s from a minimum length of 2 .0 seconds for an Ace in intervals up to 6.0 seconds for Novice. These are more realistic than the impossibly short snap bursts the stock AI uses. I’ve fired 7.62mm and .50 cal machineguns while in the service and was trained to fire 3 second bursts. Less was really difficult and could result in a misfeed. Longer was the tendency for most people but results in less accuracy, wasting ammunition. A side benefit of this is to increase ammo usage with the “hope” of the AI running out sooner resulting in lower overall casualties. Difficult for the Germans to run out of ammo with all that they carry, but does have an impact on Allies with their Lewis guns. Athough I don't have independent verification of this fact, but read in the WOFF forum at SimHQ that even Richtofen averaged 700 rounds fired per kill. As an average this is believable as we don't read much about all his engagements where he did not score. Sure would like to see this kind of average in FE2. Tests on scenarios where I’ve edited the ammo load to 5% shows that the AI is given either a FORMATION or WAYPOINT command when they run out – not an RTB, unfortunately. Even with FightWithoutAmmo=0, the AI will continue to dogfight especially in a large furball as they constantly go defensive because all the EA in their DefensiveAngle. I’ve not tested it in small engagements, but theoretically it might be easier for the AI to disengage and follow their FORMATION or WAYPOINT orders. In a large 18 vs 18 furball with 5% ammo loads no one was shot down, but the furball continued until I gave the rejoin order resulting in my AI pilots immediately following the Formation Order. The enemy was given Waypoint orders and everyone went their way. For this reason I suggest that players advance their waypoint to 8 immediately once engaged. In this way any friendlies in the player’s flight will proceed to waypoint 8 if they are out of ammo, cannot see the player and not engaged. This as opposed to wandering back into a dogfight only to get shot down. Have you looked at the GunnerFireTime= values? I “think” it is delay before pulling the trigger, or perhaps the interval between bursts, but have not been able to conclusively prove that.

PM me a list of what you need done and I'll get on it. I'll send them back to you so you can review and post as you desire - or however you'd like to handle it.

Sweet! Any estimated completion date on this endeavor, presuming you were planning on publishing? Perhaps we might coordinate efforts? I can at least see the light at the end of the tunnel on my FE2 hit box revisions (54 aircraft completed so far) and would be willing to handle some of the load.

Well at least I know I'm not the only one struggling with this. After adjusting AmmoWt, Warheadwt, StructuralFactor, VolumeStructurePoint, MinSystemHitChance, DefaultArmorThickness, ArmorThickness, FireCheckTime, APRoundFireChance,etc etc in seeming endless permutations I've pulled out much of what little hair I have left attempting to find a "balance". I stepped back a couple of months ago to work on hitboxes. Even in FE2 the problem exists, if in slightly different form. When I get back to this, I'm headed in the direction of leveling the playing field so to speak between AP and HE ammo and adding an HE charge to AP rounds. I've already tried going the other way, taking the HE out and increasing AmmoWt of cannon shells, but couldn't get the balance (or the engine & fuel fires) needed. Really hoping you figure it out first, Baffmeister. I just can't deal with the stock planes falling apart just because I f@rt in their general direction.

Beautiful!

The number of collisions my AI squadron is suffering in campaigns is getting to the point of absolute frustration. I've got the damage model and gun lethality to a more realistic level I can live with, but I lose at least 1 or 2 planes to collisions on every mission. Especially bad in German campaigns, but it cuts across the board on nation, aircraft type, AI experience level. And it's not just happening in a head on merge, either. I realize this is not a new complaint, having done a search on the topic and read the discussion about whether edits to the AI might be having an impact . Just wondering if anyone has independently found anything in the last few years to solve this problem (or at least point to the source). I'm at the point of thinking about eliminating collision points (other than those required to land properly) and putting up with planes flying thru each. Thanks.

In either the AIRCRAFTAIDATA.INI file or in the individual aircraft [AIDATA] section lower the CannonFireAngle drastically to improve the AI aim. In the same section you can edit the MaxCannonRange to stop the crazy long range firing. I cut mine in half for starters.

I have experimented a lot with the ProgressionChance and ExplosionChance. The plane sit explodes if the ExplosionChance is set to zero. Setting the ProgressionChance to a low value or zero results in the AI continuing to dogfight like normal - not good! I gave the fuel tank a DAMAGE=DESTROYED tag, but that doesn't help, because the fuel tank can receive LIGHT damage and still burn. With reasonable settings - FireCheckTime=6.0 seconds and ProgressionChance=8 percent the plane will continue to fight for many minutes before it finally explodes. There does not seem to be a solution to get the AI to get an AI Action DESTROYED once they are on fire. I may try to lower the Structural Rating of the fuel tank to get it to be destroyed faster, but that will likely just cause the plane to explode sooner. i really would like the plane to burn until it crashes rather than exploding mid-air. Looking good. Don't think lowering the wing is critical. You would have to get someone to edit the LOD in Max or whatever program they are using.