Nicholas Bell

Here's how to stop your wingmen from "waltzing" from side to side in formation. Yeah, I know it's not really waltzing but that's what comes to my mind when they roll from one side to other in unison. I did a forum search and came up empty, so hope I'm not repeating old news... Each aircraft is a little different, and if you push the values too far they become too steady. Adjust to suite your taste - and post your edits on other aircraft. The critical factor is the MaxRollFormation. The common value of 5.0 creates overcorrection which starts the cycle of rolling from side to side. Examples: AlbatrosD3_Data.ini [AIData] . . FormationSpeedForPosition=.4 //0.8 FormationSpeedForRate=0.2 //0.5 . . MaxRollFormation=0.9 //5.0 <----critical FormationRollForPosition=0.8 //0.01 FormationRollForVelocity=0.05 //0.2 . /////////////////////////////////// CAMELF1_110_DATA.INI [AIData] . . FormationSpeedForPosition=.4 //0.8 FormationSpeedForRate=0.2 //0.5 . . MaxRollFormation=1.0 //5.0 FormationRollForPosition=0.8 //0.01 FormationRollForVelocity=0.05 //0.2 . ////////////////////////////////// PfalzD3_DATA.INI [AIData] . . MaxRollFormation=0.8 //5.0 FormationRollForPosition=0.8 //0.01 FormationRollForVelocity=0.1 //0.2 ////////////////////////////////// Pup_Data.ini [AIData] . . FormationSpeedForPosition=.4 //0.8 FormationSpeedForRate=0.2 //0.5 . . MaxRollFormation=0.7 //5.0 FormationRollForPosition=0.8 //0.01 FormationRollForVelocity=0.05 //0.2 .

Huh. I wasn't able to get the results I wanted without reducing MaxRollFormation dramatically, although I only lowered the FormationRollForVelocity to 0.05. Rather than me just being "wrong" - I would suggest we are approaching the solution to the problem from slightly different angles.

You're welcome. And thank you for your FM edits. They take a lot more effort. I'm running out of steam on this myself. I should note the stock 3W Albatros D3's and D5's, DFW, Camels and Spads are good enough not to bother with them. I've been decreasing the pilot sizes a bit, but if someone wants to do that for these they can do that on their own (reduce the x value to 0.25 and -0.25).

Be2c Be2d Dolphin Salmson A2 3W Strutter 110/130 Strutter 1A2 Walfish HitBox Files 4-14-16.zip

Thanks, Do335. Something to keep in mind when building a campaign. Does one use the [AI Data] limitations which means only morale and condition are impacting the pilots, or does one remark out those settings and set the Experience to 100 for a little variation? Not my experience in campaign games. In single missions it seems to be the case, but I regularly see planes "lose interest" and fly home in campaigns (I watch the AI a lot while RTB and after being shot down). I noticed this enough in SF2 to see if I could tweak FE2 to do the same. Found out that testing single missions was giving false results as compared to campaign missions. Perhaps Morale and Condition are set at 100 in single missions? Granted, the AI doesn't know when to bug out when outnumbered. I only see that in BoB2 and WOFF.

Spudknocker, FWIW, I get what you are saying. What I don't get is why the code would be written so that forcing higher quality AI pilots on one type of aircraft would beef up all other AI pilots, but there's lot that goes on in the program that doesn't make sense...

AEG C4 Fe2 Fokker D8 Re8 Sopwith Triplane HitBox Files 4-7-16.zip

Speaking of dihedral, while most 3W models are okay, the SE5a was pretty sloppy on the hit boxes. No dihedral, top wing wrong cord length and incorrectly positioned in both x and z axis, tail too large, stabilizers wrong z position.... Here is my fixed version. // Se5a Model By Thirdwire // Hitbox rev 8 April 2016 NBell [Fuselage] MinExtentPosition=-0.44,-3.14,-0.40 MaxExtentPosition= 0.44, 0.45, 0.5 [TopWingLeft] MinExtentPosition= 0.00,-0.75, 1.0 MaxExtentPosition= -1.71, 0.7, 1.1 [TopWingRight] MinExtentPosition= 0.00,-0.75, 1.0 MaxExtentPosition= 1.71, 0.7, 1.1 [TopWingMidLeft] MinExtentPosition= -3.01,-0.75, 1.2 MaxExtentPosition= -1.71, 0.7, 1.1 [TopWingMidRight] MinExtentPosition= 3.01,-0.75, 1.2 MaxExtentPosition= 1.71, 0.7, 1.1 [TopWingTipLeft] MinExtentPosition= -4.01,-0.75, 1.3 MaxExtentPosition= -3.01, 0.7, 1.2 [TopWingTipRight] MinExtentPosition= 4.01,-0.75, 1.3 MaxExtentPosition= 3.01, 0.7, 1.2 [bottomWingLeft] MinExtentPosition= -1.71,-1.2,-0.35 MaxExtentPosition= -0.39, 0.29,-0.25 [bottomWingRight] MinExtentPosition= 1.71,-1.2,-0.35 MaxExtentPosition= 0.39, 0.29,-0.25 [bottomWingMidLeft] MinExtentPosition= -3.01,-1.2,-0.25 MaxExtentPosition= -1.71, 0.29,-0.15 [bottomWingMidRight] MinExtentPosition= 3.01,-1.2,-0.25 MaxExtentPosition= 1.71, 0.29,-0.15 [bottomWingTipLeft] MinExtentPosition= -3.97,-1.2,-0.05 MaxExtentPosition= -3.01, 0.29,-0.15 [bottomWingTipRight] MinExtentPosition= 3.97,-1.2,-0.05 MaxExtentPosition= 3.01, 0.29,-0.15 [VertTail] MinExtentPosition= -0.03,-4.6,-0.08 MaxExtentPosition= 0.03,-3.4, 0.95 [LeftStab] MinExtentPosition= -1.52,-4.6, 0.05 MaxExtentPosition= 0.00,-3.60, 0.0 [RightStab] MinExtentPosition= 1.52,-4.6, 0.05 MaxExtentPosition= 0.00,-3.60, 0.0 [Pilot] MinExtentPosition=-0.25,-1.4,-0.35 MaxExtentPosition= 0.25,-1.0, 0.8 SE5a_Hitbox.txt

Since the map scale is reduced from actual, wouldn't it make sense to reduce the fuel tank capacity to reflect this on maps where in-flight refueling wouldn't be a factor (like Europe or Israel). Or is this already calculated in the program by increasing the fuel consumption in the engine portion of the dat file? I've been flying F-86s over Germany a lot lately and on occasion I get bingo calls from my wingmen, but not as often as I would think. Nick

Yeah, you're probably correct, but I've got to explore all possibilities to satisfy my curiosity I guess. Lately I've been focusing on this issue in FE2 and it's a lot worse. There the AI pays no attention to fuel levels at all and will fight until they run out. At least in single missions. I bring this up because in campaigns, although I've not messed with fuel levels yet, the AI in FE 2 at least has some small inclination at times to break off and RTB. In SF2 this is much more apparent, perhaps because of the additional 3 years of development introduced additional improvements.

Using the bounding box for collision points make sense on the surface, but looking at the stock models there are discrepancies which are confusing to me. Fuselages have 8 collision points. Some components have a single point (!). I think the hit boxes in general need to be smaller than the bounding box, which are normally larger than the actual component they are containing.

How is that done? I don't see them in the LOD Viewer.

Well, I guess from the answers the program doesn't take this into consideration. Thanks. I noted that I wasn't thinking about this for maps where inflight refueling would be required real world (SE Asia, NA). But on maps where bases are close like Germany and Israel, the aircraft have too much loiter time. And while this might be offset by the AI overuse of afterburner, that doesn't apply to late 40's early 50's aircraft without burners - and this is where I am seeing the excessive loiter/combat time. Extending the ranges so that target was farther away would only effect friendly aircraft fuel useage. I'd like a "fair" modification. Essentially I want to: 1. Eliminate stupid mission routes defending or attacking targets on the far side of the map when there plenty of assets to defend or attack adjacent to the airbase. This requires decreasing ranges which amplifies the excessive loiter time. 2. Increase the sense of AI self-preservation by "encouraging" them to RTB sooner. Hitting bingo sooner might do that. Nick

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, KJakker. After an hour of messing around I found out that key thing I had not done is setting the HorizonDistance to be less than FarClipDistance. Setting both far enough out eliminates the jagged edge, but with a cost in frame rates. Quite impressive looking at 79000/80000 but fps dropped below 20. I've settled with 39000/40000. I can still see a bit of edge in the corners when the FOV is wide, but I can live with that an still maintain 60 FPS.

Doesn't sound like Spudknocker has this problem, but I was hoping his thread might draw some expert advice on solving the jagged end of the map I have experienced on 3 different computers & OS's using Nvidia cards over the last 6 years. Settings are at unlimited. This is from FE2 but I also have the problem in SF2 (where I've incorporated Mue's tweaks). I've messed around in various ini files in areas I think might have an impact, but which have resulted in no effect or program crashes during loading. Appreciate any advice. Thanks! Nick

Stephen, your models are impressive. I'm not really keeping track of the corrections I'm making nor do I want to highlight the mistakes I've found on anyone's specific model. I know no one intentionally put in bad data. Some examples of the serious problems: -Vertical stabilizers the size of barns -Tails extending 5 meters in front of the aircraft -Wings hit boxes misaligned on various or all axis -Wing hit boxes less than half the actual wingspan -Missing hit boxes on one side of because of missing or adding negative signs resulting in 2 hit boxes in the same location (very common problem) I'm also tweaking wing thickness and attempting to standardize the hit boxes. Some errors I cannot address because of problems with nodes. I've gotten through a good number of mid and late war aircraft. My biggest challenge is how to present the data given the fact that not everyone is using the same .dat files. Suggestions welcome.

I can do that, but I would have to recommend copying over the hitbox data to your own dat files given my are a mish-mash of tweaks...

I'm working on correcting hit boxes using Mue's LOD tool - they are really messed up on a lot of aircraft (and I mean really bad with boxes way outside the aircraft!). Also tweaking gunnery accuracy and DM models. So a lot of single missions.

Looks great. Guess I'll need to throw some money at TK so I have the programs needed to use it.

After flying several scenarios I just can't anything definitive on the E-10. The AI likes it and is scoring 2-1. Even with decades of joystick time, I'm still rather ham-fisted, so the subtle difference is likely lost on me...sorry. I will say that the E-10 really felt heavy on the control below 180 knots - especially roll rate. Again, that may just be me. One thing that is really frustrating is that recently the AI MiG's when set to Ace/Veteran onlyrefuse to get into any extensive defensive turn fights, preferring to accelerate away and then perform short directional changes. So I can't really test the turn rates. Thanks again for your work on these. It's a black art to me!

I tried the F-30 twice last night using a large scenario I have which usually results in a large furball with something like 100 aircraft engaged. This provides for a lot of opportunity to watch AI on AI engagements, although is not the best method consistent testing. Some 1 on 1, 2 on 2, 4 on 4 engagements are better for testing I know. Neither I nor the AI have any problems with pitch sensitivity or other handling. The AI handles the F-30 very smoothly. Both MiG 15 types displayed extreme fish-tailing when in any defensive combat mode. I need to force the experience level to Veteran or Ace in their dat files next time (like the F-86s) to determine if this is experience related. And AI experience has a lot of influence. In the first engagement, my 16 plane squadron claimed 4 (2 mine) and lost 8, while in the second go-round we claimed 11 (3 mine) and lost 5. With scores of other aircraft engaged it’s impossible at a glance to determine who came out ahead overall. In the first scenario, the AI squadrons were obviously seeded with higher quality pilots. Upon initial closure I ended up with a honcho and his wingman hanging on my tail spiraling down from 20,000 feet to the deck. They were unable to pull enough lead to shoot and after a couple of circles on the deck they got distracted and I extended then climbed out. Given the number aircraft in the area, I was unable to determine if they went defensive or decided to attack someone else. After regaining my wingman I went offensive and again ran into some very skilled pilots which took a lot of work to get angles on. I was unable to simply turn inside them and had to yo-yo my way into position, and then once I ended up in an extended scissor. I took one minor 23mm hit in this battle. In the second engagement, the AI evidently drew a lot of poor quality pilots as neither I nor the friendly AI had any problem staying inside either MiG type. And while at times they definitely accelerated away from me as if I were hardly moving, their indecisive nature and that fish-tailing eventually enabled us to catch up and nail them. I was unscathed in this engagement. All in all, I like what I see so far. Against better pilots I have to work harder to survive and to obtain a good firing position.

Before I go nuts editing didn't I read somewhere the program restrained limit is 11,000 meters?

Every one has a price. The question is, what is TK's? If he said $100,000 - are there enough of us to come up with funds? Until "someone" can approach him with a reasonable fee (whatever that is) all we are is guessing and wishing. Has anyone approached him with a kickstarter campaign? If there was a way which required the purchase of his product he might be somewhat more receptive. OTOH, I've worked with 2 other wargame designers/programmers and they are pretty much like TK. To put it nicely, they're difficult to influence once their mind is made up.

Do335- Looking forward to the release of the TU-2. I'm currently focusing on early 50's campaigns, so will be giving your revised dat files a try. Anything conditions/situations you want me to setup or look for specifically? Thanks!