Bandy

Wingmate on Dawn patrol in our N17's. Winter Cambrai, France 1917. Cold mornings like these, you need a bottle to nip on... Many thanks to the 3rd party community, and of course TK!

Change the pitch and yaw angle rates of the AI gunners in the data.ini's to around 20 to 30 (usually they are 40 or 45 stock), this will make a big difference to you if you attack obliquely, or barrel-roll into position to squeeze a burst off and get your ar_se outta there, though your wing-mates will still get chewed-up since they approach pretty slow and straight at 6. I don't think the SF game code will allow for reload on the rear Lewis gunners like in FE... Also make sure the aircraft data.inis have pilot hitboxes AND gunner hitboxes; I've been experimenting for some time with gunner HB's in BoB bombers, and they seem to work very well at modding the effects of great sprays of lead in crew compartments :yes: . I simply lifted the absolute rear gunner hitbox dimensions from TK's code in FE, and applied the corrected/adjusted X, Y, Z co-ordinates roughly according to the muzzle position of the gunner's weapon. Add in crew armour where historically accurate, and Bob's yer uncle; your wingies at least have a chance of knocking out that rear sting first. Maybe it isn't perfect, but it is sim-light afterall...

BP Defiant, yes! I've been waiting for that one, and thank you in advance. Those poor sods who had to fly them must not be ignored, they were very brave indeed. If I read a post over at 3rd Wire correctly, veltro=the modder-formerly-known-as geezer. After re-reading Peter Townsend's book (highly recommended to get you in the mood to BoB...), I was struck by the repeated anecdotes of how the 8 rifle calibre guns of the RAF fighters caused so many Luft. bomber crew casualties. I started to think about pilot hitboxes, and how that made a big difference in head on assaults, so I simply added hitboxes to the gunners in the bombers as well. It works as far as I can tell, and will pass them along (I know, I know...) WRT BoB terrain, new tiles always welcome to freshen it up, thanks. I've been struggling with figuring out TE for the first time (thanks for tuts Gepard) so I know it isn't as straight forward as all that, but is there any chance of someone modding real CLIFFS at Dover? Maybe nit-picky, but I've always wanted to buzz the chalk while hunting down 110's :yes: The longevity of this mod is truly inspiring, thanks to all who've contributed and those who play to keep it interesting.

Heck, Thank you for the post on coefficients, it is VERY much appreciated. Nice skins as well! IMHO, this is indeed a troublesome time for FE if you choose to incorporate 3rd party AC, but nothing that can't be overcome by the community. For aesthetic environmental reasons I do not enjoy the post-expansion/pre-patch game even though Peter's FM's are so well tuned against each other and provide such a damn fine challenge (hope I can say that on family TV...). If the all the wonderful 3rd party work is to be meaningfully included in TK's excellent starting point (and I'm sure others have also tried to use the alt FM's with the latest patch, and been disappointed...) then we either have to individually recreate the wheel, or work together. Many will remember just after FE was first released, and the rush by the talented modders to fill in those AC they wanted to fly, in particular the Nieuports. Some of those FM's came together through the hard work of a few people in an organic process where feedback was welcome right before our eyes here at CA. As a sim community a consensus may never be reached as to how these "kites" handled, and in fact "reality" may be irrelevant for game play anyways since our perspectives have all likely been tainted by simming in other eras. Does this mean we shouldn't at least try? I hope this doesn't strike too many as being idealistic and naive.

Sounds intriguing... I'm out of the loop I guess, please share if/where this may be available??? A search for Wild_Elmo at CA pulls the user name out of the list, but zero thread/post results or broken links.

Thanks Sinbad. Yes, labeling is a powerful technique that I used earlier. I am familiar enough with the tiles and was pretty sure that the tile itself was flipping due to assignment. Here is proof though FYI: The offending tile is found very near the southern end of the Cambrai front on the German side, and I found it actually flying a mission so it does come into play (ie: not an esoteric problem). Now, what is the solution? I am not familiar with the terrain editor, but could it be in there? EDIT: TK will handle the issue, and yes, the Terrain Editor is the way to go if anybody is interested. [a dawn patrol test flight and low light conditions]

Thanks for the reply Russouk, I know enough just to be dangerous. However, if you look to the bottom-right margin of the problem tile in the screen shot, you can identify it as the same tile (from the unique ground texture patterns making up the farms and crump holes) and see it is repeated again, but in the correct orientation. So, I'm not sure that the tile itself is the issue, rather how it's been assigned. Is this a possiblity? I don't see a flipped tile in the folder either. Puzzled...

I disagree. What I've found is that if one of my wingies has an enemy on his tail, I try to help out by closing the distance and then hit Tab-3, or call him to "return to formation". I then see my wingie break sharply to try to get behind me, and thus indirectly help me to line up the enemy following him. This has worked a number of times to save a mate in trouble, but I cannot say whether there were more of us than of them (advantageous numbers), as joes-shop mentioned. But do try this out.

Sheer white-knuckled fun!!! Try it with Peter01's flight models, the AI will make a strong man weep...

They do appear, and trust me, better run if the Richthofen's come after you (and you have Peter01's alt FM's installed) :yes:

This happened to me in previous versions of the game. I figure the flight engine just can't handle the variables with damage. Just don't Alt-N anymore with structural damage. IMHO perhaps a more realistic player approach would be to find the nearest airdrome for an emergency landing (pretty historically real option), or find the largest piece of clear field and try a crash landing. With your AC damaged and the engine-off switch, it is really fun to see if you can make it down without hitting the hedges

Anyone, I could have sworn I saw a Helldiver somewhere, and would love to fly one in this terrain, but can't find it on any of the usual suspect sites. Please point me in the right direction if it exists. Frustrated

Thanks for the reply Heck, and sorry, I'm only back to the forums very sporadically... Change of topic slightly, but still very much BoB related. A few months ago, I was inspired by a member's post (may have been Baltika--thanks) discussing the addition of hit boxes for bomber pilots in BoB, and how it affected interceptor tactics such as the head-on attack. It really does make a difference. I was re-reading Peter Townsend's BoB book looking for a piece of info, when I was struck by his personal accounts of how the Luftwaffe aircrews suffered horrible casualties under the intense concentrated fire of the 8 x .303's (with suitable convergence of course ). Memories of that scene from the BoB movie also come to mind with the bullets flying through the He111 canopy and striking the bombadier/nose gunner. These aircrews also had little to no armour that early in the war. On inspecting the data.ini's of the bombers, I saw that gunners also do not have hit boxes! Made me think. Putting one and one together, I inserted some hitbox values for each of the aircrew positions (using suitable X-Y-Z ranges lifted from the hitbox values of one of TK's gunners from FE...), and then positioned them at the co-ordinates of their respective guns (according to the muzzle position values in the data.ini). However, I was not sure how far back from the muzzle to put them (and whether it would make a difference anyway), so I simply left the hitboxes right on top of their gun, so not entirely accurate, but perhaps close enough for Sim-light. Opinions most welcomed... I think this will work, though to tell you the truth, with all the tracer flying around those formations and the required BoBing and weaving, it's hard to tell if the gunners are being put out of action. IF it does work, this means that fuselage hits will likely have MEANING, something that always bothered me before... ANYWAYS, I modded all the Luft. bombers and their gunners in this way, and would like to know if anyone would be interested in having a try.

Hope this is still on topic for you guys, and I'm glad somebody brought this up again. I lifted the following text right out of an old email conversation I had re: BoB and the Bf109 data.ini We managed to get much of the details resolved (proper armament if not the viewable mesh, engine HP) but the rest of the 109 min/max extent values I think need correction (see last paragraph below) Any thoughts? >>> RE: Bf109 I have done an initial look at the Bf109 E-3/E-4 DATA INI and found some perplexing code. In brief: 1) the code for the [Nosecannon] is active (I checked in game) and that armament configuration is not supposed to be in place until the 109 F or G model. This entry can just be // to inactivate... Also it looks like the "SLPowerDry=1492000.0" value in the E-3 data.ini is lifted right out of the Bf-109 G-10 data.ini file, and as the Gustav had a significantly more powerful engine, and that doesn't seem right for an E-3 or E-4. 2) both the [Fuselage] and [Tail] have no Max... or MinExtentPositions, or CollisionPointValues and what this means is unknown to me... It could be that the FM was coded differently, with these areas covered elsewhere in the flight model (such as fuselage), and in fact areas like the wings have up to 8 collision points, where the Spitfire has only 3 for the wings. But no Max Min extent values...??? 3) There is no [Rudder] code, though listed as a SystemName 001 in the [Tail] (or was it [Fuselage]? I don't have a copy of the INI here at work). 4) There is a [MidFuselage] Component, or System listed in the Fuselage, but code for it does not appear anywhere else. The [Tail] lists MidFuselage as its Parent Component... There are some other hierarchical entries that don't make sense to me as well, but hey, I've never made a flight model, so there are likely other ways to skin-the-cat... That said, other FM's are not made hierarchically like this... Bottom line, the Bf109 currently flys and is playable, so.... Also, I've noticed several times when up close on the tail of a 109, that my tracers are making "hits" with chunks coming off the A/C where there is no airplane parts in view to hit. I think this might be a Min & Max extentposition miscoding as mentioned above.

Ojcar, Peter's addition of more "headshake" likely compounds your problems of aiming. I find it very emersive, since those little planes must have been buffeted around quite a bit, and have enjoyed the added challenge it adds for some time. You adjust to it.

As promised, here are some select takes from the Jan 2008 Air & Space mag. The whole article is a good read. It is mentioned that an aerodynamicist, Jerome Hunsaker, "...saw the fallacy of the triplane arrangement and in 1916 published a critique of it. ... A German translation of the work did much to dampen triplane hopes." It is also mentioned that IF the DR1 could out climb the Camel, it would have been because of the pitch of the DR1's propeller to deliver maximum power at climb rather than cruising. "Fokker Triplanes did in fact lack in top speed what they possessed in climb". The section on rudder configuration and handling is especially interesting: one-piece rudder verses fixed fin + rudder, but perhaps this is more common knowledge among the CA audience...

You know, you could be right. That observation on AI "flying like you" was probably based from long term memory.... Real life has put a curb on my free time so far this year, so I haven't really explored all that post EP & patch have to offer. I mostly get shot down now with your flight models :blush2: but what excitement!!!

Aye, there's the rub! Various parameters, various forums, and patience... Centralization of the knowledge might at least help jump start others doing this, as you say, it's like a secret club not that anyone means it to be... And certainly not that you should bear the burden of recording this either, but who knows it better? TK? Those terrific WWII installs, that so many spent so much time on, are positively screaming for an update to WOI (as I understand better implementation than FE). So much work for all those add on A/C... It is overwhelming. Just an obs.

Yes, thanks Peter. This is really an engrossing part of the game.

Many thanks for your patronage MK2; the community wouldn't be where it is without your generousity. I couldn't imagine what my favourite flight sims would be like without CA...

I was posing a rhetorical question, sorry that wasn't clear... The fact that AI uses a simplified FM may indeed be the saving grace, otherwise it just might tame them down, and it would be d__n hard to perceive if it did.

TS, Also, don't forget it is summer (in the Northern hemisphere at least, sorry you blokes down under!) and may be vacation time for many. I really think this is a great idea and sounds like it positively oozes a reality check on flying style (perhaps especially for me :blush2:). BUT it may open a can of worms: ie, how does it affect the AI, if at all? It may change their "behaviour" sort of like how the minimum altitude setting ruins tree top dogfights. Just something to consider when making observations. Will give it a go! Thanks!

Thank you Peter for your time and effort, it is sincerely appreciated! It must have been a roller coaster at times for you tackling this monumental work. Did you ever go to sleep at night and dream about the flight models? A sort of philosophical question though on the way the AI performs. I've just a general impression (and at first it sounds like a no-brainer, but...) I sense that the AI will tend to fly against you the way you fly yourself. In many drawn out campaign dogfights where only me and an AI opponent are left (so no outside influence), if I make the combat into a turning fight, then the AI obliges. If I change the mix and go vertical, then the AI follows suit, and then back to a turning fight, etc. Perhaps the AI can't help but do this since its "prime objective" is to get guns on you, and better if on your six (???). So how do you overcome a trend like this in tweaking the FM's to MAKE the AI do the things it SHOULD do in a b'n'z a/c? Your past efforts have resulted in a much more unpredictable, and thus fascinating AI, which absolutely makes for a different gaming experience almost every time I fly. Best regards, BB.

Seamless tiles eh!?! Perhaps you've advanced past this, but just in case, this might be helpful so try this tutorial LINK. Though I imagine getting multiple potentially abutting tiles seamless is a PIA... CA_Stary, thanks for the FX update! I was just thinking how I enjoyed your beta WWII FX, but now, GREAT! BB.

That sounds absolutely great! Eastern Front that is... Soon to start another thread are you? I am truly amazed by the diversity of your work. PS: and yeah, I'm really enjoying FE-EP-patch as well !!!