Bandy

Hello, As the subject line says, I can't find the Jagdtiger or PzKpfw IV (not the Tiger, as that is VI), as required for "Fallen Angel" v1.1 Looked and searched here at CA, looked around at the other "usual suspect" sites, all to no avail. I'm at that point of frustration where it could be sitting right in front of me, and I might not see it. If anyone has recently dwnlded them, please let me know where they are... Thanks. ALSO, simply wondering why the 88mm Flak has never been modeled for Strike Fighters??? Seems like such a basic requirement for WWII era ETO...

Thanks all. I had no idea all that stuff was hiding in Edwards EAW terrain. This will be my first implementation of that fine work by all accounts. And no, the panzers are not Geo's, though I can see why you thought so. He has some really nice stuff there covering both WW's !!!

I love your stuff!!! If I may ask though, what is your ultimate plan? World domination??? ie: are you hoping to get the green light to release your work as a modded BoB terrain, or simply release the objects and make us do the grunt work too... OR, and I just thought of this, you're just teasing us perhaps??? I think you know what we're hoping for... Edit: oops, just saw you're planing on a release. Great News! and Thanks. BUT where are the Home Defense gents with the pitch forks and shot guns???

Peter, I sincerely and whole-heartedly agree that damaged bits should compromise flight integrity; it is a part of "reality" that has been missing on so many occasions in my experience with FE combat results (!!!). Also want to say briefly I'm STILL loving the new FMs, but just engaging you in a constructive way here. OK? That said, it is rather disconcerting to have shot off many of the control surfaces of an AI opponent to barely see any effect to the way it can perform, when in contrast you can be hit by a damn-lucky single AI bullet, have 1/2 yer elevator shot off, and then auger in because you can't do a thing about it... Then while flying an engine heavy plane like the SPAD, and getting ALL of one side of the tail shot off, not have the same thing happen! While I truly understand your desires and reasoning on this issue, especially with the nose heavy SE5, IMHO it doesn't make for game balance. [edit: not sure why I'm "defending" the SE5 here, it isn't even a favourite plane of mine...]. If I can draw a weak analogy here, perhaps relevant only in my eyes, BUT when FE first came out last Nov. the ack-ack was murder. It likely was modeled quite accurately, but it was a pointless game-death and only served to frustrate. [As an aside, TK obviously dumbed archie down (IMHO too much), so now it barely impacts and is more like window dressing]. As you say, part of this issue is the result of making good AI. Perhaps an answer may be in your suggestion to lessen the damage done by bullets--make it so AC require more holes before things happen to them, like elevators falling off . Nifty bit of laterally thinking there that I will likely implement in my own game. Hey, just my thoughts, would love to hear other opinions.

Had a quick look (maybe 5 secs) and it looks pretty bad...

No, it appears the SPAD is not as affected by loosing 1/2 its tail/elevator assembly (like SE5 and DVII), as I just had it shot off, and it still climbs very well. Also noticed the AI SE5 and DVII (and others in this batch?) will "porpoise" when not in combat and flying level. A very minor point, but perhaps related? Somebody tell me I ain't loosing it...

Unrecoverable dive (or nearly so) with partial elevator damage Hi again Peter, Had a chance to fly some more last night. Again, trying to keep things consistent, so flew the stock "warm up" 1 vs 2, and 2 vs 2 missions. (as an aside, I think my success against the SPADs is because I'm so accustomed to these missions, and I've figured out a winning tactical approach, thats all...). I've found that the SE5 (and to a lesser extent the DVII, perhaps SPAD but not sure) goes into an unrecoverable dive if only 1/2 the elevator is shot off ( to be clear, the part that moves not the whole side of the tail). I was in an attack dive with an SE5, perhaps 150 knots, and an Alb got a lucky shot and took 1/2 my elevator. I immediately throttled back, but could not pull out. I hit refly mission, and wouldn't you know it happened again. Again I throttled back and couldn't pull out, but this time I also applied negative pitch (went deeper into the dive) and went inverted, then rolled to right myself, but to no avail. I certainly had enough speed to carry me through the maneuver, but it didn't work... While flying the DVII later, I again had 1/2 the elevator shot off (not a great night) but perhaps I didn't have as much speed, and its flight characteristics are different, so I did manage to BARELY pull out with no throttle on. However, it did not want to climb at all. I had a SPAD after me, so I banked over and applied rudder to gain altitude. This worked well, but I'm not sure why I was climbing as well as I did given my wings were nearly vertical. On the AI side, one time I shot off the complete side of the tail on a SPAD (to be clear 1/2 elevator and associated non-moving portion), but the AI continued to dogfight, and to do it remarkably well... On a separate issue, I shot off the complete rudder assembly of 2 SPADs and both went into a sideways sliding attidude (the long axis of the a/c nearly perpendicular to the direction of motion). Unless there is something wrong with my install, I think something funny is going on when control surfaces are damaged, especially with player a/c as the AI seem to still be effective regardless (except when missing the rudder). Anyone else experiencing this???

Great move Stary. Probably best to ask directly over at Thirdwire's own forum, or I think they have a sales/support email address that gets answered pretty quickly....

You ain't whistling "Dixie" Peter!!! I'm amazed at what the DVA can do, and all without a pilot!!! I'm just pulling your leg here of course, but it appears at least in my download of your FM that the code for the DVA pilot is not there or corrupt, and I can flip back and forth between the stock FM to replicate the missing pilot... Anyone else notice this??? Or is it a corrupt download??? RE: game differences, as per your advice in another thread, I'm using a stock Aircraftdata.ini, with only max/min cannon ranges and cannon angles changed. However, I am lucky enough to have a wife who purchased TrackIR4 for me last Christmas; it makes a really big difference if you are using a hat button or keyboard for changing views... Missing DVA pilot with your FM, or is he just ducking??? That's me in the SPAD BTW: And with stock FE FM:

Yeah, I realized the Hurricane was a static AC after I posted and log-off'd. You MUST get FE, it is worth every penny and there is SO much 3rd party activity... Eat cat food if you have to

Holy S__T !!! Those are amazing! My first thought was, how did he get an AC inside the hangar!?! Then read that you haven't applied the collision meshes yet. Don't know much about how flexible collision meshes can be, but I've been trying to fly under a bridge for the longest time (don't ask... Vogesen terrain in FE, see below...), and the applied box CM just doesn't allow for it -- instant explosion... I would love to be able to taxi into a hangar, or do a victory lap under London's Tower Bridge in BoB...

Peter, the original FE aircraft are brand new airplanes with these FMs!!! They have so much character now, and they force you into managing the throttle, which I found was not the case previously. I had a few hours last night and flew them in the stock "warm-up" FE missions which I am most familiar with: ie: 1 vs 2, 2 vs 2. I believe at least one of the opponent AI pilots is at least a veteran in these missions, the other green or worse, judging by their behaviour... The SPAD XIII: one word -- power! It climbs like a monkey, but I did not see any nasty stall/spin traits. Then again, I was having so much fun (all the AI's are much improved, but see below) that I really wasn't trying to make a mistake either. However, I find that the AI SPAD can be easily suckered into a less than advantageous fight given the SPAD's strengths of speed and climb. Since you mention that you can "force an ai plane to be a ZnB'er in dogfights" maybe this aspect needs to be worked on. Then again, perhaps it was because I was flying the DVIIF against them (an AC that has everything), that I could shoot SPADs down almost at will. I know the SE5 had a heavy nose with the engine and radiator so far forward, but I'm finding the positive elevator/pitch response to be very frustrating, and I know it will take a toll in wear'n'tear on my joystick in the end. It is deadly in dives but throttling back ameliorates this nasty behaviour somewhat. That said, when flying against them, the AI SE5's didn't seem to have a problem... The DVA is a much improved opponent, though I have not flown it so no comment there. The AI is now showing signs of, dare I repeat your verbiage, "cunning"??? I was locked into a vertical jousting match that lasted 18 nail-biting minutes (by game clock) of flipping defense/offense, and at one point I came out of a stall inverted to see the AI approaching me similarly inverted and giving me both barrels. Unexpected behaviour, and no single pattern was repeated that I could see -- then again, this is a limited sampling of about a half dozen reflys each mission. I couldn't easily get to sleep after that session... For beta versions, they are very nice. Can't wait to see them polished! PS: as far as "the vast majoriy of people [not] wanting to do these types of things themselves" I would agree, I know I can't, but reading the explanations and understanding how these things work and interact provides a window into the "guts" that makes the game that much more enjoyable, for me at least...

Brain, Thanks for chiming in, you've made some good points especially with regard to the wing mounted cannon. One reference does not a case make, and it wasn't presented as such, more of a critique on the damage modeling. Its all just food for thought and constructive discussion...

Bf 109's and 110's historical points to consider: From Patrick Bishop's excellent "Fighter Boys: The Battle of Britain, 1940" which uses dozens of personal accounts and primary historical resources including an excellent section on the Battle of France and Dunkirk, leading up to BoB. Me 110: The Me 110 "Destroyer" was an unknown quantity, and much feared leading up to the RAF's first encounters with it in France. Air Marshall Barratt offered dinner in Paris to the first pilot to shoot one down. The distinction fell to three No. 1 Sq pilots, Johnny Walker [guess what his call sign was?], Bill Stratton, and Taffy Clowes, who between them on March 29th destroyed 3 x Me 110's. P. 138 "Once attacked, according to the squadron record, the German machines 'proved very maneuverable, doing half-rolls and diving out, coming up in stall turns'. ... the consensus was that the Me110's were not as fearsome as their name suggested. The record concluded: 'As a result of this combat it may be stated that the Me 110, although very fast and maneuverable for a twin-engined aircraft, can easily be outmaneuvered by a Hurricane.' The pilots reported that 'it appeared that the rear gunner was incapable of returning fire whilst [the] Me 110 was in combat because of the steep turns "blacking him out" or making him too uncomfortable to take proper aim.' " [bold is my emphasis] This last point is echoed in an episode of "DogFights" on the history channel, where a single Dauntless dive bomber pilot was dueling with 2 or 3 Zeros and had to continuously do extremely tight turns to face the various attacking vectors of the NME A/C. His rear-gunner could do absolutely nothing since his arms were pinned to his sides by the g-forces... The Bf 109 p 141: In the Me 109 [Willy Messerschmidt] attempted to wrap a light airframe around the most powerful engine it would carry. ... The thin wings that gave the aircraft its performance were inefficient when flying slow, requiring a system of slots on the leading edges to increase lift on take-off and landing. Their fragility placed severe restrictions on the way guns could be mounted. Nor were they strong enough to take the machine's weight, a weakness which meant that undercarriage had to be supported by the fuselage. This made for a narrow and unstable wheelbase which was the cause of many crashes on landing. According to ne estimate, 5 percent of all Me 109s manufactured were written off in this way." Thus, the fact that our Strike Fighters virtual 109's wings easily fly apart when damaged seems to have some historical merit. Perhaps the damage model could be improved to have sections fall off, rather than whole wings, but that would be a complete re-modeling job I think. I am really enjoying immersing myself in historical manuscripts, such as the Spitfire IIA & IIB Pilots notes I placed on CA download here [yes, a shameless plug I know, but some really worthy points, such as Section 40 "Protection of Pilot" which details the additional armor added in this upgrade from the Spit IA], and am trying to mod some of my Aircraft INIs in this way. For instance, the wood and cloth construction of the Hurricane was documented to be able to take more damage than the stressed metal skin of the Spitfire, thus I have introduced slight amounts structural factor code of 1 to 1.5 into the relevant sections of the A/C, nothing like that seen in the Luftwaffe bomber INI's, but a modest reflection of historical fact. This may seem picky and overboard to some, but ultimately it is about enjoying the game, and this how I enjoy it most... CA_Stary: The hangar skins look great. Landing is always a relief in this campaign, but the aerodrome is always so "gray" and disappointing. So really looking forward to your mod.

Very briefly guys, I just got off a 10 hour drive home from 2 week vacation today, with a 4 year old asking "are we there yet" about every 10-20 minutes (no kidding). RE: editing aircraft INI's Most of you hve your own way to go about doing this, and likely involves keeping a stock INI copy in the A/C folder (and I suppose you can always download it again) but if you're trying to tweak changes and don't want to try to keep several files going at once, I just copy the lines or sections I am about to change, put // in front of each line in the copy (to preserve the original code) and edit the other line. It makes it easy to spot/keep track of the mod, and return to the original when the mod doesn't work... Sorry keith, no slight intended on your solution, but a bit more code-oriented. RE: skins and bombers. I've read that it isn't so much the size of an individual skin than the fact that these bombers have more than one to call upon. That's the rub for the system... RE: resizing the skins!?! I say great solution, afterall, blurry or not, they look better with flames and smoke trailing!!!! (apologies to those who fly them on a regular basis ) RE: Me 110 If you also look in the INI, all the various fuselage/wing/tail sections have pretty high structural factors associated with them for a fighter, including the tail section for some reason. One would think that the graceful thin tail would be especially vulnerable, but I defer to historical references (I'll do some digging...). RE: Bomber fuel tanks. They are described historically as being BOTH self-sealing and "bullet proof". The fuel tank INI code of most of the Luft. bombers (if I remember correctly) also has structural factors, as well as fire suppression, and self-sealing. Edit as you see fit... RE: Bomber engines. I've only found one historic reference re: this point. During BoB the bombers had NO, zip, zilcht, engine armour. It was the "hole over the dragon's belly" [sort of paraphrasing Tolkien from the Hobbit] SO AIM TRUE LAKEMAN!!! However some bombers' INIs have structural factor BOTH in the nacelle and the engine code (which may give it an unfair doubling effect, I am unsure here...). I will look into this via play testing, but if somebody knows the answer, let me/us know... RE: V 0.6 Can't wait !!!

Just a quick poke in the google came up with these links... Apparently some experts conducted a wargame/sim in 1974 to see what would've happened if Sealion had gone ahead with: a) Fighter Command in control of the skies, and b) Luftwaffe control. You'll have to read the outcome yourself... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea...order_of_battle Quote from site: "Tk Computerware released a computer simulation called Britain Invaded! (aka Operation Sealion) in 1985." [couldn't be... could it??? :umnik2: ] http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1145 [this one seems very detailed, and perhaps even enough for campaign setup, right down to the number/type of tanks & accessory ground units (they had a lot of mobile flak!), transport fleet, and even the Naval elements proposed... Does SF support paratroops? Thought not...] http://www.pillboxesuk.co.uk/ [from this Home page, click on <Why they were built> then <German Invasion Plans> ] http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/proc/direct16.html [This is supposed to contain Hitler's Directive16 (aka Sealion) but not sure on any details, as I'm blocked from opening it from my work computer, shhh!!!]

Woops, never meant to suggest you needed to take more on RE: Malta, just was wondering if it was part of the current Burning Sands campaign build as a player squadron... But now that I think of how the strategic nodes would work across a N African front, I suppose that an enemy island basically "behind-the-lines" wouldn't fit into the game logic at all!!! :blush2: My bad... PS: thanks kindly for the carrier advice. I saw an inconsistency in the carrier code/flight deck in Korean AW and tried to alter the deck height to suit, but to no avail...

Thanks Peter, FM's and supplementary missions!!! Does it get better?

Hi Baltika, I'm really intrigued by Burning Sands now that I hear you will be pushing the start date back to '40, I think that was the reason I was looking at it, but didn't download '44. I haven't installed any of the desert terrains yet, so I'm not sure if the wider Mediterranean is represented well, and if so, do you envision the campaign to include Malta as a player based squadron? So many great (and desperate!) air battles happened around there... RE: WWII ships. I can't remember what site I used, but I just downloaded at least a 1/2 doz. of some nice looking merchants, destroyers, barges, and I think an e-boat (or Schnellboot (S-Boot) may be useful in BoB as well)... I will find if you are interested. There is also Hinchinbrooke's WW1 battleship Ironduke here at CA, which could be used in the Italian navy perhaps (turning a blind eye to the historical inaccuracy of course)? Would make a lovely target! RE: carrier ops. I've never gotten them to work for me in my Korean Air war campaign (immediate A/C explosion after loadup and no carrier present, or perhaps it is exploded as well???) despite reading all the relevant threads here. That you got them to work 9 times out of 10 has got me scratching my head and wanting to know what you did??? Any chance of getting some pointers? I'd take 9/10...

Great news! This must be such a welcome release for you... What was the solution? RE: waiting wehrmacht units, only a book away... :yes:

Peter, I don't think your comments are "jerkish" in any sense of the word. They are sobering comments as to the complexity of the game. That said, not sure why you felt the need to start a new thread rather than append to the "other" thread. I also maintain multiple copies of past files to return to if something doesn't work. I also read the threads over at 3rd Wire, and have in my own personal game, tried to make some experimental changes. Not trying to sound defensive, well not too much anyways... Bottom line it is a game; a game that people are free to make changes to because that is the way it is designed. Some know more than others through more experience, and I hope they'll share rather form a "clique club". Others know just enough to be dangerous (perhaps me) but how else do you learn? I didn't get a PhD by being afraid to try something...

Peter, As always, it is great to read your explanations. You should submit this stuff (really, just cut and paste it) into the knowledge base. I've never seen this addressed so thoroughly. I printed off this thread and looked into my Aircraftoject ini, and found that the default values weren't the ones you were talking about. Then I remembered I had installed Laton's AI Tweak a while back. Make sure to look for his second download further into the thread. This thread has subsequently buried itself, and I don't know why it didn't attract more attention. That's the way of some of this... Anyways, I have found aspects of his AImod to be more extreme than your recommendations, yet less in others. I ended up averaging the two in scale, and ranged many of the values from Green to Ace (I was kinda finding every NME AI was nasty bad) and tweaked some others myself such as the minimum altitude etc. More on that later... Then I flew a campaign mission (no comparison to single missions I find afa richness of experience), where I took a wing to 9000 ft. over the lines, jumped from cloud to cloud, and snuck up on 2 DR1's a few thou below us. I sent the wing after the primary target: bombers, which they subsequently peeled off after, and I jumped on the tripes, who weren't as surprised as I thought they'd be... Very soon, I found myself literally fighting for my "life". They evaded, they stalled, they twisted, they fought in the vertical like I couldn't believe, all while I was trying to do the same to them (I'm just starting to self learn to fight more vertical, it is a totally new dimension, so graceful at times), but I obviously encountered two AI aces. Lately I've been flying more like I was in the plane, rather than hell-for-leather (which can be much fun), so asked: would I really stick around in a situation like this? Or would I turn tail and run? So I split-arsed it out and dove to the deck over the lines... The SOBs followed me in the dive! Quite closely and in tight formation! I only JUST managed to pull out in time, I looked behind me and the two augured themselves in... It was so unexpected and was such fun!!! The min comfortable altitude I had set for aces was quite low, I think 50 or even 25 feet, 'cause I wanted to get my AI wingmates to hill hop on ground attack missions and avoid AAA. Perhaps this was a fluke, I don't know yet; perhaps 50 ft or so is too low for any AI --maybe-- but those accidents did happen and I enjoy seeing random twist of fate like that. It's what many good war stories end up being all about... who chooses who lives and dies?

He he, Yah, I thought it weird enough before to post as well. It would be nice to get some real zeps with the AAMGs on the top of the envelop, and a nice BIG hydrogen explosion as well. I thought about somehow modding/stringing a daisy-chain of observation balloon explosions, one tripping the other off, so there would be a ripple effect of explosions instead of the anti-climax that it currently is... Any thoughts?

You're lucky if you're just loosing yer wings! The topic was brought up before as mentioned. I've also tried to fly under the Tower Bridge in BoB terrain, same thing... How's that old saying go, "fool me twice... yadda, yadda, yadda..." And here I thought I was the only one

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...ode=sst&id=4938 File Name: Historic Pilot's Notes for Spitfire IIA & IIBFile Submitter: B Bandy RFC File Submitted: 9 Jul 2007 File Category: Utilities/Editors Original Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire IIA & IIB from the Air Ministry, dated July 1940 on the cusp of the Battle Of Britain. This is like an "owner's manual" for the Spitfire. Section 1 contains sections on the Controls, Engine, Cockpit [including 2 B&W images of the port and starboard side of the pit], Operational Equipment, and Wireless. Section 2 contains "Handling and Flying Notes for Pilot", and has sections on Starting the Engine, Taxying, Taking-Off, Climbing, General Flying, Stalling, Spinning, Diving, Aerobatics, Combat Manoeuvres [sic], Landing, et cetera... Sorry, there are no page numbers on the original. I thought this document important enough to include in the download section, rather than a link in a thread that will be subsequently buried. I hope you all agree. I plan on delving into the excellent library and archives I have access to and provide more gems like this. Click here to download this file