Bandy

Thanks jrdani, Yes, I was matching the screen resolution (via the Cat control center settings) with the in-game resolution settings, and saw no solution to the cockpit image "tearing" (no tearing on the background environment though, don't know if that is significant...). I've tried HSync and VSync enabled and disabled, and all combinations... Nothing. What I did find out is that the monitor has no factory profile when attached through the DVI cable, however, I WAS able to color calibrate it when connected with the VGA port/cable that came with it (the monitor did not come with a DVI cable!). I suspect it is a firmware issue, and I have not heard back from the company. Good news, I'll take it back directly to Costco with no questions asked... Now I just have to go back to my 19" till I find a deal on a better brand! BUT I've gotten used to it for work, and that's going to be hard to take after all that realestate

For the prop-heads... Original historic document: Pilot's Notes for the Spitfire IIA & IIB from the Air Ministry, and under advice from a CA moderator, I made available as a PDF in the SF Downloads under Utilities/Editors 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.

TK replied over at the 3rdWire forum as well, and the VSync selection makes no difference -- the cockpit image is still "tearing" in FE, and the "prop disc" is tearing in SF (I'm flying BoB currently) though I found a fix posted for the water banding issue I was experiencing... AND funny thing, a few have mentioned where to find the Vsync, and all have been different, and different from my Cat Con Center. Different versions I suppose... I reduced my screen resolution to 1400 x 900 and that reduced the tearing a bit. Again, it only appears when panning the view with TrackIR... I'll likely bring this X2Gen piece of crap back to Costco, at least I haven't lost any money in shipping... but all this time and frustration!!! Thanks for the suggestions guys, guess you get what you pay for.

I think that is a good start, but it will become boring after a while, and then you'll want to see the more complex missions, squadrons, options, etc. that are being discussed now. It is good to have a dream, because that's where it really starts, and then a pragmatic plan to work towards the goals. I imagine there are quite a few out there who have experienced the RB3D glory days, but that didn't happen overnight either... Sorry, all I can offer is my Guinea Pig status to this MP effort

Hi eraser, As I mentioned above, the monitor has a 5 ms response (not the best for games, but still pretty good) and 1680 x 1050 WSXGA+ is a stock supported resolution (albeit the highest setting for this monitor). Thanks THawk, I have spent some time adjusting and re-adjusting the ATI Catalyst and game settings to try to find that sweet spot, but the "tearing" is there no matter what when I use TrackIR4. When the image is stable (not moving my head) there is no tearing... If anyone cares, here is the monitor advertisement AND no, I do not work for Costco... I will gladly try to increase the game settings as a solution! Actually, while futzing about the game settings, I did try increasing the horizon setting to "far" and found the old tile clipping problem disappeared totally, so maybe there is something to this suggestion... I'm at work, so cannot check my Catalyst Control settings, is the Vsync option within the Cat menus???

Yes 1680 x 1050 is one of the stock, and highest resolutions settings, but others are available and I'll try them out. I forgot to mention I also set the monitor to 16 bit with very poor results (hey, I was really reaching and trying anything). Over at 3rd Wire, someone suggested enabling "Vsync" (which sounds like a possible diagnosis) but I haven't seen anywhere in game, or in the Catalyst control center (I have an ATI card) where that option is presented... Anyone who might be able to pass on a clue, I would be appreciative.

Baltika!!! I'm loving the way this is looking! Hopefully an answer is forthcoming, it just needs that right person to see this thread. I see from your Bf109 packing that you're implementing the Erprobungsgruppe 210 (the experimental squadron of strike fighters). Nice...

Hi guys, I can only speak for myself, but I imagine a lot of people who might consider MP are intimidated by the process, and perhaps the level of pilot skill and those willing to rub your nose in it... Pardon my language, but I've heard there are some real dicks in the virtual skies [present company excluded I'm sure...]. I know this is the next logical challenge, as the AI only goes so far and I would like to get involved, but how much does this all cost??? EDIT: also just looked at Lothar's thread announcing the MP for this morning: Unless I spent A LOT of my day trying to figure this out, I never would play MP... Some valued opinions from CA have just said, "stay away" [mentioning no names...]

A sobering and excellent assessment and presentation of the relevant points Baltika. I mentioned one time before, this game is like peeling an onion, and can inspire religious zeal !!! I'm still mostly hacking at the skin, looking in with my eyes watering Funny, on retrospect over the weekend, the interception missions I've flown lately (where I go after the bombers rather than the escorts), I'm actually not getting knocked out as often, or maybe not as soon.... I've abandoned the head-on and dive-into tactics, and instead have adopted that historic tactic mentioned earlier: Approach from the side at speed as this is apparently a blind spot (I've found it best to go for the lead AC, maybe because I imagine it to be the group leader, and thus a morale hit for the rest when he goes down-in-flames...). Then afterwards some zig-zagging and rolling around etc. to keep the gunners on their toes... (and out of their yaw angle limits ). Yeah, I know, you guys likely already figured that all out... Now to get the AI wingmates to do it... And I have to agree, the convergent fire has made a difference on those earlier tough bombers... Guess I was just used to the First Eagles bombers, which have been mostly a cake walk, until I installed Laton's AI Tweak (not sure why that hasn't been made into a regular FE/CA download...) now the AI bomber pilots maneuver to give their gunners a line of sight to you -- what they really would have done. I even had a group of bombers go into a circle-train the other night providing defense for each other... But I'm off topic... Looking forward to the fruits of your much appreciated labor...

Another excellent site if you haven't already found it is Lone Sentry which has links to dozens of articles from: While not an aircraft specific publication, there are some really good short takes on quite a few that include armament, armour placement and thickness, as well as self-sealing fuel tanks etc. (excellent for modding your DATA INIs historically), for example see the Bf109G article. Some of the "Intelligence Bulletin" articles are also on that site. Very interesting stuff... Also just saw mention of this in another CA post, Spitfire Ace Parts 1 to 4

Another quick thought I had about the fighter/bomber issue is about the almost infallible formations that they fly in the face of attack. Those Luftwaffe pilots must have nerves of steel!!! I read an account of a skilled RAF pilot over Dunkirk attacking a formation of Do17's from the side, taking one out then diving beneath, popping up and over another Do17, then diving down and so on, making hits as he went across the whole formation at speed. Amazing tale. His less experienced (or perhaps somewhat less insane...) wingmates however were managing only one hop per pass. In this mannner, they broke up the formation and went after the strays. Not sure who mentioned it in the forums, but they suggested diving through the formations as a tactic t break them up. I've lead my wing into battle by trying this several times, and I guess my aim ain't too good at that speed, as well as the angles involved, 'cause I've never hit anything, and afterwards I'm only left chasing the solid block of the intact formation but now with greatly reduced airspeed and no altitude advantage should there be escorts. While it doesn't work for me, perhaps it does for others??? Anecdotally, I attack from beneath and find I can break up the Stuka formations easily, but the He111, Do17, and Ju88's seem to maintain a solid "core" with perhaps only a few AC breaking off. Not sure where the "reality" is on bomber formations, but from the squadron histories (Baltika put me on these, great reading, thanks!) there is mention of the RAF recording mission encounters as "frightening off" the bombers on many occasions. They obviously had a lot of respect for the fighters. Perhaps there is a need to tweak the "WWII formations" mod to loosen them up a bit??? Would like to hear what you guys think. I'm not suggesting turning this into an ego-fest, where the bombers are fish-in-a-barrel, there is no fun in that; I'm trying to search for that holy grail of a balanced challenge, and currently find the bomber cross fire murderous (even with the gunners toned down, and with tremendous evasive action by me), especially to our AI wingmates who seem to wander about inside the formation like they're going for a walk on Hampstead Heath...

Oh yeah, I had a blast!!! For me, it was a much more organic process. Told my wife I had a project I needed to work on... Mr.Bell, that is exactly what I decided on as well; I dropped the self-healing and sealing, but armoured the tanks up with 10mm and improved the cockpit where I found mention of further supplemental armour in some historic sources... It worked very well initially, but now with convergence, its back to square one! The Anthony Williams' analysis link I posted on page 2 mentions historical accounts of RAF testing programs involving self-sealing tanks sometimes working even with 20mm cannon hits, but this was the exception. Thus the Brits decided to also put angled armour on the back side of their tanks during BoB, and put massively thick (up to 90mm) bullet-proof wind screens on the Spit and Hurricane. The 109 also had good pilot armour, but no self-sealing tank(s) [likely trying to keep the operational range up]. And again, from one account, the Stuka had NO cockpit armour! Unbelievable!!! Talk about over confidence!!! All this makes for some interesting tweaking... This must be a labour of love... Couldn't imagine what a flight model from scratch must be like, all that tweaking just to get it to a point where one last tweak causes the whole thing to start over...

TS, did you use the GunEditor to save these changes to the APRoundChance? I seem to vaguely remember that that is/was a necessary step in the procedure in order to make Cat file changes to guns, otherwise you might be shooting blanks [sorry, had to say it...]

And oh, yes, I forgot to report that excellent results are to be had, and so do the AI, yeah!!! First mission out with converged guns and the AI got as many NME as I did, and they had higher %hits than I did as well!!! However, I've found that the mods I've done to aircraft recently (I've taken self-sealing tanks out of the Bf109 and 110 since the few references I've found says they didn't have them till 1942, and made FALSE all fire suppression system for engines and fuel tanks...) have made them Roman candles waiting for a match, and converged fire is devastating, as historical accounts have professed. Will have to put some armor there for game balance, which likely was the case anyways. Supposidely the German bombers had bullet-proof gas tanks. I've also read that the early Stukas had no cockpit armour, but was hastily modified post-BoB for the Eastern front... Anyone have confirmation on that? Need to test with bomber intercepts now... Will try that mod with the ammo Tailspin, sounds like the trick... Perhaps an AimAngles thread in the Knowledge Base is in order, since all the threads I looked through there was much mis-information... ESPECIALLY about that third variable !!!

Tarnation, you guys are fast on a good idea!!! Here I slavishly "worked" at this all night, and didn't get around to seeing this thread at all... Even prepared some pics to show effects to those not convinced! Well, I'm posting my results anyways!!! The values below will put the bullet convergence (4 lbs of lead per second!!!) right on the pip when the wingtips of a Bf 109 touch the margins of the ring sight. STOCK AIM ANGLES for Spit: My CONVERGENCE ANGLES: AND CONVERGENCE AGAIN at Work: AIM ANGLES I DECIDED UPON (No math, just trial and error, which appear damn close to the math!) I found the pitch convergence needed 0.5 (the middle number) and it landed right on the pip, maybe a wee bit high, which is fine for me since I go for lead pursuit everytime I can I changed the last variable by up to 10 and saw no result in the path, and as I mentioned earlier, logically figured this was the case that it rotated the gun in the axis of fire. Not sure why TK kept that space there... // Internal Guns------------------ [GunL01] SystemType=FIXED_GUN GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN MuzzlePosition=-3.826,1.917,-0.315 LightPosition=-3.826,1.917,-0.315 AimAngles=1.0,0.5,0.0 MaxAmmo=350 EjectShells=TRUE EjectPosition=-3.8260,1.02,-0.30 EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0 [GunR01] SystemType=FIXED_GUN GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN MuzzlePosition=3.826,1.917,-0.315 LightPosition=3.826,1.917,-0.315 AimAngles=-1.0,0.5,0.0 MaxAmmo=350 EjectShells=TRUE EjectPosition=3.826,1.02,-0.301 EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0 [GunL02] SystemType=FIXED_GUN GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN MuzzlePosition=-3.02,2.01,-0.378 LightPosition=-3.02,2.01,-0.378 AimAngles=0.8,0.5,0.0 MaxAmmo=350 EjectShells=TRUE EjectPosition=-3.02,1.10,-0.350 EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0 [GunR02] SystemType=FIXED_GUN GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN MuzzlePosition=3.02,2.01,-0.378 LightPosition=3.02,2.01,-0.378 AimAngles=-0.8,0.5,0.0 MaxAmmo=350 EjectShells=TRUE EjectPosition=3.02,1.10,-0.350 EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0 [GunL03] SystemType=FIXED_GUN GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN MuzzlePosition=-2.695,2.01,-0.390 LightPosition=-2.695,2.01,-0.390 AimAngles=0.6,0.5,0.0 MaxAmmo=350 EjectShells=TRUE EjectPosition=-2.695,1.10,-0.375 EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0 [GunR03] SystemType=FIXED_GUN GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN MuzzlePosition=2.695,2.01,-0.390 LightPosition=2.695,2.01,-0.3590 AimAngles=-0.6,0.5,0.0 MaxAmmo=350 EjectShells=TRUE EjectPosition=2.695,1.10,-0.375 EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0 [GunL04] SystemType=FIXED_GUN GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN MuzzlePosition=-2.07,2.01,-0.450 LightPosition=-2.07,2.01,-0.450 AimAngles=0.5,0.5,0.0 MaxAmmo=350 EjectShells=TRUE EjectPosition=-2.07,1.20,-0.435 EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0 [GunR04] SystemType=FIXED_GUN GunTypeName=303CAL_Browning InputName=FIRE_PRIMARY_GUN MuzzlePosition=2.07,2.01,-0.450 LightPosition=2.07,2.01,-0.450 AimAngles=-0.5,0.5,0.0 MaxAmmo=350 EjectShells=TRUE EjectPosition=2.07,1.20,-0.435 EjectVelocity= 0.0,0.0,-2.0

FYI: from another thread on AimAngles: This helps, but is still a bit confusing, so let me see if I read that correctly before I go spending hours tweaking these AimAngles If the 1st number in the AimAngle is "Left Adjustment" and is something other than zero (say 1), then the 3rd number "Right Adjst" MUST BE zero, and vice versa. Right? I've seen other threads where people think the 3 numbers in AimAngle are X,Y,Z adjustment, and while initially this seems logical, on reflection it makes absolutely no sense since movement in the 3rd axis would have no effect on where the bullets fly given that the desired "target" pattern is 2 dimensional (only up/down and left/right to a bullseye, NO depth...). ALSO, unlike gunners machine guns in the data ini, where tracer can be easily changed (stock is a tracer round every 5 bullets), I cannot find where to change tracer loading to 1 for wing guns to better facilitate seeing the results of these tweaks. Me thinks the gun editor might need to be invoked here... ugh! Oops, did I say that out loud???

If it is OK to say, and not being negatively critical of any FM's out there just purely constructive, BUT I heartily recommend anybody to go over the FM's for themselves. In my wanderings I've noticed some possible typos (missing armour on some wing tank surfaces that is present on the other wing tanks, etc.). I also found that the Bf 109E has code for a nose cannon, which it didn't have in BoB, though that just may have inadvertently been left over from another later version of the FM for the 109 F or G. I just put //'s in front of those lines just in case... Something also struck me late last night as I was watching the hit pattern light up the wings of an He111; the 8 guns of the Brit fighters were set to converge at a certain distance (200 to 300 yards I think), focusing all that firepower to a small area. See Anthony Williams' excellent online analysis, he says that Hurricane and Spitfire unleashed 4 lbs of bullets a second!!! However, I think the Hurricane and Spitfire guns are set to fire parallel in the FM (unless I'm misunderstanding a variable in there). Pilot accounts say that 8 properly set up .303's were devastating... They also mixed AP with incendiary. Does SF support incendiary rounds? I haven't seen any discussion of it. So, I'm going to try to see if I can converge the fire of the .303's by slightly altering the rotational alignment, and will report... If somebody beats me to it, hey, all the better...

RE: number of missions: I also think one a day is fine, but two wouldn't make too much of a difference given that the whole campaign is short --BUT INTENSE!!! RE: Hurricane squadrons with 12 guns, others with cannons, in October, I'll try to find more (it was one of those factoids you stumble across online...) though would be just as happy if somebody else already knew... And I'm sure somebody else does, they just haven't seen the thread... RE: Luft Bombers in game play Not sure where "reality" is on this issue (or if we can ever approach it in ANY sim) but it is a good place to start thinking about the issue. Most books or sources I've read recently say the German bombers were under gunned, and "sitting ducks", especially the Stuka. Many sources also say some pretty good things about the structural integrity of the German bombers, except the Stuka (see where I'm going?) That all said, even Stuka's are a relative challenge until you learn to get underneath, flame one, and break up the formation, unless a 109 sneaks up on yer 6... 'nough said there... :blush2: I've been trying to find definitive facts on which planes had crew and engine armour, which AC had self-sealing (SS) petrol tanks since not all did at the time! Hurricanes' and Spits wing tanks were SS, but not the Hurricane fuselage tank tho most were being replaced with SS tanks thru-out BoB. Bf 109 seems to only get SS tanks intro'd in 1942, perhaps attempting to max out range before that...). It is very interesting to mod the aircraft like so and see how the "play" changes. I've been "Hurricane Burned" many times... Too bad the "eject" sucks in SF... That said, it is a very compelling part of the BoB story, and how those pilots' recovered... I'm sure there are equally brave stories on the German side since they were pancaking in the channel all summer, fall, and winter... RE: German pilots. One book I read mentioned that there were only 2 battle green pilots out of all the Luftwaffe pilots captured in the early stages in July/August. That must have terrified fighter command... So, well, maybe game balance is a better perspective to take than too historically based, eh? It comes down to personal taste I suppose. Meanwhile I continue to tweak and have a BLAST! Many thanks to all the 3rd party folks who've made this possible...

But are they any good, and what is the potential for viruses from this site? Does anyone know anything about them?

Hi, I'm getting the Luftwaffe airbases scrunching up in a line, something you mentioned you were unable to recreate since the release [guess I win the prize? gimme, gimme...]. I fly mostly allied, so it doesn't really affect the missions as far as I can tell, and I can live with it. I will try the fix you posted above and will get back. RE: cannon As far as Spits and Hurricanes with cannons go, IMHO the "historical" door is open to implement them, even though with the Spits they were only experimentally used mid-way thru with 19 squadron, and then also issued to 92 squadron (apparently despite the earlier jamming issue). With Hurricanes, the first II series (mounting either 12 Brownings, or 4 x 20mm cannon) arrived in October. As we discussed in PM's this would be an awesome squadron upgrade! Give 'em HE I say, and Tally-Ho!!!

No argument from me re: relative accuracy of the sim, and the comment wasn't criticism, I was just blown away (literally the first time...) by the maneuver displayed. I hadn't seen that one in FE... Again, anyone seeing clouds in campaign missions? Or is my install buggered???

If your own additions to the terrain are interesting (maybe some fine French cat houses where you're taking your leave?), and I couldn't see it not being so (interesting that is), perhaps it would be worthy of a wonderfully altruistic CA shared download? [sorry for the shameless buttering-up ].

Some questions/comments for anyone else also enjoying this campaign as much as I am: 1) Every campaign mission I've flown (at least a dozen) has been cloudless, but I am able to call up any weather via single mission. So is this a bug for all of you? 2) Flying over London, there are vast urban spaces with no 3D buildings, yet the surrounding urban tiles have dozens... 3) I seem to remember reading somewhere that numerous P-40's were given to the UK on lend-lease very early in the war. Did none of them take part in BoB? Or were they all sent to N.Africa or the Pacific? Just a trivia question... 4) anyone else try to fly under the Tower Bridge??? It can't be done... This is my first WWII SF mod, I was very surprised to see a 109 invert, take a head-on shot at me, then split-arse it out of there, not once but twice. The first SOB got lucky and took me out... I was not expecting that kind of tactic from the AI...

Some folks were asking about modding the gunners fire in Peter's thread, and I remembered this very question being asked before (ends up being a looong time ago near the inception of FE... some 6 months ago, has it only been 6 months...!!!) This old(er) thread over at 3rdWire provides some good discussion of how to get more from your gunners... http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p...&highlight= BUT BEWARE: you may be flying against these gunners in the future!!!