Old Guy

Charles, Your mention of slats and flaps triggered a thought. Yeah, yeah, I know. It IS an odd phenomenon. WW1 aircraft didn't have flaps, but they did have one huge drag-inducing part -- the propellor. A broadbladed, fixed pitch prop should produce a lot of drag when the engine speed is reduced, such when descending to land. I've had a lot of trouble slowing any FE aircraft to a reasonable landing speed. Is this type of prop drag modeled in FE? Jim

Some thoughts on "Normal" vs. "Hard" modes and FMs. jimcarrel: you can fly in "Normal" with the graphics turned off, if that's the only thing keeping you from flying in that mode. I haven't yet turned them off completely, but I did reduce the size of the target marker, pre-patch. Just haven't gotten around to messing with it since. All the data can be turned off, I believe, and I'm sure there's a post around somewhere explaining how it can be done. If not, I'm sure Tailspin or some other more knowledgeable type can explain it. I fly only offline and usually just operate in Normal, though lately I've been flying missions on "Hard" just because I like the feel of the aircraft more. For me, the biggest problem is one of situational awareness. I don't have Track IR (my birthday is coming up and I've been hinting to the wife . . . . ) so I have to use regular views and the hat switch for panning around. In "Hard" it's almost impossible for me to see other aircraft, especially when I'm above them. Thus, I'd rather have a small target marker, just to aid in that. The "Hard" setting can also be customized via the Options screen, though the choice of settings is less than optimal. Most customization will have to be done with .ini files, I believe. I spent many years as an air traffic controller and flew, not as a pilot, but in the cockpit in light planes and in the jump seat of everything from a DC-9 to L-1011 and 747. What I can tell you is -- other aircraft are not that difficult to see, for the trained observer. An aircraft at a lower altitude is actually not as difficult to see as one near your own altitude. The eye looks for movement and that is always more pronounced when the oberver and the target aircraft are moving in several dimensions relative to each other. Aircraft on a collision course are hard to spot because there is little relative motion to be seen. My point is this: because of differing game control devices and the vast differences in our computers, we are all faced with a unique set of circumstances regarding flight models and how we want the game to work. I'd like to fly on "Hard", but have the option of selecting a small target marker, both for SA and navigational purposes (our graphical terrain is damned difficult to navigate over, especially if you're looking for a certain set of ground targets). On the other hand, based on my reading of books like "Hostile Skies", the real terrain near the trenches was also very difficult to navigate over, what with bad weather, etc. Pilots of the era did become very familiar with their sectors though. As for the aircraft FMs, I think they should be set so that on "Hard" the aircraft behaves in a manner we believe represents the way the original aircraft flew and handled. "Normal" should be an easier to fly setting. The Camel, for instance, ought to exhibit horrendous torque on "Hard" and be somewhat more tractable on "Normal". At least that the way I'd like to see it. The issue of target markers, FMs, and target lock usage has been around since flight sims began and it's not going away soon. We'll all have to deal with it in our own way. At least, with this sim, I have many options -- I just have to pop the hood and start fiddling. jim

This looks cool! Do the wings creak ominously, like the one in RB? This plane was fairly delicate and required a light touch on the controls -- or it fell apart! Yes, I speak from simulated experience. :0 jim

I've flown part of a campaign and a few other missions since changing the MaxRollFormation to 10.0 and I can attest that furballs seem to involve more aircraft, presumably planes that drifted out of the fight with the number set at the default value. I get AI on my tail more often and was shot down once by an AI plane, rather than a tail gunner. my usual method of self destruction. However, a quick F6 tour shows me many loose AI planes spread out across the countryside. A very few are engaged in hesitant combat, while the rest seem to be motoring around at random. I watched one Spad driver dive and climb time after time, for no apparent reason. I'm not overly concerned about the lost sheep. At least the pilots close to the action are getting into the battle. I've had some graphics problems with the planes that were originally non-flyable. I suspect I need some additional files. Jim

Tex and bortdafarm, I've been fiddling with several settings in the AIRCRAFTOBJECT file and the only one that really makes a difference is the MaxRollFormation setting. I tried 5.0 as suggested and found that my flight did stay close -- perhaps too close. I also found that the enemy two-seaters tended to remain bunched up, even when attacked (which is probably realistic -- massing of defensive fires). In fact, it got lots more difficult to attack them for that reason. Enemy fighters also tended to stick together. End result: a couple of monumental gun battles. I changed the setting to 10.0 and now get a decent combat formation for my guys and similar results for the enemy. Two seaters still tend to stick together, which makes life interesting, though short. Like Tex mentioned, I'm now concentrating on knocking bad guys off my wingies. I haven't managed to survive long enough to make any judgments on that technique yet, but it looks promising. Once, Mr. AAA got me as we mixed it up over an airfield. Note to self: Avoid dogfights over targets infested with flak. A couple times I collided with other planes. Messy that. My biggest problem right now is that I absolutely cannot see well enough out of a Spad to survive. I do not have Track IR. Anybody have an idea of how to improve player visibility in the Spad? On a related topic, the left rear snap view for my Spad shows a black area which I take to be the edge of the cockpit, but it has no graphic in it. Anyone else seen that? I have the snap view angle set to 155. I think default is 150. Jim

Tex, You raise a good point. But the setting you mention is only one example of the mystery inherent in such labels. Many are more than a little obscure. I realize that's inevitable, given the constraints of the English language and the demands of writing setting names. However, is there a reference, a kind of SF Rosetta Stone that one could use to determine exactly what a certain setting does? Or would we be better off consulting the Oracle of Delphi? Jim

I thought of that same catch 22. Oddly enough rear gunners seem to have no trouble hitting me. There are several grave markers out there to prove it. I wonder why they work so well and the other AI are such stooges? We probably shouldn't fiddle with the guns too much right now. Although, those damned AAA gunners could stand a little adjustment! Jim

Has anyone considered fooling with various gundata settings in order to enhance gameplay by making the guns less lethal? We did quite a bit of that in EAW and I understand it was done in IL-2 as well. In particular, I'm wondering if reducing muzzle velocity and/or bullet weight would be a good idea. The other possibility is the setting called Accuracy. For most machine guns it's set to 70%. If this is the chance of making a hit, 70% is far too high. If it's some sort of dispersion measure, I have no idea how accurate it is. It seems to me that fiddling with gundata will be quicker and easier than fine-tuning armor settings. But that's just a feeling at the moment. Thoughts? Comments? I might start experimenting with this stuff next week, unless someone can tell me a good reason not to. :tomato2: jim

Keep a diary! Hah! You mean like those two pages of scribbled notes I've got lying under my MSFF stick? Seriously, notes ain't a bad idea. I've been considering doing mine up electronic format and keeping a copy in my Tools & Notes folder. I've applied the Fokker gear mod, the DESTROYED to DISABLED mod in the aircraft files and downloaded the Zeppelin (though I haven't figured out how to get it in the game yet). I'd probably pick and choose among bortdafarm's various mods, if I could figure out exactly what they were. Hmm. I feel myself being slooowwwly drawn into this thing. It's -- it's sort of habit forming. But -- hey! -- I can give it up anytime I want. Right, guys? Right? Um . . . jim :)

Sir bortdafarm, You're doing good work, but you've introduced so many variables now that it's difficult to sort out the stuff that works from that which doesn't. For instance: I'd very much like to modify the files needed to improve AI performance, but when I downloaded your fix, it included changes to a lot of other variables as well (this was a few days ago). In addition, the fix you mentioned for tightening up formations hadn't been done in the files I looked at. Here's a suggestion: Back in the old EAW days (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, etc., etc.) I did some weapons testing. I found that the old scientific method works best -- introduce a single variable at a time and test it enough to draw reliable conclusions. In my case I tested each change a minimum of five times using a mission scenario which I could repeat without a problem and which adequately tested the scenario. This is difficult and -- do I have to say it? -- booooorrrrring. But it's the only way to sort out effective mods. For what it's worth, if you need help in testing, develop a mission which will adequately test the variable, then ask for help. I'll help. Now that my Christmas shopping is done, I should have some time. Hah! That was a joke, guys. :D Jim