p10ppy

Water in big hairy Floatplanes http://oldbeacon.com/gallery/postma/postma-32.htm http://www.emfso.org/discussions/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1225

My mild disagreement The DH2 would appear to be a much better plane then the E.III both aerodynamically and control wise Relatively: The E.III with its live tail surfaces and Warping should be a nervy unstable nightmare, Underpowered, higher stall speed, very slow roller and quite un-manoeuvrable It's basically a pre war design (boom and zoom sort of) The DH2 would most likely be tail heavy (pusher) and I'm not sure that it would have much precession with the engine so close to its roll centre Big control surfaces with actual non-moving tail surfaces would seem to make it a much more controllable/ manoeuvrable aircraft, with a better climb (lower drag and wing loading) Apparently with a nasty stall/spin tho (probably a general pusher trait) I note that the two main E. aces (Immelman and Boelcke) show no victories over DH-2s and that the great majority of their "kills" are 2 seaters (old 2 seaters) On the AI: the stock Spad does have a nasty stall and the AI copes (relaxed flightmodel) The main AI problems imho are basic stupidity (wrong behaviour at the wrong time) and a very poor aim/ firing at to long a range Coupled with a tendency to spend a lot of time in their "avoiding the ground" behaviour, exasperated by the rapid altitude loss when manoeuvring with some FMs, (probably unfortunately accurate) I used CD0 mainly as an example, but it is a fundamental coefficient that's fairly easy to estimate And having it wildly wrong can only compound with other "mistakes" in the FM until none of the parameters bare much resemblance to RL Undoubtedly it has a large effect on energy conservation tho (something the MoS-N FM does way to well ) Rudder response: I'm not sure about a lack of rudder authority (generalising here) I agree that many FMs don't have much, when what they should have (imho) is a great lack of yaw/sideslip stability Can someone point me to some sources on a lack of rudder response in these craft? Source on E.III vs DH-2 (again I link to it ) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch2-2.htm http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/app-a.htm and following up from Tailspins link, a "nice" description of fly the camel (shudder) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa38...808/ai_n8823870 (the stuff about looping and the lack there of is interesting) finally a comparison of CD0 in released FMs extracted from the above spreadsheet (sorry its long )

Some of my musings on the FE flight models to date (Hard FM) There are some givens imho in the stock aircraft (bearing in mind I'm no expert) 1 They all climb better than they should (game play most likely) 2 They probably roll slightly better than they should (same, game play most likely) 3 In most other regards they are reasonably accurately modeled for a computer simulator 4 Tk chose (so far) to only model late war watercooled aircraft (and the best of those at that) 5 the AI is "adequate" with those aircraft (barely) Its not a great starting point for modeling the quite different earlier aircraft However I "think" given that the game engine currently models such a wide range of aircraft, the relatively small differences of WW1 should be attainable… AI is another matter…. (I guess we all hope for great things with the next update) Now… (Gulp) I look through the 3rd party flight models (my own included of course ) and I don't see much basis in reality I'm afraid … I'm not trying to be ultra hardcore, but almost none of them have a worse drag factor than a P-51 and a lot have better drag (less) than a modern fighter In fact in a lot of the coefficients, stock aircraft are worse off than the 3rd party ones I think we have just wandered away from reality a bit with each new FM just a little bit further away from it than the last… (Check out the scouts with the 17 m wingspans) And there's nothing wrong with making aircraft that feel different and are fun to fly (hard flight model tho??) but I kinda hope we can get a little more accuracy in there (at least for some of the basic easyish to derive numbers) And I know it's very hard to reach a consensus on the relative performance of 90-year-old aircraft I for example mildly disagree with a lot of the E.III vs DH2 discussion going on here (and there is reasonably good basic FM data on both these craft available on the net) Peter don't take this as directed at you, all the planes are equally afflicted and I think you are doing a wonderful job (it takes me weeks to do a fm) I just wonder if we shouldn't examine our goals in terms of the fm's and how far from reality we want to get…(of course I'm not forgetting the blasted AI) Maybe a few different relatively accurate (subjective) baseline craft that we can model the others off of (early war, mid war, mono, bi, twoseater etc) doesn't seem like much when you say it fast And when all is said and done I just happy that we have so many craft and there is so much potential… I hope this doesn't sound to whiny/harsh (it wasn't meant to) or that anyone feels got at Thanks for your time Link to a spreadsheet of most of the FE FM for comparison mite be useful to some one

or anybody else who knows :) I noticed in your read me for 5 fokkers (nice mission btw) you have? a copy of windsock 58 seems quite hard to get down here:( I was wondering if there was any info on the cowling / cockpit combing changes on the MoS I/V (seems confusing, but the Vickers armed one in russian service ) It is very different from the N and before i make something up i just thought i check (no worries if you dont, I have a good imagination ) this is about the best pic Ive found thanks

Thank you 101tfs and thank you Southside Bucky that resolves a few issues (those crazy russians) looks like a bigger nose job than i was thinking and interestingly looks like a Infantry Vickers?

just got a chance to play with these (and your E.III) They are great Keep them coming :)

hmm fun subject heres better stuff :) http://www.baha.be/ specifically http://www.baha.be/Webpages/Navigator/Phot...seurs/be_2c.htm have fun

hello I'm sure you have prob seen these http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww1/o/121/66/0/1 http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww1/o/121/66/0/2 not very imformative im afraid (first is a nice drawing tho) good luck

Here's a little toy/tool I did up a little while ago when I got sick of big excel spreadsheets Run it (from any where) and feed it FM data.ini's and it crunches them up into a simplified form for analysis (only, no editing, no saving, no pain) Up to 5 AC at a time I found it useful for comparing FM's and finding any big mistakes Mostly it just works with the info in the ini, but you will need to provide a aircraft length and wing configuration (mono,bi etc) for some of the Loftin/moi calculations It totals things like CD0 for the aircraft and gives an overall coefficient and supplies the equivalent Loftin based estimate. (Simplified to full power at sealevel,dry weight) Moi estimates are based on a combination of existing 3rd wire aircraft and the formulas from Charles's SF notes (thank you Charles and Abacus) The Moi's get wildly wrong with the BIG aircraft, and all the existing stock FE craft are watercooled biplanes so it is really are only indicative ballpark stuff In fact all the Loftin based estimates are very rough but good enough for government work imho Note: I'm using Cdi (induced drag) from the Loftin calcs for CDL in the ini, and I don't know that they are really equivalent It's the one major difference in value between the stock aircraft data and the derived Loftins At the bottom there is some derived info on wing/power loading etc that might be useful for gauging performance I'm not the greatest coder so it's a bit slow when it comes to the data crunch And I have not done much error trapping so I'm sure its easy to break(wont hurt the ini files tho) It will output to a default printer but only as a bitmap so its not real sharp Hope someone finds some use in it Suggestions are welcome Get it from combatace once its been approved For more info on how Loftin estimate's http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...68/contents.htm Appendix C

yeah sorry blue means the highest value across the range of AC, red the lowest (note sometimes the lowest(red) is better) black is in the middle Green means a number that is using data not in the ini (ushally a loftin base estimate, with a seperate algorithm) if its not green its derived and summed from the ini hmmm not sure that was very clear

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...ode=sst&id=4759 File Name: FmToolFile Submitter: p10ppy File Submitted: 27 May 2007 File Category: Utilities/Editors Little tool for analyzing First Eagles Aircraft_Data.ini (not sure about other 3rd wire aircraft, some of the estimated calcs would be surely wrong) see readme for a few more details Click here to download this file

I agree that it is may be a wee bit flat (that could be the lighting render tho) The D.III did have a flatish bottom (behind the wing root anyway) 3 view discusion

looking great :) in my net wanderings on MoS n info i found some nice stuff on the E. series over at the Aerodrome You guys have probably all ready seen it and its a bit late for the III but just in case discussion on the evolution Great drawings Markings and finish article ps you may have to sign up for the forums...not sure

Hi everybody sorry I haven't replied for awhile, RL a bit hectic at the moment Thanks again for all the nice words From my perspective I think TK's planes are amazing, very inspirational. They are much lighter on polygons and textures than mine (it's a bit of a hog really, but Lods help) and look wonderful for their in game performance. Anyway it's not a competition, the more mods the better imho The game wouldn't be half as fun with out all the great work of Laton, Peter, v. Deutschmark, gambit, Bortdafarm, the A team and all the others I've forgotten to mention A lot of this stuff wouldn't be possible with out all the work done by Charles and the SF/WOV/WOE modders…. @ Froggy, Yayyyy, thanks very much for that, I'd forgotten all about doing the internalclipdistance, I did it months ago when I was struggling to bury the outside fuselage with the cockpit (think I got the parameter from a WOV plane) doesn't seem to be needed now tho, and who would have thought it would affect the target arrows… @ Firecage, are you getting a lot of spins? I actually tried to keep abit of a spin in the FM (its supposed to be a nasty handler and it really isn't with this FM) I find I've got to try pretty hard to spin it (much harder than the Spad 13, but that maybe just over familiarity) but I agree the 3rd wire engine seems to make it very hard to recover from spins (I have recovered in the morane, just not very often) @Tailspin, I like that pilot position better too, thanks @ Southside Bucky, Have you added the streamer.lod thingy to your weapons folder (its actually a dummy, the streamer is a weapon pylon, long story ) and either: Used the weapons editor to update the WEAPONDATA.dat and modded the WEAPONDATA.ini, Or used my Weaponsdata.dat / ini? If you have, is anyone else having this problem? (I may have forgotten a step somewhere?) As for the FM Peter's PMed me about it (I haven't replied yet but will next) I agree it is too easy to fly but we are back to that old conundrum of realistic vs relative / fun performance ---Long musings follow--- It was very fast for its day, and the speed at sea level is about right give or take a knot according to published data (probably with a hurricane up is bottom and a monkey for a pilot) And bar the much superior armament of the E.III, was by all accounts a better performing aircraft than the E.III (the E.series fokkers were apparently related to the earlier G and H moranes, the N being a different beast) It has lower wing and power loading then the E.III, and according to the Lofkin formulas lower total CD0 and a better lift/drag ratio Given that it has a fixed vert stabilizer (I know its very tiny ) I guess it would have better directional stability too (pitch is another story) I reversed engineered the Moi's off of TK's planes (any other formulas seemed to result in numbers miles out) and given the ridiculas empty weight, it gives a plane that quite snappy to manoeuvre, (I can post my moi formulas for discussion if anyone's interested) Don't get me wrong, I'm not being defensive, I know it's much too easy to fly And probably too good against the early German Bi's I guess I'm just waiting for something concrete from you guys, because I've flown it 1000s of times and can no longer tell Anyway it is released under the creative commons licence, so all should feel free to release any mods of it they like ---Long musings stop--- What am I'm going to do next… not sure… probably not that again for a while I'm half way through a Mod of the N to a I / V (a bit tricky the nose is quite different) And I thought I might have ago of some AI only targets (I've always like the Taube) And I started this a while ago to have a break from the morane (damned ugly tho, and there's still a lot to do on it) Any suggestions? (Don't hold your breath tho I'm pretty slow ) Thanks

Thank you everybody I'm glad you are enjoying it Thanks Tailspin for the soundlist.ini stuff (I knew I'd forget something, should have included my file) The little targeting arrows has got me stumped (I fly mostly padlocked so I never missed them) I've just been testing and I can't find anything in particular that's aircraft specific that should affect the arrows…. (But something clearly is) Anyone else know? @ gambit168 I really like yours and v. Deutschmark skins a lot And I know what you mean about weathering, they really only lasted a few months But its fun to do And strangely enough almost every MoS-N profile depicts them as really battered probably something to-do with their landing characteristics Or Morane had really bad Dope What do people thing of the FM? Too easy? Link to My soundlist.ini(copy it into your ThirdwireWWIFlight folder)

http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...ode=sst&id=4716 File Name: Morane-Saulnier N “Bullet” File Submitter: p10ppy File Submitted: 18 May 2007 File Updated: 8 Sep 2007 File Category: Morane-Saulnier Morane-Saulnier N Monoplane version 1.3 18 May 2007 By Vernon "p10ppy" Bowden Please read the Installation.txt for other notes and installation instructions Click here to download this file

Hello, first post but a fair while lurking hope this is the right place? I've been struggling through putting together a plane (long learning process) thought i should post incase someone else is/has done one already WIP I will probably need some help finishing it (FM etc) Also I wonder if anyone has any details (photos) on the cockpit for this kite? oops nearly forgot its surposed to be a MORANE-SAULNIER N :D

Sorry B Bandy RFC missed your post, I've been struggling with RL That and the fact that aircraft modeling takes forever (don't know how the others do it) But I think I'm finally beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel The LODs are pretty done Cockpit is done (there's a colour issue but you learn from these things) The textures I'm going to stop playing with (you could spend a lifetime) Animations are working "ok" Damage modeling is done (I think, it still seems a little weird to me) FM has all the right collisions points and Min-max/Positions, hierarchy etc Sounds are done (but I'm not sure that they are good sounds) Loadouts are done Hanger/load screens just finished That just leaves the little thingy of the actual FM It flies, has the right engine / weight yadda yadda But I haven't touched any of the actual drag/lift thingies since I copied them in there from someone else's FM (sorry someone, so long ago I cant remember whose) Anyway I was thinking about packaging it up in the next few days and emailing it to a few expert volunteers to test it as is …? Or maybe I should just stick it up on combatAce and worry about the FM later? (Aways seems messy to me though, separate patches and stuff) Thanks for your patience

Try adding or altering this line in the *data.ini file (you will need to play unless you have the MAX files) ---Snip------ [AircraftData] EmptyMass=288.6 EmptyInertia=569.11,672.07,1144.94 ReferenceArea=15.55 ReferenceSpan=9.20 ReferenceChord=1.68 CGPosition=0.00,0.0,0.00 OnGroundPitchAngle=10.4 <--------------------------this line UseMetricUnit=TRUE DefaultArmorType=WOOD DefaultArmorThickness=25 Component[001]=fuselage Component[002]=TopWingLeft Component[003]=TopWingRight Component[004]=TopWingMidLeft Component[005]=TopWingMidRight Component[006]=TopWingTipLeft Component[007]=TopWingTipRight Component[008]=tail Component[009]=Nose Component[010]=Verttail Component[011]=RightStab Component[012]=LeftStab ---Snip------ It sets the initial pitch angle on the ground between the gear contact points Fixes on runway "falling" in first eagles so it should work in WOV

yeah sounds like a good idea i always wondered why it hadn't been already done with so few differing guns etc maybe start a list to see whats around and how much interest (type, polycount, texture/maping)?

great looking skin Miller is very inspirational If this is of any use, feel free

thanks for the pics the cockpit ones are really useful! i dont know about the wing warping i presume that FE engine only allows the animating of full meshs, not a row of vertexs i read somewhere that the wings only deformed a 100mm or so at the tips away anyways more wips (slowly progressing)