baffmeister

The gear length issue with some models causes the AI aircraft to twitch, miss taxi way points, and sometimes even flip upside down and blow up. The problem Alexis99 is having sounds more like an error in the nose gear data. I checked the Panther in my SF2 KAW install and the nose wheel steers in the correct direction. Alexis99, here is the nose gear data that can be compared to what you have: [NoseGear] SystemType=LANDING_GEAR Retractable=TRUE DeployTime=5.0 AnimationID=1 DragArea=0.25 HideGearNode=TRUE ModelNodeName=GearFrontLeg InsideNodeName=GearFrontInner CompressGearOnRetraction=TRUE ShockAnimationID=2 ShockStroke=0.38 SpringFactor=1.5 DampingFactor=1.8 WheelNodeName=WheelFront RotationAxis=X-AXIS RollingRadius=0.23 CastoringWheel=TRUE CastoringNodeName=GearFrontPivot Steerable=TRUE MaxSteeringSpeed=41.15 Locking=FALSE MaxSteeringAngle=45.0 InputName=YAW_CONTROL ControlRate=1.0 HasBrakes=FALSE RollingCoefficient=0.05 MaxDeploySpeed=110.6 MaxLoadFactor=10.0 DetachNode[001]=GearDoorFrontL DetachNode[002]=GearDoorFrontR

FW-190 A5 flight model attached. It's for the Wolf/Wrench package available here: https://combatace.com/files/file/13692-sf2-ww2-focke-wulf-fw-190a-5/ I started out making an A8 version for Battle of the Bulge use but found the various versions and potential engine options so confusing it seemed better to build an earlier version first to get a baseline BMW-801D engine table and finalize the aerodynamics. Here's a brief review of some of the engine boost systems used for the FW-190: Water/Methanol Injection: This was tried with the early fighter bomber versions but caused engine issues so wasn't continued with. Water/methanol may have been used on later versions but I'm not sure! Injection of C3 fuel directly into the supercharger: This seems to be the system that found favor with the fighter bombers. An additional tank was installed in the fuselage giving a 30 minute supply and could be used for 10 minutes at a time with 10 minutes rest between use. The system could only be used in low blower at low altitudes. Also, due to overheating issues, it could only be used in level flight. For later versions the low blower and level flight restrictions may have been lifted but..........I'm not sure! Nitrous Oxide Injection: Used on some versions to boost high altitude performance. Not going there. The usual "increase the RPM and Boost" system. Going there for this version. The standard WEP boost of 1.42 ATA gives about 1700hp at sea level 1540hp at 20000ft compared to the 1.32 ATA climb power rating of 1480hp at sea level and 1405hp at 20000ft. The max speeds for a good A-5 were around 350mph at sea level and 407mph at about 20000ft. The speed checks I've done with this FM are quite close but I still have to refine the engine table a bit. From about mid 1944 the "Dry Boost" limits were increased again, with a 10minute limit. I will probably make a "standard A8" with those limits at some point as well as a dedicated fighter bomber version. Other Stuff: The A5 FM is meant to represent the "Standard Fighter" version but there were so many assorted "kits" available for the FW-190 it's hard to say how common a standard version was. The fighter bomber versions have a considerably higher empty weight so for this reference FM I'm paying very close attention to the actual empty weight and flight weight of a standard A5. Some Focke-Wulf documents list the flight weight as 4000Kg/8818lbs and I'm very close to that but CHECK YOUR AMMO WEIGHT! From the Focke-Wulf document the ammo weight should be 201kg/443lbs. I was well over that when I checked it but didn't see anything obviously wrong with the gun datas except for a missing cartridge weight entry. I used some data from an AvHistory gun and now the ammo weight is at 520lbs. I've seen what I think are occasional weight glitches in the load out menu but there may be a gun data error somewhere. Here's the FM: FW190a5_DATA0.95.zip

I think your best bet is to put together an ETO centered installation using aircraft/files available here at CombatAce.

Never actually looked at that dialog box before. Interesting. From my limited experience trying to make tod's I think the solid objects like tod buildings require a square bitmap or jpeg, then the coordinates somehow mark the points were the bitmap or jpeg gets "folded" around the box building. I would guess the transparent objects like trees are somewhat similar although they may be limited to flat [2d] or "X" placement which is closer to a 3D look. Not much help, I know. All I've ever done with tod's is to make larger buildings but all based on the stock TW bitmap/coordinates.

This FM is made for the MontyCZ / Ndidki / Wrench Package available here: https://combatace.com/files/file/13723-sf2-ww2-messerschmitt-bf-109g-10-pak-by-montycz-an-ndiki/ I started out using the usual TW S-99/199 FM as a starting point for this but was a bit disappointed in the performance so tried to find an excuse to do something about it. After comparing the S-99 FM to the TW P-51 and Spitfire FM's and doing a bit of research on line I think the lift is understated for the S-99. Both the P-51 and Spitfire had unique wing designs for the WW2 era with both having lower lift coefficients than was typical for other types. The Bf-109's older style wing was, except for the slats, more typical for the era so I was expecting to see a noticeable difference between the types. Nope. Anyway, I crunched a few numbers and made some adjustments. The change is quite significant with much better energy retention in high G turns while still staying within the low speed turn times generated by assorted Soviet tests. The Soviet tests were conducted at 1000 meters at [I think] 60deg bank angle and a sustained 2G's. Under those conditions assorted Bf-109 G series were doing the 360deg turn in the 20 to 23 second range. My tests with the G-10 FM attached are coming in at about 22 seconds. As a further check I added the changes to an earlier Bf-109 E-3 FM I made to see how it did against the Soviet tests. Most of the Soviet tests with the E series were complicated by assorted engine problems so many of the turn times were actually worse than the G series. Tests by other countries gave better results though, with Luftwaffe and Finnish results in the 19-20 second range. That's what I'm getting with the modified E-3 FM. As a further check, I compared the E-3 to a British turn test done at 12000ft with a turn time of 25 seconds and that's what I got. As a FURTHER test, I compared the new E-3 1000M turn time to the E-3 1000M turn time obtained from a totally different sim, BoB2, and it tested in the 19-20 second range. Anyway, I'm going to be running this modified FM for awhile and see how it works out. Notes: The BF-109-G-10 had a WEP system using water/methonal injection. [MW-50] There was a 30 minute supply which has been modeled, but the gentlemens agreement says you can only use it for 10 minutes at a time with a 3 minute rest period between each use. I had some issues finding information on the engine/altitude performance and some of the target speeds are extrapolated from the faster K series so it will probably get some future adjustments. Damage modeling is KAW-ish with a few of my own ideas thrown in. The roll rate has been tuned using some info contained in the AvHistory BF-109-G-10 FM. The AI has been tweaked a bunch, but similar to my previous WW2 FM's. Here it is: Bf109g-10_DATA0.95.zip

Is there a game limit to the amount of AAA per target area? I seem to recall a thread that suggested 16 or 18 AAA units was the maximum per target area but not sure.

Interesting toy model look.

Frame rates can be a big issue with the WW2 bombers. I had to reduce graphic settings for my WW2 install to avoid a slide show when intercepting bombers during BoB time frames. I suspect the turrets use a lot of computing power but all the tracer TGA's seem to have a big effect as well. This is particularly noticeable when a bunch of eight gun Hurricanes or Spitfires are engaging a formation of bombers. Turning down the in game effects setting can help quite a bit.

The campaign and terrain is focused on the fighter bomber types so no bomber types planned although there were quite a few RAF B-25's and US B-26's in country. Likewise, German bombers were active at night but I'm not going there. Spitfire IX's were under consideration for air to air and air to ground work but with only 3 RAF airfields and one squadron at each I like the current plan with the Spit14's doing top cover. Will look into the other FW-190 and BF-109 types. The Me-262 is definitely under consideration but not sure how active they were over the Ardennes region during the Battle of the Bulge. Any idea? Wrench, I will be doing some FM's for this project and the plan is to use only aircraft available at CombatAce, at least to start. I might transfer some FM's to "other" models at some point but it's low priority. Will probably use the CAF P-47's, maybe one squadron with bubble canopies and one razorback. Sounds like Wolf's P-38 is the only option for now. Also, no Bf-110 at this point.

I'm going to try and put together a campaign for this project this winter as well as finish off the terrain so was wondering about what aircraft to include. Most of the research done so far has been on the ground war but I've put together a list of aircraft for the allied side, the list of Luftwaffe aircraft is still being researched. Any ideas on aircraft/skins for either side appreciated. Considering the small size of the terrain I'm just planning 7 squadrons per side, one squadron at each airport. British aircraft: Hawker Tempest: Based at B-80 [Volkel] and tasked with mainly air to air missions plus some strike, recon and armed recon. Spitfire14: ThirdWire's model based at B-78 [Eindhoven] and tasked with air to air and some recon missions. Hawker Typhoon: Based at B-77 [Gilze/Rijen] and tasked with mainly CAS missions and some strike missions. US aircraft: P-51D: ThirdWire's model based at Y-29 [Asch]. At the start of the battle it seems the only P-51's in the area were PR versions. The 352nd Fighter Group deployed aircraft from England to Y-29 on Dec. 22 but I'm going to include them from the Dec.16 start date. They will probably be tasked with mostly air to air missions with some CAS, strike, recon and armed recon included. P-47D [2]: One squadron at A-89 [Le Culot] and one squadron at Y-32 [Ophoven]. One of the squadrons will get mainly CAS and some strike missions, the other will get a blend of different missions. P-38: The 370th fighter group was active in the area and seems to have been a dedicated ground attack unit so they will get just CAS, strike and armed recon missions based from A-92 [Sint-Truiden]. Luftwaffe Aircraft: Still needs to be researched but one squadron of Bf-109G-10's for air to air, probably an earlier G version for air to air and air to ground, FW-190A-8, and FW-190D-9. That still leaves 3 squadrons open, any ideas?

Some manuals here. Free to look but downloads require a membership. http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/sikorsky/s-61seaking.html

Taking damage!

Has anyone ever noticed a difference in the bombing AI depending on the type of target? A long time ago when trying to put together a dive bombing AI for the Ju-87 Stuka it seemed the AI would dive bomb OK against AAA targets but would level bomb against targets like buildings. I eventually gave up on it but wonder if there is something in the game code causing that.

It's possible to add some type specific AI behavior to the aircraft data ini but it may take a lot of experimenting to get what you want. Here are the stock weapon delivery AI data entries,, with a specific field for dive bombing: [LevelBombAI] PullOutRange=500.0 PullOutAlt=300.0 ReleaseAlt=1650.0 SecondPassRange=6000.0 SecondPassAlt=1000.0 ReleaseCount=12 ReleaseInterval=0.14 [DiveBombAI] RollInRange=6000.0 RollInAlt=2300.0 PullOutRange=600.0 PullOutAlt=300.0 ReleaseAlt=1000.0 SecondPassRange=5000.0 SecondPassAlt=1600.0 ReleaseCount=4 ReleaseInterval=0.14 AimPitchOffset=1.0 [RocketAttackAI] RollInRange=9000.0 RollInAlt=1500.0 PullOutRange=1500.0 PullOutAlt=250.0 ReleaseRange=2000.0 SecondPassRange=6000.0 SecondPassAlt=1000.0 ReleaseCount=16 ReleaseInterval=0.2 AimPitchOffset=0.0 [StrafeAI] RollInRange=6000.0 RollInAlt=1500.0 PullOutRange=800.0 PullOutAlt=200.0 ReleaseRange=1200.0 SecondPassRange=4500.0 SecondPassAlt=1200.0 ReleaseInterval=1.0 AimPitchOffset=0.0 [CruiseMissileAI] ReleaseRange=100000.0 ReleaseAlt=5000.0 ReleaseInterval=6.0

Something to do with the time of day? I don't play around with the environment ini much but did notice quite a few variables for time of day. The purplish haze looks good in your screen shot, maybe it's in the morning?

Everything about this flight sim seems to be "high end." You need a high end computer to run it, probably a high end control system to enjoy it, and from what I've read the development costs are high end as well. Something like $100,00.00 US to develop an aircraft for the series? Considering that, I can understand the prices. I can also understand why hard core military flight simmers don't mind spending the money. The modeling of the aircraft systems and aerodynamics seems to be unparalleled and the terrains look fantastic so I think in this case you get what you pay for. Having said all that the development time is very long requiring an equally long term commitment from buyers. Maybe re-mortgage the house to get started?

Mountain Hideaway. My still unfinished fictional terrain.

None that I'm aware of. I did see some marginal super cruise from the Mirage F1 charts in a very clean configuration but I think at about 18000ft. Quite sure the dash 19 powered F-104C could super cruise as well but have to check the charts. Wrench is right, you can check out a lot of these questions yourself. Here's a link to a site with some flight manuals. You can look for free but downloads cost money: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/usa/lockheed/f-104starfighter/t-o-1f-104a-1-f-104a-b-c-d-flight-manual.html

The lighter F-105 will accelerate faster. The heavier F-105 will require a higher angle of attack for a given airspeed compared to the lighter one. The higher angle of attack will generate more induced drag during the acceleration phase, requiring more time to reach a given airspeed. The additional weight would slow down the acceleration as well, similar to what happens during the take off phase. The top speed question is a bit different. Considering that both aircraft have no external load, it may be a question of whats the limiting factor for top speed. If the limiting factor is thrust, then the heavier F-105 would be slower than the light one. If the limiting factor is structure or aerodynamics, the heavier F-105 might possibly be as fast. For the F-104, the limiting factor for speed was the compressor inlet temperature, limiting the design to about Mach 2.0, although the design was probably good to about mach 2.2 - 2.4. For the EE Lightning, the limiting factor on early versions was the nose radome structure which was only good to about mach 1.6 - 1.8, although it could fly faster. The numbers are a bit of a guess as I'm working from memory.

I like the new site, and I'm a Luddite!

I'm going to throw in a few comments here because I've been tinkering with a VooDoo flight model for quite some time and the VooDoo pitch up issue was common to some other types as well. From my research, the VooDoo pitch up is initially caused by wing tip stall. With the loss off lift associated with the tip stall, and keeping in mind the swept wing, the center of lift moves forward to the inner unstalled section of the wing. This would generate an initial pitch up but would also contribute to the tail blanketing issue resulting in loss of stabilator effectiveness. The result was a potentially uncontrollable pitch up. The tip stall could be aggravated by high roll rates so ultimately, the VooDoo was equipped with a roll limiter as well as a pitch limiter system. From anecdotal sources, at least one VooDoo pilot said the stability systems could be "outsmarted" probably from overly aggressive control inputs. Some other aircraft that would pitch up from tip stall include the F-100 [even with the low tail] and the early Hawker Hunters, which had a G limitation at higher mach numbers due to the risk of pitch up coupled with over G possibilities. The problem with the Hawker Hunter was addressed by the dogtooth/sawtooth /whatever it's called wing that was used on the later version. This info is all from memory. The F-104 Starfighter pitch up might be a bit different but it's been a while since I looked into it. Streakeagle made some intersesting comments a long time ago regarding the TW F-104 FM. He suggested it was based on the theoretical behavior for the low aspect ratio wing. This made a lot of sense to me as the TW F-104 seems to over perform in some areas and under perform in others. I "think" the stick kicker system in the F-104 kept the AoA somewhere in the 15-16 deg range while the low aspect ratio wing could probably operate effectively at significantly higher AoA. The pitch up issue with the F-104 "may" have been caused more by tail blanketing and a significant amount of lift being generated from the forward fuselage/canopy area coupled with the long moment arm of the forward fuselage/canopy. These comments are more of a quick overview over some potential causes of pitch up and, like I said, all from memory.

Watch out for model size differences between FE2 and SF2. For some reason, TW went with smaller models in FE2.

Geary, you might want to try the SF2 FM included with the Paulopanz Sea Fury package. It was made for Simon Porters Sea Fury model. I think the FM is similar more or less to the one I made for the SkippyBing model. If you're on the last SF1 patch it should be OK, not sure about earlier patches. Here's a link: https://combatace.com/files/file/13443-hawker-sea-fury-fb11-mk-50/

Working well for me also. I was using an old driver [347.88] due to cockpit jaggies and texture issues but this latest one [385.69] doesn't seem to have those issues and the anti-aliasing appears better as well. System: Win7-64bit, 4GB ram, GTX750.

After spending even more time on the strange bomb weight distribution problem and getting no where, I put together a relatively simple work around that I think is OK. The bomb pylon is now controlled by a no weight, no fuel, no jettison, fake pilot, specific station fuel tank. The new fuel tank is called "bomb pylon" and will be included in the loadout ini for any missions that require bombs. It will load automatically with the bombs. If, for some reason, you wish to take bombs on a recon mission or whatever, you will have to manually load the bomb pylon. The actual bombs use no pylon. I will include this work around in the next update. This is one of the weirdest model issues I've ever seen. When bombs are loaded on the pylons, the plane flies very right wing heavy. If I use the rocket rails to load the bombs, it flies slightly left wing heavy. If I use no pylons or rails, it flies straight. Anyway, this fix should work with the Typhoon as well.