peter01

On ROF Blog - many other videos too, but together with the motion and lighting, this makes you just want to get into a cockpit and fly a ww1 plane . http://riseofflight.com/Blogs.aspx?tag=3D There's been considerable speculation on copy protection at SimHQ the last week or two, and the developers may be releasing some information this week. Also some speculation about a Demo - but its is pure speculation of course. http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/foru..._of_Flight.html Looks like its all progressing quite well.

Mmmm. Didn't take long. Which version of First Eagles? The DM is excellent, especially with a simple mod.

Last I heard its two. An extra one for the russian market. Its a different concept true, and some may hesitate given many ww1 sims spoil gamers with the number of planes. And of course if your selective about purchasing there is an advantage. As people buy planes, the Devs can build new planes that are then AI for everyone to fly against, eg bombers/two seaters are in the pipeline, and several other planes will be in game as AI even on initial release I believe. The revenue stream helps develop the game, at no cost to you, but for your benefit with patches. Thats how I believe it works, at least in the early stages, but I may be wrong. And if thats the case, you will get a lot more then what you originally paid without the additional cost. Actually in FE, if TK added one or two planes at a time at reasonable cost, I'd buy them whether they were AI for everybody else or not.

This version of FE is looking good. Best Expansion Pack version so far I think, so starting to redo some FMs. But from a point of view of modding FMs, theres really only one phrase to describe the game as it is now: its become quite complex. The original FE was relatively simple by comparison. Pretty well progressed with FMs, but even if all goes well, it'll be a couple of months to finish what I want. And can't promise I'll finish either - the increased complexity together with the fact I have less time. Generally I'm doing FMs slightly different to TKs. Less smooth, less stable. Thats how I prefer them, and they work well for me, but you may need to adjust joystick settings. The FMs are designed only for Hard Flight Model. And FMs done for previous versions won't work properly in this patch. There have been many changes along the way in the game - in FMs, takeoff, AI. You'll save yourself a lot of frustration remembering this. While working on other stuff, thought I'd put a few FMs here on the forum, for feedback, as I may never finish all the addon planes and any that work well with this patch are worth having I guess. These have TKs standard AI. They are not fully tested - as AI, loadouts, takeoffs. The latter has become increasingly fiddily as well - bouncing, pulling to one side, etc. Theres a couple of FMs as variations to TKs existing ones - Albatros Dv, FokkerD7. The Albatros Dv feels similar to TKs Albatros Dva, and has similar performance, but has been done quite differently. The Fokker D7 feels different to TKs Fokker D7F, and is more capable. Addon plane FMs are the Pfalz D3 and Sopwith Dolphin. I chose these particular planes for a few reasons. The Dolphin and Pfalz fit with TKs set, were widely used, and are ones I had considerable trouble with before as FMs, so pretty pleased with them. The Alb Dv and Fokker D7 for you to compare differences to TKs Albatros Dva and FokkerD7F. And more generally, because all these fit reasonably well with TKs in the unmodded standard Nov 2008 game, both as FMs and in using standard AI parameters (I am using different AI parameters, but to use these means all the FMs would need to be changed/tested). Also included is a modded aircraftobject.ini (just some headshake), and gundata files. Gun damage has changed and become more complex as well in this version of the game then before. Aircraftobject.in and gundat files go into the "Objects" folder. If you don't like, just delete and the game will revert to TKs defaults (in a CAT file). Anyway, let me know what you think, good or bad. I'll probably make available some others here on this thread over time. 04_01_2009_FMs_for_Nov_2008_Patch.zip

Attached a Se5a FM, and modified Se5a_AVIONICS file. The Se5a has become one of my favourite planes, but has always been very tricky to get right. A pity, as its a very nice 3-D model and cockpit. This Se5a FM is a stable gun platform, and its stable in flight without being too smooth or uninteresting. Well, thats my view. Its probably as good as I can do, and I think its very good . Its a capable plane for the player and as AI. I tested this against the Alb D3 I made available in the early FM set for the Nov 2008 version - its a level or two better of course. How it fits with Thirdwires other planes from an player or AI perspective I'm not sure, but its probably okay. The Se5a_AVIONICS file is included as the Aldis was not a telescopic sight, so tried to eliminate magnification. Its not spot on, but its better to my way of thinking, not so distracting. If you don't like it, just delete the file, it will revert to the stock standard settings. Place the two files in your Se5a directory. Perhaps backup your current directory by a simple copy before doing so, just in case. SE5a.zip

Thanks. All great stuff... Sure they will include gun loadouts sometime...I'm patient, can't ask for too much, otherwise we'll never see it! I'm interested in how they will simulate the loading of a wing gun - with graphics? limiting a pilots ability to fly etc. Its a really a minor thing I guess, but these Devs are amazing, so nothing would surprise.

LOL Gr.Viper, what more? So.... have you come across anything on guns, eg, loadout options, reloading (wing guns)?

I posted the impulse thing at simHQ Gr.Viper, its quite amazing to me in the sense that given the current flight models around, whether ww1 or ww2, it wouldn't have even been missed! But a great addition....perhaps finally, we'll really feel like we are flying early warplanes. I really wonder what else they have developed ...

Hey Mr Craig, maybe we'll meet online finally! I agree its pretty incredible. But ROF of course isn't just pretty graphics. Its a huge leap in modelling flight physics ... to me thats even more incredible, I'm still shaking my head in disbelief that a WW1 sim could be so advanced.

Thanks Gr.Viper. I guess some people are going to kick and scream about the online connection. Doesn't worry me personally, I'm always online. Potential involvement of the OFF Team is great news. I always thought that the modelling work done by that team was excellent - limited in part by CFS3 of course. Main person Winder? They are true ww1 enthusiasts. And this game looks so good its likely to grow and grow over many years. Very interesting.

Thanks Gr.Viper. The N17 is one of my favourites, I hope its made available as an addon aircraft for the Western release. I have to ask for the greater good of those interested in ROF : What else can you tell us? Theres a thread at simHQ if you want to post directly. http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topi...tml#Post2681654 Thanks for sharing all these little gems.

Yes I agree Tailspin. Probably for good reasons - regulations, and from a business perspective. However, this was not always the case. I have read at the Aerodrome Forum of a retired United Airlines pilot that flew a Nieuport 11 and a Spad 7. Can't remember his name, in the 1970s. His show involved doing continuous barrel rolls and loops in those planes, all under 500 feet. As you could imagine, the people that saw it thought it was incredible to watch.

Thats precisely why I did what i did with gundata and the special guns - a tradeoff between player and especially the AI versus AI gunners, and player in a two seater with AI gunner versus other AI. Doesn't work well? Anyway, let us know how it progresses - its tricky. I don't believe you can change the way the AI will make a gun attack.

Hi DennyBoy04, This can get messy. If you just go in and fix one thing other things may not work. I presume you are using the FMs I did for the early period for the Nov 2008 version? I presume you installed the Expansion Pack over your existing previous FE game? Anyway, if you have trouble let us know.

I'm no expert on markings, but they look great to me.

Good post and interesting article. Just some rambling thoughts, strictly my own, to add to the discussion. I'd agree that the Nieuports, Alb D3 and Alb D5 probably did suffer from flutter. As you state, they are all sesquiplanes. The lower wings were weak, and/or the single v-strut was insufficient or not sufficiently reinforced. Flutter due to fluid motion is true even of relatively rigid structures such as bridges and buildings. It is certainly true of all aircraft, but generally at higher speeds - it was a major problem in the post ww1 period right through to ww2, and beyond. P47s suffered from flutter - on elevators I think from memory at very high speeds - the P47 of course was about as robust as you could get. But flutter is also related to the strength/rigidity of structures, as well as control surfaces in planes - control surfaces can start twisting moments in planes. I believe the term "flutter" was coined in ww1. Although it wasn't well understood., and impossible to design against generally, designers were aware of what could cause flutter, and how to minimise the effects. The first theoretical research on flutter was started in ww1. The N11 especially was an incredibly nimble plane (to me, possibly as maneuvrable as the Camel or Dr1), so very successful despite its shortcomings, until diving, robustness ceiling and climb (in case of n11) became more important factors in aerial warefare. So Nieuports stayed and were successful until a time when other factors made them obscolescent. Pilots flying the Alb D3 during its peak ascendancy period jan-apr 1917 were told not to dive the plane. This structural weakness was later fixed. The later Alb Dvs did not have the flutter problems of the earlier ones. All relatively, of course, they were just more robust not simply robust. The dr1 initially probably had flutter problems as well but in its case due to its ailerons - also fixed. I'd agree that ww1 planes couldn't or didn't dive very fast, but not because of low flutter speeds alone. Due to the fact they had design dive speeds like every plane ever designed that pilots would have adhered to generally. Many planes could never achieve high speeds in dives anyway because of their design and/or drag - ww1 planes on the whole were not aerodynamically streamlined. I'd be surprised if any ww1 plane could achieve a 300mph dive. Mainly due to drag. I'm surprised that the author believes that the Se5 could only achieve a 150 mph dive safely. It was not a sesquiplane. It was considered robust, many pilots have written of taking planes considered less robust into dives of 180mph. It was ceratinly both powerful and heavy enough to achieve 150 mph very easily. In FE as in most/all games you can't model flutter. Nor max dive speeds unfortunately. After Tailspin pointed out that you could get any plane to dive at 200-220 mph, I realised that Thirdwire has modelled this incorrectly. Some planes should not be able to dive beyond 150 mph (or even less), some probably could attain speeds 220-230 mph. Flutter or no flutter. The parameter that should control this doesn't work for a player flown plane - "MachLimit". It seems to work somewhat for the AI, if thats a consolation.

There is only one folder for the Spad13, so yes, one for all three.

I started doing the newer lot on the Oct 2008 version, then changed to the Nov 2008 version, and tested for changes extensively - have become a bit paranoid I guess . I don't think there is any difference in FMs and AI at all. But whether there are other changes, don't know. Wouldn't be surprised though.

FMs for Thirdwire's planes? Generally most FMs are changed throughout, exception is a few of TKs, and its best then to add you changes to my FMs. I stared responding but then realised that specific answers depend on which version you are using. So, which version are you using?

Yes thats the version I was referring to ... for Nov 2008 patch. Steve43's suggestion may work well. It does reduce the ai's pitching/turning ability, but that may be a bonus too! Another parameter that has a significant effect is PitchForVerticalVelocity. You could try using PitchForVerticalVelocity=-0.005. This one doesn't effect too much else...lower values result in the plane using less climb in dogfights.

I agree, stress adding damage is an enhancement, at least for some players. Just a lot of work to do for many planes. But you can easily mod it yourself for various planes. "The AI is a different story. Maybe they are "smart" enough to not go too fast. " LOL. No. I think you need to tell 'em not to lose bits 'n pieces. Can't say this is completely correct, just my conclusions from testing. You tell 'em in the [FlightControl] section, MaxG=. From my testing, MaxG here does two things: tells the AI the max Gs to fly within for the aircraft as a whole, and determines when you hear the stress/straining sounds flying that particular plane. MaxG in the [FlightControl] section will not actually "break" anything...its just there for those two reasons. MaxG added in the wings and other bits will "break" those parts. But g loads are higher I think on wing-tips etc depending on the maneouvre, so to control it best for AI may be to put MaxG on inner components of wings....then it relates to MaxG in [FlightControl], ie its more controllable to design. It can take a lotta testing otherwise .... and any changes to ai parameters or by TK in how AI parameters work in the future, ouch, it all needs to be retested! And Ace skill level AI will tend to break bits much more then Regs etc because they do tighter maneouvres and hence pull higher gs, but still, certainly could be interesting. The stress sound (based on [FlightControl] section, MaxG) is useful as it provides some warning to the player. Also note that the AI do not always successfully stay within MaxG in [FlightControl] - its a guide (I think it works somewhat in conjuction with MachLimit=). So best for noise sounds and for AI, that the value in [FlightControl] is 0.4 - 0.8 below break points (maxG=whatever) you add in wings etc. Result: AI tends to be ok (I think that should be the aim, but thats up to you), you as player get some warning (again up to you). See the latest N11 I did (or N16/17). I only add one maxG to wings - the inner lower wing, left or right.

"If you stall your airplane at 3x its unaccelerated stall speed, you place 9gs on the airframe" Well generally that sounds right. But it's really the other way around. If you apply 9 g at a speed of 3 x unaccelerated stall speed, you will stall. The camel's controls were optimised for maneovring at around 70 mph - responsiveness decreased dramatically at higher speeds. IMHO it would actually be impossible to pull 9g on a camel at 150 mph. now that doesn't mean I don't think you could "break" a camel. I just think that apart from high speeds (and then at that time applying excessive control input namely pulling up), you were pretty safe....LOL, safe in a ww1 plane is probably an oxymoron, but YNWIM. planes "breaking" is true of all - even modern aerobatic planes. it doesn't mean people don't throw them around...they just know when its safe, when its not....the article tailspin linked is just stating that they knew that in 1918 IMO, that planes had speeds now known as "design maneuvering speed".

Seen it in 3 videos, but my interest in ww1 goes back many years, don't have links to them. First was of an airshow exhibition in the early 20s in the US. Not sure what plane, even if it was a ww1 plane, but it must have been similar. Did 3 loops, and close to the ground. Another from 1917 or 1918, american plane probably a Nieuport, did 2 loops plus quite a few other things. I saw this one quite some time ago, maybe 6-7 years ago, and memory of this is fuzzy as was the video. Third is Pegoud after parachuting from the plane (a first, 1913?), the plane continued to do loop after loop on its own. Its what gave Pegoud the idea to do a loop for the first time (maybe, disputed I think). A very early plane as in VERY EARLY. Its in a video called "4 Years of Thunder", well worth getting. Many excellent videos, also shows many other very neat and impressive manoeuvres, one I recollect is a N11 - fantastically manoeuvrable, almost unbelievably so. Of course Cecil Lewis wrote of the Tripe, and its ability to loop continously without using the throttle thru the loops at all - my reading was that looping was not unusal, just that the Tripe could do it almost indefinitely!

No reply Maico, maybe no-one here really knows. You should post on Thirdwires site http://bbs.thirdwire.com/phpBB/index.php on Technical Support Forum

Good article, had a quick look. You mean this? LOOP THE LOOP Looping the loop is a comparatively simple and effective air evolution. A height greater than 3,000 feet should be selected and the descent begun at a more gradual angle than employed in the nose dive. When, with the aid of the motor, a speed of 75 miles per hour, or better, has been attained, a firm backward pull on the control stick causes the airplane to rise and turn over. The backward pull should begin at point 1, Figure 100, and the stick be all the way back at point 2. When the airplane is upside down and the ground visible below, the motor may be cut off (point 3, Figure 100), in which case the airplane will describe the smaller loop along course A. The stick is held back steady until point 4 is reached, when it is steadily moved forward to center, the motor being switched on at point 5. The loop can be made with the engine on, but the recovery will not be as quick, the airplane following the course B. Special cautions—Control movements in looping should be steady and firm; jerkiness may produce dangerous stresses and lead to possible collapse. The aviator's safety belt should be securely adjusted and seat cushions removed. Looping is best done against the wind. Any high-G manoeuvre produces stresses that can cause failure - presume this is what they mean, getting speed up in a dive to do loop. raising the nose in those situations can be dangerous, ww1, ww2, modern lights etc. Looping the loop would probably require some speed initially in many planes. But planes like the Tripe could do endless loops and it didn't need to get speed up - compare to ww2 planes, two consecutive loops were considered "amazing" eg Ki-43 could do 2 consecutive loops, and impressed allied airmen. Probably doing several loops was the case with many ww1 planes, even early ones - I have seen videos of this. Voss turned around his triplane in 180 degrees flat turns in his last flight. the dr1 was not noted as particularly robust. There is a lot of information on stress and manoeuvres - its a fact that mainly high speed dives and pull up cause higher stresses. for example say pulling 1g is normal stress, pulling 5g may cause problems in std planes and ww1 planes, violent spinning causes only stresses of 2-3g (I think from memory). Surely this is more violent then yanking the stick around in a dogfight, no?