peter01

A few planes for the Expansion Pack. Some of the Ateams...thanks again guys. It is taking some time, simple conversions work (but not so simple! large amount of effort to get exact), but not quite how I'd like them to be for many/most planes, for the new game at least. AI is different as well. Most importantly there is so much more you can do now as well, I've been fiddling endlessly....and will continue to do so. N17s as well. So consider these the first of a number of iterations. But they are good I'd say . EP_Beta_1.0_Snipe_PfalzD3_SchuckertD3.zip

Well, TK has made major changes to the Flight Model.....and AI, far improved stalls/spins - and higher stalls change the game dynamics. There have been a few questions, so no, my existing FMs won't work properly with the Addon. Neither will any others done before this Addon. Most/all will fly, but all will feel very "sluggish" and some may hardly work. And if you do the converse, for example, put TKs new FMs into the previous version, they too will feel sluggish! As I said, TK has made major changes. There are some options, that require varying degrees of work. They can for example be "converted" with some effort together with the new stall stuff. And with then higher stall speeds (now the default in the game I think) and with different AI, the AI/player balance needs new work and testing. Or they could be redone. Or could be combination of the above over time. I'm still undecided at the moment about what to do about these options. Although extremely happy with the new game, to be honest, not so motivated at present moving forward with the Addon and making changes...all my testing frustrates me, I have an issue with a particular aspect of the new AI. I just find I keep going back to the previous version... But the Addon is very highly recommended. FMs are best yet in any WW1 game, such a pleasure flying the Camels and Dr1. On the whole the AI is fantastic, far far better than TKs previous version, better than mine - more interesting - and can easily be made even both harder and more interesting too. So many major and minor improvements its very hard to list them - collision modelling is good now, some stress modelling, damage modelling bettre (you won't get soft landings I think!), engine starts etc. So many other things too.

Thanks to Monty, EmID and TexMurphy who have given me permission to do this, I'll be posting alternative FMs for the Nieuports 11, 16, 17 (and a,b,c), 24, 24bis and 28. Thanks guys. Well, "alternative" is probably inaccurate, as they are largely based on Tex's original superb work, just some changes in varying degress to performance, feel, and ai. N28 the least changes, N17 the most. It'll be a few days at least to finish (I started a while ago....its not that easy ), but have a couple of questions. Firstly, with Availability and Start/End Dates for nie.11/16 on one hand and variations of nie.17s on the other. If I set all to "Common" then there will be a lot of Nieups around in missions!! Thought maybe for Nie.17's to make variations same date as basic (mid 1916-late 1917), but set to "Rare". Not sure what to do with nie.11/16. Secondly, now that some of us are skilled at gun variations, are there any more? Eg, variations on the nie.24 (tho not sure this really saw much or any action) or a nie.27 from the nie.24? Is there a difference in the nie.27 to nie.24 model other than guns - my understanding is yes, slightly, perhaps undercarriage, but that shouldn't stop us . If yes, can someone specify how guns be modded - like the nie.17?

Do you mean the model, or FMs for Expansion pack, or both Christian

Okay, sounds good idea Tex. Will give it a go, though haven't started on many of these particular ones.

Thanks guys. An update, while I'm at work, not doing FMs. Its early days, but looking good.........trialled some ways to do conversions, and in terms of time to do, it varies, some need to be redone extensively, some not. But none too hard now I'm getting the hang of the new flight model. How do they feel. Well, again some translate better than others, and those that don't I do differently. To me, on the whole they are good, somewhere between TKs best and his others. Camel and Dr1 are impossible to do better (at least at this early stage), and his 2-seaters/bombers are great. They feel somewhat different, as TK has done his differently, but better or worse, not sure, we'll see. I like them, prefer them to the others, but I'm biased of course. A good thing is re-using my previous FMs. They are pretty consistent/balanced from 1915 to 1918, and that was just a huge task. It does mean I will redo at least the performance of some of Tks too - Se5, Spad13, Fokkers, Albs. They are underdone a bit to me. And optimise AI. But further down the track. Thought I do the conversions a few for one period at a time, around mid 1918, as its best for me to do and test them against one another that way,ie, comparable performing planes, then maybe early 1917. I'm itching to do the E1s and Moranes, and some of Borts, but probably best to do those that fit with TKs era first. So if anyone is considering doing campaigns ........ On the AI side, I'm testing with the Ace skill level only. And at that level, in comparable planes, the dogfighting is very tough. And interesting, TK has done some rally wonderous things with the AI. Of course he hasn't optimised them, he never does. His target audience maybe the casual player, different perhaps to how I and many of you like. These I'm doing are probably tough on Vet/Regular level too, but though I did always test different levels before, this time around just want to get some FMs out, not spend too much time tweaking/testing. Tex suggested that the AI be very very good as Aces, good as Vets, and the rest..well, the rest. Good idea I think, but I don't have that "feel" or time for the game yet to best judge this. And the AI could change a bit in the patch. So will have to wait. And will require changes to the skill level settings in the Aircraftobject.ini too, which I think I will do. Finally, its a bit of work (i think 've done about 70 FMs - all candidates for conversions), want to progress, but again, takes time. And also, not going to do heaps before a patch (and reworking rework!), maybe up to a dozen or so, enough to add planes to game, and so I start getting a feel for it, and maybe feedback. i'll post the ones before patch here on forum on this thread rather than d/l section - don't want casual players to get confused by different FMs, or reload if I need to change - which is very likely. So if you like customising planes, my advice is wait a bit - even for TKs.

Nice plane gambit.....

gee, your catching up

Post patch...for the Expansion Pack

ahhh, thanks christian for pointing this out. they are the same. I did a Rar compression of the data.ini, then decided to do a zip instead, but then zipped up both the the Rar archive and the data.ini in the one zip i posted!!! if that makes sense its been a long week....consider it a bonus! just use the data.ini in zip file

Thanks christian.

Good stuff EmID, many thanks for this. I had done an alternative Nieuport FM set, but for pre-Expansion Set Flight Model. Was just waiting for this plane before releasing. But now, the way forward seems to go with the expansion pack. But as i said, not sure, may wait a bit. At least till patch. However, since you have been so great with this, did make the effort to convert the N27 FM (using N24bis 3D model) to the the new flight model - its attached as a N24bis, for feedback. Its a conversion but also using some of the new stuff, and works out quite well, tho different than version it was based on for previous release. Its all so different, this new Flight Model! Stall/spins work well, and you will lose wings and other bits under high Gs. So comments appreciated. If okay, I'll convert to Emid's N27 model. N24bis_data.zip Christian, you did a N24bis with gunpod? Could you post this for me to do in data.ini - may include if EmID can get rid of the Vickers.

Bandy, re " A minor issue of distributing lift, I think, but still..." on damage modelling for player plane, no. Its not a matter of this at all, see my very detailed post on this. The "decision" on damage modelling is based around effects. People like wings coming off on AI, unfortunately that means it will also happen to the player, but with different damage effects. The AI is destoyed, you are not. You can fly with little lift, not always, but one wing here or there doesn't necessary make it unflyable. Its true in OFF too, probably most games that this problem if they have planes with more than one wing. Don't know about 130. The FM is the same, except I think the EmptyInertia, you could try changing this to whats in the 110 or 150. Disadvantage is it will then be like the 110 or 150! I'd agree with "BUT I still think your AI had the devil in them... ", there are reasons why, quite complex. But you have mentioned this several times, so maybe time for me to comment or explain ..... But first, just quickly about "good ai". Its aggression, capabability, interesting, and well behaved (not looping and stalling especially) . These are ALLL different. The latter is the most important and hardest thing, and you have to admit mine rarely do that, whilst previously most did. These AI aspects are all different, and you can use that too - for example you could make a particular AI plane aggressive, well behaved, interesting but not capable. Or capable, well behaved, interesting but not aggresive. And different for different AI planes. So why they are so tough (and they could have been more tough too!) - keep in mind tough is all above, not just aggression - and why I did it like this. It was always going to change, and be more balanced, but I knew TK was going to make AI changes so it was going to wait. Also have explained this in many posts....even when i was trying to decide how to do it, whilst developing it. 1. I made them aggressive/capable/interesting/well behaved to show it could be done - the AI were the weakest part of the game. It was the perception of many, including those that stopped playing the game. Funnily enough, the AI may be one of the best things about this game! The intention was always to redo, due to impending changes by TK, and depending if stall speeds were higher (you can then make the AI more interesting - its partly what you are seeing with the Addon). 2. There was a problem with "Veteran" and "Ace" skill levels in the game - they are actually less capable then "Regular". I raised this with TK. Because of that specifically, because of 1. above, and people wouldn't see as many vets or aces, I chose to make the "Regulars" the toughest. The result: most of my AI planes you meet fight like Voss (esp the regulars, the most common)! I could have posted an alternative Aircraftobject.ini to change skill levels so that vets and aces were the best, but decided on balance because of 1. that for the moment this was the best way. TK has made some really wonderful changes to the AI in the expansion. Its now even more possible to make Ace/Vets fight better, its easier to make FMs in which the AI is well behaved (stalls and looping have been addressed to large extent) so the hardest part of the FM work is now reduced - I used to spend 90% of my time on AI flying the planes properly!! It may even be possible to introduce some quirks for the player whilst not affecting the AI. So with the new expansion I hope it will be easier to make all AI more of a challenge especially making them interesting, with vets and aces quite a bit harder, novices etc easier, ie, more variety (this time I will post an alternative aircraftobject.ini with changed skill level factors if necessary). At the moment TK has not optimised many of the AI - again not just talking tough. But, when I'm doing FMs, the most time consuming and boring part is the testing of the AI. The upside to that was while doing it, you had some great 1:1 dogfights whilst watching the AI then tweaking it etc seeing the results of changes. Unfortunately with the Expansion, the AI gives up once you are on its tail. Its like half a fight - they are very good at attack, woeful in evasion. Sort of complete opposite to before. Most won't notice this initially in missions or campaigns, but its there. And its just frustrating to me, takes away that enjoyment. Have asked TK about this, and I hope it can be fixed. If not, I won't be playing this version, despite its many great qualities. i'll just retofit the new fms/planes to the older version game rather than the reverse. i'll probably be playing alone, but there you go...

just on on the FM and AI.... Its a real plesure flying and dogfighting. Camel and Dr1 are the standouts, but IMO Spad VIIs, DFWC, AEG, Salmson are very good too. They are great, easily best around..... and both FM and AI are certainly far superior to any other WW1 game.

Well, I'm all for this. It really would be for new players, or those coming back after some time. Expecting people to d/l literally hundred of mods, and then installing, geeez. Without new players over time, this game will wither, TK will stop devoting time to it, and besides, if we want an active community (essential fo any game), the more interested the merrier. Of course the seasoned FE'ers could just d/l to a temp directory, and then cherry pick the stuff they want - or preferably whats in the pack could/should be made individually available as well. I'd also say it should be consistent with whats out there as well, or at least reasonably so, so that it expands the game in a compatable way as well. Not a stand alone pack, as in everything different, not initially at first at least. But thats just my view. And its a big task, it would need several people. And there may be different views about what the aim is........

Obviously on Nieuports at least, and can imagine some reasons for this, and drawbacks, but don't really know. Any thoughts?

Well, been playing a couple of hours, and some thoughts for what their worth given that short time for the guys waiting to get some (any!) word. Generally very good, worth buying. And lots of changes, obvious very quickly to me at least. The planes looks fantastic. The cockpits are superb. The skins are far better than the original release. Terrain, or new terrain is good. Looks like seasonal weather is now a feature. There are several variations of some planes - spadVII (150Hp and 180hp), camel (110Hp, 130Hp, 150Hp), so more than you initially expect. About 4 Albs - 2 AlbD3s and 2 AlbD5s. Don't feel shortchanged this time on the number. Some changes: Engine starts!!! Blipping (no gyro effects yet, not even new rotary sound effects - actually the engine sound is the standard proploop one! But new smoke effect for rotary engines. new smoke damage effects. Damage modelling seems less extereme, ie, gun effectiveness reduced I think. Stress modelling is there - I lost a wing coming up from a dive and was destroyed! The planes i flew were very well done, among best of any WW1 planes in any game if not the best - TK is a master of this, no doubt. Stalls speeds are more like originally in Hard Mode - around 50 or mph. Have to say it is hard getting used to this again!!! But i like it. AI is better. More capable, and more imprtantly, interesting too. Not as good as mine, but that can be easily rectified Takeoff can be frigthening, after the very subdued way it was before, at least for the planes I flew. Spins are there !!!! And they are recoverable. The way the stall/spin stuff is done in the data.ini has become far more complex and involved. Its evident TK spent some time on this. Actually the data.ini is more complex overall! Glad I started when it was simpler. Overall very good - my one and only disappointment is about gyro effects, but really everything else is there - higher stalls, spins, better ai, stress damaging, engine starts etc. And I'm sure I have only touched the surface.

Okay, thanks, didn't know that of that particular problem ..... crashes from shooting propellers off? Could it also have been ROF, especially in the early days? Interrupter gear would have been more problematic at higher ROFs, the solution would be to reduce, at cost of firepower, I guess. Maybe the Lewis was lighter too? It seems that mounted on a wing it would induce drag and generally effect aerodynamics, harder to aim, harder to reload, more reloads then vickers, etc so just thinking maybe there were many reasons combined why the rfc preffered this, at least to 1917? But my main reason for asking is the ROF. TK has put values for spandaus of 450rpm, 550 vickers, 700 Lewis. Tho these are reasonable (maybe Lewis a bit low, as unsynchronised usually?) I suspect that until sometime in 1917, the Vickers synchronised would have been a good deal less than 550. Don't really know, hence post.

Hey Tex, great to see you on forum and posting. Don't fly campaigns that much myself presently due to time on other aspects of FE etc, but I'd say your right about 2-seaters, and making specific campaigns for them. It'd be the best way. AD, no won't be changing Walfisch.

Very nice AD. Ground activity/objects in campaigns especially adds to that hard to define "immersion" factor. Bit lacking at moment, but with more stuff from TK (he has indicated some some things), more user made campaigns, and things like this and what tailspin and shrikehawk and others have done, we may be moving in the right direction. Re FPS, you should post at Thirdwire's site, in the general area. Lots of guys would have done/tried this for TKs other games, would be a wealth of knowledge there. And TK of course.

Thanks WarlordATF, Christian, Gambit. Encouragement and info (usually hard to get) are always welcome. But info does raise some other questions: Should nie.27 have bigger engine (not according to gambit's reference)? Should nie.17bis have a bigger engine than nie.17? And according to gambit's reference, climb for nie.16 is very good - does this seem correct? Not burning issues, but if anyone has views, prefer to get them right or at least using engines that were actually commonly used - many wwi planes were fitted with different engines in various theatres and times, but not going to do different FMs with different versions of engines as well - it'll become too complex, slower to load the game with probably really little benefit. A different model, especially with modelling differences is a different thing, and a couple of different arms combinations for Nieups is good too....... So, any views or preferences? Cheers

Hey EmID. Welcome back!! That'd be great - everyone loves Nieuports, and yours and Monty's are superb. The Nieuport 27 is a definite must have, and if you can model it from the existing work you have done, all the better. Christian also is good at making gunpods work - already has one with Lewis gunpod on nie.24bis. The Nie.27 would just about complete the Nieuport picture. I'd agree with Tailspin, 2 versions as he described would be sufficient for me....but maybe others have different views? Now what would really complete the picture are the nie.10 (nie.12 similar?), but shouldn't get too greedy , its probably a new project? The only reason I mention this, is that Bort and Laton especially have done a fantastic job with the early war period, and its a strength of FE - no games have had as many early ones, and these would be excellent additions. But, if you have some time, the nie.27 alone is great - and very pleased you are looking at it.

Thanks Tailspin, i think that means all is right in the world and all that............... The issue is then the DFW, and in its role in my FM as a fighter, surprised bandy (along with Roland maybe?, but that is defined intentionally as multirole) Just a matter of changing the role for the DFW, it should never be a fighter

Well on checking, I know now why I assigned the role values above - its how TK defined the DFW in the initial release. He changed it in the first patch. As i said in a PM to you Bandy, i'm positive in the early days that the DFW did indeed behave like a fighter This is before all the third party addon planes, when there were only a few planes, so it was fairly obvious to me. This may explain that, and I suspect TK changed it to address this, and probably why you (and me!) haven't seen it before my FMs (the first patch came out quickly). So, thanks for pointing this out, and unless I hear more I'll assume changing the role will fix what you experienced. I will go ahead and reduce the rollforattack value when I update for planes such as the DFW, Aviatik, Be2d, Bregeut (? not sure), as its an additional measure to reduce their attempts at dogfighting....I don't think these should really do that. Anyway, thanks again for raising it.....

I'd say changing the RollForGunAttack value and the Aircraft role for the DFWC5 will ensure this plane does not act as a fighter. This may have been why you experienced what you did, ie, it was the DFWC5 undertaking a fighter role. And this particular plane shouldn't, as you stated in the first post. The Aviatik should be okay. I'll leave the Roland in a dual role - if you came across this, it may have been in fighter role? More generally, if bombers assigned on bombing missions act as fighters (whether they are multi purpose or pure bombers), and also whether they have aggressive AI parameters or not, its a game issue. But it doesn't hurt to reduce that aggressiveness via the RollForGunAttack It will reduce or eliminate them "deciding" to attack. They will still take evasive action etc. I haven't really noticed the situation myself where bombers assigned on a bombing role actually start dogfighting myself, but perhaps others have? If so, let me know - there may be other things that can be done in the AI parameters in addition to reducing the RollForGunAttack value to minimise that.