peter01

Good to see Bort is back. Thanks Bort!

Thanks for update. Looking forward to it....and of course, skins well worth the wait...gambit's the man!!! Thanks again to the team for the considerable effort in making these for the game.

Decided to zip up a couple of more Camels before going to work for you to try or not, as you like. I use these 2 extra Camels for my own game. i don't know about anyone else, but I can't get enough of camels. try dogfighting dr1 in current one - a design criteria - a challenge whichever plane you fly. With extras, one is called Camela, "a" for alternative or short for AFC, and of course its a bit better in performance for that reason! Maybe a bit too good, the reason I didn't upoad this initially, and slightly different feel - you may not notice straight away, but more springy, affected by sudden rolls too. Other is Camel2F - Bentley 150hp version. similar to Camela but little different in feel again and slightly better climb, hence more capable. Fantastic dogfights flying in FokkerD7s against these - a lot of fun to me. If you want to use them in place of standard camel just rename data ini eg Camela_DATA to Camel_DATA, without the "a" and place in camel folder. Or similar for camel2F_data. If you want to use either or both in addition, create folders by copying current "camel" folder, and rename copied folders exactly as "camela" and "camel2F". Included in the zip are camela and camel2F ini files that should also be placed in the respective folders so it works. If you delete extra aircraft skins from new folders the overhead isn't much at all in creating extra folders. But don't delete those skins copied from the default Camel folder - may have trouble with decals unless you know how to fix. I use the RNAS skin for Camel2F Bentley, AFC skin for Camela. I guess that I am really looking forward to TKs version - everyone is learning about FMs for FE, including TK i'd say, so I'm holding out great hopes for this one (and the Dr1 too!). He is the FM guru of course, no doubt. But you never know...different design objectives maybe. Cheers Alternative_Camels.zip

Thanks for trying them out, and well spotted Tailspin. Included this to make Camel a little more quirky or difficult (too easy, can't do that much). Camel wasn't difficult as such, done about 4 different versions, but getting something not too good & reasonably interesting was, and still is. You can manage the effect once you are aware of whats happening - coordinating aileron with rudder. Alternatively, change line in [Rudder Section] of Controls Section of data ini as follows: Cldc=0.1935 ----> to 0.0935 should reduce considerably, lower to even elimlinate. Actually, there were some planes still somewhat undecided about, would have taken some flying and a fresh look to see if they are really how I want, inc. Camel, not as easy to fly as most (tho pretty easy), maybe too tight, more roll? It gets pretty iffy with final tweaks and changes, takes many hours, and ran out of time for present. Can make planes quite different, but just difficult deciding best way. So good getting feedback. Let me know what you think in the end so can consider all of that for final download. Cheers

Well, despite earlier post, thought I better finish them now - it'll be a couple of weeks before I look at them again, only a couple of hours to finish, and I'd probably forget what I wanted to do. Anyway hope you like them, let me know what you think....I'll update them before posting to the CA downloads section. Cheers Alternative_FMs_For_The_Ateams_1917_18_Fighters.zip

AHHHHH, the AI, my favourite topic. I think Tailspin and ShrikeHawk are right Baron, you have to command the wingmen to engage. Otherwise they are useless. Its a very good thing too, though you have to remember to give the command, otherwise they will wander off, attacking on their own - a problem to me in IL2 for example, where they tend not to listen to your commands all the time. IMO AI versus AI is effective - if you let them go 15-30 mins or more one side or the other or both are going to lose a lot of planes. How many depends on the time and skill level. So, I think this is pretty well done. The AI versus player is a completely different story... I won't digress, but I think I have worked some things out. More on that some other time. Back to wingmen, I have witnessed some interesting things lately. As I set the GunnerFireTime in my FMs to 7.0 or 8.0 generally now - it was always 2.5 before, whatever that means, but the change has resulted in the AI firing more. AND, in a furball what I commonly find is the following: Some AI fire 200-250 rounds (great!!!), but generally get 0% hits. Some AI fire 5-20 rounds and often get hit rates up to 10 - 20 %, usually getting one or two bogies. My conclusion is that the AIrcraftobject.ini file modifies this behavior with more skilled pilots shooting less and getting more hits - the less skilled the converse. The following parameters that are different for different skill levels... eg for "Green" skill level CannonFireAngle=12.0 MaxCannonRange=1500 OptimalCannonRange=70 MinCannonRange=20 CannonBurstLengthShort=0.75 CannonBurstLengthLong=1.0 and "Veteran" CannonFireAngle=5.0 MaxCannonRange=600 OptimalCannonRange=50 MinCannonRange=15 CannonBurstLengthShort=0.25 CannonBurstLengthLong=0.5 Its seems that a veteran will fire at less distance and for shorter lengths, hence I assume the Veterans (or better pilots) will fire less - an assumption based on the percentage hits for rounds fired, ie, I'm assuming that the better pilots are better shots.....a reasonable idea as its very consistent - higher number of rounds less kills, I see it all the time now some fire 200-250 bullets (from recent changes in FM, I didn't see this as clearly before when the range of bullets fired was a lot less). So, the number of shots fired depends both on the FM as well as the AircraftObect.ini file where its varied according to skill level. And you can change this to suit for you own game, eg, all shoot at less distance (Green at 1500 metres!!!!!, and the more skilled shoot for longer times) Most intriguing is that those firing less ammo are more accurate, tho the GunboresightAngle in the FM is the same -its likely that the CannonFireAngle modifies this value???? This makes sense to me, but what is really interesting is if you set the CannonFireAngle=5.0 to say 0.0 the more skilled pilots could be better yet! I wouldn't be surprised - the more I explore this game, the more I realise TK goes out of his way to make it unlikely the player will find the game too hard, so it could well be reducing all the angles will in fact make the AI a far better shot. Any thoughts?

I don't think I'll have much time in the next couple of weeks, so changes and the next lot will have to wait at least till then. Its not much effort to finish, but some RL issues need my involvement and attention at the moment. Cheers

Sorry, don't know, never looked at this. There are some posts here or at Thirdwire that discuss AI and formation flying. They may cover what you are looking for.

Your right SRT, it wasn't very clear at all. RollForGunAttackRate is a negative number, and its a decimal as well. I'd say that -0.13 to -0.15 is safe, reasonable and better than default -0.1. It does make a big difference, especially if you combine it with RollForGunAttack=8.0 (line above the RollForGunAttackRate=). If over -0.2 it will be too much, they will turn on you in the blink of an eye. Just to be clear this time, you should do this in the individual plane data.inis. If you do it in the aircraftobject.ini, firstly it will be overridden by whatever is in the data.inis anyhow, and secondly, some planes that may not have ai parameters in them (its not mandatory,copy from somewhere else if that is the case) such as bombers and two seaters will become better than fighters, and likely have considerable issues too. RollForGunAttack in data.ini, if there, multipies the value of MaxRollForGunAttack in the skill levels in Aircraftobject.ini which is in degrees (eg, 45 - 180 degrees for Novice thru to Ace). Basically tells the AI if an EA (you sometimes!!), is in the angle, then ATTACK. 8 times 45 degrees for Novice skill level is more than 360 degrees, and thats why I use 8.0. You can use less, 4.0, it will mean not all AI attack all of the time. RollForGunAttackRate tells it how quickly to roll to do it. Again basically, if you are in a 1:1, you will have an AI determined to fight you (ie, aggressive), less likely to wander/do silly things and more capable. Of course thats true in all dogfights and missions etc. Cheers

Bandy, tried out the planes you posted and you are right about how they perform..I'd say tho thats how it should be - or at least some aspects are how I have designed them to be. Have already mentioned why with Se5a, and with DVII it seems right as well. if you managed to get in a climb missing an elevator, once in a climb you will climb in this plane - its a feature i have added if you like and I think a realistic one in that it will stay in the vertical better than most even in Hard (but not necessarily climbing continually). Damage modelling per se is exactly as per TKs however, so the effect of losing one or two elevators should be the same, other than the changed flight characteristics. TBH when I read your post my first thought was .... yes, perfect....how do I do similar things for other planes now! Reason is I find when you are damaged in many planes you can effectively continue, and with the weaker AI previously I'd still manage to shoot down several despite bits and pieces missing. Its harder with my AI, you need to be on the ball and flying with all the bits and pieces to survive, but I still don't like the fact I am hardly affected with most including my FMs (often, not always). Porpoising is not related to what you described, and in fact should be a tad less than TKs stock FMs. But porpoising is an issue to me in a different way really than perhaps yourself and others. It relates to compromises, and how TK has done the game. Porpoising occurs because of how the game is designed (or because its based on a Jet Sim), and also on how the FM itself is done. Its controlled by most FM'ers using the PitchDamper= value, usually between 0.5 to 0.9. Higher values, less AI porpoising. It can affect the AI more generally in dogfights as well. Unfortunately it affects the player plane too. When I design an FM I put a value of 0.5 initially, knowing that without some value like this the AI will go up and down in level flight, then in the end, increase or decrease as required. Shouldn't need to really, the program should be able to handle it. Pitch dampening = smoothness, a travesty for wwi planes!! Prefer to have it all in the FM, let the AI look after itself. It makes most of what is done on pitch too bland. IMO it would be easier doing FMs and the planes would be far more like WWi planes should be, if it could be be left at 0.0. If its too galling for you or others, increase the value a bit....but the plane will perform and feel slightly different for you as a player too. I don't recommend it. On damage modelling Tailspin, you are completely right. But its also more complex too.... some things I have or have not done with EWS (not these, except Alb as Nick pointed out) ), have either made some worse (not much really than before) or better, but not necessarily the best. The FokD2 suffers from Alb DVa problem as well as some other things that can be improved. Maybe another post. I am aware of the problems, how to fix them, it was a time issue when finishing EWS - all the last month at that time or so, the most intensive part, was grappling with AI changes and the fairly huge consequences. BTW I did improve damage modelling on many planes in EWS (hit boxes) and do change damage effects at times. But I will never again look at collision points - its too tedious without a graphics package, and even then...mmm

Bandy, mmmm....lots of stuff. Just woke up and have to think about some of this. Have to say first thoughts are: - many/most of the observations of the aircraft would have been true of TKs stock FMs too. For example, there haven't been changes to damage modelling on these planes, or things affecting porpoising (they always did). Not saying this is all right, just that I haven't changed everything. - some of the difficulties experienced as a player with damage anyway seem right to me - the Se5, for example, as discussed previously, tightens up in a dive - done on purpose. So yes, it would be more difficult to come out of a dive having lost half an elevator. What you say about DVII also seems right to me - not sure what the issue is here. - the ai is I think always less affected by damage than the player. As they are more aggressive now with my changes, they will fight better (and fight better when damaged too!). Initial thoughts are that every thing is fine despite your concerns , but I probably should think about this a bit more and try some test dogfights.

Looks great!!!

Thanks guys, i agree with all thats been said, and some good stuff/comments - food for thought. Some thoughts from an FM perspective, - I'd like to say this, because I presume many people will talk about stalls if more play hard, which I would like, and which is better and more interesting, and like all the discussions in other TKs games, there will be different views, as FastCargo stated. And thats fine...these are just my thoughts (reserve the right to change my mind too ).... but I can't agreee with some other comments posted elsewhere at all. Stalls are in TKs game, and are done pretty well. You can do easy stalls (recoverable, warning on onset, lower stall speed), you can do harder stalls (non-recoverable to a certain extent, little warning so trickier, higher stall speed), AND everything in between. You can make it that stalls occur of course at higher speeds than the stall speed with even minor changes in AoA. You can use stalls for many other things in the FM, make planes trickier to fly (wing warping, I dallied with this, decided it was too hard for everybody including me), and to limit climb without being full blown stalls. Maybe many other things too! And recovery from stalls (as well as spins induced from stalls), is how you would realistically expect, tho its a bit random I think whether you recover from some or not - maybe this is why there is some confusion about recovery? In addition its easy to do all this - once understood - its actually one of the easier parts of the FM. So its all very good, what more could you want on stalls - but I have one concern (not related to TKs game engine), and one quibble on stalls. The reservation relates to what most in the community would like: higher and realitic design stall speeds, or will this be too hard. The reason I say this if you design normal stalls to occur say at 50mph for one plane as an example (average and realistic for wwi period), you will feel onset maybe 10-20mph higher, and depending hows its done you could stall easily at 80-100mph by throwing the aircraft around. If you made it 30 mph (which is why it is generally so low currently or less in many FMs), its completely different. So when I say stall speed, its not just the "design" stall speed, its a lot more. A quibble with the game relates to post stall behavior - it is random to a certain extent (I think) and is also affected in a (relatively minor) way by how the FM is done, but thats all okay, I don't have an issue with this, its good to a certain extent for wwi planes, - but it can at times be...well, weird and unrealistic, IMO. TK has said he is looking at this for the new release, so maybe that will be improved. Now spins....thats different. There aren't any parameters in the FM yet to do this, so you have to design the FM for it. TKs original Spad was great and exhibited true stall-spin behavior. Some planes go into a spin due to post stall behavior (this is not hard to do, its in stall parameters), its not induced by a spin type stall, its caused by a normal stall. The Spad was a true spin - test to me is if you approach stall, drop wing or yaw, then you should spin - thats a true spin-stall to me. Also on Spad if you didn't change lift on wings by those actions, you would just go into a normal stall, as distinct to the spin type stall, and it was recoverable. but I'd agree with fastcargo, its really that extra 5%, and probably takes a lot of work, talent or knowledge, with definite compromises. Have looked at TKs Spad FM in detail now, I think I know how he does it, but on the one hand, it limits EVERYTHING else in the FM (I tried some changes to normal things, it made the plane very unstable, couldn't get it too work properly by modding climb or turn/roll by any significant amounts), and on the other hand, even this one, which I like very much, very expertly done, has some funny characteristics when you fly in normal - you can lift upwards when inverted or rolling. In a way, its more quirky in Normal mode than Hard...why I think TK changed it. If TK included easy to use spin parameters (it must be doable many games do, or at least seem to - it could be more post stalll behavior that seems like you have induced a spin), it would mean you would be flying a bit more dangerously, close to the edge - good for this era. But really in the scheme of things, its probably minor to most (not all, some seem to just like realistic spins, maybe not much else!), certainly to me, I'd rather have AI improvements, new planes, and especially immersion type stuff. so spins are out at the moment ..... probably too hard, or at least beyond beyond my expertise. If I do "have a go" (I do like a challenge), it probably would be for a couple of aircraft only, those that you have said above were well known for these characteristics - despite the fact all WWi planes actually did spin.

Well, once i got home I flew a bit testing stalls, and I'd say, just ignore my earlier post. Probably the only plane you can cause to get into a spin is the first Spad. Quite easy actually. If others. its arbitrary probably the result of randomness of post stall behavior, rather than as an spin stall. And can't work out how its possible to get the fokkerD7 into a spin, at least not mine. The first Spad is interesting - its certainly is the FM not the stall type parameters - and in a way, quite a quirky FM, it seems to fly somewhat strangely at times in Normal Mode too. I can see why TK redid this completely. You also can recover, and recover following the correct procedures (opposite rudder, nose down, power down) for spin recovery, but not always - seems about 50% of the time - and you can lose a lot of altitude, which is realistic. You can do tricky stalls because there are stall parameters - and make them difficult to recover as well as less expected, or easy stalls, and all recoverable, more or less. Like all stalls, probably only really dangerous near the ground (or in dogfight :)). Spins are different, no such thing as spin parameters in the FM, so its got to be in the FM forces and moments themselves, or how its all put together. So my view is you can do them, but its very tricky, and probably with quite a few compromises to other things. If done, they are recoverable, and using the right procedures (unless this is random as well - but that would be okay, probably fair enough with these early planes). if this proves to be the case I won't worry about it. The difficulty in FE to me is that the planes are not jets, they are flown by AI that have trouble flying them well and especially in combat effectively, and when you build the FM you need to keep that foremost in mind. It would be different if this was a flight sim, rather than a combat sim with no AI. But I'll keep an open mind about whether its feasible, at least until TKs new addon. So the questions remaining to me at least are around what speed should these planes stall, with variety of course for different planes and periods?

Hi Laton, thanks, might do that a little down the track - seem to have my hands full at moment - and especially keen on DVIII. Appreciated.

Mmmm, well firstly congrats on downing the Alb!! I'm at work so can't test, but nevertheless pretty certain why, and will fix before uploading to CA Download section. It is as you suggest the allocation of things in the FM, combined with damage modelling. Thanks Nicholas for posting and explaining it. I had done a couple of other planes that were ready to go in a similar manner, so can change these before posting. Also I did see this once on Alb Dva as well, but until you used the actual words you used, I wasn't that clear why (actually hadn't worried about it too much just thought it was another one of those odd things). Also, have done a few EWS similarly - oh, well, they will have to wait till I redo stalls.

The Ateam have again allowed me to post some alternative FMs - much appreciated. So I'll post once I clean up the files - I do put all sorts of stuff in them, for testing for my own game. Takes some time, so probably on w/e. They are the Camel, Dolphin, Snipe, Spad7, Pfalz, Schuckert, FokkerDr1. Plus...see below. Now, I do like Charles Fms, and always have - generally they feel and fly great to me. I don't think I would be still playing this game without those, and Tex's work as well. So these are only tweaks by and large of Charles FMs, some are very minor (eg, can't even think what I changed for Schukert other than some AI stuff in FM and parameters, or in Spad7 only reduced climb a bit and AI stuff). so why bother doing them. Variety is good, FMs can always be improved (really, in one or two years all of them will be far better too - everyone is learning, even TK i suspect about FE planes at least), and just for the heck of it!! Also to get consistency (performance), at least how I see it, have all planes fly and optimised for Hard FM, and of course beef up AI/fix or reduce issues. AFAIC for my FMs, weak AI, problem AI in the game are a thing of the past. And the feel for some too, of course. So thats what you get. I think they feel and fly well of course, but if you prefer Charle's work, I can easily see that. If you want to make Charles AI more capable with different AI parameters, you could try copying the ones I have to his FMs plane by plane, and using that. No guarantee AT ALL it will work of course, but as I haven't changed his greatly, many will. they are beta again for all the reasons I stated before. doing them as "production versions" would take at least a full week or two or more, and the benefit is marginal to me.....from previous posts from others its pretty evident to me the best improvements are to things that I wouldn't necessarily see or think of. So they are fine, you aren't beta testers as such, but please let me know what you think. I have redone Pup, Tripe and Brisfit, and will post these too but they are fine so it'll go straight to the downloads section with the above rather than here - unless anybody wants me to post them here too withe above. the Pup and Tripes climb has been reduced (they were a bit good, I had been intending to do this, just hadn't worked out the best way), but AI is even better, and made some changes to the feel of Tripe (still twitchy, but less so), and major ones to Brisfit (too smooth before, its very nice now I think, but you will have to rely on your gunner if you tangle with say FokkerD7s). The reasom I mention this is that they were available in late period of these other planes and flying them against these is fun. And they fit very well - Pups and Tripes, still best planes in early 1917, bit outclassed in late 1917 (tho fun and doable flying against Fokker Dr1) - so the consistency is there (reasonbaly) all the way from 1915 to 1918. I am very pleased about this and to be honest a bit relieved it worked out. But it does. So... going sound very immodest, but ya know, there are about 50 FMs!!!.....apart from the feel/flying experience which i hope you like too, that you do find if you use my FMs that the whole war is pretty consistent, the planes in different eras feel different too, the AI are very capable and well behaved, all the (fighters) planes work in Hard Fm. For me, once we had the planes, these were the "hot issues".

Thanks Falcon for posting. I do try to make sure that you can takeoff in all planes, but.....I guess I like them a little tricky, and personally am just keen on getting up in the air and into action, so don't worry to much if some are a little difficult. And of course what makes the plane tricky on takeoff, adds to the character of the plane when flying - the most important thing to me. But your post made me realise thats probably not right - most people would like to takeoff without fighting the plane to do so. I will look at Spad, and probably will change my way of looking at this, so thanks for feedback, appreciated. Like everyone, I need to be quizzed or have things bought to my attention (as you did nicely), to see really if my approach is the best, this is a good example where I can say i have been probably wrong. Bandy, tried Spad and Se5a as player and AI. Your post was very accurate. The Se5a does pick up speed very quickly in a dive, and yes as you stated you do need to use the throttle when flying against more nimble planes (as it is a decent dogfighter too - the danger is of course is that its not the best, so if you slow down it can become dangerous - I got shot down by a pfalz!! how embarrassing.), though against faster better climbers ZnB is the best approach. However it could be overdone - not sure whether i should tone this down, cos on the other hand it does make it different to fly to any other plane and requires different tactics for different opponents. If anyone has any thoughts, let me know, otherwise I'll leave it and then over time probably decide what works best for me, hopefully then you too. Re Spad as AI. Its interesting. I'd say that yes some of the time it does do some less than optimal dogfight maneouvers as you said, yet other times seems extremely effective. I'd guess too that they are "more stupid" if Ace or vetran - because testing last night I flew with the standard Aircraftobject.ini, for my own game in this period I use one where the veterans and aces are actually regulars - they are better without a doubt. And also seems to be based on the type of opponent. It does indeed have most trouble with the more capable opponents - Fokker D7s that both turn and climb pretty well. I will look at it, could be changes to things in the FM itself that affect the AI as well as the AI parameters. If former I'll leave it for now. Don't want to spend too much time on the FMs now until TKs new release - things could be quite different. I'm glad you are basically using the standard stuff, Since I know your interested in these things, just thought I let you know another thing I found interesting. And also shows how you do need to be careful. As the AI are very good now, I decided to change the gun effectiveness, so they are less like 20mm cannons (more like 15mm cannon :)), and I like it. Damage is not as effective, takes more to bring down planes, often run out of ammo too even in a 1:1, and found that the AI still was pretty good against me - they could still easy shoot me down, tho it would take more shots. BUT, whilst watching some furballs, after some time I noticed that some AI would be very carefully following another AI, lined up well doing everything right, but wouldn't shoot - for 10 Mins!!! Just chased abd chased. Perplexing!! Decided probably the reason is as AI are better in terms of lining up opponents (they will shoot more AI down too), fire more (increased firing time in all files), they probably run out of ammo now as well, and they need more to bring down an AI then previously. Probably the "fix" is to change the ai parameter "FightWithoutAmmo=1" in the aircraftobject.ini to 0 for all skill levels, ie, so they don't fight without ammo. I know in the scheme of things this is minor, but its interesting, and just shows how everything affects everything. Any change requires considerable testing. In this case I need to remember to check the mission stats once its complete, to see if that was the case.

Just quickly, bit of a rush. Bandy, problem with pilot is becaused I used Gambit's german pilot version for my own game. 3 choices: 1) Replace line in alb data ini PilotModelName=WWIGERPILOT with PilotModelName=WWIpilot 2) d/l gambit's pilot 3) wait till I upload to CombatAce, fixing this and some other things. Tailspin, changing that entry won't help. The pilot is commented out here but added elsewhere - you can do these things many different ways. But thanks for helping. I did a quick check of the other german planes, they are okay.

Nicholas, hope i didn't seem too "stressed out" replying about the AI, didn't mean to. Checked some of your posts before replying so I knew you interest was genuine, and was trying to explain. But I do get carried away with anything to do with changing AI stuff or even simple things in the FM - it seems so easy, the game is built for modding, but it usually results in making things worse. i'm not burnt out, but thanks for your comments. The EWS stuff was indeed very very hard - the wide period covering such different planes and different performance, trying to make them feel different to later planes (therefore doing them completely different to what others have done, even doing 1916 planes a lot different to 1915 ones), learning and redoing things whislt understanding the AI, so many planes, yadda yadda. It was hard, a lot of work. Looking back, really don't even know how I did it. But its done, and the FMs can be improved (FMs can always be improved I think), but thats pretty easy. Doing the late ones like this is really very easy in comparison - consistency is more there, there are many good ones so its often more tweaking then redoing from scratch. I am not spending all that much time now. Just a few hours here and there. But again, thanks for your concern. Thanks Tailspin and Bandy for trying them out and posting - i do appreciate that most of all, and you are both pretty spot on about it. i do think they are very nice. And better than stock by quite a margin - I'm biased of course. But credit where credit is due, most are based on TKs work (Alb is completely different), though a lot of rework especially Se5a and Fokker Ds. TK does some very fine FMs, just how he puts it together is not how I like myself, maybe others feel that way too? I like far more feel, less IMO excessive yawing, some more stability, far better AI. And with some planes incorporating or improving well known attributes - FokkerDs for example are a joy and easy to fly, as well as more capable, Spad and se5a have better dive capability. So what i have done is really "uncovered" the hidden potential. the Fokker ds are a very good example - hiddden in TKs stock Fokker D7 FM was IMO a truly great plane just waiting to come out. I was very surprised about this too. Didn't like the stock much at all - was ready to redo these completely from scratch, but after some modding started to realise they were indeed very good. As I said earlier, you can always improve on FMs. Haven't finished stalls yet - TK will change this aspect in his update. I don't want to do now, then redo later. Also, still trying to decide what to do with that - higher, yes but how high and how nasty. Maybe even two versions? As I said, I have been playing/flying these planes for a few weeks, and wasn't going to release them yet, but decided it was a lot of fun, why not make them available to the community, as is, in the interim. I reckon the stall stuff could be the icing on the cake - it will make the planes or maybe more accurately "the experience" a lot better - but I don't want to get hopes up too much, accurate stall behavior maybe impossible or just very hard to do. But it can be better. Tailspin, I will reduce roll on SpadXIII. Changed it, tried it, and its better. It does force the player to use BnZ. AI isn't affected. Bandy, glad you gave then a good go and posted your experiences. i did changes to make the Se5a and Spad ZnB'ers. They both climb very well (this was there originally, tho improved a bit for Spad), and improved the dive a lot for both especially for Spad - not the slow glide down, but the real vertical dive. What you said about the Se5a is correct - it tightens up in a dive (more so than Spad, on purpose). The idea, whether it works or not, was that in a dogfight the player flying a Spad should use dive and climb, and it should be effective (it is fun too - and reducing roll as tailspin suggested encourages this), whilst with Se5a the player should use dive for spped only (it picks up quickly), but the dive in itself doesn't give you the edge, its harder to pull up from. Thats a difference between the two, if it makes sense. Not sure why the SpadXIII doesn't seem that effective as an AI to you. Will look at it, but isn't the case for me, so are you using a standard Aircraftobject.ini? Flying in Hard? It is true the D7F is very effective (its a different/bit better than D7, but D7 is great flying against all late/good allied planes - you win, but work for it!), it could be that the skill level is low (i have optimised for regular skill level - you have to make a choice in the design), and Ace and Veteran are not as good strangely enough as Regular. hehe, now thats an understatement. Its far better!! and a really really good opponent for its capability, perhaps overdone as an AI. If not, either you are indeed a far better pilot than me, or there is something different in your game to mine. Good, I was too, very much - its the reason i released them now. I really really am now having heaps of fun in the Late war period (you will have a bit more too when i release the next lot) - and haven't even flown my beloved MSH/Ls for some time.

Hi Nicholas, I will, but not quite yet. I am keen to share, I think this is very good for the game and for everybody, thats not my reluctance. More that things are likely to change and it will take some effort for me to do properly - it is very tricky/dangerous changing the ai parameters, so it does require a detailed explanation. Just a few things. You can indeed get very good AI. As good as you could want really. But only in that they do what they can do far more effectively - roll, turn, climb, attack, aggression other things like force an ai plane to be a ZnB'er in dogfights or even cunning (I kid you not). But you can't make them "smarter", or do things they are not programmed to do - eg, attacking two seaters differently, doing Immelmanns lol. And all my FMs are WIP, largely because I believe TK will change AI parameters (and stall behavior), so I'd rather wait after his new release before explaining it all - the ai parameters could work differently (actually I think this is why some planes had problems after patches, there were changes) and could be added to as well. And its complex. You can't plug in any set (including mine) into any plane - the planes will be worse as AI, even though you may think you are improving them. Actually some will be an absolute disaster, and it may not be obvious at first. Hence my reluctance to say even just a bit. The FM has to be built robustly (most of TKs are BTW), and then the FM tweaked for the AI parameters or vice versa. Of course if you tested the changes you made to other peoples FMs you can improve them, but you need to test for all skill levels (aircraftobject.ini) as this modifies the ai behavior, and formation flying and takeoffs - some ai parameters (not the obvious formation type ones alone) effect this to the extent they will crash into one another or not takeoff. This "minor problem" caused me a month of rework. And of course you need to know exactly what cause and effect is - eg, pitch on roll is I think, 0.023 as default, and should be more for some planes or far far less for others to make the AI well behaved and far more effective - but how do you know? And do you really want to make say an Dh2 AI climb nearly as well as you in an Albatros - you can tho. Well, those sorts of things are what require a full explanation. I don't think the vast majoriy of people want to do these types of things themselves, and why should they. Those that are doing FMs I know are looking at what I have done and thats good, and working it out anyway - simply because they do that testing. So my target audience actually will be I guess budding FM'ers. Not trying to "get out" of explaining these parameters, just, really, they have all sorts of consequences. There isn't a magic set of numbers for all planes - its up to people to find the best set for that plane. The FM'ers, I hope, so its just plug 'an play if you like for everyone else, but its been neglected by everybody to date including TK, so I do understand the frustration. I still don't know to be honest why TK didn't do more with these parameters for his own planes - as is, they are hardly challenging AI. But I will post what i know further down the track. Its likely going to be a very long post.

Looking good, the fields were a bit pristine before. Good idea.

very nice WIP.... looking forward to it (and the others too )

Great stuff, a welcome addition to the game. Thanks all for all the work getting this into the game.

Glad you tried them all out, and posted your views, too. You have a good feel for the planes, Shrikehawk, you've done FMs before...I see good things ahead.......... I'm really pleased you posted Edward. I started doing FMs because I was getting so many things from the community, that made such a difference to my enjoyment of the game and felt grateful, that I wanted to contribute as well. Tk's stock terrain was .... well, I was just about ready to delete FE from the PC in January, and along you came...without a doubt, a must have, and the best mod. Your post does help me feel the effort was worthwhile. Thanks.