peter01

Ahhh...can't be....not with my AI, not in hard FM, not in a 1:1 (in missions I suspect its different, too many greens/novices). Its a fact. i'll get the Dh2 ready for upload in next 30 mins, so you can try if you or others like. Actually the Dh2 is the best to "showcase" consistency if you like. I think you will find early Pfalzes (relatively) easy, Eindeckkkers can be challenging but you should win, Fokker ds harder a bit (certainy different AI), against Halbs very little chance, Albs its hopeless. AI is different for all these. Is good i think. Cheers

sorry to say that the same problem existed in several files ... have fixed, so re-uploading now. apologies

just dropped the wife off shopping...so a bit more time thanks for comments. glad you feel pitch and roll for planes you tried is about right Re rudder on Halbs and Albs, you are right. should explain a bit more before going into detail, hopefully it will encourage others to comment as well, as many things are really a matter of refinement now for these planes, consistency in performance between planes, and player and AI balance for the same plane the latter is important, ie, ai flies the plane at least as well as the player, otherwise, its impossible IMO to get consistency of performance across all planes for both player and ai, if that makes sense. you know if a player plane is better than the same plane flown by ai, then that should be consistent for all player planes and ai planes what happened is this. the fms were pretty well done a month ago, then I discoverd incrementally how much difference the ai parameters can make. i was happy - finally good ai. but it meant that on first find i had to make the player planes better (compared to the same ai planes) as the ai improved. as I found new ways of improving ai it became an endless circle if you llike - imagine, revisting 40 or so fms every week for a month and rebalancing! rebalancing has consequences for the feel (is very important, all FM'ers in this game or any other want to make a plane that a player wants to fly, realism is different and preferably optional and the way they do it in IL2) and of course very easily ai issues - so you have to be very careful...and i got a little worn out by it long and short of it is this: rudder now can be better for player because the ai is better. i did do this, but after 3rd or 4th revision i missed some obvious ones that could be even better (tho they are pretty good) - both gamewise and realistically. Albs and Halbs. So feedback here is very welcome...even subtle type variations roll remains an issue. if you look at some files you will see i have been quite creative trying to reduce roll a lot for ai for some planes and player as well as trying to retain a good feel, and just as importantly retained feel (the early ones originally lost some feel in a dogfight cos they were done like all the others basically but didn't feel right for wing warpers). basic problem in roll is that its a major factor in the players enjoyment of the game - believe me I have tried many many things but still can't get it as right as I'd like for some (some I have), eg, had an FM which worked well, felt good, but after flying around 15 mins in a dogfight got a sore arm!! the roll issue is twofold: initial slow roll is an absolute player enyoyment killer, and slow roll at say 45 degrees or more..well sore arm or frustration you maybe right about stalls - but they are all there in the FMs, just around 30mph as all rest for many 1916 planes (higher for earlier). reason: ai is too good for player if player has high stalls - they were higher until I discovered how good the ai can be. however this feedabck is good - I'd like to go at least 40mph for stalls (it makes a big difference). But two questions on this: everyone has been playing Normal I think(?), are they ready for high stalls - since I have gone to a lot of trouble balancing planes for hard FM, I would like people to fly that way. Second is, have you tried the planes as ai? you may find you are glad your plane doesn't stall at higher speeds!!! obviously if everyone promised :yes: that they would fly hard what i would do is tone down the ai, and increase player stalls - the balancing thing, you know to be honest thats where i am heading eventually, possibly as an alternative pack as its just changing stalls and AI parameters, not too difficult - but I don't want to put people off starting Hard by making it too difficult with stalls. Its a pity in a way that the game doesn't have hard, with option of stalls or without - that would be perfect to me and maybe even eliminate the need for a Normal Mode, or at least, do away with Easy, then Normal could be called Easy (which in essence IMHO it is). so i am very interested in comments...and what about the ai?

Found problem with MSL, and yes it was due to final file cleanup, obviously didn't check this as well as I should have - it crashed my game - so thanks Tailspin. I think this is probably the reason, as AI auto seems fine for me, but a little perplexed why it didn't crash your game as well though, so let me know if it fixes it. I will check the others too but can't at the moment. Tonight or tomorrow, and will then change download. The problem is: "FlightControl]" should be "[FlightControl]" with bracket in front. You can change this if you want or just download this file. MSTypeL_DATA.zip Re rudder, like to get more of your view of this when you try out other planes. Re-reading your initial comments it seems to me you may be saying several things for different planes: lack of rudder, push back on rudder after rudder is no longer applied, too effective (not enough pushback or not enough continuation of slewing when rudder is no longer applied), even lack of induced roll as a result of applying??? I do think most of the planes are different - same have induced roll, some spring back more than others, but I am definitely interested in what you think about this. Much of it is really just refinement - problem is I always feel I need to do extensive testing, which takes time. Thanks again for comments. Cheers PS: the reason that most actually do have good ruddder now is because you pointed this out in earlier threads, I probably wouldn't have done it necessarily (for reasons explained before), and as the planes are far better to fly now as a result, your insistence :) resulted in far better and more realistic plane FMs. So keep the comments coming.....

Hi 101, You have an excellent eye for the look of a plane, and seem to have a few in the pipeline. Keep up the good work! Cheers

Thanks for letting me know re MSL, and comments generally Tailspin. Need this sort of feedback. Hmmm...autopilot problem....never experienced it, but before uploading I have to delete large sections of the file I use for testing, and I then refly them - its why even uploading takes days!! Though I test quickly after this, could well be on MSL I didn'y spot a problem. But could be something else... Will have a look, have to be tomrrow tho. Re rudder, know what you mean, but briefly all the planes except Moranes, early Pfalzes and Avro have not only good rudder, but effective rudder (not much push back, and certainly controlled in the sense that once you stop applying rudder it doesn't continue slewing, if you like - this seems right to me?). I did though improve them for these to what they had been originally (so you may notice it more IF your playing Normal - its a bit different in Hard). I may revisit the logic that led me to the very early decision about their reduced rudder capability. - its good feedback, type I want. But "general lack of rudder authority " isn't so general I think - fly the Martinsyde Halbs Albs FokkerDs, even Fokker/Pfalz Bs. Actually it could be far too good and effective. The upcoming Ateams all have VERY good and effective rudder too. On Avro - its the only one I'm not that happy about - tho I like the feel and it is very very close, except for its climb, and in frustration I halved its rudder - so it was not too good for player!! But, you can simply give this good and effective rudder by doubling the cndc number if you like (there won't be push back in this case at least), but as I want to have another shot at this plane, I won't be changing what I have made available at this stage for this one.

man, this is great 101 has surfaced with a vengenance from nowhere, Laton is back, Charles is doing WW1 FMs again, and TK will be releasing a major update (soon!) good times indeed

Well, another team, great. Thank you 101, Capun and Gambit. Sounds an excellent team to me! Yes it is good to have variety - I'd say that based on the number of planes we will eventually get (we must be half way by now?), and especially as no other WWI sim has really tackled the very early stuff, FE could be around and popular partly for those reasons for a good while. BTW, I'd go for the higher ceiling, seems right.

Sorry to hear all that Laton, must have been traumatic, and a tragedy of course for family and friends. But glad your back of course.

Hi Charles, Your right about sources....they are sometimes quite different. I've built a few that on further checking I decided were wrong!! Too late though. But, hope this helps. Apparently the Pfalz DVIII is nearly the same as the DVII, so sources for that may help too, or alternatively, it could be adding to any confusion by mixing one's specs with the other! From the Aerodrome in a thread somewhere: "The Pfalz Flugzeugwerke plans for this and its sister the D.VII are dated January 1918. But its designs were cataloged as early as November 30, 1917. In this case Pfalz was taking a page from the French Spad fighter. The thin-low drag airfoil profile that made the Spad fast and hard to beat in a dive was just the ticket that the design team was looking for. Late in the war high speed and diving ability became as equally important as maneouvrability. Both the D.VII and the D.VIII were built around the Siemens-Halske Sh III 160 hp, 11 cylinder counter rotary. Operationally it was different from a standard rotary engine. You see on a standard rotary, the cylinders and propeller turned on a stationary crankshaft, turning in one direction at 1400 rpms. On the ShIII 160hp the propeller and cylinders turned at 900 rpms in one direction, while and the Crankshaft turned 900 rpms in the other direction. This counteracted the torque inherent in the standard rotary engine and produced a maximum of 210hp. Later a modified version, the Sh.IIIa put out a maximum of 240hp. Another company named 'Rhemag' developed the reliable Sh.III(Rh.) These rotaries were to be the first to be equipped with a true form of throttle control instead of a 'blip' switch. Being highly maneuverable and fast climbing aircraft types, they became ideal for Germany's Home Defense units known as KEST ( Kampf - Einsitzer - STaffeln.) Several examples were flown successfully by experienced pilots like Ltn Paul Bäumer of Jasta Boelcke. Though it looked like a small milk bottle with wings, it was to prove itself against all of its contemporaries in maneuverability and climb. The main difference is that the D.VII was a single bay and the D.VIII was the double bay arrangement. It seems that the D.VIII was the one that won the contract in the second fighter trials type testing. Idflieg ordered 120 of the type D.VIII." Thats interesting..... "the ShIII 160hp .......produced a maximum of 210hp", especially if its empty weight was indeed 453kg as stated below. and, from http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/faq/ger_mil.txt ...........no ceiling tho: Pfalz D VII Biplane fighter. One built. Type: D VII Function: fighter Year: 1918 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 160hp Siemens Halske Sh III Wing Span: 7.52m Length: 5.65m Height: 2.85m Wing Area: 17.20m2 Empty Weight: 520kg Max.Weight: 715kg Speed: 190km/h Ceiling: Range: 1h 30m Armament: 2*mg Pfalz D VIII Development of the {Pfalz D VII}. The only difference was a change in wing bracing. 40 built, and a few used in combat. It is reported that handling was good and climb rate high, but that the undercarriage was weak. Type: D VIII Function: fighter Year: 1918 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 160hp Siemens Halske Sh III Wing Span: 7.52m Length: 5.65m Height: 2.85m Wing Area: 17.20m2 Empty Weight: 453kg Max.Weight: 738kg Speed: 190km/h Ceiling: Range: 1h 30m Armament: 2*mg Thanks for considering doing this, appreciated. It would be a good addition. In the end FE will probably have every WWI plane ever used!!! Cheers

Its been a mammoth task...but have finished, and will start uploading over next few days. Starting a new thread, so if any one has comments on the planes, they can post here Final comments. The FMs are designed for Hard FM. They work in Normal of course, but in Normal there's a couple of points I'd make. First, the planes are different in Normal and Hard - example Martinsyde in hard, climbs ok, rolls well, not much turn ability, whilst in Normal, it climbs very well, rolls less, turns far better, ie, its a different plane and so is the game. More so for earlier planes. Its is not possible to design FMs to be consistent in both Hard and Normal. Second reason relates to the AI -the AI are very good in Hard, tuned by me for Hard (ie, easier than I could have done them), and in Normal you cannot really have a good AI. The reason is twofold. Mainly as the player has an enormous advantage in climb playing Normal, but also as the AI seem to be programmed to "cut and run" if its easily outturned or outclimbed, rather than "fight to the death" if you like. The files will be available in packs according to 3D modellers - seems appropriate, we wouldn't have a game without their excellent and talented work. Thank you to them all for allowing me to do the FMs or alternative ones. Especially Bort and Charles, who have been very encouraging. Should for a change too thank TK. For the game of course. But for the FMs in the sense that they are very sophisticated, and because I have at times reused some of the really difficult stuff, and other parts either TK did very well (the Se5a and Salmson are superb FMs, no doubt at all), or because when you look carefully at how some of the nicer touches were done you can do start trying it yourself. The zip files generally have all the data.inis (the FMs) in the correct folders, so you just drag and drop - see the readme files. Borts are first off the rank - as always, in my case. There are 39 FMs. All different to all other versions of mine currently available. The smallest mod was to the Martinsyde, just added better rudder. The Eindeckker FMs tho similar are quite toned down in capability - so if you like uber planes keep the ones you have, or backup as i have deleted the previous version downloads. these are much better in every way. All of my FMs for Borts late 1916 planes Fokkers, Halbs, Albs are completely redone. The planes do fit with the later planes, at least most. For example Camel, Dr1, Se5a, Salmson, N24, N28. The Albatros DVa is badly underdone IMO tho. See what TK does in his update. They fit reasonably well as player aircraft too with N11, N17, and especially the SpadVII from the Ateam. But I'd say my AI are more capable, and for many of the later planes too for that matter - but Dr1 and Camel are excellent, and some can be made to be very good too, eg, Se5a. i might do this later - and have already started to do this for my game anyhow. A couple of the very very early biplanes have too much climb, eg Avros. Just couldn't get them to work as effective AI without problems otherwise. Its a challenge, and I'm keen to make a really really good very early contraption, but need a break first. However, you won't be successful against EA in this, and they can be dangerous opponents, and the AI fly these and other early biplanes a bit differently to the monos - done for variety in the 1915 period, and something extra to shoot down in my favs the MSH and MSL. So apart from plans on redoing the Avros sometime in the future, unless there are major issues...this is it, for the time being. Its likely that the AI as well as other things will change in TKs update, and that will be interesting, so its likely I'll "rebalance" some time after then. Thats my intention. So let me know please what you think before then....good bad or indifferent. It is hard working in isolation/without feedback when a lot if not most have probably strong opinions about it. Lastly, feel free to use/mod/whatever my FMs and make them available for redistribution. Its fine by me, welcome this in fact, with only one proviso: if using others 3D models contact the original 3D modellers first for permission. Bort has already stated publically its okay, so his/mine are fine. The others will not object - actually, on the contrary, they will be very supportive. Its a good example they have set, good for the game, good for all....and I'm now following this lead as well by letting my FMs be used (or abused ).

OK, sorted out, should be fine. Changed dates a bit too. Missions.zip

sorry gambit, just catching up with posts, was sorta busy!!! its a shame - the german pilot looked great. Its certainly a mod I'll make to my own FMs, they just look real cool For some reason they look superb on Borts planes - maybe because his look so real and mean, and contrasting against your decked out Prussian pilot adds a sardonic touch! at least the default one you did works well, and is splendid thanks re frenchy with mo', hope you get around to doing it sometime

very nice Gambit....sorry, thats the best I can say used all my superlatives in previous posts to describe your skins, and these are every bit as good must find my thesaurus

Great stuff 101 and Charles. Much appreciated.

As an afterthought, thought I'd make available some of the missions I use. Basically 1:1 dogfights, same terrain, same spot actually, all clear weather (good for testing, quick dogfights), for most if not all the planes I have done. The namimg is a bit odd I guess. The are all called "Entente FokkerB2" or similar with different plane names of course, which means you'll be flying an allied/entente plane against the Fokker B2 in this case. The Central/German ,issions are all called "Central Dh2" or similar. Sometimes at the end there is LA, HA, VHA to denote the altitude, LA for Low, HA for high, VHA for very high altitude. Again this was for testing purposes. When you fly an "Entente....." mission it will be in either a Dh2 or N17 or MSL (I think) as defaults, but you can change this to any other plane that would be available at that time when you play the mission. For Central missions it usually defaults to Fokker E3. One issue, why it was an afterthought to make them avaialble, is that when testing I set all FM plane dates to 01/1916, as I can then use all planes for all missions. EG, AlbD3 can fly against the DH2 (default date is mid 1916 for this mission), Saves me doing many missions with different dates, but at same time dates are "somewhere" in 1916 - there is no logic/forethought on this. So, with correct dates for planes in FMs, you may not be able to fly an Alb against the Dh2 if the mission date is set to mid 1916 etc. As there are about 80 missions had no intention of doing them yet to cover all periods but will in the future as I play the game, and will probably then make them available at CA's download section. In meantime it probably will work okay, you can always change the date, or better copy the mission and have a second mission with a different date. EDIT:AHHHHH Do not use this file!!!! The AI are my AI, have the "AI_" in front of the plane name. Again for testing purposes. I'll fix and repost, put some different dates too!! Sorry, should have learnt by now not to do things in a rush. Missions.zip PS There you go, uploading zip files works...don't know why I didn't try or see this before

Certainly unwarranted. Are you talking Il2? IL2 provided so many freebies for so many years, it was amazing - never saw another company do anything like that EVER. If your talking about the latest releases, complete sets, well maybe......but I'd guess that like me, most that bought all this, bought it knowing full well it was a ripoff ........ but bought it nevertheless for two reasons. To thank Oleg and team, for their enormous dedication and having given so much away for free, and secondly to support financially Oleg's new endeavor, which seems even better to me than anything else around including KOTS. If there were indeed "shmucks" that bought it, well in this case they are getting a great game that was enhanced painstakingly and relatively free of cost, and contributing to a worthy future cause.

great to see the forums buzzing with activity thought I'd give you an update on what I'm up to....abd have been quite busy on FE i did finish/improve the tripe, pup (better rudder), fe2b (a beaut), and the dh2 (improved, eliminated stalling/looping) anyway, started playing the game a lot more as most planes were ready finally, at least for me in the 1915-16 period, and while doing this did a lot of tweaking of the planes for feel (getting good at this, have finally figured out how to do this relatively easily without affecting the ai - a major issue for me in past), including decent rudder for many of the planes, optimising ai parameters in the FMs, and reducing capability of earlier planes (don't worry tho, still nice to fly and not harder, just probably a whole lot better). i'll probably release a set in the next few weeks - just relooking at consistency. I think it was Polovski of OFF fame that said he almost lost all his hair from tweaking the FMs for consistency in OFF Phase 2 - I can relate to that, tho luckily still have a full head of hair!!

Spent more time on the FMs on w/e so an update.... honestly, could hardly wait to post this... interesting new developments, but problems too. I did find some issues with formations due to some ai parameters I changed, and took some time to identify...they are quite tricky...but have solved all but one remaining annoyance (plus another more interesting one..see below). If I can't resolve this issue by end of this week or so I'll upload anyway, its not major to me at all, just a nuisance...but I'll probably fix it if I look hard enough. Actually thats whats its been like, find an issue, one at a time, fix one at a time, next one pops up... it does seem endless. But, the reason I was very keen to post..... I was concerned my Pup was too good (I worry about everything, tripe is even better). One month ago I could reasonably easily beat all the others up to AlbD3 in 1:1s in the pup. Thats okay I guess, but a challenge is good right? Well flew it against the AlbD3 on w/e in 1:1 and couldn't win. Flew against Albd2 same, and albd1, and fokkerd3L, Halbs - all the same - shot down each and every time. Then in deseperation, the Fokker D3 and Fokker D2. I beat the last two after about a 15min-30 minute dogfight each, but it was touch and go. This is with "regular" pilots. And the Pup is pretty good. Of course nothing in the basic FMs has changed, just ai parameters. Do they have an advantage? Yes some do, they are AI, they need some sort of advantage. But mainly they all just fly the planes far far better now, and it makes a huge difference. So thats my current problem. When i did most of the FMs a few months back I did what I could to balance them - AI flies the plane as well as player. unfortunately this was not entirely satisfactory, especially in climb where the advantage is with the player, so ai with good climb were not very effective. Not anymore, they use climb very well. Now they are sort of unbalanced again...but very much to the AI's advantage!!! I'll rebalance this disparity somewhat, but not entirely, for a few reasons. I will need to redo once TK puts out his update - I'm sure there will be changes. I'm a little sick of "balancing" - though its easily "fixed", it takes a lot of time testing, and i'll refine it over time playing the game (hopefully some of you will provide feedback too please). And of course, for others to see what actually can be done with the AI - though what you will get is a toned down version, simply because it is currently too hard. So, whether you like my FMs or not, whether your interested in my idea of "consistency" or not, if your interested in seeing very good AI in FE (to be honest, I did not think it was possible, even just a few weeks ago) , make sure you try them out. Believe me, I've played combat flight sims for many years - and these are as tough as it gets....the dogfight experience is completely transformed.

Spent the w/e finalising consistency and playing the game to see if everything is okay, so nearing completion. Still have to do final checks - takeoffs, formation flying, some stalls, clean up files - hence another week or two - as there are about 30 FMs, from MSH to Brisfit. But while its fresh in my mind thought I'd post about the game experience. Firstly, all the planes feel good (spent some time on this aspect), as good as any around, and I think (I would of course!) a whole lot better than many. Not talking about realism, quirks etc, been thru all that - but in terms of say wanting to fly the planes, because they feel good to fly. And other than the obvious similarity of some plane variations (Fokkers E1s and 2s are similar, same for E3s, then Alb D2s), they all feel different. The earlier period is also a lot different then the later period. And many planes have a lot more feel if you like - they retain more feel in dogfights, especially the wing warpers - in a gentle way! Naturally its all a matter of taste, and things would be different for different joysticks and sensitivity settings. But, briefly, the early planes are all redone, simialr to before just lots better I think. The Pfalz EIV and V are quite different, and different to Eindeckkers and other Pfalzes - the PfalzEIV is one I fly quite often now. Some of Borts are just great - Albs, FokkerDs (finally nailed these!), the Martinsyde my personal favourite (along with Tripe and MSH). All the Ateams are good - did these later when I had learnt a lot more about FMs, or more precisely, what effects the AI and what doesn't! I like the Fe2B especially partly cos I had so much trouble with it, but because its a real hoot in a dogfight with the gunner, as well as nice to fly. And for the player, stalls are lowish (30mph or so) with some exceptions - early period and one or two others that would be too good with such low stalls. And all have improved rudder, less so for early, but some later ones from Dh2, Martinsyde and Fe2b onwards have improved/good to very good rudder. In terms of dogfights, well its a lot different I think. The AI are far far better, they are very good (on Hard FM ONLY, another final post), and it is indeed a consistent experience. EG, Player in Dh2 will find early Pfalzes and E1 quite easy (but AI still put up a fight), later Pfalzes and E3s somewhat harder - quite hard at times, then with Halbs and Albs a real real challenge, finally against Alb D3 nigh impossible. Importantly, the Dh2 as AI will be same against the player in the German planes (this just doesn't happen, BTW, its often a lot of work alone), just the converse of course - eg, very hard in E3, easy for Alb D3 against AI Dh2. The Dh2 was the biggest challenge, it covered the entire period, and had to go from domination to obsolescence. To be honest, if I knew beforehand how hard it was going to be trying to achieve consistency over a period like mid 1915 - mid 1917, I wouldn't have done this. Just would have stuck to say 1915, or 1916, not both. Also pleased to say that the later 1916/ early 1917 planes still fit with the 1917 planes such as the Se5a and SpadXIII. Have also tried to get it consistent in difficulty. The player will find it a real dogfight flying against a "regular" AI in a comparable plane - regulars would be the most common skill level you would encounter. It can be quite challenging - you'd spend as much time dodging the AI as shooting them down, and the odds are very roughly even who wins. I had to tone it down in the last few weeks, it had become too hard, and would be interested what others find. The exception is the early period - its even harder, or at least you need to be patient! Basically because the player has generally an advantage over the AI in "using" climb effectively in this game, and there's less ability to outclimb with early planes. Of course, this all varies with your skill level, knowing both your plane and the enemy's planes capability (it gets easier once you fly the same plane for a while) and the skill levels you encounter - you'd be lucky to win against an "Ace" even in sometimes a better plane, and you'll be pleased to encounter the odd novice or so in a campaign. As said before too, the early early war dogfight experience has been slowed down. Seems good to me, quite leisurely in a way, and you need patience and have to wait for an opening to get an advantage. Or this is at least how it seems to me. Finally, never once had an AI issue on the w/e - stalling, looping, crashing, getting stuck. The AI planes are very robust. So, looking good, I think. Cheers

Look, I wouldn't do this normally, gonna sound like a real jerk, but feel i just have to... The discussion on the ai paramaters in another thread made it obvious that many are tweaking the skill levels and ai data section in the AIRCRAFTOBJECT.ini. Everyone is after a better, more aggressive ai. Fair enough. But please don't mod anything here - unless you know exactly what you are doing. It will cause absolutely HUGE issues - the game will be worse. If anybody experiences weird AI behavior its probably made worse by changes that have been made here. If someone points out looping stalling crazy maneouvers etc ask them to post their AIRCRAFTOBJECT.ini - its more than likely contributing to the cause. The AI is extremely sensitive to any parameters that govern what it does. And the AI are extremely sensitive full stop anyways. And the obvious conclusion...its the game's or the FM's problem. Well, that might not be the case. And if its been modded for any reason or in any way, my advice is to delete it and use the standard. Then ask questions. A generic tougher one can be developed, that is safe...but I haven't seen one yet tho, to be honest. All the parameters work with one another in a sometimes complicated way, and changing a number say from 1.0 to 2.0 say, is also sometimes a lot different than some think. I'm happy to go thru the skill level stuff line by line so people understand it better. But generally, without understanding it completely, the ONLY thing you can do is change cannon fire ranges, cannon burst lengths, cannon angles, and even then you have to careful. Of course you can copy the standard skill level of say ace to veteran, regular to novice - thats okay, but less variety of course. Tweaking the AI in the [AIData] section of the AIRCRAFTOBJECT.ini is plane specific too ONLY - you cannot improve the ai planes generally to what TK has done already albeit generically - with only a couple of exceptions, but even then risky. You can definitely improve each plane by modding the ai data in the FM for that plane, but again, you need to know that plane and how a change effects it. Sorry, it is complex. On the bright side, its likey that mods to the ai parameters section of the plane specific FMs will become available over time....not a new FM, just how the ai handles a plane better, more aggressively and not have as many issues. I have started doing this for TKs planes for my own game for example. But when you make changes in the AIRCRAFTOBJECT.ini it effects everything and it may not be obvious at first - so its hard to relate a problem to the cause. Example, and I'm just using this an example, and its a trivial example I don't want to step on toes, but if you change the safe altitude (300 meters or something as default) of novices and nothing else to that of ace (50 meters), sure as night follows day, in a dogfight close to the ground, the novice AI will crash into the ground - the reason: they can't pull up as quiclky as an ace. The values used in this case are not just to make the ace tougher - they can handle the low altitude, the novice cannot. But you may not see this for weeks....

Bandy, the AI are very sensitive...and its also as Tailspin pointed out. Perhaps an example When i test a new FM as Ai, I set all the Aircraftobject.ini skill levels to "Regular" - this is sotra what you would normally encounter in missions - by copying the default regular stuff to all skill levels. I have an "Ace" Aircraftobject.ini as well - and swap them in and out for testing. I test first using the "regular" ai on the default ai data settings that TK uses. Just to make sure the AI is good - fundamentally its the FM that needs to be good, otherwise lost cause. I then tweak the ai settings - nearly always slightly different for all planes. Not its capability (turn, roll etc) so much, not its aggressiveness, not so much to fix stall issues but partly (tho try to fix this in the FM always anyway)....but you can indeed do all this..... but for the ai to fly the plane smoothly!!! If it flies smoothly, it has less issues, and indirectly becomes far more competent. I then tweak AI paramaters so AI flies the plane like I would like, eg, uses climb, zooms up and down, is cunning (you can do this!), better shot - all different for different planes. Test a few times, if okay, set skill level to "Ace" to test that. Now in the greater scheme of things the difference between "Ace" and "Regular" isn't much....but you know a lot of the time, the"Ace" has problems - more is often not better, its worse. My point is: the ai parameters are quite powerful, complex, need to tailored to each plane,yet are dangerous in that by trying to improve aspects can actually end up with a far worse plane. But, I'm very thankful that the Ateam and others lobbied TK to allow the ai data to be included in the FM in one of the patches. It is actually one of the big improvements to the game, you can tweak and even fix problems here (conversely you can easily cause problems). But people really haven't started using this yet - its early days, and there is stuff all documentation. I hope he includes some of the skill level stuff in the FMs as well - for example some planes that turn well like Camel Dr1 can handle very low altitudes (20 metres for maybe even Regular), be great to allow this and experience tree top dogfighting at times. I've spent 6 months doing FMs. I never asked anyone about anything - I learnt it on my own thru trial and error. But i did recently ask TK about some AI parameters - the reason, they are very important, and yet some of them were still all pretty obscure to me, even after all this time. And my impression from TKs answers is that they are obscure for a reason. A funny thing too - if people change the ai data in the aircraftobject.ini they only affect the planes that do not have it included in the FMs themselves. Many do, mine do, it overrides the ones set in the Aircraftobject.ini. So what happens is they are basically changing TKs planes which do not have this included - and yet the default ones are actually designed by the expert himself TK to work well with his!!! Reminds me of some posts about issues with TKs planes...well I generally don't have issues, they are good FMs and quite well behaved (aggressiveness is another thing)....its a reason I started this thread. BTW, final note. I am going into great detail about a lot of things here and elsewhere. Reason is mainly to pass on what I have learnt. Its early days for this game, others will spend time to improve things.......but not me, not to this extent. Promised the wife, you know....dabbling okay, full-time maybe not.....and she knows me well...its often all or nothing, so who knows. .

Given my rantings about the aircraftobject.ini, thought it was a good time to post about the second reason why I was dissappointed with the game and my FMs when I started playing it, and what has caused some delays in finalising them - all to do with consistency and the dogfight experience. And fundamentally the whole problem arose because of the time span covered, and the vast difference in capability - its not an issue for the latter mid 1917-18 period so much, the planes were more comparable. Yep, the AI.....I stared to use the AI parameters to make them more effective, something I hadn't done before...mainly because I didn't want a few planes inconsistent with the rest available and also as my focus was getting the FM right anyway...the AI parameters just add to that aspect. But my problem was they were too good!!! I couldn't win! And its not like I'm a dud pilot. I'm certain many of you are scratching their heads over the fact I said earlier that climb for the early planes was a problem (probably scratching your heads over everything I'm posting ). Well, all the AI climb like monkeys now. I had always assumed this was the AI's biggest weakness - and very little could be done about it. So I should have been happy, but wasn't. The reason, all my FMs were built on the fact that the AI as a whole was woeful in climbing, and as I found out I was between a rock and a hard place.....on the one hand couldn't reduce climb for earlier planes (explained I hope in other post), on the other say the Albs couldn't climb anymore or they would be better than later planes like Se5a, and I wanted that consistency. So why are they good climbers (have to pose these rhetorical questions, nobody seems to ask ) Well a couple of AI parameters tell the AI to get aggressive, they stop acting like there suffering from hangovers and get down to business. They go into a "gun attack mode" - and they are constantly trying to outfox and outfly you. Its good, its great, you have a real dogfight on your hands. But when in this mode, they use climb extremely well. The AI fly in Normal Mode. In normal mode I'd say the climb is about 20-30% better than Hard - mine are developed for Hard. Thats a huge difference. And bye the bye, if you find the AI easy and are flying in Normal thats a reason - they still don't climb as well as the player but you will always be able to outclimb comparable planes. But in Hard the advantage is with the AI, IF they are in "gun attack mode" - which mine are most of the time now. So, problem: couldn't outclimb the Dh2 in Alb D3!!!! The Dh2 has got to be at least as good as E3, so can't reduce climb there (the rock and the hard place, reduce E3 then need to reduce earlier planes) but that 20 - 30 % advantage was now all with the AI. If you do the math you can see the problem of climb seemed insurmountable - start with MSH, E1 as player should outclimb, hence make it 30% better climb to outclimb the MSH AI, E3 even better, then say late 1916 planes even better etc etc....so it goes to the Albs. Before you know it, your making quick trips to the moon. Well there are solutions of course, the game TK has designed really is very good. What I did very briefly was to reduce stall speeds for later planes which i had been pushing to 40 mph to about 30 mph for many (player climbs better as a result), applied some of the other things I mentioned earlier on early planes to later planes, and introduced a lot of rudder - I had in past been reluctant to do this because it gave the player a distinct advantage... now they need it to even it up with a very aggressive AI. So its good in every way, cos rudder is good fun and realistic. But the big thing is the stall parameter in the FM. It doesn't mean much other than to tell the AI when to level out because it will stall.....whether that is the case or not is immaterial. Example: dh2 should climb roughly as well as E3 as AI. And vice versa. Set AI stalls so this happens as expected and get an interesting dogfight. But the time involved in consistency is in making sure that the Dh2 can climb with say E3, but will not outclimb Albs as AI....low stall for fighting the E3 as AI, high with Albs.....the answer is somewhere in between. But its got to be consistent with all the other planes too!!! And so it goes testing and setting parameters with all the planes so you get the result you think is right - and its very subjective. Its designing the game experience - no longer just FMs as such. And like I said earlier consistency just wouldn't happen unless someone or a team did all this. The good thing tho is its easily changed by anyone...just change the stall parameters up or down a bit. Anyway, to cut a long story short.....its good, just some work redoing things. Its good because its better to control good climb rather than being in a situation where they won't climb competitively. maybe another reason to play hard mode :yes: ? And....the AI are very very good. As tough as you could possibly want....a different game entirely. Ahhh, back to work...posting is easier than doing the FMs.