peter01

Mmmm, I do know what you mean, but, for discussion purposes... The E3 was successful. Its kill/loss ratio was very good, its really what made its reputation. And why the germans continued with an obsolete design perhaps so long (as well as other better planes not available). So, yes, the Fe2B and Dh2 were superior (the Fe2B I'm not so sure about, I think it really was how it was used, though my FM is because you can't force the AI to adopt Lufberry tactics!), but there were easy targets for the E3. Perhaps mainly armed and even unarmed 2 seaters? Possibly less capable fighters that we don't have in the game yet (Martinsyde is though)? And of course the MSL and MSH were around. As you can't set availablity to common for one period, rare for another, which would be more realistic, the choice is as I see it not one of realism, more of trying to "simulate" reality if you like. Not sure that makes a lotta sense, and is partly why I am interested in different views. PS someone asked me why I upload text files not data ini files on threads. Its a good question cos not everyone knows of course that you can't load data.inis on forum - for security reasons presumably. So you can use the text file - just open in Notepad, save in correct folder as a "ini" file by overwriting the current one. Just back up your original thats all. Easy as that. Have to say haven't tried zip files - i should, that may be a better way. everyone is used to zip files.

Gambit, skin is as always great. Didn't notice the pilot until pointed out by Charles - fantastic. How about a Frenchie as well!! With a moustache? Thanks, hope house moving goes smoothly.

Thanks for comments Don. On another note, the service start date as someone pointed out (thankyou!) to me is incorrect on this mod - its 01/1916 instead of 01/1917. Easily changed by you, so I'll leave it for this one available here. Sorry, but for testing purposes I set the date for all planes from 1916 - saves me having to redo numerous test missions with different dates. So thanks again for pointing it out - I'll need to check the that release version FMs are all scrubbed up. BTW, this reminds me of another minor point I've been musing about and has been discussed on forum before - service end dates and availability. Seems if you set availability to COMMON and the end date for example for Alb D3 is to end of war (it was available then tho limited), it will be common for that entire period. Thinking about putting end dates that say really reflect when it was "reasonably" common, say in this case near end 1917. My thinking is that sometimes its a bit of a game thing too, eg, Morane L. Thinking of setting this to common to mid 1916, tho it was relatively common maybe only in 1915 period. Why? Well, if your flying German say E3 in a campaign or missions you'll be meeting mainly Fe2Bs and Dh3s - tough times indeed, and tyhe E3 is the best German plane for a good 6 months!!! So having Moranes adds to variety and reduces the difficulty say in a game. Does this have other implications? Any suggestions?

Well I started to play the game several weeks ago because all the FMs I was doing were pretty well done. Campaigns, missions, as a player. not a FM'er. I was dissapointed to be honest. For many reasons, not evident at first. Slowly dawned on me, but how to fix took even longer - not to do so much, but how to do it. Thats what I've been doing the past month or two. First disappointment/difficulty - the early planes are too sprightly!!! The whole dogfight experience seemed too frantic. The AI rolling and turning too quickly etc. And the early planes are too good compared to the later ones - all my fault of course, they are my FMs, but ..... Easily fixed? Well, no, its is a very difficult problem - it cannot be fixed by doing new FMs. It relates to the game engine mainly: AI aggressiveness, climb, how the AI uses climb in the game, Hard versus Normal FM, the period extending from very incapable warplanes (morane H) to very good (Alb D3) and playability. I did say it was complex right! And the more I learnt, the harder it became....hence nearly giving up. But found ways of adressing most of this - by a whole combination of minor changes, and its now really very good to me. I can't reduce climb - tried this, and it just isn't a game at all, the player just struggles in Hard FM to climb, dogfights aren't interesting, you just spiral down where of course the AI gives up near the ground (game design), you can't do anything except try to outturn the AI. Realsitic maybe, but boring. Also even the AI starts to struggle not crashing into ground. More importantly on climb, reducing say by 10%, still doesn't mean that there aren't better then later planes. Why, and how resolved???? A later post. So i left climb largely as it was, with some minor reductions to some planes, as well as general ones for all. Altitude performance drops off more for early planes - so when they meet later ones, usually higher up, they are comparatively disadvantaged. Also, as AI climbs very well now (another post), but player is constrained by stalls and other things for early planes in Hard FM (also another post - you must fly in Hard FM for consistency at least!), the AI isn't. So reduced the performance of AI planes to climb at low speeds - below 40-50mph, where the AI can climb well but player can't. This was ONLY possible because the AI is now very very good - another post as well!!! Previously I went out of my way to make the AI as tough as possible. I find now I'm doing the converse, they are too good!! Ok, thats climb. Roll. Too good of course. But really when you reduce the planes are not good to fly. I have mentioned in previous posts that I thought the roll on all planes was too good including TKs. The reason is not historical accuracy really, nor player or AI capability except say Camel a few others, they just "feel" far better that way. It has little to do with performance, more to do with enjoyability. Happily there is a decent and very good solution for the early period. I used the AI parameters to reduce the AI rolling like Zeros - again posible because the AI are far better generally. And have spent lots of time on keeping roll down for player, whilst still making planes enjoyable to fly - took some lateral thinking on wing warping!! The Morane H and L are good examples. Roll is about the same, but done differently so they "feel" good - the MSL version 1.0 iwas always my favourite but roll was too good, hence, reduced in later versions. This version slows it down to latest, but it "feels" even better than original to me. The MSH is probably the best - great improvement. Turn/pitch. All reduced somewhat. Reducing anymore for some results in the AI crashing into the ground when low - not enough pitch to avoid and pull up in time. And to be honest, the Eindeckker E3 went out with a mistake, that made it much better then they were designed by me to be on turn. Sorry. The mistake was repeated in the other Eindeckkers to keep consistent until fixed for all. Just a note on this tho - to make the FMs very different to later planes which have smooth turn/pitch etc, they are currently and remain somewhat unstable/jerky on pitch. I think this works well for feeling of early planes, makes them different to later ones. BUT in Normal Mode this is too pronounced - and as turn/pitch is far greater in Normal Mode than Hard, they turn too good in dogfights as well. Sooo, please play Hard! Finally, to decrease agility of AI early planes, reduced the speed they throttle up and down - probably more reaslistic now (for a change!!), and improves tyhe overall dogfight experience as well whislt not disadvantaging the AI much. Again, only possible because the AI are very good now. The result is far far more pleasing to me - both the feel of the planes and the dogfight experience. The result from a game play point of view is that they also fit better with latter planes (more on this later). As you imagine this took a lot of tweaking, just as importantly and time consuming, testing - eg, what happens if you reduce altitude effectiveness when AI are high - do they fall out of the sky! Also as you can see - there is a lot in TKs game and FMs. Its just a matter of finding and applying some of these things as well taking a quite different approach to TKs and making it a lot harder. Comments welcome - i know it can seem intimidating commenting on what someone has spent a lot of time on, but really I won't bite (usually). Cheers

Decided to give an update on what I'm doing, as its still a few weeks away before complete. It is a lot of work, like a fulltime job, luckily I only need 3 or 4 hours sleep a night, and have become very good at FMs as well as understanding how the game works. And its very complex too. Nearly gave up a couple of times out of frustration - its not so much the FMs, its the consistency, and if you like, the game experience. This is tricky, because of how the game works. I guess I'm driven mainly by making this the game I always wanted or thought it could be. Of course there are so many other things that TK and the community can do - from terrains, more models (but we are very spoilt here even now), sounds, skins, more realism, damage modelling, effects, campaigns and missions, ground activity, immersion type of improvements etc but that is happening, and will come over time. So the FMs are only one thing - but to me very important. I'm going to call this version of the FMs EWS Version 1.0 - for "Early War Set", partly because I have so many different versions of FMs out there, but mainly because these definitely go together as a set. It does sound grandiose, I know, and there will be some criticism. But - its looking very very good, and most importantly, without a doubt, would not be possible unless one person or a team working together spent an awful lot of time on it. So again, very grateful to the modellers for allowing me to do the FMs or alternative FMs. So I'm going to do a few posts over the next few weeks on what I'm doing and some of the challenges, its impossible to leave for one post - far too complicated. It will give me an incentive to continue (it does take some encouragement), as well as explaining more of the game so that perhaps others can follow and be aware of some of the issues. Also so you guys can comment etc. First post on this follows - there will be more!!!! Warts and all....

Tailspin, looked at Alb D3, glad you brought this up, as it only required a few tweaks to make far more effective. importantly thanks again to the Ateam and Charles for allowing me to mod their FMs, and this is only some minor changes to Charles original and very good Alb D3 FM. Basically, beefed up, feels pretty much like original perhaps tighter, AI is extremelly good - well behaved, hardly any looping/stalling if at all, very capable and aggressive as AI - as you'd expect of an Alb D3 :yes: i'll include it in uploads section when ready to upload the others as it works well with them, but in interim, heres a text file. AlbatrosD3_DATA.txt

You are right mppd....and solutions seem good idea to me. As you suggest, increasing wheel drag probably will slow down takeoff. Not sure if there are reasons for the values used, I might try some changes here too. Yes, all the planes retain energy a bit more than they should. Level flight is accurate, but retention in turning, descending etc is too good. A couple of reasons why this maybe: On descending, those doing FMs followed TK's approach (can blame him right?), and maybe for later war planes lowish drag is okay (?), probably could be changed for earlier ones. However, there could be real implications for the AI - I'll look at it for mine. But I'm glad you pointed this out, could also be a solution to another problem I am experiencing as well. On turn etc, its probably to do with feel: increasing drag, plane feels tougher to turn, more sluggish etc. So this could be a gameplay thing. But worth looking at. Good observations.

Thanks guys.... mmmm, re Alb D3, haven't got that far in the war yet!!! you probably won't believe this, but I do like the 1917 - 18 period best actually -but somehow got caught up in the early war! Been good though, quite different. i'll have a look at the AlbD3, could be ai parameters, probably in a couple of days

Hi gambit, good stuff, thanks for doing them, making them available after feedback, right? the Lewis and Hotchkiss sounds are great - am using them, and a great improvement. but the parabellum didn't work initially, it was in stereo? luv the mainscreen and hangar screen too. the single mission one is good too, but a bit hard to see stuff, so added a dark box for mission data...may want to consider that anyway thanks, its great you made these avaialable... what i really think would enhance this sim as well in terms of sounds from an immersion point of view are engine specific sounds - different for gnome, mercedes etc. Not suggesting you do it!! Just if anybody is skilled or has some floating around, that'd be wonderful

Firecage, you can easily make the AI very aggressive, its simple and it changes the game very considerably, if not completely - not only aggressiveness, but also ai wingmen wandering as raised by the Baron, and something that p10ppy stated in another post, where the ai doesn't do what it should be doing during a dogfight with the player. But, I need to explain a bit more.....I'm sure you and others will understand easily, but not all, and tinkering can result in all sorts of additional problems without it being evident at first. So a very long post follows..... I discovered this ai aggressiveness factor a while ago, but for various reasons haven't implemented it in my released FMs for complex reasons (couple of exceptions to trial it out on you guys ). I intend doing it in future releases, as well as some very very fine tuning of other aspects - hence questions to TK on ai parameters. So the blurb first,.... to get an "effective" AI which then means a good "aggressive" AI requires: the plane is built right so that the AI can fly it without difficulty - in the FM the plane is built so that the ai doesn't stall - a real immersion killer, and also means an ineffective dogfighting ai - in the FM. Maybe being addressed by TK but you can get around it if you go to extra trouble. the plane has features that make the ai a capable dogfighter, this is quite tricky and I'm still learning. Just giving it good climb or turn isn't what I'm talking about (eg FokkerD7 AI). Again in the FM, actually fundamental to the FM the ai parameters are set right for individual planes to fly properly (helps with looping, stalling, how they use throttle, a few other things - all important) - in the [AIData] section which should be tailored for each plane in the FM - this isn't done generally unfortunately at the moment... rather a set of default values are used. the ai parameters are set for aggressiveness - this last is really the point of this post believe it or not. The reason I say all this is because you can't "fix" those that aren't built this way. You can certainly make them more aggressive but they could get into more difficulties. Different planes, different outcomes. Hence I wouldn't recommend changing the aircraftobject.ini generally to improve aggressiveness - all sorts of things can and will happen as its applied to all planes. Exceptions are the cannon angle/range stuff/fire time in the skill leve discussed above, or copying ace skill level stuff to say veteran, regular to green levels etc. This is true too for the [AIData] in the aircraftobject.ini - this should be included and tailored within each FM (if included in the FM it overrides the aircraftobject.ini values). It was alright for TKs initial release with few planes that were generally similar, but its a reason also why the two seaters "act" like fighters, and more importantly why these specifically have some problems looping and stalling. Okay, okay, enough enough...whats the secret. In the [AIData] section in the FM (its in the aircraftobject.ini but as I said I wouldn't recommend changing much here) RollForGunAttack=1.0 RollForGunAttackRate=-0.1 are the standard values. The first tells the AI when to try to attack an opponent. It works with the skill level parameter MaxRollForGunAttack= 180 (for ace) in the aircraftobject.ini by multipying the angle at which the AI will go into "attack mode". So in this case if it needs to more than 180 degrees it will not attack. EG regular is 75 degrees - the reason why they don't fight and go wandering if they have their backs to you. So if the RollForGunAttack= is set to 4.0 in individual FMs ALL skill levels will attack all the time. If 3.0, all but novices and green will attack all the time - tho nearly all the time. So can be set for individual planes OR change that parameter in the aircraftobject.ini so that the degree multipied by the default factor 1.0 is changed to suit yourself - eg make regular attack all the time by setting the value to 180 degrees (could be 360 degrees - sorry, I have been modding FMs rather than the aircraftobject.ini). Even more important is the RollForGunAttackRate= which is usually in the FM ...so if you change this in aircraftobject.ini it will probably be overridden by individual FMs. This determines the amount of roll applied by the ai for a gun attack - how quickly they come around, a very important factor. To me the default value of 1.0 is silly, it should be at least 1.2/1.3 or even 1.5 or more. Probably the latter if you fly in Hard because the AI flies in Normal, and roll it has probably a lot less than the you (A difference in Normal and Hard: roll is far better in Hard FM, rudder and turn is not - go figure!!). Anyway, 1.2 or 1.3 is safe and matches the AileronDeltaRoll=1.2 or 1.3 default values that TK uses - AFAIK having AileronDeltaRoll=1.2 means the AI rolls better in "normal" and "defensive" actions while RollForGunAttack= 1.0 means its roll for "attack" is not as good - as I said previously, TK has gone out of way to make this an easy game for the player. Try it out on the Se5a (copy standard ai data from aircraftobject.ini to the Se5a FM and change the two parameters above. A very different AI plane, very aggressive and using zoom and boom effectively. Or any of mine. You will find the AI very good, very aggressive and they funnily enough use climb far far better. These changes maybe even make the AI a too hard an adversary (if the FM is built so it doesn't stall easily etc etc)!!!

Hi Baron, the values in your aircraftobject.ini are definitely not the default values with the game - intital release, patch 1 or patch 2. Some of the values are optimised but others are not, and most importantly the combination could from what I see be a real problem for your game. Example, for your Novice settings, small cannon angle is good (=2.0) but very small maybe too small, and combined with long OptimalCannonRange (=300) is very problematic. I'd delete this file and extract a new one and then restart modding it - the values that affect the AI are very touchy, you can get all sorts of issues, and probably explains why you have issues with the ai in dogfights.

I agree Baron. Though IMO the AI is effective in terms of outcomes (with some time), its very frustrating watching them going about it!!! I'm convinced an important reason is the CannonFireAngle parameter, eg for Green, it equals 12. But there are definitely different parameters and reasons that effect this as well. The way I'm guessing the CannonFireAngle works, is like this: the AI knows it should be trying to shoot down an EA....so it lines up a shot at say 12 degrees, and as far as its concerned its scored a bullseye!!! But, lo and behold,the EA is still there...so it lines up another shot anywhere between 0-12 angles etc etc and so it goes on and on. The result is the AI is flying all over the place lining up shots (probably becomes very frustrated as well!). The higher skilled pilots are better shots BECAUSE they line up the EA better, they do a pass that brings them into a 5 degree angle (after that its just luck I guess), and do not fly all over the place as the angle is less, ie, swinging from go from 0 to 5 degrees rather than say 0 to 12 degrees - a big difference to me! I'd suggest a "improvement" to the AI wandering all over the place shooting in furballs is to reduce the angles - tho they will shoot less...but this can be modified to your hearts content, and if you increase the time for more skilled pilots, you will get quicker outcomes in dogfights I think. For Ace and Veterans I'd put angles at 3, for Regular at 5, for Novice and Green to about 7. Of course it will change not only how the AI fly chasing and shooting at other AI, but also how they line up shots at you the player (they will be better), and also how effectively and quickly furballs are decided. I'd also increase the fire time for skilled pilots and reduce ranges for less skilled pilots (it probably is also a cause for the wandering syndrome, they should be getting up close!). So why are the parameters as they are?? Well IMHO TK has designed the game with the view to making it easy for the player, and probably feels thats what most people want - its his business, so who can argue with that. Hence CannonFireAngle is high so that in a player vs AI situation the player does not get shot down much, but also so that in a furball the ai vs ai situation will take a long time to get resolved - hence as a player, you can shoot down one, then have time to get another, and another etc etc - the AI won't spoil your fun by shooting down the enemy too quickly! Personally I think the dogfights should get resolved in about 15 mins or so, and I'd prefer a team effort with my wingmen contributing to the success or lack of, but each to their own.

Hi gambit, did you end up doing an alternative pilot?

Thanks Charles. Haven't tried this yet, but played a few missions of your Aril !917 campaign last night, and enjoyed it a lot, so expectations are high for this one too

good find 101tfs!!!! i'd guess to make this work in FE, in addition to the skin, the model would need to be "converted" to the FE format -probably a big job, maybe not even possible but I'm not a modeller. Does anybody know? finally the FM, which would be very easy really, its the 3D model conversion thats the difficulty I think?

Thanks Tailspin, gave it a go, and it does add a lot to the game. Highly recommended mod!!!

Great idea Gambit. All adds to that immersion factor. I'd add it to my FMs, but a question would be of course, what would happen if the your model/pilot skin wasn't installed? Pilotless plane?? BTW, thanks for the Eindecker skins, they are superb.

As you know, I have been working (tirelessly, I'm not kidding ) to get planes working together consistently for the 1915-16 period. probably some good, some bad, some mmmmm.......but nevertheless, trying. My aims are, they work in hard, work in normal - tho I am starting to think just to do hard for this period only, with AI well behaved, AI puts up a good fight (not doing these for those interested in too easy a game, but of course Normal Mode is easier), the ai fly plane nearly as well as player usually (sometimes better!), and in terms of ability there is a progression in capability. Although my AI never roll over and give up (good experience when doing my first FMs - they were absoltely hopeless!!!), the E1 will easily beat the Morane H and Ls, less easily the Avros and Martinsyde, the E3 is a better than the E1, and the Halberstadt is better than the E3 etc etc. And the reverse is true - for example it is possible but hard to win in a Morane L against the AI E1 if Ace skill level. That is, the planes are balanced for player/AI - not too easy/overdone for player, but AI is still very good. Well thats maybe obvious, and I have said it before, why do I say that again ???? Its because it takes a good deal of work. Unfortunately every time you change the climb for example you have to redo the FM to ensure the AI does not have major problems which it can very easily, so its a very time consuming iterative process - test plane "A" performance against AI plane "B", reverse the test flying "B" plane against new "A" FM, tweak peformance, redo FM for AI problems and start again, usually many iterations (....like a dozen or two or more). Then you do all the rest - feel, fine tuning, stalls etc etc. Not complaining, I do enjoy this, and am doing it for my personal game in any case..............but, I need feedback. Now especially, as there are so many planes, its hard for one person in isolation to be objective on performance, feel, too hard, too easy, problems occurring, not quite right, etc. And that feedback will make it a better game for everyone. i don't think any one person can do that without testers or feeback. So whats the situation. The Ateam have very kindly given me permission to do some alternative FMs for their planes for the period I am interested in, its very good of them and I think again shows their support of the game, and I appreciate this very much. But some of these are tricky, take work and I really am wondering if its worth it without that feedback - do you like them or not, and more importantly what exactly? So ....i'll post a beta version on the forum first for feedback . With no feedback I have to wonder whether anyone is interested in either the FM or what I am trying to achieve for the game. It just is neither satisfying nor worth it for me without that. Obviously the feedback is about the FM I have done, not comparing with others and is a bit more detailed than good or bad. Preferably tried in hard mode. To start attached is an alternative and completely new Fe2B FM - i think its very nice to fly, its nearly equal to the E1 in a dogfight tho different of course, AI seems good, and is very aggressive. I have not finished eg stalls, and seeking views on what other changes I could do. Not after dedicated testers necessarily !!! but just if you use it, post your thoughts. Let me know, please . Fe2B_DATA.txt

Very very nice.....where or when do we get it?

Hi guys - just an update on how I am going....and some attachments. Some good news, some bad news - just delays really. Bad first. Can't do much the next week or two, hence progress is slower, and was distracted too - see below. The Fe2B is incomplete, have to still get the AI a bit better behaved - hate seeing any AI stall! Good news..... Thanks for feedback, helped considerably (thanks Bucky about missing mid wings - wouldn't have seen that), feel like I'm working less in the dark & balancing a large set of planes is hard... and comments have definitely improved the FMs. I'd like to "release" the Dh2 FM with the Fe2B so won't upload till then, but its done (won't be any more changes) and to give those keen on getting this now (if any!) rather than in two weeks, I've attached the FM again. This Dh2 FM is excellent to me taking everything into consideration (sorry sounds terrible, but for me it is). Best in Hard, you will know what I mean, but works perfectly in Normal too. Feels pretty well how it should to me at least - jaunty, nimble, nice tensions I think - loads of fun to fly. AI is well behaved. AI is very capable and aggresive (tho bad shot, maybe luckily). Capability wise about right - probably won't redo Eindeckers now in a rush if at all. I did not give it difficult stalls/spins, most people have been playing Normal, and all other planes have easy stall characteristics presently. Spent time on the Fokker Biplanes, again - B2, D2, D3, D3L. Pleased to say finally nailed them....i know, its version 8 or so!! Mainly "feel" (real but nice, not mushy, boring) and a bit better AI and as well as different type of AI behavior. I'll make these new versions available for download when I upload the Dh2/Fe2B - fit well with these especially, reason I redid these now. Also got diverted with a new FM for the Pup - this is very close to complete, maybe need to look at ai behavior more, and of course if people have feedback, that would be very much appreciated. Best in Hard FM again, very nice to fly, capable, good ai, and sorta match with Halb and Alb D1 - tho somewhat better, and better than N17 too. The Tripe will be next - mmmm, 3 wings is a challenge!!! Have fun. Edit: When I say nice to fly, what I actually mean is not boring....its hard to explain. It does not relate to realism, thats largely the game engine not the FM, except for stalls. DH2_data.txt Pup_DATA.txt Thanks again to ATeam for allowing me to do alternative FMs. If there are any issues with these let me know, not the ATeam.

Hi P10ppy, it is an interesting tool you have developed - well done. Wondered whether or even how(!) to comment but obviouslyyou have a great interest in FMs (hope it doesn't distract you too much from modelling tho ) and seriously, I'd say it be great if you and others started doing FMs, they'd certainly get better too. With the Loftin stuff, it is fairly fundamental to flight dynamics, and TK does use elements of it in his FMs - which BTW is/can be very sophisticated. The drag coefficient you pointed out is one. Basically given the physical and other known characteristics, this value is actually worked out for you using Loftin or similar formula - and the drag at 0 AoA is whatever it is whatever you do if the basics are right. Why it may seem different is a different story though - drag at 0 AoA arises from other factors in the model and is varied according to other parameters, its not one number; the effeciency constants are not constants and are different to the values in the spreadsheet i presume you used for the Loftin derived numbers quoted, and maybe (?) finally, the game engine (being a jet sim), could give more or less weighting to some of these forces within FMs to make them work effectively as a WW1 sim. Why do people do them differently? Probably mainly just feel. But that can be sliced and diced many different ways, far more fundamental ways then the drag. With some values - 17m wingspans - it changes all this of course, but I think like me (i learnt thru exploring, continue to do this too), others explore to see if FMs could be done differently/better maybe, because in the end its a Jet game engine that it drives a Jet Flight Model. i'd encourage these alternative approaches - and i do like some of the results. TK could have done FMs using formula's - plug in the drag coeffecient, induced drag, max lift etc etc theres probably a dozen or so numbers and get all sorts of flyable things coming out, but the planes probably would be very bland. Who knows, maybe some games do this?

thanks Bucky for links, hadn't seen them, and like reading these nitty gritty discussions that at times don't seem to get anywhere, but its the journey, not the destination. So I'll increase the E3 speed to 92.5 mph.....just kidding. glad you posted tailspin, was just about to sign up again on the il2 server to polish up flying skills, worried had lost it (probably have anyway) guess my thinking on dh2 is to go with second less capable model - still superior to current e3! - cos of what I mentioned of the earlier versions somewhat unrealistic nimbleness and maybe redo Es later to make less capable. As you said Tailspin, the war was characterised by leaps and bounds in airplane performance/improvements, and if the dh2 is too good, may have no place to jump eventually (or get a Snipe disguised as a Pup) but all FMs are an evolving affair, hard to get exactly right in first or even upteenth iteration... and though not too concerned about the stall aspect TK is working on with addon (tho he has stated it will affect current FMs), he has talked about the rotary engine model and blipping - the latter maybe cosmetic in the sense most probably don't use throttle, but may also impy engine starts too, both great. Sooo, also maybe gyro effects? this would be a really big step in feel and performance, maybe safe too for ai as it doesn't have to have it (or better have an ai parameter(s) that controls it), and encourage more people to play in Hard FM. If so, FMs should be redone. might be expecting too much - but I do have faith in TK continuing to improve the game - just hope sales do well to encourage further goodies.

thats interesting......obviously have to avoid you if we ever fly online had thought the e1 and all eindeckers ai were very tough, even started watering down the ai in other planes to make them less capable. this is in hard fm, and using the latest version 3.0 fm for the "L", in 1:1 dogfight? i agree re the ai gunnery skills and have noticed somehow the less you move around the less likely they are to hit you! however for some reason the posted version of the E1 has GunBoresightAngle=0.4 and my version has GunBoresightAngle=3.0, and it makes a difference, for all eindeckers.

Thanks tailspin, think we are on same wavelength. I probably should stop posting, give others a chance which is what I really really want but........... If the AI is as good as the player in the same plane, then relatively minor differences in performance (less than they should be as you correctly stated) mean you will still find it very hard to beat a plane the AI is flying if superior. ,If on the other hand the AI isn't as good, its easier then you do need bigger differences to make it work. BUT, its a big but, how do you scale up from a Morane H to the Fokker D7 in the same game, without making planes uber (unrealistic) terrms of climb and turn and roll. Also I didn't start from scratch - i had to use existing models for some consistency. Oh, forgot to mention, the AI can only handle well a certain amount of roll and turn most especially -we see the repercussions of that - so scaling up in these indefinetely is not productive either. Tailspin, please try the morane H or L against fokker E1 in hard FM. Let me know if it was a challenge. If you have more time try the E1 against the E3. The differences in performance are not substantial across this range, but I bet you get shot down - I do!!

Like to help Hurricane, but its a bit hard, no details really, and many comments, some confusion (eg there is no Quick Combat as such, there is Instant Action, Single Mission, the latter has two options). Its a good idea to read some of the manual too. I'll just guess some things: You are talking about Single Missions -> Create Mission?????? In this, for plane choose "Spad XIII C.3", for Enemy Activity choose "Heavy", for year "1918", AND for mission type choose "Offensive patrol" or "Defensive Patrol" DO NOT select reconnaisance bomb targets army support balloon busting etc - its quite possible in these types of missions you won't see enemy aircraft. If this doesn't work, then you definitely have a problem cos it should result in some heavy action - use the "next waypoint " command or others to get into action quicker - keyboard default is "W".