peter01

Interesting post Bandy glad you agree consistency is important, and my last post related to AI consistency. Often overlooked or even unknown, but just as important. Consistency is about the only reason I am doing FMs (maybe also to have both hard and Normal modes working for most planes), and the inconsistency was really only there for the early period - 1917-18 happily seems quite good, and am waiting for TK to fix the AI stall stuff, and it should be fine - for my own game, I'll then just beef up the AI and make them work in hard FM. Re quirks, it was something I tried to do early, but despite the fact the AI finds it difficult, and despite what I or others think maybe, its not going to make a great diffference to the game anyhow. I am comfortable not worrying about it. To make it worthwhile ie to get the right feel for early planes the basic game needs a lot lot more in it or done differently - stress modelling, higher stalls, better control of stalls, wind effects (prop wash, buffetting, other more subtle fluid dynamic effects) feel (vibration/tensions), even sounds, engine micromangement (feeding fuel to Engine in E3, DH2 unreliable engine, overheating), gravity interrupting fuel to engine effects etc etc. Actually there isn't a game that does all this I think, and for wwi, thats whats needed to really simulate the feel, for me. With influence, blame Tex - i followed what he started, and used his FMs as baselines in terms of everything to do with performance. At the moment as there are few modders of any type currently producing things (its a real concern to me, I do like the game), anybody that puts in the effort is going to dominate that arena - how many campaigns are there, how many missions are being developed? Also, I think that Bort and Laton with their large output and focus on the early war period they have had a very large influence in getting more people interested in those years (tho most prefer the later period). the planes are the most important things by far, I'm just glad they and others have allowed me the opportunity to contribute as well. With the "question": maybe all the above, and the posts relating to the Dh2 may be explanation enough. Obviously performance is largely unknown, there are many different opinions, complicated by the quirks that made planes successful or not. I just start with turn, roll, climb and how the plane should fit with others, then modify to get a better or sometimes just different experience - eg, dive maybe different, energy retention may be different. Is this correct for that plane?? well its one of the reasons I am seeking feedback, perhaps you should try them out too.

Clarification Tailspin, I am not trying to balance the planes against each other if thats what you mean - it may not be. My earlier post was about balancing the AI and player capability for the same plane. Eg, if Dh2 is superior to E3 for player, then the AI flying Dh2 should be superior to player flying an E3. But to me, thats how it should be. Consistency in differences esp capability for player between planes, similar consistency for those planes for AI, and consistency between AI and player (preferably same). Trying to make people aware that this doesn't just happen - a lot of work is needed to make that the case, and for example TK goes out of his way to make the player planes better, ie, weaker AI, not from not wanting to do a lot of work of course, he could do this easily i imagine, its how he feels the game will be successful probably. Its why i was very surprised you can do very good AI - we all follow TK, but that aspect isn't there. I sort of stumbled across it, if you like, then extended elaborated on it. I do hope others do FMs and I am thinking of writing some of the stuff up to help - not cd0 means this or that, others have done this, but more on what to do and how to do it to get a plane working/flying , the type of tests you need to run to ensure AI is okay, ways to improve or weaken AI and/or player plane. Not saying i am an expert, just to contribute to the body of knowledge, which isn;t extensive I'm sure everybody would agree. If you mean I tend to balance realism with gameplay (a bit!), that is true. i'll try to keep it mind so I don't overdo it, but it does exactly relate to your very well put phrase "real differences were sometimes stark" - you know, do we have a game as a game for that period? I presume I am not alone - but i like to fly the E3 say against Moranes and Dh2 and N11s and Pups and Tripes. if the differences were more I'd probably only like to fly it against one or two planes - the rest would be too easy or too hard - the 1917-18 period is a lot different. And there is a lot more consistency there as well in FMs. But point taken.

LloydNB, glad you see value in it, everyone posting different opinions/questioning etc is good I think too. Thanks for your support Tailspin, and re the Dh2 you are right. But I now have two versions and not really sure about the way to go. Maybe others have a view too? Should explain the reason for my dilemma a bit more. When I reflew the posted Dh2 , it seemed that it really did turn too tightly, a bit more perhaps than realistically possible - and with improved rudder, this would be even more so. I did try to make it quite superior to the E3 - realistic, yes in comparison capability wise as you say - but, maybe its the Eindeckers that are overdone? However, am reluctant to redo these, at least at the moment - busy with others, people don't want constant revisions and they work very well, to me anyway . The other thing about plane superiority, is how you fly them. I mentioned earlier that when flying against some of my planes against the same AI plane, it was very hard to win, without lucky short bursts blowing off their tails or wings (arrrggg!) or forcing the dogfight to a low level. Realised along the way and I presume like everyone (maybe wrong presumption), just went into the dogfight full throttle with the same tactics I use in every dogfight. Started to modify this and started winning a lot more. It is obvious, and its true in most flight sims I play but somehow I lost in this one, for me at least. A lot of the planes turn or roll better at lower speeds (the ai uses this), and its best often to reduce speed, use the throttle, eg let them overshoot. If you have comparatively better roll or climb or turn, you should use this as well eg Morane L against E1, really no chance, unless you use a lot of roll - and then you end up doing what the ai does often, rolling from side to side while in this case it is the ai taking potshots at you (often very successfully). Eventually you can get him wrong footed, and it gives you an opportunity to turn the tables - doesn't last long tho, you need to really make the most of that temporay advantage. So.... bottom line, is yes, some planes were better than others historically, and like you I tend to go with reports of the time, preferably pilots (unfortunately you don't get a lot of exactness in terms of specifics, eg, better climb ok, but what is the climb rate, whats the best climb speed, sustained climb or zoom climb etc etc?). But then the planes had to flown well of course - and that is entirely historical, some planes were not successful for that reason, some very successful because they were (the germans I think were very good at this esp in earlier years). So superior right, but if flown well only - if not flown well, maybe not so superior, at least in Hard FM. Not implying you or anyone aren't of course, just saying that this seems a good thing in the game for the player to have to modify tactics and style based on the planes capability and their opponents plane, for them to be actually superior, this IMO is both realistic and good for gameplay. Edit: I know this is just an example quote by you Tailspin, and I tend to agree, but it does highlight the general difficulties and raised in bandy's post. "... the de Havilland machine has unquestionably proved itself superior to the Fokker in speed, manoeuverability, climbing and general fighting efficiency." Sir Henry Rawlinson, 23 May 1916 The Dh2 was only a few mph faster, so superior isn't greatly superior. In terms of climb, my understanding based on time to climb to various altitudes was that the E3 was superior, so there is more there than just published performance figures, which may be wrong as well of course, And maybe the heart of it is the " general fighting efficiency" - the Eindeckers were without a doubt very difficult to fly, but that cannot be implemented in this game, so some way of modifying the performance is maybe necessary to offset that? It does get hard...

Been away couple of days - still a bit quite here, didn't take me long to catch up. Thanks Tailspin and Bucky for trying out the Dh2, and posting thoughts. And I really appreciate that your flying now in Hard Tailspin, just to give them a go, as well as trying it out against earlier and later planes. Gave the Dh2 a quick spin taking on board some of the comments, and I'll make it a good deal less nimble (but still about equal in that respect to E3), improve rudder, try to do some things on feel. Re "delicate balance between the AI and player FM" Bucky, I know you don't mean exactly what I am about to write , but..... to get some discussion going maybe, and to let you know how I see the the FMs a bit more, what I am trying to do....its probably of no interest to most, but maybe to some. Building an FM from scrtach would only now take me a few hours (it would be fine too, feel, consistent in terms of performance, AI as per most), but doing one where the AI is what I would like takes a lot more - maybe 5-10 times that. And I build it for the AI first - actually 2 different AIs and a player model all in the same FM! I tend not to use AI parameters or AI controls much if at all - its in the basic FM. So why bother with this - balance, min AI behavior problems, AI aggressive. Too long to go into all of it, so just like to elaborate on what I call balance, but they are all interrelated. Balance - I have mentioned this before, basically mean that the AI flies the plane as well as the player in Hard FM, and plane not overdone for player. Not really sure this explains it, or why its important to me at least in the game. Best way is by an example - take the Eindecker E1, Eindecker E2, Dh2, AlbD1. Obviously the capability of these planes is in that order, and if the palyer/ai FMs were balanced (they are/will be in this case ), if you were flying the Dh2, you should easily beat the E1, Have a good dogfight against the E3 but win nevertheless, be shot down generally by the Alb. And if you are flying the E1 against the Dh2, it should be hard, E3 should be tough but winnable, Alb superior. Thats what I think, thats how I'd like the game to be. Of course its a easier for the player in Normal FM, thats what Normal is largely about. If not balanced, there are 2 scenarios - if the player plane fits in terms of the capability with the E1, E3, Alb examples, and the AI is weaker (don't think its possible to make it better! but you never know), well, if your flying the E1 you will easily beat the Dh2 say, slaughter it in the E3, and lets not even talk about the Alb. Second scenario is that the Dh2 is made a lot better for player, to have an AI that maybe can put up a fight and possibly even fits in terms of capability with other planes as AI. But then as player you will easily beat maybe not only Alb, and probably a lot of other, even much later planes. The best test for whether the FM is balanced for AI/player is to fly the same plane against the AI - if its tough to win in Hard FM then the FM is balanced, how tough then depends on the AI being well behaved and aggressive as well - the latter two are additional work. Try the E3...if it wasn't for the damage modelling, and the fact that the AI gives up when a few hundred feet from the ground (this must be the only game where this is the case), it would even be harder. Thats why I try to get them balanced, and what I mean about the FM can be different for player and AI, why i spend so much time on the AI (not always successfully, it is hard, its the extra 10 miles, not one) - not building them to fly alone, building them to experience dogfights, immersion in thats its harder and how you would think - if you are in Morane H you should be worried about taking on a Eindecker. Of course thats not for everyone, and its probably not even how TK sees the game, at least since the patches.

Okay, the pitch/see-sawing you experience is due to this line PitchDamper=xxxx at the top of the data.ini for the aircraft in that aircraft folder. TW tend to put a number of around 0.5, while many add-ons put numbers of 0.75 or higher (up to 1.0 I think), the higher numbers dampens pitch oscillations, when aiming plus other things. I personally feel lower numbers are more realistic to the era, but it does get a bit annoying. Higher numbers also reduce the "dolphin AI" experience . Anyway, joystick setttings help but do not eliminate these things, if you have a favourite plane that you'd like to reduce the oscillation, change as I suggest as above. Just make a backup copy first. Cheers

Hi cj, the add-on planes are done by different people and done differently from one another too - some are similar to stock ones, some are not. The reason I say this is to ask you which add-on planes work well for you, which stock don't (just one or two of each)? I suspect I know why you have these issues, but just need to know that to be sure, as well as whether you fly in easy, normal or hard modes? And the slip, is this in vertical (see-sawing) and/or horizontal? Edit: See that you solved your problem - simultaneous post, if so, thats good, no need to reply.

It does help, thanks. And its good feedback. Re rudder, you may be right, i do tend to underdo this. how do you mean make ailerons more sensitive - is that more responsive? lighter? better? i'm interested in what you think but sorry, not sure what you mean. in terms of easy, haven't done stalls yet, makes a difference, nor added a lot of torque which i intend doing, but can't make it too "realistic" - I know that anyone trying a new FM, including me, will respond on feel maybe realsim..... and I am certainly after that sort of feedback, but just letting you know too that the ai cannot handle many quirks (actually very few) what do you mean "vc view" - i did change the physical structure of the FM, so I could easily have stuffed something up. thanks for the feedback

Hi Bucky, thought I'd add a few more comments while your thinking about my last . I just re-flew my Dh2 against the E3, and vice versa. The Dh2 is superior both for player and AI. The AI is just as aggressive as the the E3, that you said you like as AI - its a beauty as AI isn't it, real fokker scourge stuff? On Original FM as Benchmark. The original was good, I loved flying it - the model and FM. As I said earlier in this thread it was probably right in terms of capability and performance, but it was the first 1916 plane - all the rest were 1918 planes basically. What happened was people started doing Alb D1s and Alb D2s (conversions from Dva) and Nieups and others (mine for Borts) for the earlier period and the Dh2 was completely outclassed. I know against some of these it should be, and as player it was not an issue. AS AI though it was no fun at all, and really not realistic to me - any real pilot would put up a fight. Several months ago while still learning about FMs I upgraded my version of the original improving climb and pitch (turn). Its fine for player, but you can't do this easily to a FM either this one or any including mine without completely stuffing up the AI -stalling, tight circling and in the end the AI was much worse. i'd suggest if any plane needed an upgrade - whether it be a new FM like this one I have done or upgrading the original correctly so no Ai problems, good aggressive AI - it was the Dh2. I did a new one rather than mod the original mostly to ensure the latter - a very good AI.

Hi Bucky, my new one is buried in Post #13 - I was after feedback on this one. Its a new FM. Give it a go

Hi Bucky, sorry but have to ask, what do you mean by the "DH2's original FM" - are you using mine or the actual original one done a while ago??

Thanks Firecage, it must have been a lot of work, looking forward to trying it out on the w/e. The pic is great too.

Interesting. When i did Albs, I increased to 7.0 or so and found that the ai pilots really blasted at you once they had you lined up, unlike usually when they shoot only a few bullets. Maybe, its different for the ai pilot and ai gunner?? if its the "amount of time it took the gunner to detect, aim & fire and an enemy aircraft" for the gunner, it would be very useful to use together with the yaw and pitch rates to improve or slow gunner response. Edit: Actually now thinking more on this it could be both - if higher value, ai shoot longer but take longer time to recover, so for single seater it'd be better to increase, for plane with gunner if you wanted a more responsive gunner, you would decrease??? And and ....and maybe the Burstlength then modifies that again on skill level....getting complex I guess, but the more I get into TKs games, the more I realise is there.

Hi Laton, looking forward to you trying them out, your usually spot on. Actually your to blame for this thread in a way - once i started getting your suggestions and feedback on the moranes/pfalzes/eindeckers, my FMs started improving!!! Probably needed that different view and objective assessment, and needed to be more challenged - one reason I started this topic. With the GunnerFireTime i thought increasing it actually increased the time the ai gunner or pilot fired bursts - that is once they start they continue a bit longer. Does anybody know more about this parameter?

Bucky, thanks and you raised a lot of really interesting points, to me for sure. I was going to reply in detail, but then I realised just need to clarify first that when you say Dh2 cannot outturn Eindeckers, is this as player or ai or both, and in Hard I guess? The situation and solution is different depending on that. If it was as player you could not outturn Eindeckers, could you try flying Eindeckers against Dh2 and let me know....in your own time of course, no rush.

My thoughts exactly gambit Can't say at this point FE is the best WW1 air sim, but then also couldn't say any others are now either - RB has had its day (or decade). FE has some issues, thers the immersion factor, ground activity, some of the damage modelling, but TK seems to know and wants to improve some of these things - and the community could then build on this and potentially make it a great game. So...to me, FE is as good as any at moment, but potential wise, certainly far more promising. Of course theres KOTs - so who knows.

Thanks guy, just the sort of things I was after - great feedback. And congratulations on your transfer Don, probably many of us tend to move around a bit too, all the games have good and bad points. Its funny, but when you do FMs sometimes its real hard to look at it objectively - you get a mindset....probably because it took some work to fly well, and you don't want to stuff it up. So in summary....Fe2B probably should be more capable, think I was looking at this being a match for E1 when it should be at least a match or more for E3, so it can be a reasonable opponent flying against opposition up to Albs. So, my thoughts now are: Increase climb a bit - makes a big difference to capability for both player and AI Improve rudder response Improve gunner response, reduce range (good idea Don). Probably also change where bullets go too when fired by player -I find it very hard to hit anything myself. On feel, a little less responsive, slightly heavier? Keep comments coming, I won't have time to redo till next week anyhow, and let me know about Dh2 too please. Even small observations can lead to big improvements. Much appreciated.

Sorry Tailspin, writing too much and wasn't clear mixing things up (I was right about people doing quick posts and inadvertently not expressing it well, me in this case, and in the same post too!!!)................................ the "you" is not "you" at all but "people". And I agree with what you (you in this case!) said earlier about discussing things more openly 110% - its what i want too, and not in PMs. ...and yep, people can say negative things about my FMs (they probably wont, I'm safe i think for a while ) It was just my thoughts on everybody with feedback, the quote above should read like this: I agree completely. And people can say whatever they like about mine - i mean it. But I'd prefer they didn't comparie mine with other FMs please - its not necessary, and allowing alternate FMs means those that have given me permission show they love the game/support the game and are happy in providing choices to players. But they do open themselves up indirectly to criticism they don't deserve - because if some people like mine (not everyone does for some strange reason!!!), they could inadvertently also say its better than so and so's. Of course we have new members, people do quick posts, english isn't always the first language (isn't the internet grand) etc etc so we all accept this, but believe me it can be a little malicious at times. And it can hurt.

sorry, another war & peace effort..... You can make anything fly alligator devil........redoing the zeppelin is a good idea and hinch I think is okay with that, but want to finish the things I have started first, maybe couple of months. Thanks gambit, very nice of you to write that, much appreciated. You are right I think, you can do something to change the AI behavior, but some things don't work as well as others. BTW, where are the new skins??? Each and evryone you did was a work of art. thanks markjhnstn, i like this too (a lot of aussies used to fly it, so I am biased), and borts model has a real and sorta worn out look that seems to suit it. thanks Bucky - now, if your planning on a zepplin mission I'll move an FM for it up on my list of things to do sounds like you and me have a similar issue too, Firecage, in that we are both trying to get things balanced for various reasons. this would have to be good for the game. With dates and availability, was it Bucky??? that started with a list - probably he seems one of our resident WWI experts - maybe should get some agreement, I am happy to redo all FMs availability and dates, put in one pack (with folders so you just drop in the Objects folder) to go with the campaign if thats the issue, at least for 1915-16 period? Of course doesn't include Nieups or bombers, and if people don't use it thats fine, but they will just get a different experience I guess?

Well since your all been so encouraging .... here's an alternate Dh2. Aladar and Charles have not only given me permission to post this FM, but both were also extremely encouraging - thank you. Its a completely new FM. Charles did an excellent job initially, it was an early 1916 plane, when all we had then were basically 1918 planes, and looking back now, its performance was and probably is about right in comparison. But then I and others started making super planes .....oh well, best move forward. DH2_data.txt This is last one for early 1916 period that i'd like feedback on at moment, if you tell me whats good whats not performance etc its enough at least for the 1915 to mid 1916 period for me to understand how you think planes should be, feel and relative performance. by all means comment on others too if you want. This is not completely ready - stalls and fine tuning feel - and whatever comes out from feedback, so its beta, but gee very flyable. In time to help end Laton's Fokker Scourge, and in Eindeckers you will have a good challenge, the Dh2 AI is nearly as good an AI as those menancing Fokkers (relatively, its a more capable plane of course). As with Fe2B i'll leave it for a week or so to get feedback before finalising. i have to say there have been many great planes done by a lot of talented people, but the Dh2 is still my personal favourite.

lots of comments/replies I want to make, next post, but Tailspin has raised a number of good points, so: Thanks and appreciate that, but don't go out of your way testing, really......prefer you and others to just enjoy the game, not test my FMs, but just want some feedback on the planes as player or AI. I agree completely. And you can say whatever you like about mine - i mean it. But no comparison with other FMs please - its not necessary, and allowing alternate FMs means they love the game/support the game and are happy in providing choices to players. But they are opening themselves up to criticism they don't deserve - because if you like mine (not everyone does for some strange reason), you could inadvertently also say its better than so and so's. Of course we have new members, people do quick posts, english isn't always the first language (isn't the internet grand) etc etc so we all accept this, but believe me it can be a little malicious at times. And it can hurt. yep can understand, its the way it was - but once I complete this - its only about a month away I'd guess, you can fly say 1915-April 1917 in Hard or Normal Modes (not sure about 2 seaters, may be next!). For this period unless your a beginner you should fly Hard. Hard isn't that hard, stalls aren't bad for most planes, but there are other differences (see rudder comments below) that make it a better experience I think - each to their own I guess, and have to say if it only worked in hard that would be just as bad as just working in Normal. Thanks, in this case just overlooked that....its one of the reasons I wanted feedback. But the rudder stuff is interesting, for me at least. You can get very good player planes by overdoing it, I'm not too big on a lot of rudder, but some planes need it, this one definitely should be better - its not the Control Surfaces section, the push back is due to forces in the FM. Thinking about it, I should give the Halbs more too!! One problem tho is that the rudder works differently for Hard and Normal - wish TK would change that a bit. Playing a plane in Normal that has say slower controlled rudder on Hard FM, can result in huge amounts of rudder and fishtailing - I set my joystick to sensitive, deadzone minimal, so any twist and I'm yawing all over the place in Normal. Not saying it cannot be done to work well in both Hard and Normal - some FMs do this very well - but it compromises other things. I guess this is one example were as i have said a few times you need to compromise between Hard and Normal. Yes, but hopefully he will improve how the AI responds as it approaches the FM specified stall in the vertical (probably all stall behavior). If he can improve this (I'm sure he can) it will reduce many of the problems prevalent now with weird AI behavior. It will make a difference, but I'd guess only minor changes if anything for my or anyone elses FMs - it'll just make the AI both better and well behaved. If I'm wrong and it requires more work, short of redoing the FMs from scratch, I'll fix the ones I have done.

Wow, thanks guys, encouragement much appreciated (probably needed too), and from many that I have a lot of time for as well.......thanks I'll respond to some of the comments a little later when more time, but, again re Fe2B - rudder, good point Tailspin (this whole rudder thing is interesting, and will post a bit more also on this), but what else?? Is it too good performance wise?? that is, should it be nearly equal to E1? its not quite I think, but the extra gunner evens up the odds. Is it too light feeling for a big plane etc, or is that good in terms of fun to fly? Other things? I know most of you don't play the game daily or continuously, but please let me know before i put finishing touches on plane - I'll give it a week or so.

Have to say they are looking very good....I'm putting final touches on FMs and testing these against others, and I didn't really notice the differences that much until say flying E1 against the E3. The changes are quite significant - the E3 looks like a big bird of prey, the E1 a smaller more delicate and early cousin. Its very good work. And I personally really appreciate Laton going to the trouble of doing all these variations for the game - I don't think many would (Bort is an exception as well), it probably is more fun for modellers to do new ones.

Alternative FMs for Borts Martinsyde, Avro 504C, Avro 504D, Fokker B2 and Fokker D2, available at CA http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...amp;showcat=213. Have taken some liberties with dates regarding Avros and frontline service - basically available all 1915, even though they weren't. All the FMs are new, including the Fokkers, these are not an update to previous versions, but completely redone from scratch. All good, probably my best biplane effort to date, and best in Hard FM. The AI fly the planes very well - but Martinsyde and Avros can stall, tho rare and recover quickly, it was a challenge to get them to behave perfectly with their large wing areas, whilst balancing everything else. Maybe I shouldn't worry about the everything else (consistency, ai, hard/normal), it would then only take about 10% of the time, and thats the easy 10%.... This is the last lot of Borts that he has currently available I am doing. Sort achieved what I set out to do a while ago . Of course Bort's original FMs are good to fly, i especially like his Martinsyde, these are just alternatives. Good opportunity finishing these for me to thank Bort once again too for allowing me to do and post the FMs - it is very big of him, and I realise that more and more over time. And the game would certainly be far the poorer without his contribution and involvement.

your probably worked this out playing around, took me a little while at first too... with aircraft numbers you go to the "Aircraft" column, and at bottom it has "<Add>", select the down arrowhead next to this and add aircraft. "Remove" aircraft is an option that you select from the dropdown/down arrowhead next to the last plane in the list - when clicked you scroll down to end of plane available list that emerges till you see <Remove>, & removing works from bottom up/last plane in list only). You can also change the aircraft by selecting the arrowhead next to each individual plane and picking the aircraft, but only those that are available for the mission period - eg if 1918, if you had the Fokker EIII, you won't see that. with loadouts paint schemes insignia and squadrons its the same - use arrowhead for each plane in the column you want to change -but not all planes have all these options. hope this helps

What a wonderful plane - no wonder longer it took so long!!! Great stuff, as a whole package, maybe best yet, including TKs....