VonS

More tinkering has led me to the following BaseWindSection entries as the best ones for realistic visuals of moving clouds. I've increased the wind speed amounts by 50kph for cloud-level winds, across the entries (now ranging from about 100kph for low-wind to 200 kph for strong-wind settings...this is for cloud-level stuff, to create realistic movement of clouds...the previous values were too slow by about 50kph). Also, I've toned down the "SpeedRate" values since this is possibly a multiplier, rather than a meters/sec value. At any rate the results look better now. Cloud movement is now visible to the eye (even at x1 time factor). Also, flack/smoke/fire movement is now more of a nice, serpentine "s" than a rough, zig-zag line in crosswinds. Only the BaseWindSection values have been modified. Here's what to paste into the environsys file (will include these with a ver. 8.9 update of the FMs). Moving clouds look particularly nice in overcast conditions, with a plane parked on the airfield. For no wind, use: [baseWindSection] BaseWindSpeed=0.0 BaseWindDirection=280 WindChange[01].ChangeTime=3.5 WindChange[01].ChangeChance=80 WindChange[01].SpeedAmount=31.95 WindChange[01].SpeedRate=3.12 WindChange[01].DirectionAmount=70.0 WindChange[01].DirectionRate=40.0 WindChange[02].ChangeTime=6.2 WindChange[02].ChangeChance=60 WindChange[02].SpeedAmount=36.11 WindChange[02].SpeedRate=4.44 WindChange[02].DirectionAmount=50.0 WindChange[02].DirectionRate=30.0 WindChange[03].ChangeTime=12.3 WindChange[03].ChangeChance=40 WindChange[03].SpeedAmount=40.28 WindChange[03].SpeedRate=5.78 WindChange[03].DirectionAmount=35.0 WindChange[03].DirectionRate=20.0 WindChange[04].ChangeTime=21.1 WindChange[04].ChangeChance=30 WindChange[04].SpeedAmount=44.45 WindChange[04].SpeedRate=6.12 WindChange[04].DirectionAmount=25.0 WindChange[04].DirectionRate=15.0 For light wind, use: [baseWindSection] BaseWindSpeed=4.17 BaseWindDirection=280 WindChange[01].ChangeTime=3.5 WindChange[01].ChangeChance=80 WindChange[01].SpeedAmount=38.89 WindChange[01].SpeedRate=5.00 WindChange[01].DirectionAmount=70.0 WindChange[01].DirectionRate=40.0 WindChange[02].ChangeTime=6.2 WindChange[02].ChangeChance=60 WindChange[02].SpeedAmount=41.67 WindChange[02].SpeedRate=5.56 WindChange[02].DirectionAmount=50.0 WindChange[02].DirectionRate=30.0 WindChange[03].ChangeTime=12.3 WindChange[03].ChangeChance=40 WindChange[03].SpeedAmount=47.22 WindChange[03].SpeedRate=6.66 WindChange[03].DirectionAmount=35.0 WindChange[03].DirectionRate=20.0 WindChange[04].ChangeTime=21.1 WindChange[04].ChangeChance=30 WindChange[04].SpeedAmount=52.78 WindChange[04].SpeedRate=7.78 WindChange[04].DirectionAmount=25.0 WindChange[04].DirectionRate=15.0 For moderate wind, use: [baseWindSection] BaseWindSpeed=6.94 BaseWindDirection=280 WindChange[01].ChangeTime=5.5 WindChange[01].ChangeChance=80 WindChange[01].SpeedAmount=44.45 WindChange[01].SpeedRate=6.12 WindChange[01].DirectionAmount=70.0 WindChange[01].DirectionRate=50.0 WindChange[02].ChangeTime=8.2 WindChange[02].ChangeChance=60 WindChange[02].SpeedAmount=47.22 WindChange[02].SpeedRate=6.66 WindChange[02].DirectionAmount=50.0 WindChange[02].DirectionRate=40.0 WindChange[03].ChangeTime=15.3 WindChange[03].ChangeChance=40 WindChange[03].SpeedAmount=55.56 WindChange[03].SpeedRate=8.34 WindChange[03].DirectionAmount=35.0 WindChange[03].DirectionRate=30.0 WindChange[04].ChangeTime=26.1 WindChange[04].ChangeChance=30 WindChange[04].SpeedAmount=59.72 WindChange[04].SpeedRate=9.66 WindChange[04].DirectionAmount=25.0 WindChange[04].DirectionRate=25.0 For strong wind, use: [baseWindSection] BaseWindSpeed=11.11 BaseWindDirection=280 WindChange[01].ChangeTime=5.5 WindChange[01].ChangeChance=80 WindChange[01].SpeedAmount=50.0 WindChange[01].SpeedRate=7.22 WindChange[01].DirectionAmount=70.0 WindChange[01].DirectionRate=50.0 WindChange[02].ChangeTime=8.2 WindChange[02].ChangeChance=60 WindChange[02].SpeedAmount=54.17 WindChange[02].SpeedRate=8.56 WindChange[02].DirectionAmount=50.0 WindChange[02].DirectionRate=40.0 WindChange[03].ChangeTime=15.3 WindChange[03].ChangeChance=40 WindChange[03].SpeedAmount=61.11 WindChange[03].SpeedRate=9.44 WindChange[03].DirectionAmount=35.0 WindChange[03].DirectionRate=30.0 WindChange[04].ChangeTime=26.1 WindChange[04].ChangeChance=30 WindChange[04].SpeedAmount=65.28 WindChange[04].SpeedRate=10.78 WindChange[04].DirectionAmount=25.0 WindChange[04].DirectionRate=25.0 The data under the [Weather] sections is the same as in my post from yesterday (no changes there). For those interested, general values are as follows across the files: no wind - 0kph wind with gusts to 5kph, light wind - 15kph with gusts to 40kph, moderate wind - 25kph with gusts to 60kph, strong wind - 40kph with gusts to 80kph (anything higher than that approximately and WWI aircraft would probably remain in the hangar for the day). Happy flying, Von S

Small correction to the notes above: 420 or 400 hPa should read as 580 or 600 hPa since hPa increases towards sea level (with lower alt.) - but this doesn't alter the weather "thickness" value for the modded files. Von S

Thank you for this info. Quack. I've also noticed these peculiarities as Mike stated - especially obvious with the Nieu. 17/23 types, sometimes they are missing wing numbers and tail/fuselage numbers - always wondered why that was. Von S

Hello friend, A couple of dozen planes used in FE/FE2 are not available in the downloads section on the FE forums here. For those planes, including the HP.400, go to the A-Team Skunkworks website and register there to download them. Happy flying, Von S

Quick follow-up to my post above...noticed today that I didn't cycle through all 8 waypoints before "telling" the other Farmans to return to base - the circling was probably the result of a Farman flying above one of the earlier waypoints...retested today and the problem was no longer there. Happy flying, Von S

A lovely model...currently tweaking the FM for it, and the other Farmans. One strange phenomenon that I have for the HF.20 is that it doesn't respond to the input to "return to base" (it ends up doing circles instead)... perhaps there is a simple solution in the data ini for this but I haven't come across it...the other Farmans don't display this oddity. Happy flying (and thank you for the beautiful models Stephen), Von S

Very interesting...FE2 has the opposite problem from what I've noticed, that "light" air activity still gives me 6-10 planes trying to drop on me, on other occasions there are only a couple of planes in the sky - but it would be good if it was possible to edit "light," "medium," "heavy" activity further...maybe there are data inis that correspond to these settings? Happy flying, Von S

Thought I'd drop by in support of FE/FE2 as well; all of the WWI sims have their good sides - but for selection of planes First Eagles is great. You can fly some really obscure types in FE2 thanks to the hard work of the modders. Great mods are available for the scenery too (I recommend the Italian map and beautiful Vosges map, both by Gterl). And it's not too expensive to pick up FE2 either - about 20 bucks on the ThirdWire site. The AI is also excellent in FE2 - making for some terrifying dogfights, sometimes high up in the clouds, other times just above the tree tops. Happy flying, Von S

Very interesting - will see if this can be made to work in FE2 for "safe" belly landings - in its current form, a belly landing is a guaranteed explosion in First Eagles. Happy flying, Von S

Hello FE/FE2 flyers, Thought I'd start a new post for this topic since it's something I was thinking of for several months in FE2 - how to make dives and recovery from dives more dangerous/realistic (reminiscent of RB3D). The tweak is a fairly simple one but requires patience. A MaxG value should be included for upperright, upperleft, bottomright, and bottomleft wing values in the data ini files. I stumbled on this while tweaking the Nieu 12 today - there is a general MaxG value under FlightControl in the data inis that I've modified for previous updates of the FM packs - but the trick is to include such values for the wings as well, and to modify those values further - I am assuming that this would work for wing tip entries as well but I have so far tested only with main wing panels - the results are very good. (I will roll these modifications into a future version of the FM updates, once I am happy with the results.) In the meantime, here are a couple of pics of quick (unsuccessful) recovery from power dives. Happy flying, Von S

More observations on the maxg and structuralfactor tweaks, for those following this thread: The "magic number" seems to be about 4.4, for the MaxG entry - numbers lower than this increase the chance of breaks in power dives noticeably, while numbers higher than this noticeably increase the strength of lift surfaces. MaxG numbers are of course somewhat relative too, depending on the top speed/weight of the aircraft, also of the sensitivity of the elevators. Can't remember now where I read the info., but I think that the Germans tested aircraft in WWI, in the first couple of years of the war, to about 4.2/4.3 G - so FE2 seems accurate in this regard too. Eventually I would like to incorporate maxg ratings for lift surfaces across all of the data inis, but will "upgrade" this in packages - next up are the Albatros v-strutters and early Pfalz and Fokker types, also the Parasols. Also noticed in a flight recently (I was in a Fokk. E.Ia, attacking an MS-N) - the MS-N was hit several times but then I ran out of ammo. I thought I was out of luck but the MS-N went into a shallow dive to avoid another Fokk., and its wing tips broke off - it then crashed. Perhaps the result of some of the hits it took previously, increasing the chance of wing-breakage, even while still flown by the AI pilot. I'm very pleased to see this greater variety of post-damage results in FE2. Happy flying, Von S

Forgot to mention in my last post that, like Stephen, I have most of my graphics settings in the game's main menu set to medium - my horizon is set to near, and shadows to low. This combo. works well on low-end cards but still looks good. Perhaps further tweaking of the particlesys ini file will help with frame rates too? I am posting my particlesys ini numbers below (included with the ver. 8.6 FM update): [ParticleSystem] MaxParticlesPerEmitter=512 MaxEmitters=256 MaxEffects=256 MaxFields=32 AdditionalEffectsFolder=Effects Happy flying, Von S

Hi VonOben, The big fire effect is one of the following two probably, located under [Effects] in the aircraftobject ini file: FuelFireEffect=AircraftFuelFireEffect EngineFireEffect=AircraftEngineFireEffect I haven't tested the difference between the two effects but commenting out one, then the other, will probably locate the problem. Judging from the smoke trail that you have going beyond the fire around the aircraft, I am assuming that those are the Stary smoke/fire effects. I am using only Laton's effects in my FE2 installs and I get no stuttering. Happy flying, Von S

I see that the thread is making good progress - have now double-checked the Fokk. Eindeckers in my install and yes the little white band is present on the wings of the E.Ia, IIa, and the E.III - these are all models carried over from FE into FE2 as Mike says. I look forward to more discoveries/solutions regarding this. Happy flying, Von S Pic attached:

Happy new year to you as well Mike, I've noticed those white bits on some of the models, such as the Eindeckers - I think those models were originally made for FE/FEgold but can be used without trouble in FE2. Perhaps some of the modellers know what those white bits are, perhaps it's as simple as "unpainted" parts in the aircraft skins, and then some of the un-skinned area shows through. Happy flying, Von S

Hi Coupi (and others following this thread), After more testing, it appears that the StructuralFactor value for lift surfaces is related to MaxG forces for those same lift surfaces, to the extent that the values can be made to work together. In other words, lower StructuralFactor numbers, together with a MaxG force limit, can increase the risk of structural failure (even with absence of bullet damage). I did an experiment on the Nieu 17/23 types by lowering the typical StructuralFactor numbers of 2 and 4, for lift surfaces, to something like 1.5 and 3, or sometimes to 2, from 4 - and when implemented with MaxG limits - this further increases the chance of planes falling apart. In my opinion, they then become too flimsy. For the Nieup. types it seems a good option to leave the StructuralFactor values as they are, and to include MaxG limits for lift surfaces. Also I spotted that some of the lift surfaces have a strange DamageRating value of "Disabled" - I am currently going through the Nieu data inis and changing DamageRating to "Destroyed" for lift surfaces - this results in more realistic physics post-damage (from reckless flying). The Morane Saulnier N also had this problem - with both wings broken off it would still fly - changing all damage ratings to "Destroyed" solved the problem - will roll these important changes into ver. 8.6 of the FM updates. Happy flying, Von S

Thank you friend, and for all the wonderful models you have done for First Eagles - happy holidays to you as well, and to all fans and flyers of FE/FE2, and a happy new year too! P.S. Santa lands well at about 85kph - but keep the front hooves high and use the blip switch frequently. Von S

Further thinking on this topic leads me to the following conclusions: (a) MaxG under FlightControl of equal value to MaxG values for lift surfaces = you and the same plane-type AI follow the same "rules" of gforces (b) MaxG under FlightControl set less than MaxG values for lift surfaces = you can be more reckless than the AI in the same plane type (c ) MaxG under FlightControl set greater than MaxG values for lift surfaces = you are at a disadvantage to AI flying the same type Von S

Hi Ojcar, Thank you for the feedback. You are right that it might make flying more difficult in FE2 - from further observations, I have noticed that these tweaks don't seem to affect the AI. The AI, being "smart," will never fly above the MaxG limits set in the data inis - so that only the player seems to be at risk for these structural disasters to the plane. I did spot in one of my tests the wings coming off of a MS-N but that was after they were shot down and accelerating - while being flown by the AI, no structural problems occurred to the aircraft, even when I set MaxG values very low to about 0.5, 1.0, 1.5. I tried a few more experiments: considering that the MaxG value under FlightControl is the one that the AI "listens" to - I increased that value to something like 6.0, 7.0, etc., but left the MaxG values for the wing and tail surfaces quite low, around 2.0, to see if the AI would be more reckless and would cause structural failure to AI-flown aircraft. Again I had the same results, with the AI always being careful not to break anything. This means that the player will be at a "disadvantage" to AI-flown planes if MaxG values are set too low, resulting in aircraft that are too fragile. Unless there is a way to implement structural failure risk across player and AI-flown aircraft, like in RB3D - it is best to use caution with the MaxG values for lifting surfaces. I think that a "safe" solution is to copy the MaxG number located under FlightControl into the left/right wing panels attached to the fuselage, also into the tail surfaces (left/right stab). This way there is sometimes a risk of structural failure, making it more challenging for the player to maneuver in the game (and making the AI appear more difficult) - but too much flimsiness should be avoided. One other factor to consider here is the sensitivity of the elevators - stiff ones allow a plane to stay safe even with relatively low MaxG limits. Sensitive elevators can easily rip things apart if the MaxG is too low. I will implement some subtle MaxG limits for the Nieu. types as an experiment (for the 8.6 FM update) - but will avoid too much of these changes for now. Edit: I remember the Aviatik D.I breaking sometimes in steep dives, but didn't make the connection with MaxG values for lifting surfaces until I started tweaking the Nieu. 12 (I always found that impressive on the Aviatik). Happy flying, Von S

More updates: Values for MaxG, for wing components, can be set to the same value as MaxG listed under FlightControl in the data ini, providing that that value is realistic/low enough (most of my MaxG values for the FE2 data ini tweaks are fairly low whenever possible). Other things that are important: setting the top wing panels to a lower MaxG value than the bottom wings will guarantee that all wings break off in a quick attempt to get out of a power dive. Leaving the bottom wing values low, and the top wings high, for MaxG - should result in the bottom wings breaking off while the top wing remains intact. A simpler solution is to set all panels to the same MaxG - and to match up with the MaxG under FlightControl. Also, if you include a MaxG value for the LeftStab and RightStab entries - you will be able to rip your elevators/tail assembly off in a dive too - very fun. The slow part will be testing how much breakage is realistic - eventually this will be rolled out into one of my FM update packs (since I have to go back and tweak more than 170 data inis). Edit: I might roll this "flimsiness" into the Nieuport line for ver. 8.6 of the FM pack, as a start. Happy flying, Von S

Hi VonOben I'm happy that you're getting many flamers now - I am enjoying the new settings in my installs of FE2. The frame-rate problem you are getting when flamers erupt in black smoke is strange - perhaps you are using a mixture of Laton's and Starry's effects. I recommend trying out the modified files for aircraft smoke damage and balloon explosions that I've posted here: http://combatace.com/topic/88700-fe2-bad-framerates/?p=716980 Also, I will pm you the particlesystem.ini file that I am currently using (with further reduced ParticleSystem entries that are giving me very good average fpm-s of about 80, on an Intel integrated 4000 graphics card with 1GB of ram). Happy flying, Von S

Excellent skins, and thank you for the Alb. D.II skins and others as well Trotski. I look forward to your E.I and E.II skins that I'm sure will also look beautiful. Happy flying, Von S

Thought I'd post a few test shots of the [ObjectFire] mods. in the aircraftobject ini file, as mentioned above. Good variety is now present - I'm having nice results with mostly Laton's effects and the mods. applied to the data ini file - although the variety is probably noticeable with the Starry effects too but I wouldn't know by how much (haven't tested with the Starry effects). Fuel fire on a Morane N - light smoke indicates that it still hasn't progressed to an irreversible fire (sometimes it may go out) Progression beginning (darker smoke as evidence) Progression complete (stream of dark smoke now) Fire expands (now an inferno) Happy flying, Von S