Amazing thread Here
I know it's old but so am I....This thread should be posted on the top (stickied) somewhere... lots of good info , I saved the whole thing.
Just getting back into cfs2 here... the game industry has gone down a black hole of multiplayer conformity ... conformity in that the games I enjoy, generally combat sims with vehicles..(I find the first person stuff silly, just the way I am)... the games are pretty much fast-food "this is what you get so be satisfied and don't screw with it" stuff.
The equivalent of UC Davis grad school (conveyer belt regurgitate the textbook stuff) which I left and went to a real school where the first tests included "all right smart ass, show us your grasp of the subject, show some independent thought and design an experiment to determine the answers".... I can Digress with the best of them JEEZE !
Anyhew..... The HUGE weakness in CFS2 (CFS3 was even worse, but some desperate folks made new sims based on it)... is the GOMER-AI. I'm talking wingmen and enemies wandering around on a sunday drive with no destination.
If only the hardcore programming folks were allowed to tweak the heck out of the engine... Look, Jane's WW2F (say what you will but they did everything right... play it with ACD, 30 flights in near proximity, enjoy the adrenaline/endorphins/death grip on the joystick mayhem with good long lasting ground fires, good loud "splosions" etc... It has AI that will chop you to shreds and they're not messing around.....It's why soccer is the best sport the perfect mix of anarchy and order (but now it's politically correct with crap refs calling everything, and no slide tackles... wimps)...
There I go digressing again. But cfs2 has the best most beautiful damage modelling on the planes... good terrain... huge add-ons , etc... IL-2 got me interested for quite some time but the terrain is a joke as is the DM - planes explode into a million pieces, never ground crash, and their greedy business model... I have a right to gripe because I spent hours downloading the Red core stuff to fly WW1 and golden age biplanes etc... only to find their flight models did not function worth a darn...
Here's something interesting, I'm also an RC plane geek... I have made probably 30 scratch-built planes and one thing I learned (mentioned earlier in this thread) is that the wing incidence angle (and relation to horizontal stab) is CRITICAL .. and yes indeed 1 degree positive is the sweet spot.. I once made a negative incidence plane after reading glider guys like it... it was fine until it turned then all hell broke loose and smasherooo.
Moving the cg back yes, makes a plane faster and quicker turning as well as fast climb rate but relatively unstable, reverse for moving forward...
Greater dihedral makes a plane stable in the roll direction (as does a higher wing due to pendulum effect) but also slower turning, but perhaps cfs2 didn't model this perfectly?
Larger wing area = more stability at low speed , there's a very popular easy to make RC plane called the nutball, which is a literally a circle of thin foam with some dihedralled tips and a vertical stab with rudder no ailerons... no kidding.. that thing doesn't care what pitch you give it, or anything else you do, it ain't stalling, and will fly just like a real plane... the bernoulli idea is dead wrong as my Cal Poly classmate proved with actual wind tunnel testing and pressure sensors, the truth is simple but humans hate that... the closest analogy is skipping stones on a pond, with a little of that moving air downward effect...MAN I DIGRESS !
Anyways thanks for this thread perhaps I can start to approach slightly less aimless and drunk AI enemies.
I know it's old but so am I....This thread should be posted on the top (stickied) somewhere... lots of good info , I saved the whole thing.
Just getting back into cfs2 here... the game industry has gone down a black hole of multiplayer conformity ... conformity in that the games I enjoy, generally combat sims with vehicles..(I find the first person stuff silly, just the way I am)... the games are pretty much fast-food "this is what you get so be satisfied and don't screw with it" stuff.
The equivalent of UC Davis grad school (conveyer belt regurgitate the textbook stuff) which I left and went to a real school where the first tests included "all right smart ass, show us your grasp of the subject, show some independent thought and design an experiment to determine the answers".... I can Digress with the best of them JEEZE !
Anyhew..... The HUGE weakness in CFS2 (CFS3 was even worse, but some desperate folks made new sims based on it)... is the GOMER-AI. I'm talking wingmen and enemies wandering around on a sunday drive with no destination.
If only the hardcore programming folks were allowed to tweak the heck out of the engine... Look, Jane's WW2F (say what you will but they did everything right... play it with ACD, 30 flights in near proximity, enjoy the adrenaline/endorphins/death grip on the joystick mayhem with good long lasting ground fires, good loud "splosions" etc... It has AI that will chop you to shreds and they're not messing around.....It's why soccer is the best sport the perfect mix of anarchy and order (but now it's politically correct with crap refs calling everything, and no slide tackles... wimps)...
There I go digressing again. But cfs2 has the best most beautiful damage modelling on the planes... good terrain... huge add-ons , etc... IL-2 got me interested for quite some time but the terrain is a joke as is the DM - planes explode into a million pieces, never ground crash, and their greedy business model... I have a right to gripe because I spent hours downloading the Red core stuff to fly WW1 and golden age biplanes etc... only to find their flight models did not function worth a darn...
Here's something interesting, I'm also an RC plane geek... I have made probably 30 scratch-built planes and one thing I learned (mentioned earlier in this thread) is that the wing incidence angle (and relation to horizontal stab) is CRITICAL .. and yes indeed 1 degree positive is the sweet spot.. I once made a negative incidence plane after reading glider guys like it... it was fine until it turned then all hell broke loose and smasherooo.
Moving the cg back yes, makes a plane faster and quicker turning as well as fast climb rate but relatively unstable, reverse for moving forward...
Greater dihedral makes a plane stable in the roll direction (as does a higher wing due to pendulum effect) but also slower turning, but perhaps cfs2 didn't model this perfectly?
Larger wing area = more stability at low speed , there's a very popular easy to make RC plane called the nutball, which is a literally a circle of thin foam with some dihedralled tips and a vertical stab with rudder no ailerons... no kidding.. that thing doesn't care what pitch you give it, or anything else you do, it ain't stalling, and will fly just like a real plane... the bernoulli idea is dead wrong as my Cal Poly classmate proved with actual wind tunnel testing and pressure sensors, the truth is simple but humans hate that... the closest analogy is skipping stones on a pond, with a little of that moving air downward effect...MAN I DIGRESS !
Anyways thanks for this thread perhaps I can start to approach slightly less aimless and drunk AI enemies.