OK, call me a heretic and ban me!
- Thread starter ndicki
- Start date
BEAR - AvHistory
Members +
The AvHistory planes are very difficult if not impossiable to fly on any setting but hard. Has to do with how we code the aircraft.
B
B Bandy RFC
Guest
Are you asking about SF with this question??? If so, look for yawanglerate and pitchanglerate for each gunner in the XXXdata.ini. I agree they were unrealistically set at 60 as stock, I find 20 to 25 a good compromise as you have to fire only short bursts and keep moving to survive. Also what is required with all SF 3rd party AC are hitboxes for the gunners (pilot has them) otherwise the gunners won't stop despite all the pasting you can give 'em.
This is an interesting community and good thread. I've only very recently tried CFS3-ETO (and only have CFS3 because of OFF-BHAH) and was truly amazed when I flew it for the first time just a few days ago. Top notch appearance, lovely terrain (running nearly all 5's on sliders with my 3 year old system! Win7 x64 and 11 GB RAM makes a difference!) but I have to admit the CFS3 flight engine just does not handle stalls-spins well at all.
One of the BIG issues I think is that the CFS3 force feedback is not providing enough warning nearing stall. THAT would make a tremendous difference in how anyone would handle these CFS3 AC in CAM.
Perhaps I'm not a hard-core simmer, I've only recently strayed away from First Eagles and other 3rdWire sims (for various reasons), but I certainly do understand why the current/2008 3rdWire flight engine is now receiving more attention. You really do feel like you are one with your simplane.
Looking forward to browsing more often here! Thanks!!!
Of course you can still get gmax - free copy with every Deluxe or Gold edition of FSX and there are at least two bona fide sources for a free download (TurboSquid and FSAlpha)
3dsMax is a different kettle of fish. Student editions are nearly a couple of hundred quid for a permanent licence if you can supply student credentials, retail version is a couple of thousand. Bona-fide secondhand versions on eBay go for a couple of hundred typically, sometimes a lot more.
I've looked long and often, but have still to get lucky. There are 'other' ways to get Max, but don't waste your time sending me a PM like someone did recently, I won't bite....
ndicki
Charter Member 2016
Viso and I both looked at the question, and even if there are slightly cheaper options available, they are still bloody expensive. So that's the end of that, I'm afraid, at least as far as I'm concerned.
ndicki
Charter Member 2016
noelberrier
Charter Member
I wonder wether it is possible to modify an aircraft FM/XDP so that the AI flies more reallistically (maybe increasing weight, lessening rate of turn and so on). Did anyone tried this ? Is it possible to imagine a "conversion kit" in order to make AI aircraft from AvH ones in an uniform manner ?
This being said, I agree with Henry that uniformisation of FM and numeric input in order to get rid of much of the subjective material is a great achievement by AvH, even if the latter developpement make flying difficult (I have trouble with many MAW aircrafts). With FM that difficult, we would need real life feedback( G-forces, wind, noise, aircraft shaking, true anger ...)
G
gregoryp
Guest
I've solved this in SF. Here's before and after.
Note these are from the Damage Box editing program that just does the basics, looks better in SF with smoothing.Well Greg, I seem to remember over the Rats Private forum, before Netwings went down, that I tried to warn you guys about this very thing. I had pointed out a thread over there on their reaction to AvHistory doing FM's for that series. By the time you guys checked it out, they had cleaned it up a lot, so some doubted my warnings. Sad to say, but you finally understand what I was trying to point out.
Here's hoping it will get better in the future!
BEAR - AvHistory
Members +
Its real mild stuff compared to what when on in the CFS1/2 threads during the 'Golden Age'.
I remember some of the threads on long forgotten sites about !% destroying flight sims forever going back & forth for 1,400 or 1,500 posts.
We got a lot of typing pratice in those days.
B
B Bandy RFC
Guest
At the risk of diverting the thread momentarily...
Before and after!?! Mein Gott!!! That is an incredible difference if I'm interpreting the hitboxes in the pictures correctly. No wonder those 3rd party bombers are near impossible to take down. Obviously you are doing great work to make things better, and there must be a long way to go. So the 'program' also mods the max- and min- extent positions of the individual aircrew (gunners etc.) so they can be put out of action? It is a PITA to do it by hand in the AC.ini but not impossible, and certainly worth it.
Calling the SF community "fractured" is a little excessive, and while most pretty much venerate TK (for the most part rightly so IMHO) I do not perceive the public urination issue. He has his priorities and he makes no bones about it in order to stay in business and keep simmers flying with numerous upgrades, patches, and new titles, if they are mostly jet sims. WWII is not on his agenda, and I think First Eagles was an experiment in a niche market that while he is rightly very proud of the project hasn't been the "home run" he was hoping for.
I've solved this in SF. Here's before and after.
Before and after!?! Mein Gott!!! That is an incredible difference if I'm interpreting the hitboxes in the pictures correctly. No wonder those 3rd party bombers are near impossible to take down. Obviously you are doing great work to make things better, and there must be a long way to go. So the 'program' also mods the max- and min- extent positions of the individual aircrew (gunners etc.) so they can be put out of action? It is a PITA to do it by hand in the AC.ini but not impossible, and certainly worth it.
Calling the SF community "fractured" is a little excessive, and while most pretty much venerate TK (for the most part rightly so IMHO) I do not perceive the public urination issue. He has his priorities and he makes no bones about it in order to stay in business and keep simmers flying with numerous upgrades, patches, and new titles, if they are mostly jet sims. WWII is not on his agenda, and I think First Eagles was an experiment in a niche market that while he is rightly very proud of the project hasn't been the "home run" he was hoping for.
Henry
Retired SOH Administrator
LOLIts real mild stuff compared to what when on in the CFS1/2 threads during the 'Golden Age'.
I remember some of the threads on long forgotten sites about !% destroying flight sims forever going back & forth for 1,400 or 1,500 posts.
We got a lot of typing pratice in those days.
i guess we are all maturing
my life as a mod has got a lot easier
Happy New Year
H
G
gregoryp
Guest
I have no problem with TK and understand his business model. And I’m grateful he’s always taken the time to look into issues. He's what I'd want a dev should be. The problem is the community itself. The “we have an unwritten rule about criticizing other peoples work” is the problem. It’s held them back on a technology level.
ndicki
Charter Member 2016
Gregory is right. I've seen this myself - by some developers, any criticism of any sort is taken as insulting and a show of ungratefulness. There are some however who've responded nicely and taken the criticism the way it was meant, and remapped things and done little mods here and there to make it easier for me to etc etc. RussoUK is one who's been very helpful and friendly, among others. But on the whole, the helpful ones don't do much WW2...
If you want to know what can be done, download either the Overkill (payware) O-1, or MontyCZ's Avia B-536 - one of the best bits of freeware I've seen for SF. But to be frank, a lot of the modelling wouldn't cut it in CFS2, let alone round here... Nor would most of the skins, either. And Gregoryp can tell you about the FMs...
If you want to know what can be done, download either the Overkill (payware) O-1, or MontyCZ's Avia B-536 - one of the best bits of freeware I've seen for SF. But to be frank, a lot of the modelling wouldn't cut it in CFS2, let alone round here... Nor would most of the skins, either. And Gregoryp can tell you about the FMs...
D
DonSPa
Guest
ive always had problems flying any plane i think i had a disease called permanent stall LOLOLOLOLO ive gotten kinda frustrated with alot of things and havnt really played cfs3 in almost a year and have been working on other things but i feel for ya nigel i know what ya mean
B
B Bandy RFC
Guest
Yeah, ain't that the truth!
CFS3 and ETO has been a real eye opener for me right from my first QC after install. Wow! However, I'm finding the base CFS3 program to be very fragile and the troubleshooting, personal modding, and installation path of others' mods to not be very intuitive. Likely just need to get used to it...
Daiwilletti
Charter Member
Hi Noelberrier, for ETO at least in BoB era 2 the answer is fairly easy. (sorry for this OT reply by the way) There are lots of AI spits, hurris and 109s etc that are set up for spawn=y in xdp whereas the full versions are retained for mission flying. Hence you could simply edit the config file for SIM=0 or whichever the appropriate one is, and add a bit of weight. I don't think you would need to add much to keep it realistic. But IMHO the AI need help anyway when its you they are trying to kill...Different story when in campaign and they mow down your mates.
Recently I changed to a much faster processor (old P4 single core 3.6GHz which ROCKS) and I find the pesky enemy AI flies HEAPS better per WMs old threads on AI flying ability in OFF.
Another tweak is in pilot attributes.xml where AI skill and wingmen skill can be changed to 2 or 4 to make the dogfights MUCH more immersive. That is of course saved for installs where you want to fly campaigns and not go online.
D