Broken Items post PP6 - FSIC Messageboard

FSIC Messageboard

SDOE General

Broken Items post PP6 (Page 1)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Broken Items post PP6
Spoonman Pilot	posted 11-27- 01:09 PM After finding myself swamped in playing all the latest missions off-line, I have found that several planes are very underpowered and no longer work properly with the default missions that came with SDOE. In particular, the Typhoon AI can not take off with heavy bombs at most airports. Neither can ANY Mosie. I would like to know if anyone is working on the following: Typhoon - needs more low-end torque. Mosie - it's a real dog now. Small Calibre Weapons - All small calibre weapons are now useless. Last night on-line in a Spit, I put about 100 rounds (or 50 for on-line) of small caliber into an opponent. I saw dozens of hit flashes, yet my opponent was scratch free. I would like to fix the Mosie and the Typhoon, plus increase the damage rating of all small calibre weapons by 30-40% (I'll test it). Email me at eddyvonreddy@hotmail.com if you are working on any of these items - I don't want to work on something already being fixed. Spoon [This message has been edited by Spoonman (edited 11-27-2000).] IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-27- 02:08 PM The mossie was very overpowered before.. on full fuel the mossie used to climb to alt 3x too fast. I calibrated climb to alt and top speed for both planes and they are correct AFAIK TS ------------------ www.airsims.com IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-27- 02:38 PM 1)Real Mosq__2)SDOE Mosq ------------------------- Climb rate to 10K: 1) 300 seconds 2)300 Seconds Top speed at 13,200 feet: 1) 375 mph 2) 378 mph IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-27- 02:43 PM Top speed for typhoon at 18,000 feet tested correct and loaded weight correct but it was not calibrated for climb rate. TS IP: Logged
Werner Molders Pilot	posted 11-27- 06:58 PM I know, I know, the FM's still in beta and shouldn't have been released, but the AI can't take off in Mustangs to save their artificial life. I witnessed two auger-in while taxiing (!) in a mission the other day. Werner ------------------ Visit Abbeville Field Today! IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-27- 09:30 PM It's kind of funny because the p51 changes originated with looking for volunteers to update the FM ! TS IP: Logged
ArgonV Pilot	posted 11-27- 09:49 PM Werner, Ive seen the AI takeoff in the latest P-51.... IP: Logged
Werner Molders Pilot	posted 11-27- 10:10 PM TS - are you suggesting either put up or shut up? If that's the case I don't want to hear a single criticism of the next release of nations, except from contributors, but I don't hold any illusions of that happening. I contribute to this community in my own way, thank you. Facts are facts, and betas don't belong in plane packs, but it's there now and needs to be addressed. Werner ------------------ Visit Abbeville Field Today! IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-27- 10:51 PM Umm no I'm saying its kind of ironic. I reported the AI takeoff problem as well when the plane pack was in beta. TS IP: Logged
Werner Molders Pilot	posted 11-27- 11:00 PM My apologies TS, I thought your comment was tongue-in-cheek shot at critical opinions of the plane pack. Is there a 6.1 in the works? Werner ------------------ Visit Abbeville Field Today! IP: Logged
Sv Pilot	posted 11-27- 11:00 PM Wasn't this an issue with runways being to short? And also, might the AI need a little updating to fly newer flight models? I know we can not change the AI, but in this case we wouls need to select one or the other, AI control and incorrect FM's, or air-starts for AI and more accurate FM's. Right? ------------------ -Sv =FC= WWI in SDOE! IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-27- 11:18 PM I think it is related to the problem of not being able to keep the nose above the horizon with full flaps even with full backstick. The AI drops some flaps then bounces along the runway unable to pull up until the gear collapses. TS IP: Logged
ArgonV Pilot	posted 11-27- 11:19 PM FOOD FIGHT!!!!!!!!! IP: Logged
spin Pilot	posted 11-28- 12:16 AM umm, yes there is a pp6.1 in the works. No details on release. Suffice it to say, it won't be 31 mb for those with pp6.0. I won't release an update until certain issues are addressed and I won't be able to fix most of them - needless to say volunteers are greatly appreciated - no pressure though. I haven't updated the site yet this week - will try to by the weekend. ------------------ Spin Visit Spin's Planepack Site to learn more about planepack V6.0 and ongoing development of the planepack IP: Logged
Spoonman Pilot	posted 11-28- 01:15 AM Strange TS, I can't get the mosie to climb past 11000 feet. I can place it at 13500 at 375 in the editor - it will maintain the height and speed, but it will not climb to it. The Mosie is also known as the "2 minute cruise and 4 minute snooze". Cruise speed reached in 2 minutes (275 mph), and 10750 ft in four minutes. It doesn't to either very well The AI doesn't like the Mosie at all, and the Typhoon's have problems. I think both may be related to engine torque. I may be able to adjust the settings WRT horsepower and not disrupt maximum speed and climb rates. Spoon IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-28- 01:50 AM Hi, not sure i understand you. That model of mosquito took 300 seconds to climb to 10,000 feet and the sdoe one tests out the same. The horsepower settings are also historically accurate. I just loaded up a test mission at 13,000 feet and climbed to 16,000 feet with no loss of speed at 2000fpm. It could maybe use some more low end acceleration.. if you look at the difference between the 5.3b and 6.0 190a4 i was able to give it a little boost without altering its climb rate or speed. TS [This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 11-28-2000).] IP: Logged
Spanky the Mad Dog Pilot	posted 11-28- 03:07 AM Spanky here... In 5.3b I couldn't get a fully loaded mossie up over 150mph, I could never do missions with it cause I could never gain ALT nor speed, and would end up stalling into the ground. Is this the same mossie or has it been updated? IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-28- 03:24 AM It's the same as before.. i can get a fully fuelled mossie to 10k in 300 seconds not sure why you are having problems. TS IP: Logged
ArgonV Pilot	posted 11-28- 07:38 AM Why dont you guys leave the Mossie and the Typhoon alone and revert back to the stock versions? When this game first came out the AI flew them just fine. Most people forget to realise that certain "comprimises" must be made to the planes in flight sims such as this so the AI can fly them correctly. These comprimises may not be totally realistic, but at least the AI is happy and the comprimises arent totally unrealistic! IP: Logged
wakeup tailgunner Pilot	posted 11-28- 09:27 AM Any stock plane I've real problems with I replaced with the stock one from the CD. If I still can't fly it, I know it's me! This is one big advantage to Par files. To revert back to PP6. just delete the folder again. p.s. I hate the flight model of the P38....but only cos I keep getting shot down when I fly one! I can boom and zoom an F4U, turn in a spit, fly the pants off them in a P51, but put me in a lightning... IP: Logged
Zurawski Pilot	posted 11-28- 10:02 AM Sorry folks... all this really pisses me off. TS and I spent more frick'n time working on flight models for this game than we probably have spent actually enjoying it... Yet time and time again, we end up playing merry-go-round on the issue of "historical accuracy" and "fun factor"... You all demand realistic flight models (or close representations).. Which we have attempted to give to the very best of our abilities within the confines of the limitations of OpenPlane. We have no bias... So all FMs are approached with the same degree of objectivity. Every FM adjustment we've made directly correspond to a documented and measurable specification... We don't use first-hand pilot recollections or anidotal stories ... everything we do/did was based on solid "FACTS". Yet here we go again... I've had it ... I've had enough. If you fickle bunch feel we've not done our work to the very best of our abilities... "screw you" do it your frick'n self if you think you can do better! Tail, do as you wish... I've done my last FM work for this community and this simulation. I'll finish my promised projects... I'm a man of my word. The F-86 will see completion... The PZL will see completion (yes, and it's variants)... But that's it. I'm done. [This message has been edited by Zurawski (edited 11-28-2000).] IP: Logged
jedi Pilot	posted 11-28- 11:11 AM Does that mean I shouldn't ask you to help me fix the ground handling on the Corsair? Cause I sure can't fix it! ------------------ --jedi-- IP: Logged
Private Roger Pilot	posted 11-28- 11:30 AM Oh, oh. Watch out, Zur's mad. Zur, I count only a few people that even took the time to comment on this topic, and not all of them are complaining. And even is they were, surely even you would agree people have the right to their opinions. Wouldn't you? Yet when "a few" people comment on the validity of some of the FM's you go nuts. Why, are you so thin skinned? Ya wanna quit..quit. BTW who exactly "demanded" realistic flight models? Chill brother...it's almost Christmas. PR=FC= IP: Logged
Raider Pilot	posted 11-28- 11:43 AM Yes, you did bring that up about the P-51 FM. I though it was a residual problem from a previous plane pack, but I was wrong. I now see that it was a mistake to make it part of the standard plane pack. So, go ahead and yank it if you want to. [This message has been edited by Raider (edited 11-28-2000).] IP: Logged
Gustang Pilot	posted 11-28- 12:57 PM I call for a RECOUNT! Relax Zur, you've been here from day one and you know as well as anyone here that change is going to produce questions. Things would never get any closer to 'perfect' if nothing changed. This situation is unavoidable, but to think that what you do isn't appreciated is just plain wrong. Although I'd never hope you're having a bad day, I hope that something other than the comments here is what truly upset you. Seems out of character to me anyhoo... I'm biased on this subject. I would rather have a great online game based on fairly accurate flight models than an inaccurate offline one that caters to abilities of AI. I personally love most of the changes I've seen in the recent planepack. I can always revert the problem aircraft to previous versions for offline use... without getting rid of the entire planepack. Choice is wonderful! IP: Logged
Zurawski Pilot	posted 11-28- 12:58 PM ..PR, Your right... I thrashed wildly. Go figure? As you well know, I tend to bite my toungue till I can no longer bite. My rant was directed everyone and no one. The community "ohhs and aahs" over a new addition to the FS stable... There is accolades and appreciation for a new model regardless if the FM and DM are finished or not. Fact is, FM'ing is a thankless and lengthy process. There is little glory in doing it. Guess who are expected/requested at some point to refine the FM? I don't think I'm being thin-skinned... FM'ing is a very subjective thing because "everyone" has a subliminal ideal of an aircrafts FM... Who do we cater to? Those that want to relax the historical values to make flying easier/more enjoyable or those who want the highest fidelity FMs OP will allow us to craft? FM'ing is an "art" of sorts... Tail and I take it very seriously and take great pride when we achieve what we consider the best FM representation that OP will allow us ...And you wonder why we become so defensive when either our bias or workmanship is questioned?! OK, fine... I went off "half-cocked" ... for that I apologize. IP: Logged
Zurawski Pilot	posted 11-28- 01:04 PM ..Gustang, My apologies... The flint to my explosion is irrelevent. And I like you would rather have resnably accurate online FM's than relaxed off-line. There really is no balance... The AI is quite stupid and unwilling to learn. (sigh)... Must be that time of the month for me.... Sorry folks!... Your welcome to further tell me to "go get poked" ... I offer my apoligies! [This message has been edited by Zurawski (edited 11-28-2000).] IP: Logged
spin Pilot	posted 11-28- 01:10 PM Can we try to keep this constructive without giving up please! Raider, the p51d problems were known, but there is a lot in the new model people are excited about. If you or the person taking your place on the project can fix the ai problem then we can release an update. I believe this is a temporary problem. People should recognize that there are difficulty options (torque, stalls, take-off wind) available that can help with problems like ground handling and takeoff. If you have a problem, try reducing these first (has anyone ever flown with prevent stalls enabled?). If you have a question about how a plane operates ask around - the P51 can be taken off successfully - it takes practice. I believe getting to the realism that Tailslide and Zurawski have been working for is really important for this sim. On the Mossie: I've seen people struggle in the Mossie, personally I've flown a low-alt mission with it where I outran a flight of 109s across the channel and back. It was by no means slow. The problem people have seems to be trying to climb at too low a speed. Try gaining airspeed first and then climbing. This goes for the lancaster as well. I like how the current mossie performs. ------------------ Spin Visit Spin's Planepack Site to learn more about planepack V6.0 and ongoing development of the planepack IP: Logged
Private Roger Pilot	posted 11-28- 01:17 PM Zur Common, you didn't start doing FM work for accolades did you? You knew it was a job that would give little noteriety and applauds when you took it, at least I imagine. Look Zur, the old timers here, and some of the new guys realize that you "behind the scene" guys are doing yeoman's work with the FM. I think of you as kind of like a referee in a football game, the only time anyone notices your work is when they percieve you have "blown the call". Not that you have, but it's a perception thing. Anyway, I and many others appreciate your's and Tails work in making SDOE's FM as accurate as you have. Just don't think your going to hear that all the time. Afterall, who ever gives the ref's a standing "O" PR=FC= IP: Logged
Jerry Pilot	posted 11-28- 01:27 PM This is probably not practical but, could there be two interchangeable par files for FM's. One dedicated to "accuracy" and on-line missions, with another for mission builders and offline where AI capable planes are required. We could manually swap them like skins depending on how we are going to fly. ???? [This message has been edited by Jerry (edited 11-28-2000).] IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-28- 01:52 PM It's possible to tweak the ground handling until the AI takes off no problem, I did this for the 190a4 and the spitv in 6.0, the AI used to crash taking off on narrow runways in 5.3b The issues raised weren't just ai takeoffs though. TS IP: Logged
ArgonV Pilot	posted 11-28- 02:30 PM Dude..... I wasnt complaining about the FM, (Or bitching about it) I was just saying for offline, if theres a problem use the stock until it can be sorted. Flight sim programmers DO make comprimises for the AI, otherwise the game is totally useless for off-line play. No one has yet to produce a descent AI for a flight sim... so until that day comprimises MUST be made for off-line use. On-line is a different story. IP: Logged
Snickers Pilot	posted 11-28- 04:30 PM I jumped into this thread late so I may have missed some things.... Won't comment on PP6.0 since I have been too busy with the PBY to even install it.... Just let me say this... Zur is right. It doesn't take a lot of time to do an FM well. It takes a H**L of a lot of time. I have worked on 2 FM's. The PBY which is being done from ground zero. (Yes Zur, I feel the pain). And the P38 (yes I have done things with it, but it is still in test and has a long way to go.) Why? because its a complex FM (Zur knew what he was doing when he said "Here Snick not a problem if you want to do it..." ). Changes are made with fear and trepidation... Then it has to be tested and often taken back to where it was (which is why you document _everything_ you change). I haven't been online much lately. At the moment it is more fun to build than to fly, especially with Beta 1 nearing... There should be some way of determining when a plane is "certified" as correct (at this time it is no longer touched unles there is some pressing need). (In the case of the PBY, it will be when a PBY check pilot and instructor I know says that it flies realistically AND it approaches the performance curves I have.) Unfortunately most planes in the sim are no longer type certified for general pilot usage so you won't find a check pilot. My $.02 worth, jumping off soapbox... ------------------ Snickers =FC= [This message has been edited by Snickers (edited 11-28-2000).] IP: Logged
Zurawski Pilot	posted 11-28- 05:29 PM ..ArgonV, Though a novel idea, it would honestly be defeating the PP online standard... You know as well as I do, that if people left to their own devices will ultimately screw up! Multiple PAR-systems would lead to a host of online compatability problems as I see it. ...Snickers, LOL! ... Well, be happy that I got to the 38 before you! At least now you have a sound base to build from! (I didn't have that luxury) I've calmed down ... and I know FM'rs are appreciated... It's just so darn fustrating when so many planes have incomplete FMs and they are used to judge the rest of the aircraft ... I'm better ... sorry for the emotions. IP: Logged
Jeeves Pilot	posted 11-28- 05:31 PM I agree with my fellow chickens here--- Zur and TS-- you don't hear it very often because we thickheads don't think to comment-- but your work is appreciated!! I enjoy getting FM updates and getting that much closer to flying like they did in the war...and I really feel that despite what seems to be constant criticism, your attention to detail is impeccable. Now-- I must admit (and I am no Tail or Mirthain when it comes to flying)-- but I went online not long ago after a long respite and jumped into a Mossie-- and from takeoff, I used the whole runway to get to 80 or 90 mph...she is heavy. I understand that according to your data, this is accurate. As I said, I am no expert (Hell-- I spend most of my time in SDOE making sure the AI carries out the missions I make)-- and if it is accurate, then I applaud your success. Maybe there is some advice now though for us having troubles with it? There is no worse feeling online then getting into a game after a long hiatus and jumping into the Mossie and struggling to take off...only to find yourself stalling into the ground after your long-fought battle to get airborne...not to mention the embarrassment What are we doing wrong? I remember the talk about the runways being too short-- and the fact that some were located on hills...but is it also possible that some of these online missions have Mossies with too much fuel in them? I am grasping at straws I know, but I am unable to get the dang Mossie off the ground...no criticism here-- just want some advice!!! Thanks again to all who have made SDOE the pleasure it is to me today! ------------------ Brought to you by the campaign for a better Dauntless! Jeeves =FC= IP: Logged
Zurawski Pilot	posted 11-28- 05:49 PM ... Jeeves, It's not all together unplausable ... In my mind the mossie is more like a bomber than a fighter... now if you recall the FM's of the bomber are relatively untouched as when historical data is applied to them they could neither take off nor climb to alt in a reasonable time because of the small'ish theater... Problem if I recall, was with the default FM (or slight modification) the Mossie was kicking the crap out'a 190s! Obviously this wasn't correct. What to do? ... beats me. IP: Logged
Spoonman Pilot	posted 11-28- 07:27 PM After much testing, I have found that by increasing the engine torque in the Mosie by 7%, the AI can properly takeoff with heavy bombloads. Or should I say, add the GST The climb rate is a little higher, but speeds are not affected. TS, did you want me to send you the Mosq.sm? I have other news in the gunWeight property which may allow us to fix the extra-deadly Flak units. Spoon IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-28- 08:45 PM What does "increasing torque" mean? Making the propeller blades a little wider near the center will make takeoffs easier with heavy loads and low end acceleration better if thats what you need.. TS IP: Logged
ArgonV Pilot	posted 11-28- 09:12 PM I believe increasing the gear ratio is what hes talking about. That or upping the engines HP without upping the engines RPM. This would give you a stronger engine at lower speeds but not increase the speed of the aircraft. I upped the engines HP on the Zepplin after I found a good RPM to help the Zepplin turn at low speeds (40-50 mph) without the AI loosing any altitude when doing so. [This message has been edited by ArgonV (edited 11-28-2000).] IP: Logged
Tailslide Pilot	posted 11-29- 12:09 AM Most planes have the gear ratio set to match the real life plane. Changing it will throw off sustained climb. TS IP: Logged

This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2 All times are CT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Fighter Squadron Information Center