[slipper]

I know this is a bit of a taboo subject, and that there should be no FM changes to 4.08/4.09, to which i agree (partly), but my point is this.

I am very grateful for the addon aircraft, but some of the planes FM models are way below the normal standard for IL2 aircraft.
I know this is partly because they were never meant to be flyable, and that they are probably easier for the AI to handle, but the AI manages to cope with aircraft that were originally flyable in IL2.

So i was wondering if there was any support for the changing of FM,s for the modded planes only, i am not able to do this myself, nor do i know if it is at all possible, but i just wanted to test the water, and see other peoples views on the subject.

Thanks to all the modders for expanding this great game.

regards
slipper

[15/JG52_Riddler]

I know this is a bit of a taboo subject, and that there should be no FM changes to 4.08/4.09, to which i agree (partly), but my point is this.

I am very grateful for the addon aircraft, but some of the planes FM models are way below the normal standard for IL2 aircraft.
I know this is partly because they were never meant to be flyable, and that they are probably easier for the AI to handle, but the AI manages to cope with aircraft that were originally flyable in IL2.

So i was wondering if there was any support for the changing of FM,s for the modded planes only, i am not able to do this myself, nor do i know if it is at all possible, but i just wanted to test the water, and see other peoples views on the subject.

Thanks to all the modders for expanding this great game.

regards
slipper

FM is the same for all aircraft, AI or otherwise.

For 4.05 FM modding is possible. New flyables should have the appropriate FM (I did the Spit MkI, MkII, still waiting for beta testers feedback). For 4.08/4.09 I don't know, never tried it...

What I'd like to make is a comprehensive mod featuring multiple enhancements, new aircraft, sound, loadouts, nations as well as tweaks (like 190 "bar", etc), new nations, realistic gunsight reticles, new maps, etc. all in one package. The idea is to make it possible to play online campaigns with the mod. Of course, the biggest obstacle is ensuring that everone uses the same mod, same FM, etc.

[Trooper117]

FM is the same for all aircraft, AI or otherwise.

If you have flown some of the AI aircraft that are now 'flyable' and you have been following several threads on the subject, you will know that that statement is not strictly true..
Just look at some of the sea/float planes, and there are small light aircraft that can almost lift a large glider off almost from a standstill.. The Avenger is another, also the Japanese Torpedoe aircraft do not respond as they should.. We live with the imperfections because it's the only way we have to fly these planes.. But to blindly say the FM is the same for all is incorrect.

[15/JG52_Riddler]

FM is the same for all aircraft, AI or otherwise.

If you have flown some of the AI aircraft that are now 'flyable' and you have been following several threads on the subject, you will know that that statement is not strictly true..
Just look at some of the sea/float planes, and there are small light aircraft that can almost lift a large glider off almost from a standstill.. The Avenger is another, also the Japanese Torpedoe aircraft do not respond as they should.. We live with the imperfections because it's the only way we have to fly these planes.. But to blindly say the FM is the same for all is incorrect.

I haven't been precise: formulas, parameters, the calculations seem to be the same, perhaps they only need a bit of tweaking.

[ROSOBORONEXPORTCORP]

The FMs are fundamentally good for the AI aircraft (if a bit less tweaked). Sea-plane water drag is clearly an issue. But this isn't flight model or damage model it is kinetic model so its not covered by the ban right

There may also be an issue with some of the AI aircraft regarding flyability - but I believe this is centered on control deflection speeds and the updated joystick routines.

I won't speak to the possibilities of modding the FM in later versions or provide any advice in that direction. It is possible in 4.05 though.

[VT-51_Razor]

The FMs are fundamentally good for the AI aircraft (if a bit less tweaked). Sea-plane water drag is clearly an issue. But this isn't flight model or damage model it is kinetic model so its not covered by the ban right

Is this something that you can really change?!! If so, would it also apply to land planes as well? There are some land planes that suffer from way too much drag/lack of acceleration on land. Ju-87, Bf-110 and the Jug come to mind. Those planes require an inordinate amount of power to taxi, and at full power, they take forever to get off the ground. I'm not saying that their FM is porked, but asking if it could be because the kinetic drag model is off.???

[Username]

Generally, I see no need to alter the FMs of the new flyables. I like some of them being difficult, others a bit quirky. It gives them individual character. But when it comes to physics errors, then I really would like them to have some attention: the Tante Ju 'bounce', the Storch Hercules impression, the Japanese seaplane that coasts on forever - these things should be corrected IMO.

Another example; I just read on Avia Sim, the Russian forum, that someone has discovered why the Tu2 swings violently on take-off and when taxiing. The 3D model is fine, but the FM has incorrect parameters entered. It thinks one engine is further from the centreline than the other, hence the unequal turning effect. I think this kind of indefensible error should be corrected.

[Trooper117]

All good points, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.. If you say it's ok to tweak some because you aren't happy with it, then someone else will not like their favourite flyable that has something they want corrected.. It's all or nothing, otherwise there will definately be no parity!

[Username]

All good points, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.. If you say it's ok to tweak some because you aren't happy with it, then someone else will not like their favourite flyable that has something they want corrected.. It's all or nothing, otherwise there will definately be no parity!

"All or nothing". How about a poll? Oh no, we did that... :wink: Online paranoia rules.

[ROSOBORONEXPORTCORP]

VT-51_Razor: Everything is possible but I think that the original player flyable aircraft probably have correct modeling of landing gear physics. One can't make rash decisions about these things in anycase and it would be very hard to build a convincing case. Besides, I am not sure we can edit tire/float drag. It may be the case that float planes do indeed not develop accurate water drag but I'm not totally convinced that even this is the case.

Generally, I see no need to alter the FMs of the new flyables. I like some of them being difficult, others a bit quirky. It gives them individual character.

Certainly, it is a wonderful thing to fly the C-47, I wouldn't change these planes. The control deflection delays may not be properly correlated with the new joystick routines in a couple of aircraft though (Avenger and Su-2 aerolans), although I am not convinced of this either.

Trooper117: It is very rare to have an "all or nothing" situation. One could much more easily say that you need to leave things completely in Oleg's hands or you need to accept any and all mods proposed.

[Trooper117]

We have already seen the outcome of a split community... and its very sad.
But if you decide to alter or tweak FM/DM on one or two aircraft because its deemed ok. it will open the flood gates.. In fact I can see it splitting the community even further, because you will then be denying other people their quite legitimate fixes..
I personaly think that original aircraft should be left as is, but anything that has come after that should be fair game to 'historical' modding..
However, I can also live with the descision not to touch FM/DM, but I think it would be wrong to alter 'bits' on some but not others... Thats just my perception on things. :wink:

[Username]

To clarify, when I talk about 'physics', I mean mainly interactions with the ground, whether land or sea.
I don't have the code in front of me so I've no way of knowing what parameters have been taken into account, but I would guess things like coefficient of friction, spring rate, damping, braking efficiency, hydrodynamic pressure (for seaplanes). Some of these things interact with certain ground effects - like sea swell and rough terrain - in ways that create unrealistic actions for some aircraft. They need tweaking for individual aircraft, case by case.

I don't see that altering them has anything to do with FMs or DMs. That's why I feel they should be OK to mod, where necessary. We really need another term for this group of parameters to mentally separate them and free them up for discussion and amendment.

Where it gets complicated is for things like the Storch, which seems to produce huge power on take-off when towing another aircraft. In this case I suspect the game regards the towed object as having almost zero weight, when combined with the Storch. It may or may not be a FM thing - it could just be an oddball piece of coding.

The Tu2 thing is sloppy work, a misplaced thrustline parameter. We have a FM that doesn't represent reality - it doesn't even represent what Maddox Games surely intended.

Incidentally, I didn't read all of the Avenger threads, but wasn't the c of g altered by MrJolly to make it more flyable? Apologies, if that's not the case :wink: And how was Ranwers' recent Japanese floatplane mod made to float? :wink:

[Trooper117]

No argument from me on those points mate.. But you know and I know people will chirp up and say, 'why is it ok to do that but not this'.. I'm all for it if it enhances the game and is as historical as they can make it... but some will say its not fair to add this as thats historical too.. it could be a can of worms..

[SG2_Wasy]

FM?