OK, call me a heretic and ban me!

[gregoryp]

Hi Guys

I really love how the CFS3 community has matured so we can talk about this stuff. The Strike Fighters community is so fractured right now it’s frustrating. They are going through the phase of telling a dev about a simple bug is considered walking up to the Dev’s children and urinating on them. You have to be grateful the thing is there and shhhhhh, don’t criticize. They just don’t realize this attitude does more to hurt them than help them. It’s really important for feedback to get back to the dev’s to improve things. We’re not perfect, so the feedback really helps.

Nigel

The MAW FM’s are 159’s which have a bug in them. Also there is a massive technology increase compared to the 169’s. You should not stall/spin with a 109 until you way exceed the max AoA (thanks to those slats). And then whoa nelly!

Things to check.

• Make sure your trim is set to Zero.

• The lower the altitude better/easier. There is a bug in CFS/FS related to the elevator force model that really makes it hard to fly ACM at altitude. Try 2,500ft. You should not stall/spin. Strike Fighters doesn’t have this bug and I was shocked how easy/fun it was to fly a P-47M vs Ta152 at 30,000ft (plus the contrails were a neat feature). I’ve tried different techniques in CFS3 to model around this but no luck without screwing up everything else. This has been there since CFS1.

• Try the 169 Bf-109G-10DC. Just to see if it’s different. Now this version of the Bf-109 is very difficult to fly (well past it’s prime), but lets see if you have the stall/spin issue.

• Pull the stick back slowly. Aircraft with a lot of weight and high wing loads can over-pitch easily when that inertia gets moving.

• Last, make sure you have a minimum of 40fps (yes you can’t see that many, but the FM needs at least that many) with 60 being even better and 120 to get where professional sims are.

Hope this helps. In theory, the 4.0 flight models should be easier to fly than all that came before them.

[ndicki]

Thanks, Gregory! I'll try that. It is funny, though, because SOME of the 4.00 are nicer to fly... The only ones which really cause me grief are the Bf109e, D.520 and MS406. The others I can live with, or positively enjoy.

40FPS... I lie awake at night and dream of 40FPS. What wouldn't I give to get 40FPS... Rewind to what Donnybrooke says. P4 2.8C on a P4I65G, with 1.5GB RAM and 7600GS card. Perhaps not powerful enough, although it seems to manage. I don't have a PCIe slot - no recent MBs available for P4 processors round here - so I'm stuck with an AGP card, which in turn hold things back. Plus the Nvidia AGP bug...

What you say about the SF community is true, too. Other than one or two people I've worked with a bit - Russo and AleDucat - most of them are so touchy it's frightening. The overall standard of modelling and skinning is crap, and with one or two exceptions, nowhere near as good as what we get in CFS3. Of course, you can't actually say that, so there's no progress, despite the fact that Overkill's O-1 for example clearly shows what can be achieved. And the permanent level of squabbling is on a par with the worst peaks we've seen in CFS3. Which is a shame, because the actual platform has a lot of good in it - start with the fact that if you want to fly combat, the AIs really do put all their effort into trying to kill you!

[Mathias]

....... Plus the Nvidia AGP bug...

That makes me curious Nigel, can you elaborate a bit further on this one?

[lewis11777]

Nigel check your email!

[ndicki]

Mathias - there's a bug in the Nvidia 7X00 series drivers apparently, that causes the "Not getting enough power - lowering performance" alert to show - up to 100+ times!! - when you do a cold boot. When you let it run for a minute or two and reboot for all switched off, it's OK again.

This will explain better than I can, although to be honest, I don't understand everything he's saying either...

http://www.tweakpc.de/forum/nvidia-g...600gs-agp.html

Lewis - Thanks! Off to see...

[flyer01]

ndicki, After you talk about the D-520 I tryed them again and found that the D-520's in maw fly better then the D-520's in ETO. If I may ask sir which D-520 are you finding hard to fly?

flyer01

[ndicki]

ETO, actually. You may be on to something...

[greycap.raf]

I'm not sure if I've changed the flight models of my ETO Dewoitines, might well be, but at least quite late in development one of them had some quite serious issues - one of those being that the engine turned the wrong way round. Another being that it flew more like a B-26. If they're still that class...

[gregoryp]

Mathias - there's a bug in the Nvidia 7X00 series drivers apparently, that causes the "Not getting enough power - lowering performance" alert to show - up to 100+ times!! - when you do a cold boot. When you let it run for a minute or two and reboot for all switched off, it's OK again.

This will explain better than I can, although to be honest, I don't understand everything he's saying either...

http://www.tweakpc.de/forum/nvidia-g...600gs-agp.html

Lewis - Thanks! Off to see...

I run a AGP 7950 and you're right, I can't read any of those words

I haven't run into and problems with the 7950 in CFS3.

[gregoryp]

Thanks, Gregory! I'll try that. It is funny, though, because SOME of the 4.00 are nicer to fly... The only ones which really cause me grief are the Bf109e, D.520 and MS406. The others I can live with, or positively enjoy.

40FPS... I lie awake at night and dream of 40FPS. What wouldn't I give to get 40FPS... Rewind to what Donnybrooke says. P4 2.8C on a P4I65G, with 1.5GB RAM and 7600GS card. Perhaps not powerful enough, although it seems to manage. I don't have a PCIe slot - no recent MBs available for P4 processors round here - so I'm stuck with an AGP card, which in turn hold things back. Plus the Nvidia AGP bug...

What you say about the SF community is true, too. Other than one or two people I've worked with a bit - Russo and AleDucat - most of them are so touchy it's frightening. The overall standard of modelling and skinning is crap, and with one or two exceptions, nowhere near as good as what we get in CFS3. Of course, you can't actually say that, so there's no progress, despite the fact that Overkill's O-1 for example clearly shows what can be achieved. And the permanent level of squabbling is on a par with the worst peaks we've seen in CFS3. Which is a shame, because the actual platform has a lot of good in it - start with the fact that if you want to fly combat, the AIs really do put all their effort into trying to kill you!

I have a way to turn off my stall/spin code (I don’t use the MS one). Try the attached and see if this helps.

The thing is TK pays attention to the Jet guys, and they are producing some fantastic aircraft. Which is why he listens to them. The WW2 side is very lacking. The solution is really simple, they just need some real high quality visuals ported over that make use of LoD’s and nice detailed textures to go with them. Problem is no one is willing to be the one to take a step back to make the leap forward. What’s telling is the few old visuals Mathias donated to their modelers have much more detail and better frame rates. Yet they still push out the single LoD visuals that turn your computer into a slide show when a bunch are on the screen. There are some good low poly aircraft. For Christmas all I want is MAW ported over.

And yes you are correct about the AI. It’s the first sim I’ve seen 8 Corsair’s defeat 8 Zero’s. The bombers I’ve been doing lately have just really exceeded expectations. I have so much control over the gunners and how they operate. The hit ratio is low so you can attack a formation of bombers and live to tell about it. I remember this one scene of these 9 B-17’s in a tight step-down box formation throwing a ton of tracers toward this attacking Zero and not hitting him as he made his run.

Anyway, hope the attached helps.

[BeauBrummie]

Blimey what an interesting thread to catch up on after a couple of days away.

Nigel you're right about not having the time to learn to fly in a realistic way. I tend to stick to particular planes that I can fly with reasonable ease and not so much ones that are too tricky for me. I lack the theory and lately the practice of flight.

Regarding the v4 FM, I would like to congratulate GregoryP for giving the Mosquito its best ever FM with this version. I've 'bullied/nagged' Rob into making sure the ETO mossies have this in the forthcoming update.

I have hardly flown the latest ETO 109's, but I have had a go recently in Househobbit's BoB missions and I stuck with this tricky bird during the testing and was pleased to find that I did improve!

[ndicki]

Thanks Gregory! I'll give it a spin...

Actually, the thing that's holding SF up is the modelling program used - it's expensive. TK explained why it was that way round - for CFS3 to use GMAX, MS paid for the licence. TK can't afford that kind of outlay, so it's the modeller who has to pay. The problem is that it leaves our most talented model-makers unable to do the job themselves, and on the other hand, the SF crowd seems to be unwilling to make the effort. I know all about single LOD aircraft, grief, I do...
What's the trick for reducing the effectiveness of AI gunners? I have a terrible record of trying to attack Beagles and failing...

[viso]

When I read that this was a gripe regarding a French aircraft, I simply had to post. Great to hear from you guys again!

Yes, I would have to agree. The D.520 flight model was always twitchy and it did tend to spin rather easily. MS.406 was perhaps a little bit better. Post again if the fix works.

We should round up the gang some time and do some multiplayer French missions. Time zones be damned.

Regarding the AI gunners, I recall that we reduced the gun rotation speed from 60 (typical setting) to something like 17 (compromise) or 05 (pure AI). That figure is the number of degrees that the gun can traverse in one second.

[gregoryp]

Thanks Gregory! I'll give it a spin...

Actually, the thing that's holding SF up is the modelling program used - it's expensive. TK explained why it was that way round - for CFS3 to use GMAX, MS paid for the licence. TK can't afford that kind of outlay, so it's the modeller who has to pay. The problem is that it leaves our most talented model-makers unable to do the job themselves, and on the other hand, the SF crowd seems to be unwilling to make the effort. I know all about single LOD aircraft, grief, I do...
What's the trick for reducing the effectiveness of AI gunners? I have a terrible record of trying to attack Beagles and failing...

What Viso said and also increasing the gun Noise= to like 2. This causes the bullets to not fire directly at you but off several degrees in random directions.

You do realize you don't have to pay full retail with well-phrased statements when you buy it? That GMax license was 80K when MS bought it. Can you even get Gmax anymore?

[gregoryp]

When I read that this was a gripe regarding a French aircraft, I simply had to post. Great to hear from you guys again!

Yes, I would have to agree. The D.520 flight model was always twitchy and it did tend to spin rather easily. MS.406 was perhaps a little bit better. Post again if the fix works.

We should round up the gang some time and do some multiplayer French missions. Time zones be damned.

You know those French!

That would be a blast flying online again! It was so much fun when we were testig MAW. MAW was definitly one of the most fun times in my life with all of us working together.

[marklaur]

I would have to agree, flight models are getting to hard. I am only a very casual flyer, on easy settings for evey sim that I can.

Like others I know I am not into realism just fun.

Cheers MarkL

[BEAR - AvHistory]

I would have to agree, flight models are getting to hard. I am only a very casual flyer, on easy settings for evey sim that I can.

Like others I know I am not into realism just fun.

Cheers MarkL

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 Bandy RFC]

What's the trick for reducing the effectiveness of AI gunners? I have a terrible record of trying to attack Beagles and failing... :

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!!!

[hairyspin]

You do realize you don't have to pay full retail with well-phrased statements when you buy it? That GMax license was 80K when MS bought it. Can you even get Gmax anymore?

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]

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.

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]

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.

That's just what I wanted to know! Thanks.

Now back to CFS3!

[noelberrier]

The big problem isn't so much that you can't fly them to the absolute limits, it's that the AI can - and with much lighter aircraft at that. If your opponents were prone to errors like humans are and their aircraft were loaded with a ton of fuel you'd probably find fighting a lot easier as you wouldn't have to extract 110% just to stay with them, let alone shoot them down.

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 ...)

[gregoryp]

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.

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.

[ndicki]

Interesting...

I tried the 109G-10 - flies nicely. Not a problem in sight...

[eddie]

Hi Guys

I really love how the CFS3 community has matured so we can talk about this stuff. The Strike Fighters community is so fractured right now it’s frustrating. They are going through the phase of telling a dev about a simple bug is considered walking up to the Dev’s children and urinating on them. You have to be grateful the thing is there and shhhhhh, don’t criticize. They just don’t realize this attitude does more to hurt them than help them. It’s really important for feedback to get back to the dev’s to improve things. We’re not perfect, so the feedback really helps.

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!