I have three versions of FE up and running. One fully modded pre-EP with Peter's FMs, one fully modded EP (again Peter's version), and one Apr. Patched EP. I enjoy them all for different reasons. If I want to fly in 1915/16, I still prefer the pre-EP version for those planes. If I want to be Superpilot in my Superplane I'll fire up the post patch EP and jump in the Camel 150...its virtually unbeatable. They all have their good and bad points. All that really needs to be done to the EP version, IMHO, is to cut down the roll rates for most planes. That is the "questionable" part but thats just my opinion based on various accounts and information (I'll admit its very difficult to find very much good info on flight characteristics) gleaned from the internet. I really liked how you had to use your rudder to aid in maneuvering with Peter's older FMs. Some of that is missing in the EP because the ailerons were made more effective (TK's doing, not Peter's). I think that aspect of the older FMs was more "realistic". To each his own, I suppose.

When I got married, my online time dropped quite a bit, but I still maintained a 24-hour dogfight server and popped in for 1-3 hours almost every night...

With the birth of my son over 20 months ago, that all changed.
While I remain a strong proponent of Third Wire sims as viable online multiplayer games, I now have so many restrictions such as free time and noise level (i.e. talking on teamspeak in the room next to the sleeping baby) that I just don't even bother to try to play online.

Also, with the free time restrictions, I spend far less time flying and have lost much of my dogfighting skills... particularly my gunnery.

I don't see my current situation changing anytime soon.
So it is a matter of pure chance when I do get a free night.
The hassles of trying to find someone, match installs, sort out connection issues, and figure out what everyone wants to do (i.e. coop, dogfight, date, terrain, etc.) ensure that I don't waste my rare free nights hanging out in Hyperlobby.

I'd agree roll could be slower.

More generally, a sim engine really develped for ww1 flying would model roll differently, and rudder to a lesser extent, to any we have yet seen. In terms of smoothness, effect and pilot feedback ... sensitve control feedback, responsive though not as effective, maybe crotchety too.

Hope to see it someday.

TK's engine wasn't developed to model any one type of aircraft...
It uses aerodynamic coefficients and corresponding equations.
So feel free to tweak the data.ini for each aircraft to get whatever results you think are more realistic, then post them for others to use/critique.

What you will find is that determining that aerodynamic response of aircraft is very complex.
TK's engine was originally optimized for single wing jet-engined aircraft (i.e. he only put in the variables needed to support fast jet combat).
With the release of First Eagles Expansion pack and the follow up patch... you get rotary engines and much better stall support... other than that, the game engine already had almost everything needed to support WWI flight.

Just because TK likes to provide "lite" FMs with the stock game doesn't mean the game engine can't support realistic flight models... but it takes an exceptional amount of math skills and hard data to produce a realistic flight model.

Tweak away until you are happy, but unless you have access to a very large wind tunnel and accurate models to perform testing on, it will be a long time before you arrive at numbers that I would consider realistic and acceptable.

Buy First Flight (the Wright Brothers sim based on the SFP1 game engine)... in this case, they did their wind tunnel research and completely replaced TK's flight engine with their own. But the results are very fun and challenging... but the cost was $50 for a sim that essentially models only one aircraft with no combat. Realism costs time, money, and manpower... TK mainly works alone and sacrifices some realism for sake of fun gameplay and shorter production times. But TK left most of his files open to editing and the core engine is extremely capable of realistically modeling most aspects of aerodynamics. I say most, because I already know of a few special cases it can't handle, or handles very poorly, but that goes back to the realm of fast jets...

Very interesting about First Flight. Before TK came out with the expansion pack I considered buying that game. I figured that if TK could model the Wright Brothers first plane and model it to be actually used to train the persons who were going to fly the newly constructed flier then TK's flight model possibilities must be everything we want.

Regardless, I like FE very much.

I have First Flight.
You get what you pay for... one of the most detailed flight models available.
This is no approximation based on a handful of performance charts.
This is a flight model developed from extensive wind tunnel tests.
The Wright brothers chose to use a canard to maximize lift since their engine was so weak.
But canards create very poor pitch stability, so they essentially built an unstable aircraft that by modern design standards should be controlled via fly-by-wire.
Unlike an F-117, which cannot be flown without computers, the response of the Wright Flyer is slow enough that you can get used to it and keep it flying until you run out of fuel.
I am sure many WWI fighters had equally interesting characteristics, most notably aircraft like the Camel which killed more pilots on landings and takeoffs than in air combat.

I think the Fokker E series is good example. Underpowered, directionally unstable, and by all accounts difficult to fly. The Germans tried to up-engine it with the E IV and the result was an almost totally unflyable aircraft. Yes. It was "better" than its main target, the slow and cumbersome two-seaters of its day, but what really "made" the Fokker E was the synchronized gun that could be directly aimed by the pilot. It was TOTALLY outclassed by subsequent western fighters. I've read claims the N-11, for example, could literally turn twice inside the E's turn radius.

Thats true.

But if we are talking realism and the advantages/disadvantages of one combat aircraft versus another, then some changes would need to made for the N11 too, that aren't all really possible AFAIK.

Reloads shouldn't be allowed unless you fly straight or hands off controls for a period of time to simulate the difficulty of reloading a gun mounted above. The bullet trajectory should be offset as it fired over the propeller, currently it fires along a line to a point as if its thru the prop, wherever that point is defined (no convergence factor).

Even if all this is possible in the game, including the difficulty of say flying a E4, would most people like that, really? Some yes, but most? Ideally, realism such as reloads, convergence etc would be included as difficulty options.

But to simulate "real" realism lol, is never ending, from performance and particular plane factors eg gun reloads, right thru to surprise/tactics even missions .. E4 pilots as you say probably didn't meet many N11s, campaigns are needed for pilots that like to fly say a spinning gyroscope, but then should fly against typical targets, not N11s continually.

You can't really make one part of the game or plane realistic in complete isolation to other aspects/planes.

Not saying its all not worth trying, just that its a long path... for any ww1 game on offer, not just FE.

Different people want different things out of any given sim...
The perfect sim would have an interface that would allow anyone to easily configure it to suit their needs 100%.

TK doesn't have anywhere near the resources needed to create the "perfect" sim in any reasonable amount of time in a way that pays his bills... so instead, he targets a market where he feels there is a significant demand and has little or no competition: single player "lite" survey sims that are somewhat realistic and fun to play... the multiplayer gameplay, however limited it may be, is an added bonus, since TK has determined the multiplayer crowd is insignificant in size compared to his target market and would be a waste of his limited resources to support any more than he has.

For me (and quite a few other longtime SFP1 veterans), TK's approach is stressful. His engine has the potential to be the most realistic hardcore sims ever made. But he is more interested in sticking to his business plan and going for the largest audience he can reach rather than catering to a few die hard flight sim types.

To be honest, the older I get (and less free time I have) the more I appreciate the "lite" fun approach. I can always play Falcon 4.0 for truly hard core combat flight and MSFS or X-plane for maximum realism of non-combat flight.

However, TK has consistently added more and more features/realism with each new release. So maybe sometime in the future his sims will reach the hardcore level...

Well I'm not sure the "graphic" of the spinning prop on the N 11 in game is accurate. Mounting the Lewis gun on the top wing above the propeller arc solved the lack of synchronization problem. The gun wasn't angled upward AFAIK so "direct" aiming was possible. The N-11 was no doubt successful with this arrangement. The RAF kept it on the N 17 and even included it on the SE5a. If one wanted to simulate reloading difficulties they could increase the reloading time in the data.ini. Not a perfect solution but perhaps better than the current 6 second time.

But here we are getting into another "reality" versus "game" discussion. That wasn't my intent with my comments on the E IV. I was just thinking of "real life" WWI planes with some "interesting characteristics" as streakeagle suggested.