#4021534 - 10/12/14 08:26 PM
Re: inconclusive engagements
[Re: OldHat]
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 224
CCIP
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 224
|
Or fix unexpected problems....but fortunately, the change is easily reversible, so no permanent damage done.
I've been using that tweak plus another one which modifies how low the AI can fly above ground and I haven't noticed any negative impacts. Missions get generated as usual, waypoints are followed by AI and I even get promotions and medals when I can survive.
Now, I even notice damaged enemies will try to escape while flying at tree top level... a bit difficult to finish those ones off without ramming into them or clipping the trees. Out of curiosity, what is that altitude tweak?
If you're having trim problems, I feel bad for you son I got ninety-nine problems, but my pitch ain't one...
|
|
|
#4021668 - 10/13/14 05:42 AM
Re: inconclusive engagements
[Re: CCIP]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
Out of curiosity, what is that altitude tweak? Edit the simulation.xml file with notepad and look for the line that reads MIN_AGL_met=. I had previously set this value to 15, but now have it at 25. You can take fights down to the deck, so it definately adds another dimension to dogfights when you're up against lighter enemy crafts, but some of the heavier planes will do weird stunts and sometimes crash into the ground, so it's not perfect. But if I'm limping back to base flying low at tree top level, most of the time I'll get shot up.
|
|
|
#4021868 - 10/13/14 07:10 PM
Re: inconclusive engagements
[Re: lederhosen]
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 224
CCIP
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 224
|
Thank you, I will give that a try! No tweak is perfect, and even at moderate altitudes I notice the AI will sometimes do some less-than-smart things while escaping (like flying directly into heavy MG ground fire), but anything that makes it more challenging and more like what I would do if I was desperate to run. So far the engagement distance tweak seems to be working and not breaking anything for me either!
If you're having trim problems, I feel bad for you son I got ninety-nine problems, but my pitch ain't one...
|
|
|
#4023101 - 10/16/14 06:06 AM
Re: inconclusive engagements
[Re: lederhosen]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
I've lowered the visibility of the AI down to 2.5km which is unrealistic, but from my understanding, it does provide semi-realistic encounter rates.
I may be way off the mark here, but from what I've read so far in this forum, a typical month in 1916 for a fighter pilot (of course it depends on sector activity, but I'm taking an average) would be about 9 patrols per month (or 1 patrol every 3 to 4 days). Also, an enemy encounter would happen every 4 patrols, so that makes it about 2 to 3 enemy encounters per month.
So, in one year I would fly ~108 patrols (+/- sector activity) and have ~30 enemy encounters. If I were to play WOFF this way, I'd need to advance time a few days after each patrol and lower the AI visibility even further to get a single encouter after 4 patrols.
I'll try this method out for a while and see if I like it. I won't factor in leaves or anything else that would complicate this equation for now.
|
|
|
#4023321 - 10/16/14 06:43 PM
Re: inconclusive engagements
[Re: Creaghorn]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
They flew as many times as the historical setting in WOFF dictates it. In calm times once or twice, in busy times twice or more. Didn't know this. I'm still learning here, so excuse my ignorance on this subject. I'll have to use Wikipedia here because I don't know any other source: Aerial career summaryOlieslagers was an excellent pilot; he had his brother Jules for a talented mechanic. The combination usually meant a reliable airplane under the ace, but on 9 November 1918, engine problems brought Jan Olieslagers down in a field near Eeklo. It was his 518th and final combat sortie; he had fought in 97 dogfights over a four-year stretch. From 1915 to 1918 he flew 518 patrols. So, the question is that if I were to follow his career path in WOFF, would I end up flying a similar number of patrols and engage in about the same number of dogfights by the end of 1918?
|
|
|
#4023326 - 10/16/14 06:49 PM
Re: inconclusive engagements
[Re: Creaghorn]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
MIN_AGL_met is not how low they can fight btw. After testing in QMB, they were shooting at my plane while I was flying about 250 feet above ground. http://SimHQ.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4009149/Re:_Messing_with_xml_files#Post4009149 This was not possible without adjusting the number to a lower value in simulation.xml file. EDIT: Posting a pic taken from a campaign today. Flying with RFC 11 being chased from NML upto my base by 3 angry EIIIs because I just destroyed their balloon. Luckily I was a bit faster then them, so they never caught up and eventually gave up for home.
Last edited by OldHat; 10/16/14 08:39 PM. Reason: Added a pic
|
|
|
#4023335 - 10/16/14 07:00 PM
Re: inconclusive engagements
[Re: DukeIronHand]
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
OldHat
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,595
|
However realism does not always make a great simulation. Most gamers would not like nine uneventful flights for every combat experienced. Very real perhaps but also quite dull.
I agree with your assessment. However, the other side of the coin is that you fly every "game day" of the year and if you don't die and fly say 2 missions per day, then you finish the game in about 1.5 years. I'd rather have a compromise somewhere where I can finish the game after about 200 real hours of play. I'd go through the game once as a British Scout earning medals, promotions, new planes along the way and then repeat the game as a German on my next play through. But this is just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|