Developer Diary, Part 88 - Discussion

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I16....I16...I16...brainwashing complete...I16..

 

Yes, but come on, it's the tubby little fighter! The epitome of crap-plane so far!

 

I loved that funny little fighter since the first time I saw it.

[oneeyeddog]

What do you mean?

You don't see the pic?

I can see it...

The pic won't load for me either, ST_ ami. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Here is what I have found so far on the use of War Emergency Power on P-40 aircraft.  Info taken from "America's Hundred Thousand" by Francis H. Dean.

 

There is no mention of W.E.P. in any P-40 until the P-40K equipped with the Allison V-1710-73.

 

The P-40E with the Allison V-1710-39 was rated as follows...

 

Take Off:  1150 HP at sea level with 3000 rpm and 46.2" HG manifold pressure.

 

Military Power:  1150 HP at 12,000ft with 3000 rpm and 46.2" HG manifold pressure.

 

Normal Power:  1000 HP at 11,000ft. with 2600 rpm and 38.7" HG manifold pressure.

 

Am waiting for more info from another source, but I suspect this is correct for the P-40-E as used by the VVS, and everyone else that had them, not counting the tinkering with supercharger gear ratios that was done in the field to allow these engines to run at 70 odd inches of mercury.

Edited February 17, 2015 by BlitzPig_EL

[Descolada]

is there any record of the VVS increasing the boost? that would be a nice field mod to have

[Geralt]

... what about the Junkers Ju87-B Model ? So far we just have the D-Model ... and what about the FW-189 (Uhu),

this could be used solely as AI-plane but could be of good use for escort missions (if we had a real campaign) where you have to protect a recon-flight ? Just a suggestion ...

[ST_ami7b5]

The pic won't load for me either, ST_ ami. 

And now?

[oneeyeddog]

And now?

Yes I can see it now. Thanks, St_ami.

[sallee]

Yes, but come on, it's the tubby little fighter! The epitome of crap-plane so far!

 

I loved that funny little fighter since the first time I saw it.

I was just referring to the "brainwashing" comments above!

 

I love the I-16 as well...even before the brainwashing. Even my wife likes the I-16..."ooh, I like that one. It's really cubby."

[Deadly_Dolphin]

Love the news, but couldnt help being sad they arent working on a Korean era sim.... Imagine the sabre vs the migs with this physics engine and Damage model 0_o

[Finkeren]

Love the news, but couldnt help being sad they arent working on a Korean era sim.... Imagine the sabre vs the migs with this physics engine and Damage model 0_o

The key phrase here is 'finish what you started'. The devs started the Eastern Front, it would be sad for them to leave it right away.

 

Besides: DCS will soon be able to fill your needs for detailed, high quality Korean War air combat. Better to have the sims available to us supplement each other rather than all try to do the same thing.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Finkeren

[LonnyEnds]

Any plan for Dx11 or 12?

+1

 

And controllable graphics options

[Static]

+1

 

And controllable graphics options

About DX11 & 12? They are going to milk their DX9 engine into the forseable future.

 

Custom graphics settings? I doubt BoM will include them or they would have mentioned added the settings back to BoS. What a shame they stripped away an integral part of a PC based program.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Static

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

About DX11 & 12? They are going to milk their DX9 engine into the forseable future.

Custom graphics settings? I doubt BoM will include them or they would have mentioned added the settings back to BoS. What a shame they stripped away an integral part of a PC based program.

 

Dude..drop the passive aggressive poor fella attitude and read what Zak has written about DX9 and advances gfx settings instead.

[Static]

Dude..drop the passive aggressive poor fella attitude and read what Zak has written about DX9 and advances gfx settings instead.

 

Passive aggressive poor fella attitude? Lol! Could you post the link kind fella? 

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

Passive aggressive poor fella attitude? Lol! Could you post the link kind fella? 

its in the back of this thread you claim you have read..

[Static]

I never claimed to have read every post in this thread Mastiff? Lol!

[wellenbrecher]

I assume he meant this:

 

Loft just told me that we can offer you guys a deal: you find us a good programmer and we consider such engine upgrade.

 

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

the other problem is the sound engine they use which is the Fmod, its basically built only for First Person Shooters, and planes fly faster than a person running on the ground.

 

FMOD needs to build a better sound engine meant for flying.

 

or 777/1C, need to up the volume in the individual objects sounds?

 

I wonder if their sound guy is deaf?

 

@ST_ami7b5, beautiful screen shot.

Edited February 18, 2015 by 71st_Mastiff

[II./JG77_Manu*]

the other problem is the sound engine they use which is the Fmod, its basically built only for First Person Shooters, and planes fly faster than a person running on the ground.

 

FMOD needs to build a better sound engine meant for flying.

 

 

This is the thing that bothers me second most in this Sim, right after the broken FMs. If they don't figure those 2 things out, me and my squadmates won't gonna buy expansion(s).

If they would figure this out, i would spend double or triple from the BoS price to have an awesome flight sim. But in this conditions it has right now, i won't gonna even spend 30 more bucks.

[Sokol1]

 

[Static]

http://www.toptal.com/software?utm_source=&utm_medium=cpc%24%24%24search&utm_term=programmer%20for%20hire&utm_content=65364111919&utm_campaign=Google%24%24%24Search%20%7C%20USA%20%7C%20No%20Skills%20%7C%20Unique%20Adgroups%20%7C%20Broad%20Match&matchtype=b&network=g&device=m&devicemodel=&adposition=1t1&gclid=CKOC-uOc6sMCFROAaQod6YQASQ

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

http://www.toptal.com/software?utm_source=&utm_medium=cpc%24%24%24search&utm_term=programmer%20for%20hire&utm_content=65364111919&utm_campaign=Google%24%24%24Search%20%7C%20USA%20%7C%20No%20Skills%20%7C%20Unique%20Adgroups%20%7C%20Broad%20Match&matchtype=b&network=g&device=m&devicemodel=&adposition=1t1&gclid=CKOC-uOc6sMCFROAaQod6YQASQ

hope they are hirable?

[LonnyEnds]

I can see an upgrade to DX11 etc being very time consuming but eventual VR would be awesome. 

 

The graphics presets though...

[Jade_Monkey]

what palpable improvements would we see with an upgrade to DX11? I'm not asking about Oculus compatibility, but graphical improvements for a typical PC.

 

I'm very pleased with the graphics as they are right now.

[Jupp]

~S~ Everyone,

 

Cannot hardly wait for the mission builder to arrive. It is going to go a long way towards improving the lay of the land around here, me thinks.

 

[LonnyEnds]

what palpable improvements would we see with an upgrade to DX11? I'm not asking about Oculus compatibility, but graphical improvements for a typical PC.

 

I'm very pleased with the graphics as they are right now.

 

I'm just interested in VR support TBH. Also think it looks good with DX 9. (just add custom gfx options like we had in early access in addition to presets!)

[Jupp]

[BlackDevil]

I can see an upgrade to DX11 etc being very time consuming but eventual VR would be awesome.

 

The graphics presets though...

There is no proof yet, that VR will work at all for dogfight flightsims. Perhaps it will need some more years, if at all any VR company cares for this niche market. I don't think, it would be a smart business decision, to spend any money at the moment for this. BoS has very good graphics. Why spend money for DX11 ?

Graphic presets though....

Edited February 18, 2015 by BlackDevil

[Jupp]

~S~,

 

Virtual Reality is already a dead issue. So also are, other DX's, changing the name of the series, the scope of the theatres / aircraft involved, and Elvis.

 

Could we please discuss things that are actually relevant to what we do have, in hand, and, what the developers have outlined in their diary. AkA this Topic.

 

Everything else is just barking at the moon.

 

Have a super day!

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I agree they are all dead issues for both this thread and the next year. Based, however, on some dev responses over the last several months, I think there will be some wiggle room down the road on all these topics other than Elvis. Now let's roll on Moscow!!

Edited February 18, 2015 by HerrMurf

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Virtual Reality is already a dead issue

 

It is definitely not. Oculus Rift is a dead issue (for now) for this game, but there are plenty of other companies working on VR devices. VR takes at least another 5 (rather 8-10) years anyway, to be in a state, comparable to our normal screens in terms of graphics and performance. But if this series wants to become a true successor of old IL2, it will be still very much up-do-date in 5 years, and till then, when VR reaches the mass market slowly, it should definitely be compatible with it, this will become the "to play or not to play"-cause for flight sims.

[kendo]

I can see an upgrade to DX11 etc being very time consuming but eventual VR would be awesome. 

 

The graphics presets though...

 

I came across an old interview with Loft from Dec 2012 in which he said upgrading the engine was not that big a deal. Here's the quote:

 

"Translation platform DX10-11 is only a few months, no problems with it not, at this point we just do not see why do we need it. Unfortunately, most people just do not ponimaeyut (sic!?) why they need it. I would be delighted if Nvidia will be sponsored us for such transfer of technology to the new DX, they obviously need it."

(I don't have a link. For some reason I saved this to a word doc and by chance came across it this week)

 

 

It is definitely not. Oculus Rift is a dead issue (for now) for this game, but there are plenty of other companies working on VR devices. VR takes at least another 5 (rather 8-10) years anyway, to be in a state, comparable to our normal screens in terms of graphics and performance. But if this series wants to become a true successor of old IL2, it will be still very much up-do-date in 5 years, and till then, when VR reaches the mass market slowly, it should definitely be compatible with it, this will become the "to play or not to play"-cause for flight sims.

 

 

I think the OR situation is the switch point that will lead them to implementing an engine upgrade. It is the compelling reason that Loft referred to as lacking in the above quote.

Edited February 18, 2015 by kendo

[Saurer]

I came across an old interview with Loft from Dec 2012 in which he said upgrading the engine was not that big a deal. Here's the quote:

 

"Translation platform DX10-11 is only a few months, no problems with it not, at this point we just do not see why do we need it. Unfortunately, most people just do not ponimaeyut (sic!?) why they need it. I would be delighted if Nvidia will be sponsored us for such transfer of technology to the new DX, they obviously need it."

(I don't have a link. For some reason I saved this to a word doc and by chance came across it this week)

 

 

I think the OR situation is the switch point that will lead them to implementing an engine upgrade. It is the compelling reason that Loft referred to as lacking in the above quote.

 

But still it will not happen to soon i imagine. First their lead programmer is seriously ill, and right now the programmers are focusing on the FMB and the DServer I imagine.

Only after this tools are released I would expect news on that.

[kendo]

Probably true.

[Blitzen]

Initially posted in "Questions to developeers" but it may have some better answers here(?)

 

 The recent good news of the addition to BoS of The Battle of Moscow has pushed me off the dime to pose a few questions that have been rattling around in my head since the advent of this sim & even perhaps to its older brother RoFto the developers .Bare in mind I have no ax to grind or Ox to gore.I do like the sim & its eye-candy of aircraft & equipment ,atmosphere,& maps ( although I am a bit weary of Winter ( as good as it is...) I admit.So here we go:

 1.)Aircraft in missions-several questions here all relating to how the sim is formatted or limited.

  It seems to have some of the same mission limits as RoF .Missions even or especially in campaigns seem to be limited to about 16 airplanes on average.There seem to be no really large formations of bombers with their AI numerous escorts.Why? In the older IL-2 series & in the much maligned CloD I can glance around to sometimes 50+ enemy aircraft & several flights of my own friends.Except in huge numbers my PC has very little problem with these big numbers why not here ( I could understand in RoF that it takes quite a bit of PC juice to power all those pixals through space,)perhaps the beautiful detailing of these WW2 aircraft does the same thing?

 2.) Related to this :Why is it that one has to wait for enemy aircraft to "spawn " when we reach a certain way point? Why can't they be taking off or in flight when we are( again as in IL-2 or CloD where we do get this effect? Is it game design of performance or is it part of the mission planners to keep us in suspense until the furthest leg of our flight? Even in the new Veteran  mission block ( beautifully done BTW) we had better fly over just the right section of the front otherwise we'll miss the enemy spawning completely...of course this may be just a test of out navigational skills over a considerable distance, but still.

 3.) Intercepting enemy bombers in quick missions or other SP missions: are these aircraft actually going somewhere to do something if so I have yet to see it.Of course I may have missed it , but I have yet to see that my actions have stopped a strafing attack by IL-2 on say a truck column .Especially in Quick missions they just seem to mill about waiting for me to knock them out of the air ( although their gunners of really really good shooters..) And another thing their formation discipline is simply shocking.Its as if everyone had been drinking way too much vodka before the flight .This includes all the bombers- they seem to behave like drunken birds.Is there a reason ( perhaps different pilot levels?)for this because it certainly looks unrealistic! This was true initially in CloD too but some bright lad  at ATAG seems to have solved it.Those boys in He-111s know their stuff. In RoF it also improved , but again one seldom sees a formation  of more than 4 plane of any type over the western front in 1918.

 4.) Action on the Ground: I am not exactly sure of the total numbers of men , truck, artillery & tanks involved in and around Stalingrad,but suffice to say there was a lot going on, but you would never know it in our sim.We have beautifully done Winter maps,that are practically empty of activity.One occasionally flies past a train or a battery of artillery or a few trucks but hardly what you might expect to see on a battlefield.Its as if everyone went home for the season. This is particularily sad when the ground objects are so beautifully rendered.One need only go back to Il-2 in its modded form to see real battle activity in some of the third party missions & campaigns.Will the people who use the up-coming FMB be able to build more into something that resembles the real battle? Will more be going on in Stalingrad itself,because right now it is an empty smoking shell-again beautifully done but virtually abandoned.I will  be critical about the missing boats ( or sleds) that could be shuttling across the Volga what targets they could make.I do hope that someone might do something with them in the Summer & Autumn maps & missions to come

 5.) I am part of the chorus of people who weren't particularily happy with the first official campaign,with all the beautiful things you have produced,the initial campaign ...well you know by now .I hope we get better ones in the future or career modes ala RoF. In Rof  the 4 campaigns available are not all that cohesive either- each being composed of a series of single missions with no overall stats much like the terrific campaign of missions by Veteran.In truth his are a series of separate missions strung together on one map & one flight line ( & I have yet to get stats to show up after a very long mission in which I cannot fall back on auto pilot..)but at least he has given us wonderful animated intros & surprises along the way.For what i feel are even better examples of what can be done I'd like to point again the the ATAG modded CloD and Disastersoft's pay-for campaigns.Though not without some qualities that I would like to change,by in large they are nicely presented,with different missions to different parts of the Channel map,lots of activity & real "earned medals " ( which aren't at all easy to get..) awarded for earned success.Of course one could go back to the original Il-2 ,which ,looking back, did so many things pretty well in regard to all of these things.

  Finally I would like to say that this sim has all the parts,& eye candy to make for a great sim:scenery ,atmosphere,equipment ,and little men wandering around  aimlessly, but somehow ,so far, it misses the hook that would make me abandon the equally attractive CloD or the still very involving Il-2.The intinail campaign had good intros & changing maps, but all the missions were nearly the same & unspite of rewards of wepons ,skins & some very pretty fictional medals,didn't hook me or involve as a pretend pilot over one of the biggest & most important battles on the Eastern Front.

  I will buy the next version ( I am getting tired of Winter anyway...) but I do hope that the good folks at 777 will spend some quality time not just in new aircraft ,but also in game play in depth.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Blitzen

[SR-F_Winger]

Prediction:

Once the CV of oculus is released each and every simmer that tries a flightsim/carsim with properly implemented OVR support will never go back to standard headtracked simming.

There is a reason why EVERY SINGLE (-1) serious sim that i know of - be it flight or car sim - is working to implement support for the oculus rift.

Edited February 18, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Prediction:

Once the CV of oculus is released each and every simmer that tries a flightsim/carsim with properly implemented OVR support will never go back to standard headtracked simming.

There is a reason why EVERY SINGLE (-1) serious sim that i know of - be it flight or car sim - is working to implement support for the oculus rift.

 

Aaand now for the Kommissars to come in and remind you that OR is a bottom of the barrel gimmick.

[SR-F_Winger]

[Juri_JS]

 

 1.)Aircraft in missions-several questions here all relating to how the sim is formatted or limited.

  It seems to have some of the same mission limits as RoF .Missions even or especially in campaigns seem to be limited to about 16 airplanes on average.There seem to be no really large formations of bombers with their AI numerous escorts.Why? In the older IL-2 series & in the much maligned CloD I can glance around to sometimes 50+ enemy aircraft & several flights of my own friends.Except in huge numbers my PC has very little problem with these big numbers why not here ( I could understand in RoF that it takes quite a bit of PC juice to power all those pixals through space,)perhaps the beautiful detailing of these WW2 aircraft does the same thing?

 

 

I guess the developers are trying to keep the missions playable for people with older PCs like mine. When run on my system the BoS/Rof engine has problems to handle large numbers of AI aircraft. I get a noticeable slowdown effect when more than 20 AI aircraft are active in a mission at the same time. The missions by Veteran are only  barely playable for me. I don't have this problem in multiplayer missions, so I think it is not so much caused by the plane models, but by the calculation of the AI behaviour and the AI commands.

 

It will be interesting to see with how many AI aircraft newer PCs can cope in a mission. Once the FMB becomes available we will be able to test it.

[SharpeXB]

When it comes to limits on the number of AI aircraft in RoF and BoS vs other sims. Both the 777 products use the same advanced flight model for all the aircraft. Other sims use it only for the players plane. That's the difference.

If I'm correct the ability of your PC to handle this is in the quality of the CPU not GPU

Edited February 18, 2015 by SharpeXB