WIP: Finkerens easy ID-guide

[Nocke]

No, I don't at all think it ruins it it's still clear and usable. I'm just thinking of ways to make it even better.

 

And also, I must admit I kinda like seeing charts with a uniform look to them.

 

If you want, I could give you a download of the black skin I made. Just to test out and see if you like the effect.

You are right.

Would be great if I could use your skins!

In case you dont have them for all planes I think I could also manage to do them myself. I am far from beeing a skinning expert, but have been playing around with it a little.

But I think I will reduce the amount of work a little doing only 750 and 1500m, the above example was 700, 1000, 1500, and 2000m. What do you think?

[Finkeren]

You are right.

Would be great if I could use your skins!

In case you dont have them for all planes I think I could also manage to do them myself. I am far from beeing a skinning expert, but have been playing around with it a little.

But I think I will reduce the amount of work a little doing only 750 and 1500m, the above example was 700, 1000, 1500, and 2000m. What do you think?

 

Here's the black skin: http://www.mediafire.com/download/ctu5ao66o8b0c6y/Black+skin.dds

 

It works for all planes. Just make sure, that you copy it into all the skin folders of all planes.

 

 

I actually think it's important to have at least 3 different ranges represented. I'd suggest doing 500/1000/2000.

[Finkeren]

Finished first draft of all the VVS planes (still haven't edited text or made a proper layout)

 

 

On to the Luftwaffles.

[No_85_Gramps]

Wow! Great job, these will come in handy. Thanks!

[Finkeren]

Got the 109s done tonight. Pretty easy when you only have to edit text very slightly:

 

[JimTM]

Wonderful contribution to the BoS/BoM community Finkeren. Thanks!

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Great idea and execution, Finkeren, they focus on all the major points that can clear any last-minute doubts.

 

Ultimately, if it shoots at you, shoot back for good measure   

[unreasonable]

In my opinion, the text would still benefit from radical editing, since I will never be able to remember so much detail.

 

Here is how I would rewrite the 109E card.

 

Look for:

 

- Long fuselage

- Squared wingtips

- Small tail with brace

- Twin wing radiators

 

Tail wheel and supercharger points omitted - by the time you are close enough to see these it is easier to see the markings. Plus 4 points per plane is still plenty to remember.

Possible confusion with section omitted - too confusing. Better just to drill into the mind the association of the key points with the plane type.  Plus miss-identification of an E for another 109 is not important   

 

Your project of course. 

[Finkeren]

In my opinion, the text would still benefit from radical editing, since I will never be able to remember so much detail.

 

Here is how I would rewrite the 109E card.

 

Look for:

 

- Long fuselage

- Squared wingtips

- Small tail with brace

- Twin wing radiators

 

Tail wheel and supercharger points omitted - by the time you are close enough to see these it is easier to see the markings. Plus 4 points per plane is still plenty to remember.

Possible confusion with section omitted - too confusing. Better just to drill into the mind the association of the key points with the plane type. Plus miss-identification of an E for another 109 is not important

 

Your project of course.

I agree with the points about making the text even simpler, and I do plan on doing a general editing of the guide before assembling it. However, I definately think there is a value to being able to tell the different versions of one plane type apart. I fly the MiG a lot (no surprise there) and how I go about fighting an opponent is radically different if it's an E7 vs. an F4 (the fact that it's pretty much imposible to distinguish an F2 from an F4 at any range never stops being a headache for me ) Likewise when attacking a Pe-2 it's good to be able to distinguish a s.35 from a s.110, because it's the difference between facing a light MG with restricted field if fire and facing a heavy MG with a larger field of fire.

 

Maybe I should dispense with the "Posible confusion" part and simply make 2 short lists of things to look for: One for long range (>1000m) like the one you did for the E7 and one for short range (<500m) with a handful of things that can positively identify not only plane type but version as well? (Both lists of course edited down and simplified as you suggested)

 

Yeah. I think I'll do that actually.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Finkeren

[TP_Jacko]

This is excellent work, thanks for your contribution.

Edited February 13, 2016 by TP_Jacko

[unreasonable]

I am certainly not saying there is one right answer to editing: it all depends on who your target audience is and what effect you are trying to accomplish.

 

My belief is that the people who will benefit most from a set of cards like this are the ones who are having difficulty in distinguishing friend from foe, so my edit was oriented to this group of users.

 

Distinguishing Es from Fs really only matters if you are going to behave differently towards them, and I would guess that for 99% of our gamer base that would be a mistake: only a few experts can genuinely tailor their flying to such an extent.

 

(Es are actually easy to tell from Fs as soon as you can see their wings - on the other hand even their mother has difficulty telling F2 from F4!)

 

As for how you decide to finalize the text: one approach I often found helpful in assembling presentations was to do different versions and just look at them side by side. It was usually obvious which one worked.

Anyway, enough from me on this, it is a great idea and will no doubt be very useful. If I were the developers I would be inclined to use your cards as loading screen slides mixed in with the usual agitprop. 

[mb339pan]

excellent work, thank you

[Finkeren]

Tried to do the Fw 190 in an updated design with shorter text and the tips split into two categories: short and long range:

 

 

The reason the tips are numbered was because I considered making small red/green colored and numbered arrows pointing out the different places on the different silhouettes relevant to the corresponding tip.

 

In the end it turned out to be a cluster**** that only made it harder to get a proper look at the silhouettes, so I'll propably remove the numbers again in final editing.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by Finkeren

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Are you keeping or doing away with the 'mistaken with' section? Even if you just leave the names of the other aircraft there without the extra list it already helps a lot since it makes the pilot match the info between one and the other to make a positive ID. The new design is good, and a lot cleaner too.

[Finkeren]

I can put in a short "posible confusion with" list of 1 - 4 aircraft that it's likely to be mistaken for at the bottom. I propably won't do a whole list of identifiers for it again though.

[Finkeren]

I made the last small corrections and added a "Risk of confusion note" at the bottom.

 

 

This is propably the final design I'll go with.

 

Note: The identifiers listed under "short range" are not so much geared towards identifying a general plane type (such as "Yak", "109" or "Stuka"), that should happen at a longer range, but rather it's thought of as tips on how to distinguish between different versions or certain configurations of a specific plane type, after you've made the initial friend/foe identification.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Finkeren

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It might just be semantics but I think the 109 E series had a "fixed" tailwheel as opposed to a "locked down" one which implies it was retractable but modified.

 

Nice work Fink.

Edited February 13, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Finkeren]

Thanks Murf.

 

To the extent that I'll even keep the mentioning of it in any of the sheets I'll change it to "fixed tail wheel" in the edit, as much for accuracys sake as for the reason that it's simply shorter.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Work of art, Finkeren

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Locked down, however, will be accurate for some of the later 109's.

[unreasonable]

 

This is propably the final design I'll go with.

 

Outstanding. (That is to say, works for me!)

[VBF-12_Gosling-71]

Hi Guys

 

Great work above.

 

I went for the original WWII Recognition Manuals I have....

 

http://www.tidesofwar.net/byAir/IL2-BoS/12OIAE/12_recognition.html

 

Gos

[=EXPEND=Capt_Yorkshire]

thx for this its helps

[l_MaD_l]

Hi Finkeren, I hope you will continue your outstanding work! 

Thank you for that!

For me, its a bit hard to look at all these big pictures so I just cut the planes out of your sheets and made an overview on 3 sheets.

I hope I'm allowed to post this... all credits go to you!

If not, please leave me a message.

 

BOS-Planes.pdf

[Jason_Williams]

Just wanted to say thanks for these! Very cool work.

 

Jason

[Finkeren]

Hi guys. Just want to give you a little heads up:

 

I'm definately still working on this, it's just that since my second daughter was born two weeks ago, time to work on the guide has been sparse. I plan to speed up the process once the Ju 88 is released so I can make it complete.

 

You shouldn't have to wait too long.

Hi Finkeren, I hope you will continue your outstanding work! 

Thank you for that!

For me, its a bit hard to look at all these big pictures so I just cut the planes out of your sheets and made an overview on 3 sheets.

I hope I'm allowed to post this... all credits go to you!

If not, please leave me a message.

 

BOS-Planes.pdf

 

No problem what so ever, I'm not planning to copyright any of this.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Very GOOD!!!

 

Thx Finkeren!

[l_MaD_l]

Gratulations to your second daughter! I wish you enough sleep   .

[Nocke]

So I am still working on that idea of showing the planes at different distances as they appear on the monitor, and have run into a serious problem now.

The attached image shows the P40E and the Bf109F4, as they appear on my monitor in Finkerens black skin at a distance from 500m from above, zoomed fully in.

Now you will see that the P40 on the left is smaller than the Bf109, while in reality it was the other way round.

I have rechecked several times, even proceeded to measure the sizes on my screen with a meter, with always the same outcome.

I cant really believe they got it wrong in the sim, but I am now also running out of ideas about what I could have done wrong.

I would greatly appreciate if someone could do a short check on his PC and tell me if for him it is o.k.

And, b.t.w., for ALL other planes the size ratio I obtained following my procedure was as expected ...

[Finkeren]

My only thought is, that you must've somehow changed the zoom level when taking screens of the P-40. Otherwise there is no way it would end up looking like that. The Bf 109 model in game is definately not larger than the P-40, I've been in enough mid-air collisions to know for sure

[SqwkHappy]

 This is really great! So far I've only managed to identify VVS planes by their unique camo patterns and rounded wing shapes, but I never really knew what plane I was shooting at unless it was an i16 or il2 because they're really distinct in shape and size.

[Nocke]

My only thought is, that you must've somehow changed the zoom level when taking screens of the P-40. Otherwise there is no way it would end up looking like that. The Bf 109 model in game is definately not larger than the P-40, I've been in enough mid-air collisions to know for sure

Well I just booted up my PC again, and tried again, and again, and again, for the nth time:

Go into quick mission, select a F4 or P40, start at 3000m winter map, go into outside view, zoom fully in, move to a distance of 500m using the free camera (F2 only goes to 490m, but doesnt make a difference, anyways...) as indicated by icon.

 

In paranoia mode, I measure on screen, just to be sure there is nothing going DPI-wise wrong doing the screenshot and viewing the picture.

 

On my 24" 1920x1280 screen:

Bf109 F4 wing span 19mm, length 17mm

P40-E wing span 13.5mm, length 11mm

 

I just dont get it. What can I do so repeatedly wrong?

I always get exactly these measures.....

 

You would really do me a HUGE favor repeating that, even if you think you know already the outcome

 

I am a little desperate....

[Nocke]

... and here the current state.

Please note its work in progress, layout still to be thought over.

Everything looks reasonable, except that damned P40

[SCG_Neun]

Nice work Nocke and Finkeren.  Thanks!

[Finkeren]

Very, very nice work Nocke!   Extremely useful and delightfully simple.

 

About the P-40: It looks to be almost exactly half the size of what it should be, so the only thing I can really suggest is that you bite the bullet and simply retake the screens of it from half the distances you use for the others. That'll give a more accurate silhouette than what we see here I think.

 

Anyway. It looks amazing and has certainly been worth your time and effort.

 

Well done!

[Nocke]

Very, very nice work Nocke!   Extremely useful and delightfully simple.

 

About the P-40: It looks to be almost exactly half the size of what it should be, so the only thing I can really suggest is that you bite the bullet and simply retake the screens of it from half the distances you use for the others. That'll give a more accurate silhouette than what we see here I think.

 

Anyway. It looks amazing and has certainly been worth your time and effort.

 

Well done!

Thank you for your warm words, same goes to you

Of course I can retake the P40 from closer distance, that would be the least problem.

What really bothers me is it DOES LOOK like that on my screen at that distance, smaller than the 109. And I retook them already several times because I just couldnt believe it.

As you see its too small at all distances and views, while all other planes at all views and distances seem to be o.k, so it cant be that I just incidently forgot to zoom fully in,

or I must have forgotten that repeatedly and in all views, and only for the P40....

So, again, I would be extremely grateful if you, or someone else, could do the comparison 109/P40 as described, just to be sure I am doing something wrong (which I suppose ....).

Could you do me the favor to fire up the sim, look at a 109 and a P40 from outside above, zoom fully in, put it at 500m and measure on the screen wing span and length?

 

As I said I actually suppose its somehow my fault, but it would be nice to know for sure ....

[Finkeren]

I'd like for you to do one test: Set up a quick mission with you against two flights with a single aircraft each, one Bf 109 and one P-40, and have them spawn at 1000m distance. Start the mission and immediately pause it. Now look at the two opposing planes (which should be reasonably close to one another and at the same distance from you. Does the Bf 109 look to be almost double the size of the P-40 despite being at the same distance? If that is the case, you might have uncovered a very peculiar bug regarding the way the P-40 is redered at distance, though it would baffle me, that something this obvious wasn't discovered a long time ago. If the two aircraft appear to be the correct relative size to one another, then there is some issue with the conditions you took the P-40 shots under.

[Nocke]

Thanks for that idea!

 

The outcome is really interesting, in the attached pictures you see one time a 109 (flown by myself) in front of an AI P40, in the other a 109 in front of a Mig.

It turns out that the distance indication seems to be wrong for the P40!

Figure that it is clearly behind the 109 from point of view, nevertheless the indicated distance is smaller, while for 109 and Mig the relation is o.k.

So my impression is now there is a bug with the distance indication for the P40 ....

[Nocke]

Actually these images show it more clearly. Both pictures show the same situation, one from close, one from far away. Watch the distances ...

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Great work guys

 

Nocke, pass on this information with these photos to Han or someone else from the team via PM so it can be looked at.