Jump to content

TheElf-LW

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

172 Excellent

About TheElf-LW

  • Rank
    Founder

Recent Profile Visitors

455 profile views
  1. Wow, look at all the activity. I love it. I've been a supporter (hopeful one) of a Pacific release since early access started. I've purchased everything this team has produced since day one at the earliest opportunity. I am still hopeful that the Pacific will come. But those of you who are going on about the plane-sets and matching this to that are not seeing the forest for the trees. Our dearly beloved Pacific Release faces some basic challenges, let alone becoming the Sim to end all Sims in the Pacific. One of them, and I say this without malice in my heart, is the choice to focus on Midway as a starting point. I know why though...more on that later. If I were king for a day, I would do a couple things differently. 1. Build it and they will come. The main issue is the NATURE of Air Combat in the Pacific. The main focus in the Early campaign in the South Pacific were Port Moresby, Rabaul, Guadalcanal. - Despite the impact Midway had strategically, the battle only lasted a few days. And for god's sake the Judy was a NON-FACTOR, so kindly please stop going on about it as a plane the Devs need to spend VALUABLE time and resources on. Non-factor...in case you missed it.... 2. So the Map is the main concern. Where will the community get the greatest bang for the Dev's time? The Solomons and Papua New Guinea. PERIOD. So I say that, and people say, "but what about Midway...?" Well, if planned and resourced correctly, how long do you think it would take the team that has mapped half of the Eastern Front to create a 25.6 square mile Island as a Bonus Map? My professional opinion? Not long. 3. What could we do if we had Guadalcanal and the majority of the Solomon's Island chain? - We could fight the Air War in the South Pacific from early '42 to Mid'43. To include every Japanese and Allied plane form the beginning of the war to Late '43. - Including: Operation Watchtower, the Battle of Cactus (henderson field) , Battle of Santa Cruz, The Allied advance in the Solomons against Ballale and Buka, toward Rabaul, ....AND the Battle of Midway if they produced it as a Bonus or secondary Map. 4. If the map were ambitious, and they included Port Moresby and Rabaul, well, do I have to say more? So, why are they focusing on Midway? Well that is simple. This Dev team has LIMITED resources. They are small, and they are working on an ambitious franchise. A Pacific pivot is extremely challenging in several ways. 1. The Technology required to model Naval Aviation is vastly different from a mechanics standpoint. There are things that are REQUIRED for it to work properly, and provide the sense of immersion that the community is looking for, so my Theory is that Midway is purposely scoped to be a small release so that technology can be developed and implemented. Ie. more resources have to into things that don't exist on the Eastern Front. Some examples: - Catapults - Functioning Torpedoes - Over water Navigation for the EXPERT level players. YE-ZB nav system and nautical charts. - Seaplanes and Water Physics and Effects. Recovery of said floatplanes... - Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Cruisers, Destroyers, Oilers, Transports - Radar and Fighter direction (to include Radar on Picket ships) - Landing Signal Officers - The Japanese Optical landing system - Ship Task Force AI and formation keeping - Spawn-points for MP aboard a CV (good luck with THAT one!) - the Air Marshall Feature tailored to a Pacific Title - Search and Rescue, and Maritime Recon features - Arresting gear Physics and effects - Functioning elevators - Functioning deck crew - Wingfold - Ship maneuvers while under attack - and finally, Researching the Planes. This has to be the tallest order. The material to properly model the aircraft and provide the FIDELITY I believe this team wants to produce is VERY difficult to find and verify. It is the above list that we should be discussing, and how to do them. Planes will come to the pacific, but ONLY if these things are done well enough to warrant a release at all. Just my two cents... Shaun, have you purchased anything this team has produced? I ask because I don't see any icons under your avatar...
  2. Which is why I feel a jump to '45 in Okinawa after a '42 Midway release would be misguided for the same reasons. But alas, who is to say any of it will happen they way we think it will? It's all just good ideas and wishful thinking until they get Kuban out and the powers that be decide to fund the next BoX.
  3. US and IJ naval aviators used dead reckoning as the most basic form of Navigation, something that is still taught in flight school in the US. So basically the Carrier (Mom) would be at a certain Lat/long, turn into the wind and launch aircraft. The flight leads would set a course usually in the direction Scout planes had reported the enemy and they flew that heading at a constant Airspeed. Morning Weather briefings would also provide general wind patterns and trends so when navigating Aircrew could estimate how wind affected their outbound track over the ocean. They timed their legs, keeping the plane trimmed up and in balanced flight as a matter of course, and plotted their presumed progress on a plotting board. If you watch old WWII films of Carriers at war, like "The Fighting Lady" you might notice pilots walking or running to their planes carrying a large square board. This is the Navy Mark 3A plotting board. It typically slid into a slot in the dash in front of the Aviator in the cockpit so he could pull it out and track his progress. Computations of Time/distance were done on a whiz wheel "computer" which also is still a basic skill taught today in the USN Aviation training. If you ever happen to see old Japanese films of Nell or Betty Bombers, you'll see footage of aircrew eating their hot noodles and fish out of a can and taking readings using a sextant. They would use dead reckoning as well, flying a constant heading and airspeed and update their position from time to time with the sextant. Turns were tracked and new heading marked with time and distance carefully logged so a return leg or another turn could be made and eventually a rough position would be known at all times so the return leg flown on a heading that took them back to where their carrier was known to be waiting, often times not necessarily the same position the ship was in when the plane left. If returning to and island chain and you were off course one could use the terrain and coastline features on a chart to geo-locate actual position based on visual cues and matching terrain to chart, kinda like we do in BoS with rivers/lakes/forest shapes. The USN Airman was also fortunate to have a beacon called a YE-ZB. It was a ship mounted transmitter "YE" and aircraft mounted reciever "ZB. It widened the radius of success for the return to "Mom". All one had to do was dial the correct channel and listen. When in range a morse code signal could be heard correlating to a certain radial from the ship. "A" for instance or . _ (dot dit) meant the 000-030 radial, and "code of the day" information would indicate that to the pilot. Each day the letters arranged around each 30 degree radial slice would change, but the pilot always had the coded translation, so IJN snoopers who might also recieve the signal couldn't trace a path back to the ship as they had no idea what radial slice a given morse letter was paired to. All the aviator had to do once he knew what letter sector he was in, was to fly a reciprocal heading from 000-030 in this case. As he got closer he might cross into a neighboring sector as the slices converged on the Carrier, and then he'd know where to look... The navigating of aircraft during WWII was not a sure thing. The history of the Second World War in the Pacific is replete with incidents of aircraft never returning to the ship or making it from one island to the next. In fact of all the aircraft lost in WWII (including the pacific) more were lost to operational loss than to combat loss. That is errors in navigation, flying into clouds or thunderstorms and being lost at sea. It happened quite often. There are stories of entire squadrons of F4U Corsairs disappearing on a ferry flight to the Slot for example. Some 24 planes and pilots...gone. Japan lost approximately 60% of their total aircraft to non combat causes (training, ferrying, etc.) the US lost approximastely 32% of their aircraft to operational non-combat causes.
  4. Coconut this is a good list. I'm going to pile on here though with some additional thoughts. At the end of the day, if BoM is to be what it sounds like Jason wants, the Carrier Environment is the Russian Steppe, so the OP is smoking crack with the original premise of this post. Sorry buddy... First to amplify your thoughts: Spawning on a carrier is problematic, as life on a carrier is regimented and controlled. IL-2 1946 was rife with CV spawn issues in MP. Pilots don't get to perform "Taxi-way" departures on Mom. The devs need to consider how to realistically implement MP spawning on a CV deck Moving via preset waypoints is good. I'd say leave this to the editor and let mission makers decide how to position them. But the capability has to be there. And the escorts need to be able to maintain a believable US Navy or IJ Navy formation. Physics based waves, sea state, and pitching deck are all important to believable Carrier tech being modeled. Autonomous movement speaks to the Ships behaving as they would in a Real Life combat. It was common practice for Ship COs to be on the bridge wing looking up at icoming dive bombers and ordering the helm "hard to Starboard" in order to complicate the approach of attackers. They also attempted to comb the wakes of torpedo spreads to avoid hits. This was all active and autonomous Maneuver. It remains to be seen whether this level of AI can be implemented. One solution might be to additionally provide simple controls ala tanks to Naval Ships. (at least for MP). Damage modelling needs to his a sweet spot, but should include Fire, Flotation, Hull integrity, and flight deck operation damage. Keep in mind the MP gameplay aspects of your only Aircraft Carrier being stricken from play... Collisions and running aground go in the "nice to have" category as far as I'm concerned with ship to ship collisions being higher importance as they did happen, and at Midway was a decisive role in the demise of at least 2 ships. Now my additional thoughts: You mention ATC, but in fact neither side used radio as a primary controlling mechanism for air traffic. Even today Case 1 daylight recoveries are performed without radio transmissions. Rather they used well trained Aviators who knew what to do in a given situation rather than someone telling them what to do. besides these assumptions about who was to do what (rules of the road) they used hand signals and light signals (ALDIS Lamps). Where radio has a strong role for the US Navy in this sim will be in Fighter Direction. The FDO controlled the CAPs and inner ASW patrols but operated on a single frequency. The "Air Marshall" role the Devs speak of would be an ideal place to implement an FDO either with a tailored AI routine, or with a player performing the role in MP with limited Radar information The IJ Navy didn't use Radio at all to direct its fighters though several ships had Radar, they hadn't matured the technology or the training, tactics, and procedures to integrate it into their air defense. Instead the Fighter leaders relied on a larger outer ring of escorts to point out incoming bandits with Flak. This led to some major shortcomings in the defense of the Kido Butai at Midway. Now because Jason has said the Carrier IS the environment in BoM my sincere hope is that they work all their map and new technology efforts toward making that environment as visceral and alive as they can with their limited budget and manpower. Working elevators and a functioning hangar deck Hangar deck catapults would be a nice feature and perhaps alleviate the CV deck spawn issues somewhat. Deck crew that actually behave and move like they would on the deck in terms of hand signals and roles. The reference for this is abundant in WWII color footage of Carriers in the pacific. Finally and most important is the correct modelling of the landing systems of both Navies. LSOs and paddles for the US, and the optical landing lights for the IJ Navy. Ambiance in the form of 1MC announcements and a rich sound library. Thats it for now!
  5. Not to start a flame war but...I technically don't fly anymore. Not as of 27 Feb. But read this, and pay particular attention. You might have your answer. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-jedi-transition-a-canyon-that-fighter-pilots-love-1678453195
  6. As someone who has flown in and around the NTTR for quite some time here are my comments on what you see in that video compared to the Kuban screenshots 1. Visibility and spotting are totally dependent on Humidity or other atmospherics. The haze you see on the US East Coast affecting spotting IRL at long distances, something you are less likely to have in the desert, is high humidity. Water in the air, water with dust particles in fact. 2. Even given the average 10-15% humidity of the high desert the clarity in the DCS video is a bit on the unrealistic side for my experience. It feels more like a sim, where as BoS feels more like real life to me. Sure, you can have a day where after a high pressure system blows through and the temps drop and winds die down you can see forever, but that isn't EVERY day in the NTTR. Atmospheric blowing dust can be just as bad as high humidity and haze. 3. Generally I think BoS get the atmospherics right more than any other sim, and as frustrating as it seems at times I think their lighting as it affects spotting is pretty darn good too. I wouldn't change much.
  7. DD_Trout, I remember you from the Old IL-2: 1946 days. I've been flying Il-2 Sturmovik now since it opened early access. Let me tell you we have come a LONG way. The Western Population is growing. There are several groups that fly consistently with North American players. I'm West Coast US and I fly generally in the evenings when the Europeans are bedding down for the night. Easier to get on, crowd is a little more laid back, but sometimes it can feel as though you are hunting for a needle in the haystack; typically mid to low 20s per side, which is respectable. I personally haven't played much this last month, as I go in cycles. Weekends, it can be all the action you want, as most everybody is playing at all hours so Online play, Primarily on the Wings Of Liberty Server, is high tempo and the Europeans and Russians are on in full force. You better bring your "A" game and a wingman or 4. You'll need both! No lone Wolfing unless you are really good. In addition to the come as you are servers, there are a few Event/Campaign Servers. TAW (Tactical Air War) is one that I personally support, though the current campaign I am not participating in. They run a Historically based campaign with score tracking and Hangar aircraft that advance as the maps are won/lost. You might start out in a Moscow Era Campaign flying MiGs, Ratas, and E-7s, and then be given LAGGs, F-2s, and such as the war progresses. The TAW campaign can last several weeks, and go about a month between bouts. Lots of fun, and totally objective based and self-preservation based. You don't even want to nick your prop on landing or you'll lose a valuable aircraft. My kind of Server! Additionally there are a few North American Servers. One is The Eagle's Nest provided by The Wet Bandits [TWB]. I fly with these guys all the time. Great group, great leadership, all on TS3, typically on the leaderboards in most servers and TAW events. Their fledgling server is being designed by Sketch, who has done some really nice work with maps and objectives trying to condense the play area for more suitable NA play with lower numbers. The rest tend to be squad training servers with small groups of Squaddies training together. If any new servers have popped up recently I am not aware of them. Latency IS and issue for me personally, as unscientifically we think Packet loss is a at play when we make solid attacks and see very little damage done, and then still have to fight a bandit that should be dead. Time to kill becomes a problem, and you know what happens when you take too long to get that bandit to lay down.... I hope the NA crowd continues to grow and we can seed some popular NA servers where latency issues are less noticeable. Perhaps as news of some US/UK Lend lease aircraft in the works for Kuban gets out and buzz around the Battle Of Midway which is slated to follow Kuban grows. As it stands now latency an server population it isn't a game breaker for European Servers, just a little annoying. Hope this helps! And welcome back to IL-2!
  8. All I'm saying is that the Devs have limited resources. I personally, right now, this minute do not look at the skins we have or the Cockpit textures and say "My God! This is unbearable! I don't think I can look at these skins...ugh this dated cockpit, how can I play this game ANY LONGER...?" What I DO say is..."Man it sure would be nice if we could load more than 10 active AI ground units in a 6 km radius in multiplayer. Boy wouldn't it be great if multi-player maps, heck even SP maps felt ALIVE" you know, like there were several million men fighting to their dying breath beneath you? One of the strong points of this sim, in my opinion is the visual effects. The planes look great. The cockpits look great. No need to future proof them now when resources could be spent on other things that ACTUALLY need help. Skins, Not Broken. Cockpit textures and shading, not broken. Before we start pining away for 4k Skins and improved cockpit textures "Because, why not" lets make sure the game is delivering on all fronts. It a resources issue not a technology issue. Read my first post again...
  9. The B-26 was more active in PNG operating against Rabaul from Port Moresby. If the Devs elect to not provide a Bonus land campaign map ala PNG or Solomons, then the B-26 has less a role in a BoMidway release. Don't get me wrong. I am ALL FOR a B-26. Other than MS CFS I don't think it has been modeled, at least as well as this Sim would do. Worst war movie of all time. Shameful.
  10. Let's hope the community remains smart and doesn't advocate for extra-extraordinarily detailed shiny skins. I'm more interested in frame rates, reasonable loading times, bug free rendering at tactically significant ranges and resources spent on AI aircraft, ground units, and a larger live battlefield. The moment the community insists on going full-retard on grpahics quality "because we can" "or because, why not" the things I listed above are lost. Don't forget that. The skins we have now are MORE than sufficient.
  11. Here is an Article from Hook on how the Japanese Navy conducted Carrier Operations. http://www.ussessex.org/pdfs/Japanese%20Carrier%20Operations.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...