GamesCom

[LukeFF]

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

German Fighters were mostly used for ground-attacks on the eastern front and the MG151/15 had a better penetration than the 20 mm version.

Also the 15 mm had a much higher muzzle-velocity and better aim. Both come in handy against smaller aircraft.

 

The only reason the MG151/15 was changed to the MG151/20 was the use of larger explosive shells to destroy large bombers more quickly.

But heavy bombers were no argument in the Battle of Stalingrad, since Russia relied on attack-aircraft like the IL2 as well.

 

(That's one reason why dogfights on the eastern front usually happened on low to medium altitudes.)

 

 

On a sidenote: I wouldn't take Bergstrom's books on Stalingrad as a historical accurate reference. That's not what it's written to be.

 

Say what? The gunpods were precisely fitted to the 109s to deal with the heavily-armored Il-2s, not for ground attack. I'm posting some info in the other thread I found that says these gunpods were 20 mm. 

 

And that's quite an affront to say Bergstrom's books are not meant to be historically accurate references. 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Nice reports. What struck the eye was this:  "LaGG3 gets M105PF engine, otherwise they would have no chance at all ..... 20mm, 23mm or 37mm cannon for election". So are they doing gameplay adjustments by giving LagG-3 an engine it historically propably did not even have at that time? To give it a chance? Slippery slope if you go that way, easier to "slip in" other stuff as well. Seen it too often in original IL-2. I am not whining, just asking a question. Should dig up the Finnish tests on 2 captured LagG-3 fighters, one was Series 4 and other Series 29 propably, need to check. But both were deemed "having inadequate performance characteristics with extremely unreliable systems"..As a sidenote 1 aerial kill was achieved with the later series LagG-3 captured by Finns, against another LagG-3.

[Zmaj76]

S!

 

 Nice reports. What struck the eye was this:  "LaGG3 gets M105PF engine, otherwise they would have no chance at all ..... 20mm, 23mm or 37mm cannon for election". So are they doing gameplay adjustments by giving LagG-3 an engine it historically propably did not even have at that time? To give it a chance? Slippery slope if you go that way, easier to "slip in" other stuff as well. Seen it too often in original IL-2. I am not whining, just asking a question. Should dig up the Finnish tests on 2 captured LagG-3 fighters, one was Series 4 and other Series 29 propably, need to check. But both were deemed "having inadequate performance characteristics with extremely unreliable systems"..As a sidenote 1 aerial kill was achieved with the later series LagG-3 captured by Finns, against another LagG-3.

 

Hehe .....they said they will not make allied planes better but they picked a better engine for LaGG which never saw Stalingrad in large scale production....a workaround move.....whatever, never expected to see a historical prop sim in the first place...Im sure it would be fun for some time, nevertheless....

Edited August 23, 2013 by Tvrdi

[Feuerfalke]

It's not an affront, it's a mere observation.

It's a great book with a nice focus on the air battle and good stories and solid data.

 

But some of the conclusion are very much biased on the comparing airforces point of view. For example the failure of the German air lift operations in Stalingrad as opposed to the one in Demjansk, The difference is not simply the stronger VVS, though it has certainly to be credited. But there were almost 3 times as many soldiers encircled in Stalingrad! Not to mention facts like time of year, weather, distances, supply-satus, etc.

 

Again, great book, but don't take it as THE ULTIMATE reference. That's also not what this book is intended to be, if you read closely.

[FlatSpinMan]

Man, this oculus thing is sounding so cool - in a vomity sort of way. So, Frankyboy, did it take long for it affect you? What was the trigger? Thanks for your sacrifices on berhalf of your fellow simmers.

[Freycinet]

S!

 

Nice reports. What struck the eye was this: "LaGG3 gets M105PF engine, otherwise they would have no chance at all ..... 20mm, 23mm or 37mm cannon for election". So are they doing gameplay adjustments by giving LagG-3 an engine it historically propably did not even have at that time? To give it a chance? Slippery slope if you go that way, easier to "slip in" other stuff as well. Seen it too often in original IL-2. I am not whining, just asking a question. Should dig up the Finnish tests on 2 captured LagG-3 fighters, one was Series 4 and other Series 29 propably, need to check. But both were deemed "having inadequate performance characteristics with extremely unreliable systems"..As a sidenote 1 aerial kill was achieved with the later series LagG-3 captured by Finns, against another LagG-3.

Flanker, pls be a little bit reasonable here. This is not official news. This is shorthand notes by a fan chatting to the developers, put through Google Translate, cleaned up by me. And you dissect it as if it were the gospel, and Tvrdi jumps on the bandwagon so he can slip in his usual bitterness over RoF flight models. They may have the more plentiful LaGG version as well, Frankyboy may have written in another way than how they said it, etc, etc.

 

If these scraps and tidbits of info some of us are helping to gather are just used maliciously, to try to find anything that can be criticised, then I for one won't bother translating any more. The info you can get out of "what somebody heard which is then put thru auto-translation" is not the same as an official blog post! Take it for what it is.

 

Anyway, I am realising that translating this stuff from the German forum actually does more harm than good, so I won't be doing it any longer.

[FlatSpinMan]

Frey - thanks for helping, but yeah, it might be best to wait for an update given flight simmers' tendency to suck every single possible reading out of any news.

[BFsSmurfy]

Flatspin Man both me and Dusty had the Rift headset on and neither of us experienced the effect it had on Frankyboy, if the headset had better display ie HD I'd buy it now it totally transforms what are already beautiful cockpits. You are quite literally sitting in the pit It's amazing. I thought the guys said that the Yak had the PF engine not the Lagg, and for those that latch onto anything negative and try and twist it to their own negative needs you're pissing in the wind, It's a quality product done by people who put everything they have into it. You wouldn't believe the analysis of the physics these guys are doing its top notch, and I have seen it in the flesh.

[Freycinet]

I guess that we can conclude that one out of three Oculus Rift have their eyes burnt out of their eye sockets! Spread the word! ;-)

[Freycinet]

Btw, there was a thing I didn't understand in Frankyboys posting which I translated, but he explained it to me: the ammo loadout is fixed and cannot be changed.

[BFsSmurfy]

Lol mate that's exactly how some will WANT to see it. I experienced some mild motion problems at the start but they went away when I got about 30 secs in but I have one fixed focus lens in my right eye after cataract surgery, other than that it was fine. Frankyboy appeared to be struggling very quickly but Dusty didn't guess its different for everyone, but I would buy it today if it was HD it was.totally immersive.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Freycinet, I was not jumping on anything so excuse me for my propably too harsh approach. Your translation was very good and informative.. Just asked about this as the team has said historical accuracy is what they strive for. And I believe in that very firmly based on news and updates from the devs. So not debating FM at all. Just asked about this gameplay vs. history thing No harm was intended nor pun

[leitmotiv]

If they add some new engines and cannons, that were in that time used in Stalingrad on both sides, and were used for first time mostly tested in fields, they should mod or simulate bad reliability in most cases of this new engines or weapons systems.

 

For example Sh37 was tested on IL2s and LaGG3s in Stalingrad but it was un-reliable and jammed often, if they dont jam in game like they did in real then whats the point of having them added in game, its not the same cannon it will look more like Ns37 used in 1943. Same goes for new prototype engines, if they were prone to braking or stalling in air that should also be simulated in game.

 

Shows you why some new stuff was not liked by pilots or why it was not good idea to have them so early, and some of them were replaced later by better more reliable eguipment.

[Freycinet]

S!

 

Freycinet, I was not jumping on anything so excuse me for my propably too harsh approach. Your translation was very good and informative.. Just asked about this as the team has said historical accuracy is what they strive for. And I believe in that very firmly based on news and updates from the devs. So not debating FM at all. Just asked about this gameplay vs. history thing No harm was intended nor pun

Hmm, what you wrote previously wasn't just a question but lots of insinuations and accusations. Anyway, I'll stay away from helping to provide info about the sim from now on... Best left to the developers obviously.

[BFsSmurfy]

They are not programming unreliable engines I asked that question directly to Jason.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

i asked Loft what engine they put in the LaGG, if it would be a 105 PF version, he said yes - point.

the comment that it willbe better for the game that the LaGG os not a total dog comes from me! it is still slugish enough, a PF engine does not transform it to a TieFighter......

AFAIK the PF engine was nothing abnormal in late 1942.

 

perhaps some should realy cool down a bit.

 

The ocullus thing:

first all went ok, even i didnt like the warmth the device produced.....

than Loft did some aerobatics and i tried to keep the horizont in sight (should a pilot do :D ), then i became sick fast.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Frankyboy

[ShamrockOneFive]

S!

 

 Nice reports. What struck the eye was this:  "LaGG3 gets M105PF engine, otherwise they would have no chance at all ..... 20mm, 23mm or 37mm cannon for election". So are they doing gameplay adjustments by giving LagG-3 an engine it historically propably did not even have at that time? To give it a chance? Slippery slope if you go that way, easier to "slip in" other stuff as well. Seen it too often in original IL-2. I am not whining, just asking a question. Should dig up the Finnish tests on 2 captured LagG-3 fighters, one was Series 4 and other Series 29 propably, need to check. But both were deemed "having inadequate performance characteristics with extremely unreliable systems"..As a sidenote 1 aerial kill was achieved with the later series LagG-3 captured by Finns, against another LagG-3.

Are you sure it didn't have the M105PF? The PF was the 105PA with some modifications for lower altitude performance (not unlike the Merlin with the cropper supercharger for the Spitfire LF.V series)... it's tough to dig up information but I would guess that the LaGG-3 had at least the 105PA and I'm not sure what it would take for the 105PF to be included. I'm fairly certain that the Series 35 got the PF and its production date begins in mid 1942.

 

Also this table would seem to agree with the Battle of Stalingrad engine decision: http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm

 

Not sure on sources...

Edited August 23, 2013 by IceFire

[leitmotiv]

They are not programming unreliable engines I asked that question directly to Jason.

 

I noticed that they dont like something like this for engines in Dev Diarys, some one in team says they wish to arouse positive emotions in player and this would arouse negative emotions, but i hope with time they will consider using this in limited situations of some new prototype and only field test equipments. 

Then you as a player would have a choice: will i risk with selecting something new and maybe better for the task i have, even though its still in test process and not so reliable, or will i stay with already proven and reliable cannon or engine, and fly the mission like that.

 

In IL2 UP3 they modeled Spit MkIb 20mm cannons to jam offten, so you as a player had to think really hard do i use them or not to use them. Often you would be left with only 4x .303 and 2 jammed 20mm after 10 bullets fired or shooting with them in high G turns, instead 8x .303 if you didnt select option with 4x.303 and 2x20mm.

Or even worse if only one side jammed then it was nightmare to shoot    that hapend to pilots of IL2s with Sh37.

And for example if they didnt moded this jamming of early 20mm on spits every one would just take 20mm without thinking about it but in real they were not liked by pilots and this was simulated good in game so they were with that same time frame model of airplane not liked by players also.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Yaklover

[BFsSmurfy]

I think Yaklover that time is the key , the devs are working hard modelling and refining everything they consider essential and with tight deadlines that's the only way to do what is in the full release justice, I got the distinct impression that if the first release was a solid success that extra content and options would follow relatively quickly, less than a year was stated but they didn't want to forecast things for the future until they were sure it was achievable.Anyone who spends time with these guys can see they are totally dedicated to producing the best product possible, if you doubt that then you're kidding yourself or have some other agenda. If either are on teamspeak again talk to them, you'll get what I mean then.

Edited August 23, 2013 by BFsSmurfy

[JtD]

...Anyway, I'll stay away from helping to provide info about the sim from now on... Best left to the developers obviously.

Oh c'mon, most people appreciate it, a lot I suppose, never let the negative noisy ones dictate what's going on.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Freyci..Did not accuse. I used bad choice of wording and stated that it is too easy to doing stuff like adding irrelevant or inaccurate things when once done. This applies to all games I've played. As stated above PF or PA was the engine for the LagG-3 Series 29..Finns had Series 4, 28 and 35 as captured planes and flown. Their performance was regarded medicore at best. So what people who have seen the plane in action seems to be in line with the reports: not a stellar performer against fighters like Bf109F or Fw190, but more than adequate to kill bombers or Bf110. So devs are on the track = I am happy. And believe me, will fly the LagG-3 because it looks cool

 

 So once more, sorry for the wrong tone and choice of words  

[FuriousMeow]

Thanks for the effort Freycinet.

[Freycinet]

Ok Flanker... Got it. Cheers.

[322Sqn_Dusty]

The main possible cause of getting a bit confused (sick) while testing the VR could be because you didn't know excactly what moves Loft passed the plane trough. This was mainly done by Loft to point out parts of the engine. Must say it's a strange sight to fly in formation with two other aircraft in 3D.

 

What was shown?

 

Well at first the 109, just to get a feeling and have a look around. Used to track ir it's not that different in movement, just when looking back..well..turn in your seat because it senses your headstand.

The cockpit is made in 3D and gauges and other parts felt if it could be touched. I admit I just felt cramped inside.

 

Low flying, rolls, loops and banking..again strange to see it 3D.

Glare, reflection and clouds were next.

 

After that some vehicles were shown.

 

Stepping into Loft's office   revealed a slick pit with some more flying and shadows..ending it with....BAIL! Seen from the outside...very nice animated..and the way down..looking up with the VR you see your shute in 3D.

Edited August 24, 2013 by 322Sqn_Dusty

[322Sqn_Dusty]

Btw, there was a thing I didn't understand in Frankyboys posting which I translated, but he explained it to me: the ammo loadout is fixed and cannot be changed.

 

I've made pictures of it...so they will speak for the ALPHA.

 

Belts are pre selected by the gun choice and are composed of historical available loadouts. Not like CloD

Edited August 24, 2013 by 322Sqn_Dusty

[322Sqn_Dusty]

From the other topic:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/1001-if-you-are-going-gamescom-cologne-germany-please-read/?p=22279

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/1001-if-you-are-going-gamescom-cologne-germany-please-read/?p=22290

Edited August 24, 2013 by 322Sqn_Dusty

[Avatar13]

Thanks for sharing, Dusty! S!

[FTC_Karaya]

S!

 

 Nice reports. What struck the eye was this:  "LaGG3 gets M105PF engine, otherwise they would have no chance at all ..... 20mm, 23mm or 37mm cannon for election". So are they doing gameplay adjustments by giving LagG-3 an engine it historically propably did not even have at that time? To give it a chance? Slippery slope if you go that way, easier to "slip in" other stuff as well. Seen it too often in original IL-2. I am not whining, just asking a question. Should dig up the Finnish tests on 2 captured LagG-3 fighters, one was Series 4 and other Series 29 propably, need to check. But both were deemed "having inadequate performance characteristics with extremely unreliable systems"..As a sidenote 1 aerial kill was achieved with the later series LagG-3 captured by Finns, against another LagG-3.

 

Hey Flanker, the Series they are going to model is the 29th which had the M-105PF engine and was armed with a single UBS machine gun and a hub mounted ShVAK. AFAIK these aircraft were produced and available from about mid-late 1942 onwards. Even with this more powerful engine the LaGG-3 should not be of any concern to the 109F/G, the LaGG barely achieves 507kmh at sea level and 566kmh at FTH, compare that to the 109F-4s 525kmh at sea level @ the early 1941 1.3ata boost or the G-2s 534kmh at sealevel @ 1.3ata. Plus the Series 29 does not yet feature leading edge slats, those were introduced around the Series 35.

 

Heres a comprehensive list of approximate performance figures for the various marks of Lavotchkin fighters of WWII. There's one error though, the La-5FN listed is not a '43 model but from '44! A 1943 model La-5FN would be about 15kmh slower at most altitudes.

 

http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm

 

I'd really like to know what performance we are going to get for the F-4, if its the 1942 1.42ata DB601E its going to be a really hard nut to crack for the VVS but thats the correct version for a Stalingrad scenario, just wouldnt feel right to be cruising along castrated at 1.3ata " '41 style"...

 

PS: What I personally wonder about is the fact that the Sh-37 37mm cannon is just a loadout to the Series 29 when in reality it saw very limited use and service. There were only 12 planes built and tested with this cannon (designated "K-37") in and around Stalingrad so I would have preferred this to be its own seperate aircraft, it would seem awkward seeing dozens of these flying around online.

Edited August 24, 2013 by JG52Karaya

[leitmotiv]

 

 

PS: What I personally wonder about is the fact that the Sh-37 37mm cannon is just a loadout to the Series 29 when in reality it saw very limited use and service. There were only 12 planes built and tested with this cannon (designated "K-37") in and around Stalingrad so I would have preferred this to be its own seperate aircraft, it would seem awkward seeing dozens of these flying around online.

 

Having unreliability simulated for test equipments that had this problems, probably would result in smaller number of that equipment being used by player.

 

But i hope server map builder can lock some payloads so this can be limited to use in missions, as the airplane is same type.

[Jason_Williams]

Knock it off.

 

Jason

[322Sqn_Dusty]

Ok guys, here goes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

movies on the way.. links didn't work well.

Edited August 24, 2013 by 322Sqn_Dusty

[Freycinet]

I really like the historical paper-map view: really proper simming, where you have to identify features outside the cockpit and correlate them with the map symbology.

 

Il-2 'pit looks very good, busier than I thought it would, lots of nice knobs and handles... 

Edited August 24, 2013 by Freycinet

[322Sqn_Dusty]

Again: Be aware this is ALPHA. There are some placeholders, some effects are not yet there (as showed in the live feed the other day) these are all taken from a screen and everything looks better directly from screen when you see it for yourself!

 

Movies:

 

http://www.322squadron.com/Gamescom/BoS/00005.MTS

 

http://www.322squadron.com/Gamescom/BoS/00011.MTS

 

http://www.322squadron.com/Gamescom/BoS/00015.MTS

 

Got a few more that i'll post later.

Edited August 24, 2013 by 322Sqn_Dusty

[Jason_Williams]

That map is pure placeholder as with everything related to GUI and effects.

 

Jason

[322Sqn_Dusty]

True. Does not seem odd though..I must admit that..idea maybe?

[Foobar]

Do I read KPH there? It must be km/h

[322Sqn_Dusty]

Loft showing BoS with the OculusVR. I didn't visit the Oculus stand on the floor, so I don't know it the developer version is different.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2013 by 322Sqn_Dusty

[Freycinet]

That map is pure placeholder as with everything related to GUI and effects.

 

Okeydokey. Well, I must say that I really like the idea of a historical-looking map as the in-game map. I think it would be pretty cool, realism-wise. Anyway, you guys just stick to whatever you plan to do: it is your artistic vision after all! 

Again: Be aware this is ALPHA. There are some placeholders, some effects are not yet there (as showed in the live feed the other day) these are all taken from a screen and everything looks better directly from screen when you see it for yourself!

 

Movies:

 

[...]

 

http://www.322squadron.com/Gamescom/BoS/00015.MTS

 

Wowsers, the armoured canopy REALLY restricts the view sideways! - And there is a big improvement when the canopy is opened. I hope the penalties for flying with an open canopy will be sufficiently big to discourage it, even with the viewing field advantage. I imagine reduced speed, roaring wind noise and lessened protection of the pilot would be factors that could discourage a-historical open-canopy flying.   

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

That map is pure placeholder as with everything related to GUI and effects.

 

Jason

 

Still looking good though. Those cockpits shots are gorgeous!

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

omg you just cant look back with that thing for the restricted fov, youd have to turn your head nearly 180º to look back while in real life 45º is enough for you can move your eyes and have wider fov

 

Have you ever tried looking around with goggles on? Even the well designed ones will restrict your FOW quite a lot.