Developer Diary, Part 82

[DD_bongodriver]

unnecessary and quite frankly childish.

Maybe they're looking for this?

[wombatBritishBulldogs]

unnecessary and quite frankly childish.

it was funny geez a sense of humour !! Mmmm perhaps not )

[HR_Tumu]

thx a lot  rigbyDerekb1948

 

 

[dburne]

it was funny geez a sense of humour !! Mmmm perhaps not )

 

No it wasn't, as well as another comment or two above it...

[nynek]

I think in order to weed out any "political", subjective, wishful thinking, etc. sources it is HIGH time for us to start using more often that thing called computer in resolving Flight Model issues.

If dawn of space age happened thanks to slide ruler it is simply beyond my comprehension why we cannot put 3D model in some airflow soft and be done with it.

My 0$ Samsung is better than that Lunar Module Eagle landing craft TG50 transistor based state of the art abacus.

On the other hand I'm just game playing, porn watching dude who knows s**t.

 

nynek

[sturmkraehe]

I have a question:

 

Now with the skins to be unlocked - what have become the founder skins that were promised for founders?

[FlatSpinMan]

They should be there Sturm. Mine are. Look in the QMB and campaign modes. Scroll down to the bottom of the skins list.

If they're not yhere, look at a thread by Zak about skin and cannon option non-availability.

[CUJO_1970]

Probably one of the most beautiful simulated aircraft I've ever seen:

[sturmkraehe]

They should be there Sturm. Mine are. Look in the QMB and campaign modes. Scroll down to the bottom of the skins list.

If they're not yhere, look at a thread by Zak about skin and cannon option non-availability.

 

thanks, FSM. I checked and found these on some planes. Unfortunately not on all. Is this normal?

[LukeFF]

I think in order to weed out any "political", subjective, wishful thinking, etc. sources it is HIGH time for us to start using more often that thing called computer in resolving Flight Model issues.

If dawn of space age happened thanks to slide ruler it is simply beyond my comprehension why we cannot put 3D model in some airflow soft and be done with it.

My 0$ Samsung is better than that Lunar Module Eagle landing craft TG50 transistor based state of the art abacus.

On the other hand I'm just game playing, porn watching dude who knows s**t.

 

nynek

 

The heck are you rambling on about?

[Cybermat47]

The heck are you rambling on about?

I think he's complaining about the flight model.

[nynek]

I think he's complaining about the flight model.

 

 

He is not. He has no clue which FM is right. He is trying to propose solution using thing called computer.

 

 

 

The heck are you rambling on about?

 

Look above LukeFF

 

nynek

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

Maybe they're looking for this?

How many xp's for that green one?  Its a joke..come on.

[Han]

It let many people a bit suspicious about the quality controll and just after the comunity provided the data and pics the changes on your side had been made. And now you say you know exactely how the cockpit should be. So why release the "wrong" cockpit in the first place?

Because now we have best compromise solution, first one was best geometry reproducing.

We have had to hack geometry to have visibility compromise. We don't like hacks, first we have supposed that community too. But this time community have preffered to have compromise between realistic cockpit geometry and visibility.

We have done step forward to community wish.

Han, its is possible to limit SSAO for Cockpits only this would give a nice performance boost if SSAO is only used for Cockpits to made them more realistic?

Reason - why not?

 

Its allready limited at lower graphic presets.

[FlatSpinMan]

Sturmkraehe - I think they were only offered on some planes. The IL2, LaGG, 109F??, and I think that was about it. Have a look at the skins

topics in the Early Access forum.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Why do I have to resort to LOW graphics settings if I do not want SSAO? I never use that gimmick in ANY game as it simply only eats FPS for minimal impact on image quality. Make it a simple ON/OFF selection in your GUI and would make a lot of people happy. You could do it before, so why not now? And the Fw190 cockpit change was a series of illusions regarding the armored window, gauges maybe required more work to be seen properly.

[GOZR]

I see many posts about FM and data.. max speed in dive, max speed in climbing ,  roll etc etc.. but are they any of the Dev or one of you flew in a actual real heavy/powerful WW2 or alike aircraft?

Not talking of Cessna's or light weigh Yak52's etc. Do you guys know how the aircraft react  ?  I did.

 

(Han: between realistic cockpit geometry and visibility.) Well that is an old long discussed subject.. that there are some more work to do alas as like years ago the 3D's are not made for realistic views something about the ratio to pilot is wrong... like in RoF  but it doesn't need much tweak to be good ) I know from the past experience that it is very hard to make a model FM feels like the real but there are some major aircraft reactions that need some work.

 

I surely do not want to argue,  Great potential and I hope for the best

Edited October 13, 2014 by GOZR

[Han]

Ok. Looks like roll in BOS is ok, 160°/sec at 410kmh.

 

Look at page 136 of report - pilot makes control deflection and waiting for maximum roll rate will estabilish and THIS value is listed as roll speed. Not average roll rate recalculated to average roll speed as you have done guys. So NACA report is showing not 1 roll average speed, but speed of continues rolling or maximum achieved roll speed on test maneuver. Which is correctly represented in game.

 

I've personaly performed this test and I have 160°/sec continues rolling speed.

Also, 1 roll can be performed in 2.5 seconds, so even average roll speed is greater than 140°/sec.

 

I've given you a tip - I've requested several times - "which roll rate exactly listed in source - continues roll or 1 roll". But... But noone beleives developer. As usual. Everyone are smarter than devs and devs are idiots. As allways

 

That is all. Other issues later.

[LizLemon]

Its allready limited at lower graphic presets.

 

Why do we have to use low if we want to get rid of it? This means it is impossible to disable it when running high.

 

Can you give back custom graphics settings? Or at least make SSAO user selectable?

 

We shouldn't be forced to use low to be rid of it.

[Han]

I see many posts about FM and data.. max speed in dive, max speed in climbing ,  roll etc etc.. but are they any of the Dev or one of you flew in a actual real heavy/powerful WW2 or alike aircraft?

Not talking of Cessna's or light weigh Yak52's etc. Do you guys know how the aircraft react  ?  I did.

 

And? What is next? Our planes were experted by several pilots, one of them is a WW2 veteran pilot, another is a test pilot of these birds:

 

[LizLemon]

 

Ok. Looks like roll in BOS is ok, 160°/sec at 410kmh.

 

Look at page 136 of report - pilot makes control deflection and waiting for maximum roll rate will estabilish and THIS value is listed as roll speed. Not average roll rate recalculated to average roll speed as you have done guys. So NACA report is showing not 1 roll average speed, but speed of continues rolling or maximum achieved roll speed on test maneuver. Which is correctly represented in game.

 

I've personaly performed this test and I have 160°/sec continues rolling speed.

Also, 1 roll can be performed in 2.5 seconds, so even average roll speed is greater than 140°/sec.

 

That is all. Other issues later.

 

 

Why are you only testing on speed for max rolling?

[Trooper117]

I'll say thanks to Han for delving into this never ending subject

 

Lovely pics above by the way!

[Han]

Why are you only testing on speed for max rolling?

 

Because claim have noted this speed.

 

Claim was rejected because:

1. Claimers have understood source incorrectly

2. Claimers have performed their tests in BoS incorrectly

3. Our own re-checks shown that BoS is correcponds to source precisionly.

 

Issue of Rolling of Fw190 is closed. No more comments here.

[LizLemon]

And? What is next? Our planes were experted by several pilots, one of them is a WW2 veteran pilot, another is a test pilot of these birds:

 

With all due respect your game being test flown by very old test pilots doesn't mean much. The human memory is a frighteningly fail-able thing, and age only makes matters worse.

 

When your FMs disagree with multiple flight tests and pilots manuals makes it suspect. Retreating behind an explanation that 90 year old Ivan says it is like he remembers doesn't change that fact that the historical record disagrees. 

Because claim have noted this speed.

 

Claim was rejected. Issue of Rolling of Fw190 is closed.

 

And what about the rate of roll at higher speeds? Or lower? Why are you only testing your 190 at one speed?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Good luck with BoS reviews  As usual no comment on the La-5 roll rate.

Edited October 13, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[GOZR]

Great Han, but are they as well good Virtual pilot tested with the adequate flight hardware ? many Pilots do not want to play with Combat sim as serious as others. I know this very well. Now here flew all 9 of the Yak-9U's and 3 frames as well,  and many others.  Quite while back I told about some of the Yak-1 trouble but nothing was done to it.

 

BTW the aircraft in my avatar on the left with me on is a "Turbine Legend " Turbo prop that was inspired with the P51 design Just much lighter and very fast.  

Edited October 13, 2014 by GOZR

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Will we get the La 5F soon? According to Gordom Yefim, the La 5F was used during 1942's winter counter offensive on all fronts.

Edited October 13, 2014 by GrapeJam

[354thFG_Leifr]

I don't believe that having a 90 year old veteran with a failing memory is an appropriate way to 'verify' the accuracy of aircraft data. Even the sharpest of minds and bodies at a youthful age suffer from false reports and memory recollection.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Leifr

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 And comparing planes to fully restored planes that are leaps and bounds better done than any of those rolling from factory in WW2. Good luck with that logic.

Edited October 13, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[BFsSmurfy]

Gozr are you saying you`ve flown all the new Yak 9U`s mate?

 

Didn`t they say that anecdotal stuff and memories were no foundation for FM debates, now they`re using a 90+ year old veteran and showing a picture of a plane that isn`t even in the game, it`s a closed shop nothing people say will make the slightest bit of difference as they`ve gone into bunker/ostrich mode.

 

Ps

Why are they sending a Project manager to answer FM questions and where is the customer services guy, we are after all THE CUSTOMER, where is the fella running the show?????. I know sweet FA about FM but I have faith in those spending their own time doing such things but apparently all of them are wrong...go figure.

Edited October 13, 2014 by BFsSmurfy

[GOZR]

Yes.  

 

Han,   Now I really ask what to argue with me about some characteristic of a Yak, when I actually flew them.. not one... all of the 9's  I knew  from early 90's prototype test to the last we sold in 2004 #8 with the royal colors. I can tell you about them like no one will tell you.. Han I could tell you how they were made from witch parts and why and where. But I couldn't tell about weapons.. 

Anyway I hope the best for the Sim I always enjoy to fly in Virtual much much cheaper and safer  That was just a flash in my poor English.

Edited October 13, 2014 by GOZR

[FlatSpinMan]

Guys, leave it alone.

 

They looked at the data that was sent. They tested it. They were satisfied with the results of their model's interpretation of the data.

Note that phrase "their model's interpretation". None of us know what they were like, and any simulation simplifies, especially one that has to run on the average home computer, so you build a model that tries to approximate it given the constraints of the model, time, and money.

 

In addition, the mention of pilots that fly other warbirds passing the FMs is surely equally as reliable as taking the word of pilots in this community who question the FMs. That they flew modern models of a MiG3 etc, not a 1942 vintage190 is pretty much unavoidable without a time machine.

 

They've done their due diligence, listened to community input, and produced FMs they stand behind. That's where the matter should end.

[BFsSmurfy]

Sorry FlatSpin but the last couple of weeks have been a PR and customer relations derail, I was fully behind this at the start but the last 2 weeks have proper turned me off and I`m not alone. It`s a crucial point in the development for a lot of us and locking the threads here doesn`t stop the discussion elsewhere. We are not all "lets cause trouble merchants" we have genuine concerns and getting fobbed off or not getting any answers on the MP side of things doesn`t help. Statements like debate closed will cause anger, get the community manager involved and try and smooth things out would be my call.

[FZG_Merlin]

I don't really care for it. I fine with the fm as they are now since they balance the game. I'm ok with it..

 

That being said, it is funny that one of the most famous strong point of a plane (it's famous roll rate that permitted him to evade adversaries) that is mentioned in flight manuals, tests reports, and anecdotes from both it's pilots and adversaries, and confirmed by replicas, isn't present in the game.. When a la-5 outroll a fw-190, you know something isn't right.

 

Anyway. Matter closed as he said.

Edited October 13, 2014 by FZG_Immel

[SR-F_Winger]

I don't really care for it. I fine with the fm as they are now since they balance the game. I'm ok with it..

 

That being said, it is funny that one of the most famous strong point of a plane (it's famous roll rate that permitted him to evade adversaries) that is mentioned in flight manuals, tests reports, and anecdotes from both it's pilots and adversaries, and confirmed by replicas, isn't present in the game.. When a la-5 outroll a fw-199, you know something isn't right.

 

Anyway. Matter closed as he said.

I am not fine with balanced FMs.

With the rest i agree.

All this is partly why i am so eager to fly Star citizen. There is no red or blue. Just fly the ship that suits your preferences best:)

[wellenbrecher]

You do not fly in Star Citizen though. You aim somewhere and you ship flies there automatically, like mouse-aim in Arcade in WarThunder.

[Emgy]

With all due respect your game being test flown by very old test pilots doesn't mean much. The human memory is a frighteningly fail-able thing, and age only makes matters worse.

 

I think he meant this 40-ish gentleman.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 All props to that test pilot. Yet he is flying an IL-2 nowhere near the actual quality they were during WW2 from factory. No guns, racks or anything. Polished, rigged and built better than in factory. Sure makes a difference in handling. Same applies to all modern day WW2 warbirds, they fly better than their WW2 counterpart due reasons mentioned. But we can't know because we are not aeronautical engineers or professionals, can we?

[BFsSmurfy]

I don`t think they were questioning the IL2 mate, it`s more the fighters, if an IL2 out rolled a 190 even the WT mob would be upset lol.

[Emgy]

I know, was just trying to clear up the misunderstanding that the 91-year old Stepan Mikoyan was their only test pilot. No need to read anything else into my post, it's not an argument for/against roll rates etc.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Calvamos