Developer Diary, Part 82

[II./JG77_Manu*]

True air speed matters, too. Helix angle, Mach number and stuff.

 

Mach number is only depending on indicated air speed. Helix angle? How should that make a difference in roll rate?

[DD_bongodriver]

Mach number is only depending on indicated air speed. Helix angle? How should that make a difference in roll rate?

 

I don't get that either, not only is mach a product of indicated but so is true airspeed, all dependent on temperature and altitude, no idea what helix angle is........prop blade angle?

[Dakpilot]

Prop blade  twist, sorry but he lost me when he said "and stuff" perhaps the devs will look into and address some "stuff"

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 13, 2014 by Dakpilot

[SR-F_Winger]

So your conclusion is that a 90% FM accuracy for a $60 flight sim is acceptable or unacceptable ?

 

Yeah...hum...language .... OK...when people do the ''comparison tests'' in BOS, do they reproduce also those atmospherical

variables found in those historical DATA ?

 

More accurate question... :-)

If what HerrMurf wrote is correct (Han could you confirm the randomness in performance +- is modeled in BOS?) then I am totally fine with 90% accuracy.

Edited October 13, 2014 by VSG1_Winger

[FlatSpinMan]

Why? Do they get XP for finishing missions too? Do they get mad at you because they identify you as the one that got away earlier.

They get better with each mission and never die? I really dont understand this

So new players don't killed straightaway all the time, presumably.

 

Now you will say, "But's that's not realistic. It's a game."

And I'll say: "Yes"

 

It simulates flight, it simulates combat but it's a game. They all are.

[LLv24_Zami]

Is there going to be update tonight?

[APIKalimba]

Isn't possible that a 10% différence between BOS FM and '' official data'' be caused by :

 

Atmospherical and temperature situations ?

 

Would it be fair to assume that between planes or the same making there would have been a 10% overall

différence in FM behavior due to simple facts like : engine wear and mecanical adjustments, fuel mixture,

quality of all fluide, ans so on ?

 

I mean, 90% FM accuracy is almost a technical miracle for a $60 sim, no ?

Why is it still debated ?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The atmoshphere should have great impact on the engien performance, but not effecting roll performance at said IAS.

 

I'm quite confident devs have proper tools to analyse optimal performance of each aircraft ingame with their given FMs, would suprise me if they really measured it "by hand".

Edited October 13, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[FZG_Merlin]

Isn't possible that a 10% différence between BOS FM and '' official data'' be caused by :

 

Atmospherical and temperature situations ?

 

Would it be fair to assume that between planes or the same making there would have been a 10% overall

différence in FM behavior due to simple facts like : engine wear and mecanical adjustments, fuel mixture,

quality of all fluide, ans so on ?

 

I mean, 90% FM accuracy is almost a technical miracle for a $60 sim, no ?

Why is it still debated ?

 

the issue, dear sir, is that the Fw-190 was known and feared for its superior roll rate, on all theaters he flew in, and this superior roll rate isnt superior to La-5 in the sim, for example..

 

Atmospherical and temp are the same for all planes involved in this sim, arent they ?

[DD_bongodriver]

Maybe atmospheric conditions are an unlock?

[falstaff]

Kalimba said:

 

I mean, 90% FM accuracy is almost a technical miracle for a $60 sim, no ?
Why is it still debated ?

 

Because A) It's a genuine point of interest for some people, and B) It's a proving ground for some people. 

 

And If people have countless years of reading under their belts, they sometimes like to see a 'return' on that investment.

 

Roll rates....How quickly you roll over and go back to sleep....?

Edited October 13, 2014 by falstaff

[APIKalimba]

 

I'm quite confident devs have proper tools to analyse optimal performance of each aircraft ingame with their given FMs, would suprise me if they really measured it "by hand".

 Of course. Otherwise, they would not have reached this level (90%) of accuracy... 

 

And I am still convinced after reading aaaaaaaaaallll those posts regarding FM, that the remaining  "inacurate 10% " is simply a natural and inevitable margin of error due to the nature of the planes and atmospheric situations. I would then rate the FM models as 100% accurate ! Good job devs ! 

[Yakmaster]

does  also AI pilots get better with XP you get?

[JG4_Sputnik]

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.

Its allready limited at lower graphic presets.

 

Thx Han,

well appreciated, and thanks for taking time to answer our questions. I think this is/was a reasonable approach, and it turned out pretty well! However I don't know why anyone could have thought that we would like to have a cockpit with unreadable gauges and bad visibility more than the other one

(And while we are at it, maybe you guys could do the same with the unlocks and graphics pre-sets, which obviously are also "well prefered by the comunitiy", just sayin' )

Thx again,

Cheers

Edited October 13, 2014 by JG4_Sputnik

[ST_ami7b5]

So, presumably, veteran players will instead be killed more frequently.

That's back to front, surely?

Remember, it is not sim (suddenly), it is *game* (the new mantra).

Edited October 13, 2014 by ST_ami7b5

[APIKalimba]

Kalimba said:

 

 

Because A) It's a genuine point of interest for some people, and B) It's a proving ground for some people. 

 

And If people have countless years of reading under their belts, they sometimes like to see a 'return' on that investment.

 

Roll rates....How quickly you roll over and go back to sleep....?

 

Ha! ok then... You say :

 

Some people still feel like 90% accuracy is unacceptable for a $60 sim  considering they read books with all sorts of informations about FM , thus consider themselves as experts, more than the devs, and thus make all their complaints legitimate and their opinons about FM the  absolute truth.

Is that a good résumé of your thoughts ? 

[dburne]

My recollection is the opposite.

I'm fairly sure we've had a developer state that all planes are factory fresh with all planes of the same marque sharing identical characteristics.

 

I may have missed a post though, so would welcome a link where a random element has been discussed.

 

Kind of my recollection as well, would be interested in a statement from developers on this...

[APIKalimba]

the issue, dear sir, is that the Fw-190 was known and feared for its superior roll rate, on all theaters he flew in, and this superior roll rate isnt superior to La-5 in the sim, for example..

 

Atmospherical and temp are the same for all planes involved in this sim, arent they ?

Han responded clearly about La-5 roll rate being quite close as the 190. They have the data. 

 

And how do you know that all planes react the same way in atmospherical, temp and pressure changes ?

 

And finally , do you consider a 90% FM accuracy acceptable for a $60 sim ?

[Marauder]

Mach number is only depending on indicated air speed. Helix angle? How should that make a difference in roll rate?

Mach number is not directly related to indicated air speed, since it is dependent on air temperature while indicated is dependent on density. Also indicated air speed is just a pressure difference, while both true air speed and speed of sound are actual speeds.

Applying ailerons to a certain degree will give you a helix which the wingtips perform. With the same indicated air speed, the same control forces, the faster you fly, in true air speed, the faster the plane rolls. Since some folks seem to be more familiar with props - same thing really. With the same pitch it needs to rotate faster to achieve higher true air speeds at the same indicated speeds. And as far as "stuff" is concerned - there's a lot more why the same aircraft at the same IAS will have varying roll performance, and sarcasm doesn't change that.

[DD_bongodriver]

the faster you fly, in true air speed, the faster the plane rolls

 

Sorry but this is nonsense, true airspeed varies with altitude and temperature, a roll at a set true airspeed at 1000' will be much faster than a roll at the same true air speed at 10000', indicated airspeed is not simply a pressure difference, it is a measurement of dynamic pressure which is directly related to the mass of airflow over the airframe.

Edited October 13, 2014 by DD_bongodriver

[Marauder]

Don't quote half my statement and tell me it's wrong.

[FlatSpinMan]

So, presumably, veteran players will instead be killed more frequently.

That's back to front, surely?

Presumably the veteran players have superior skills that would enhance their chances if surviving.

 

One also presumes that the rationale behind it is that one fixed level would bore players who were good, and deter players who were new or otherwise inept.

 

With this system, the thinking would appear to be that as you get better, a higher level of challenge would make it more fun, and keep you interested in playing it for longer, presumably.

[ST_ami7b5]

^^ so, definitely *game*

 

For $100 I thought I buy a successor of IL-2 1946.

Edited October 13, 2014 by ST_ami7b5

[APIKalimba]

Sorry but this is nonsense, true airspeed varies with altitude and temperature, a roll at a set true airspeed at 1000' will be much faster than a roll at the same true air speed at 10000', indicated airspeed is not simply a pressure difference, it is a measurement of dynamic pressure which is directly related to the mass of airflow over the airframe.

 

This is a good exemple why the devs are keeping their grounds about FM. Opinions, rather than facts (Bongo's response) .

I'll stick to my 90% accurate...  

[DD_bongodriver]

Don't quote half my statement and tell me it's wrong.

 

I quoted a part that I know is wrong.

[FlatSpinMan]

^^ so, definitely *game*

Obviously. Did you think you were in some VVS remote training programme?

 

"Enders' Game" and "The last starfighter" have a lot to answer for.

[CIA_Yankee_]

Why? Do they get XP for finishing missions too? Do they get mad at you because they identify you as the one that got away earlier.

They get better with each mission and never die? I really dont understand this

 

This is fairly simple to answer: it is to gradually increase the campaign difficulty as the player becomes more familiar with the simulation.

 

Most games work like that: start off easy and get more difficult as time goes on, hopefully keeping up with the learning curve. Same reason we start off with 4 super-easy tutorial missions.

 

It's basic game design stuff, and I imagine you already knew this.

[Leaf]

^^ so, definitely *game*

 

For $100 I thought I buy a successor of IL-2 1946.

 

Give this game 3 years and it'll be a thousand times better, I'm sure. 

You're comparing a game that's been around for 10 years with one that is not even finished.

I mean come on.

[CIA_Yankee_]

Obviously. Did you think you were in some VVS remote training programme?

 

You mean BoS hasn't prepared you to take up arms for the Rodina, when Putin comes calling?

 

But seriously, yeah, this is pretty basic game design. Campaign ramps up its difficulty as time goes on, like most games do, including sim.

 

The difference is that usually in sims this "ramping up" occurs through training missions, not in the dynamic campaign. People just need to understand the "gear shift" that comes with BoS' design. New players are not expected to spend hours learning to fly before engaging in the campaign: they can jump right in and have fun.

 

That's why we have those easy tutorials, why there's normal and expert mode, why there's short/long campaigns, and why the AI apparently gets better as the campaign goes on.

[DD_bongodriver]

This is a good exemple why the devs are keeping their grounds about FM. Opinions, rather than facts (Bongo's response) .

I'll stick to my 90% accurate...  

 

it's all fact.

[Dakpilot]

Don't know where this 90% figure came from, but I would be rather careful with that.....10% on the low side of accuracy for one model and 10% on the high side for another =20% difference or 100kmh difference on two 500kph aircraft

 

Just saying be careful what you wish for lol

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[ST_ami7b5]

Obviously. Did you think you were in some VVS remote training programme?

 

"Enders' Game" and "The last starfighter" have a lot to answer for.

OK, so I will go back to 10 years old IL-2 1946 (with HSFX) which will give me what I expected from BoS (with bit worse graphics).

[Dakpilot]

Maybe atmospheric conditions are an unlock?

 

Fact?

 

it's all fact.

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[ST_ami7b5]

Give this game 3 years and it'll be a thousand times better, I'm sure. 

You're comparing a game that's been around for 10 years with one that is not even finished.

I mean come on.

You come on.

They had an excellent example (1946) and yet they went WT way.

 

Edit: feel of flight excellent, graphics nice, FM good IMHO, SP disaster.

Edited October 13, 2014 by ST_ami7b5

[Dakpilot]

If we're flying a campaign and ten missions in we know that the AAA will be harder than it used to be, and in another ten missions it's going to get more accurate again (because we have levelled up!?!), I don't feel this is immersive or fun, it's just predictable and unrealistic.

 

The question is, do these gamey ideals belong in a combat flight simulator?

 

Judging by the response on this forum the answer is "no"!

 

But what do we know, we're only the ones meant to be gleaning enjoyment from this product.

 

I only see the campaign as it is now (as intended) as an introduction for newcomers..and as that it is really excellent. The "meat and potatoes" will come from user made campaigns...just like old IL-2 etc.

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited October 13, 2014 by Dakpilot

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

Fact?

 

No, that was a question, with a twist of humour........you seem to grasp the concept of the question mark so not sure where the confusion lay.

[BFsSmurfy]

Let Desastersoft do the campaign?? they `d probably do it FOC and better for some kind of assurance that they`d get first shot at after market stuff (purely a guess I hasten to add), this would free up resources maybe to fix stuff a lot of folks are disgruntled about. I know the statement is simplistic I wanted to point that out before I get accused of something I already realise.

 

Also if one of the team came on here and said MP would be a seperate entity to SP and that the SP campaign/unlocks would be optional half the grief and anger would dissappear. Why is it so difficult to answer questions on the MP side of the game. FSM you can`t say thats inflammatory or rude mate, it`s a straight question to those in charge.

[Dakpilot]

Name a flight sim that was released with a GREAT campaign suitable for jaded multi year experienced "sim pilots" especially on a tight/limited budget  timescale......

 

" Seems a shame that the more experienced pilots get hors d'oeuvre when the newcomers get "meat and potatoes" and gravy. "  We already had the benefit of 10 years of great user made campaigns etc.           

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Falcon 4.0 and Secret Weapons of The Luftwaffe, EAW...

[DD_Arthur]

OK, so I will go back to 10 years old IL-2 1946 (with HSFX) which will give me what I expected from BoS (with bit worse graphics).

 

Could it be that lots of the people complaining over this roll rate business have their basic point of reference as Oleg's interpretation of the FW190 flight model?

 

 

the issue, dear sir, is that the Fw-190 was known and feared for its superior roll rate, on all theaters he flew in, 

 

 

Sorry but thats nonsense.  The FW190 was feared for its speed.  This speed gave it the ability to climb or dive away from it's mid war adversaries with impunity and therefore allowed the FW190 pilot to dictate the tactics of the engagement.  Please find me any memoir by any allied or Soviet pilot that mentions the roll rate of the '190.

 

I can find you plenty of memoirs of people flying Spit. mk. v's in 1941/42 who mention the superior speed of the FW and the advantage it gave to the LW over France.  Once the Spit mk. IX reaches general service these fears cease.  Did the FW "roll away" from the Spit mk. IX successfully?  It should have done as the Spit shared the same wing as it's slower predecessor.  I've never seen any mention of this.   This is a flight-simmer perception - not a historical reality.

 

As a matter of interest; the early marks of Mustang had a higher roll-rate than the apparently all-conquering FW190.