Jump to content

Developer Diary, Part 82


Recommended Posts

LLv34_Flanker
Posted

S!

 

 Han, using a 121Hz monitor and can easily see the difference. I am sorry it does not show in those shots.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

That's great news about the briefings. FlatSpinMan and Feathered's examples are excellent!

 

Here's the in game camera perspective of a sortie within the campaign. This mission, I needed to escort (X3) PE-2's.

I decided to leave that part out, and show when the action began engaging a Me 109. Ever had one of those day's where you couldn't hit the side of a Barn? Well, this is my example :P

Anyhow, enjoy the brief acrobats and fireworks.

 

 

Stunning movie ! Makes you appreciate what a good sim pilot can really do in the virtual skies, loved watching the acrobatics and fast attack passes. A perfect advertisement for what this game engine can already do.

II./JG77_Manu*
Posted

They just need to claim something. So... they claim :)

We're very democratic - so we don't moderate claims, even if they're not impersonal and objective :)

 

To be "impersonal and objective" send your sources with explains to my PM box. Roll-rates were finalized to our sources a month ago.

 

in the Early Access Forum there is a topic about the 190, with numerous sources, who show that the Fw190 ingame is bugged/underperforming to a large extent. I can't PM you the whole topic, unfortunatly..

"roll-rates finalized to your sources"? So the Lagg3 rolls better then the Fw190? Is this the Devs real opinion?

  • 1CGS
Posted

in the Early Access Forum there is a topic about the 190, with numerous sources, who show that the Fw190 ingame is bugged/underperforming to a large extent. I can't PM you the whole topic, unfortunatly..

"roll-rates finalized to your sources"? So the Lagg3 rolls better then the Fw190? Is this the Devs real opinion?

 

Your historical source on Fw-190 roll rate - to my PM. And we will check. No other way.

  • Upvote 2
Posted

That's great news about the briefings. FlatSpinMan and Feathered's examples are excellent!

 

Here's the in game camera perspective of a sortie within the campaign. This mission, I needed to escort (X3) PE-2's.

I decided to leave that part out, and show when the action began engaging a Me 109. Ever had one of those day's where you couldn't hit the side of a Barn? Well, this is my example :P

Anyhow, enjoy the brief acrobats and fireworks.

 

 

 

Awesome video Bomerang, really good natural flying.

One thing though, at 4:00 in when you taxi to edge of runway your tracks in the snow seem to be there before you make them, could anyone explain this to me as I am slightly puzzled by it, lol. 

 

Thanks,

 

Mick. :)

Posted

To be "impersonal and objective" send your sources with explains to my PM box. Roll-rates were finalized to our sources a month ago.

 

I'll do when i have some time.  :salute:

  • 1CGS
Posted

I'll do when i have some time.  :salute:

Thank you, but don't hold this too long - release is close and it's better to hurry up.

II./JG77_Manu*
Posted

Your historical source on Fw-190 roll rate - to my PM. And we will check. No other way.

 you have post :salute:

Posted (edited)
  • The AAA will be getting more and more aggressive as you level up through campaign

Did this mean automatic that the turret guns getting more and more aggressive?  This turret gun is very aggressive! I killed the turret gunner but the turret gun still not dead.... How to aim to kill this turret gun???? :scare:

 

ixw26l9d6hy.jpg

 

Edited by Superghostboy
  • Upvote 1
Posted

Adding new mission types, tweaking briefings and mission parameters are all very well, and should be expected assuming release is a success. The changes discussed by the OP, howeve, are only elaborations of the current SP campaign concept.

 

What I do not see in this Developer Diary is any acknowledgement of the community's criticisms of the basic design of the campaign.

 

The criticisms of the campaign seem to me to fall into four categories:

 

1) It is (semi)compulsory even for those MP only players with no interest

 

2) xp-unlock mechanism is an annoying immersion breaker and makes some SP player choices impossible

 

3) The is no human interest story linking missions, no "band of brothers".

 

4) The missions are limited in type and variety.

 

As far as I can see the OP only addresses point 4. There is no indication whatever that the devs are willing to reconsider the features that have given rise to criticisms 1, 2 and 3. Celebration seems premature.

 

 

Best post yet on the Ostrich mode that`s been engaged regards genuine and reasonably expressed  concerns on unlocks and MP server play. Han you seem to be on duty atm, why does it appear that these concerns are being ignored?

Posted (edited)

Sounds like dynamic difficulty scaling in The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, in which enemy levels up together with player :) A feature hated by lots of people, by the way.

 

I think in this case the difficulty at the begging is lower than it should be so a newbie could gradually get used to the game and then it only rises to its normal level. At least I hope so.  :)

Edited by Omicron
Posted

I don't know but I guess they have nothing much new to say about MP right now.

Posted

I hope this isn't us having to fight what amounts to a bigger 'Boss' in game.

With any luck though, one of the dev's will read this and tell me I'm dead wrong! :)

=362nd_FS=Hiromachi
Posted

Ok, will check ground attack priority. Thanks.

From observations and current gameplay (like 5 min ago ended another mission) the Ai had a tendency to engage enemy fighters along with my cover (I was on 109 f-4 in ground attack mission, cover was provided by G-2s and enemy Yak's were at 2000 m altitude. Target was artillery and as I had 50 kg bombs I dropped them though I must admit, even hits in like 1 m from arty didnt destroy it which surprised me. 50 kg bomb is not much but still radius of blast and all shrapnel should kill crew).

Despite order to engage the arty my wingmen decided to go against Yaks. That was weird ...

 

From another pilot-wingmen-cover issues I see that my wingmen are not very capable of providing support. Unlike top cover (G-2s) my wingmen cant really kill anything and often fall to enemy. Is there any difference in Ai skill between players wingmen and third party (like the top cover provided by another unit operating G-2s )?

 

And third concern, enemy Ai seems to be very capable of hitting at various, even weird angles. Now I'm not saying angle makes it impossible to hit, but rather for typical pilot it would be extremely hard to score a hit. There were some brilliant pilots like Hans Joachim Marseille or Alexander Pokryshkin with mastered air gunnery, truly a great pilots but random Ai should rather represent average. Very often Ai even is capable of scoring a hit in clouds, in which I dive looking for safe place :)

 

I'm sorry if that is too weird but those are my concerns, except of such things I'm very happy with the product. 

Thank you :)

LLv34_Flanker
Posted

S!

 

There are plenty of sources out there on Fw190, originals and Allied tests. All of them show Fw190A having a marked roll rate advantage over all the planes up to high speeds. Tests show that the roll rate did not dip below 100deg/s until above 350mph(~562km/h) and even at 400mph(~645km/h) it was 75deg/s. Started from 120deg/s at 150mph(~240km/h). Maximum rate of roll being 165deg/s at around 260mph(~420km/h). That is way and beyond what most planes could do. And there is not a signle source indicating VVS planes in game came even close to these rates of roll. So I call BS and hot air this that players have to prove devs wrong. Use 2 way communication in the issue and you get far better results than the stubborn "we won't budge" attitude.

Posted (edited)

They just need to claim something. So... they claim :)

We're very democratic - so we don't moderate claims, even if they're not impersonal and objective :)

 

To be "impersonal and objective" send your sources with explains to my PM box. Roll-rates were finalized to our sources a month ago.

 

Roll rates were finalized ???

 

Very interesting if roll rates was only corrected for Yak - 1 and Bf 109.  Lagg3 and LA5 was not touched at all from begining.

 

Suorces for roll rate of  FW 190 are many.   I wonder what suorces your team have about Lagg3 or La5?   I read a lot about Lagg3 and its controls were describe as very sluggish -   really way different comparing what we have in BOS.

 

Also maxumum dive speeds expecially for Russian planes.   All got the same maximum safe dive speed in BOS - 750 km/h IAS.   I read manuals for LAgg3, La5 and Yak-1 and IRL manuals LAgg3 got maximum safe speed -  600 km/h,   La5 - 625 km/h, Yak - 650 km/h.   So at least it should be relative corrected for all fighters  If needed German ones included. It is clear that all these planes shouldn't broke at mentioned speeds but at least they should be different at maximum safe speeds and i cant imagine that Lagg3 which was restricted for 600 km/h IAS could sirvive 750 km/h -   650 maby yes but not belive in 750.

 

Here is topic about maximum dive speeds:

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9957-maximum-dive-speeds-bos-comparing-rl-data/?hl=%2Bmaximum+%2Bdive+%2Bspeed&do=findComment&comment=153792

 

 

The same about FW 190 performance in BOS and in reality expecially poor climb rate

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9956-fw-190-3-poor-climb-rate-bos-comparing-rl-data/?hl=climb+rate&do=findComment&comment=158044

 

Everything is here -  test from BOS and real life data.

 

Someone also mention about negative flick roll in German planes during negative pitch apply. Russian planes -  Yak-1 or La5 has not affected such behaviour and fly more natural way.

 

I think your team for now ignore these problems.

 

If it is really your team attitude for such things which are imprortant for many hardcore players i think you will loose a lot customers here including me casue i really loosing hope for these sim.

Edited by Kwiatek
Posted (edited)
The roll rate isn't correct, also, the "supercharger bug zone" which gives you terrible performance between ~1800m to ~4000m.

 

Between 2300m and ~ 3000m actually. Matt tried to explain it here:  http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/2085-flight-and-damage-models-physics/page-5?do=findComment&comment=149147

 

 

[...] - to my PM. And we will check. No other way.

 

This is sad news for the Flight-and-damage-models-physics thread!

Edited by aphorismenoi
VBF-12_Stick-95
Posted (edited)

This is something I have been wondering all along, not just since the last few updates.  I am not complaining, I just wondering why.  It probably was explained ages ago but I don't ever remember it coming up.  Sorry if this is not the perfect spot to post this question but I didn't think it deserved a separate thread.

 

Since this is a winter map only, why are all the aircraft skin defaults summer cammo?  Why don't they default to "white" cammo skins?  Is it simply a matter that at the beginning of Operation Uranus the aircraft still had summer cammo?

Edited by VR-Stick
  • Upvote 1
Posted
This is sad news for the Flight-and-damage-models-physics thread!

 

This isn't sad news. It's not even a news. It has allways been that way for every sim developped and there's no other practical way to do:

- Devs use their documentation to create FMs

- community send documents to devs (at any stage)

- dev look if the documents are something they didn't had and if it brings new usefull information

- if the new documents are usefull, dev make corrections (if they have some spared ressource if it's a minor issue, or whenever possible if a major issue).

Dev will never discuss FMs with the community. It's useless, and in any case THEY have to make the decision.

  • Upvote 1
II./JG77_Manu*
Posted

i just sent Han a PM, with all the Data on Fw in terms of engine performance and roll rate, that we, and other gathered together in various threads (shouldn't that be the task of the Devs?)

He didn't say anything to the performance graphs, which clearly show it's underperforming. Now he want's also a comparison between the real life data, and the ingame performance of the rollrate's at various IAS speeds.

I have to admit i won't have time to do that the next few days (wouldn't that be also the task of the Devs, to clear out the FM inaccuracies themselves?), so could anyone do a few little tests ingame, and compare to this http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y294/mynameisroland/RollChartClr2.jpg ? BUT even when they are right..i highly doubt, that the Lagg had the same rollrate (about 150°/sec). Didn't find any evidence in the internet so far, and i also doubt the Devs will show us. And in my opinion it's not about the absolute figures, but the comparison between the planes. If the one is right, but the other one is overperforming, then either the "right" one has to be buffed, or the overperforming one has to be set down to realistic terms. 

Right now it's just no fun for my squadmates, having to throttle back to 1,0 ATA, so i can keep up with my 190 with combat power at 1.34ATA.

 

Think i have to start rethinking about some of my earlier "Pro-BoS" comments. Being worried more and more, that this is not the right game/simulation for me  :(  :(

  • Upvote 1
Posted

Uranus phase campaign, I do a ground attack mission with LA 5  airplane where I have to hit artillery units, as usual spread in open field. 5 units with on each side a AAA truck.

I have two wingmates in the same plane and equipped like me with two 50 pound bombs.  I expanded my bombs and all my ammunition and left just one artillery unit short of succeeding the mission.

My two wingmates apart from flying around me did just nothing.   When I gave the command to attack the ground targets that had no effect and when I left the area they just followed and they did not fire a single shot. So the mission was failed but this is not normal. Wingmates are not acting as they should.

 

I landed back on the home airfield just to get an absurd  radio order to continue the mission. I had no more  ammunition and wingmates did not care at all.

We need to be able to call the base and say that we come home and then get a clearance to land. Points can be calculated accordingly.

Posted

This is sad news for the Flight-and-damage-models-physics thread!

 

Why? It's great news! You can PM him your data and he'll look into it. That's fantastic. That's exactly what we want. Attentive devs that are open to changing things according to historical documentation. 

 

Or what do you want? Him to just make up flight models as he sees fit? 

  • Upvote 2
Posted

Han is finaly spending saturdays on english forum :)  

Posted (edited)

Forum was full with topic about BOS planes performance comparing to RL data including Fw 190 performacne bugs, about roll rates and other similar things from long time.

 

I really doubt that something will change these game for more historical realism and accuracy.

 

From long time developers just ignore these area.

 

Pity if such potential in these game could be wated by such details which was important to many from us.

Edited by Kwiatek
Posted

But has he got the authority to answer the questions they seem reluctant to answer??

II./JG77_Manu*
Posted

Why? It's great news! You can PM him your data and he'll look into it. That's fantastic. That's exactly what we want. Attentive devs that are open to changing things according to historical documentation. 

 

Or what do you want? Him to just make up flight models as he sees fit? 

 

the problem here is. we find a lot of data about performance and maneuverability about the german planes, but those data alone are not worth a lot, when we don't find the same about the russian planes. I myself don't speak russian, so i can't use russian google. And i can't find absolute Data about the russian planes. What i find, are always comparisons, like

- "the Fw was rolling 60% faster then any allied plane at this time"

- "the speed of the Fw in XXXX altitude was XXXkph, so XXXkph faster then the yak"..

 

i don't say they are all wrong, in fact a lot of them are right ingame.

 

But then you look at the russian planes, and see they are all overperforming in one, or numerous attributes, like divespeed(!!!), rollrate, topspeed, acceleration. For us central european it's pretty hard, to find evidence, to compare the absolute figures of those 2 sides. 

 

i read a lot of history books and autobiographies, where you learn, of what the planes were capable, and of what they were not. There are no performance Data or something, there is a sentence like "The Fw was so good in bomber-duty, because it couldn't be catched by any other plane, after depleting it's bombs". Well and ingame this is just not right. But to proof it with data is another story.

Posted

I really doubt that even Dev. team got reliable data about russian planes. For example i never saw russian data for roll rates. 

II./JG77_Manu*
Posted

I really doubt that even Dev. team got reliable data about russian planes. For example i never saw russian data for roll rates. 

 

i think this is a big problem. So it's more or less on the Devs minds, and it may be a possible explanation, why the comparison between two certain counterparts like Lagg-Fw190 shows so odd results

  • 1CGS
Posted

Guys, I.ve no time for surfing million-posts FM threads.

So, you want changes?

Provide COMPACT historical data and BoS flight tests result to my PM.

If your PM will be like:

 

Hello

This is page scan from "xxxx", this graph shows Fw190a3 roll rate in "yyyyuy" conditions. As you see it should be "zzzzz" degrees per second.

And here is my result of flight test in BoS in same conditions. In BoS in same conditions we have "vvvvvv" degrees per second.

Mistake is more than "ppppp" percent, so please fix it.

Bye.

 

So, if I'll have such SHORT and USEFULL PM - we will re-check our data and adjustments.

Don't offer me "go there and look to thread". I.ll not do this, I've no time.

  • Upvote 8
II./JG77_Manu*
Posted (edited)

Guys, I.ve no time for surfing million-posts FM threads.

So, you want changes?

Provide COMPACT historical data and BoS flight tests result to my PM.

If your PM will be like:

 

Hello

This is page scan from "xxxx", this graph shows Fw190a3 roll rate in "yyyyuy" conditions. As you see it should be "zzzzz" degrees per second.

And here is my result of flight test in BoS in same conditions. In BoS in same conditions we have "vvvvvv" degrees per second.

Mistake is more than "ppppp" percent, so please fix it.

Bye.

 

So, if I'll have such SHORT and USEFULL PM - we will re-check our data and adjustments.

Don't offer me "go there and look to thread". I.ll not do this, I've no time.

 

we'll try to do that. I'll spend some of my free time, to do performance test with the Fw, and send you a PM when i am ready 

 

Edit: without the outer cannons, it will be hard to compare it to real life figures. And i definitely don't have the free time to unlock them

Edited by Celestiale
  • 1CGS
Posted

I really doubt that even Dev. team got reliable data about russian planes. For example i never saw russian data for roll rates.

We have this data. Not everything can be found in internet, much paper-data was investigated in Soviet and German military archieves.

  • Upvote 2
1PL-Husar-1Esk
Posted

Dev will never discuss FMs with the community. It's useless, and in any case THEY have to make the decision.

They did ! Look at ROF forums about SE5A and N17 FM.

  • 1CGS
Posted

Han is finaly spending saturdays on english forum :)

First week for a long time when questions are not sinking in the sea of flame and whining. I've waited long time for this opportunity.

Posted

C'mon Han... you have been in the business long enough to understand the demanding and unrelenting nature of that most pressing of species...' the flight sim fanatic!' :biggrin:

  • 1CGS
Posted

C'mon Han... you have been in the business long enough to understand the demanding and unrelenting nature of that most pressing of species...' the flight sim fanatic!' :biggrin:

It's Zak duty to BE on forums. My duty is to develop the game. So I'm go on forum only if it's realy useful for development. It's not very useful to take a part in flames and so on. Only constructive a compact dialogs are useful for development.

Posted

What i find, are always comparisons, like

- "the Fw was rolling 60% faster then any allied plane at this time"

- "the speed of the Fw in XXXX altitude was XXXkph, so XXXkph faster then the yak"..

And how can be the "60%" accurate is the max roll rate of "any allied plane at this time" isn't known? How was it measure without knowing the absolute performances? More generally, how do you measure and document "relative" performances?

That's a very common missconception to thing that relative performances can be accurate by themthelves... since there's no way to measure them directly... and since the only way to get them is to make a comparison between absolute performances.

Your second example is self explaining.... there's no way you could know that the Fw top speed of XXXkph was YYYkph if you didn't know that the top speed of the yak at same altitude was ZZZkh (and then you'll know, since YYY = XXX - ZZZ)

 

So the comparison you find are either unbacked with solid measures, and not really documented.... or they are, and then there's a way to find the original documents about absolute performances.

 

i read a lot of history books and autobiographies, where you learn, of what the planes were capable, and of what they were not. There are no performance Data or something, there is a sentence like "The Fw was so good in bomber-duty, because it couldn't be catched by any other plane, after depleting it's bombs". Well and ingame this is just not right. But to proof it with data is another story.

Yes, the famous "anecdotal evidences".... that's why all FM debates are useless, since they mostly rely on these "anecdotal evidences" who have no physical values, and can't be used to model FMs.

If you base a plane FM on anecdotal evidence, then it will not only not correspond to physical measurement and thus will bring away the game from the simulatin word, but more, it would have to be changed with each new plane you bring into the game, since you will find other "anecdotal evidences" talking about relative performances between the in-game planes and the new, that will often contradict with the old ones.

 

And another thing... the more you read historical documentation, the more you find contradictions between "anecdotal evidences", and the more you see how unreliables they are.

 

The only thing you can count on is documented performances, based on physical measurement... and that's what every dev (hopefully) try to do.

  • Upvote 2
Posted

lol... yes, I think Zak needs his own 'medal' :salute:

Posted

They did ! Look at ROF forums about SE5A and N17 FM.

And that was certainly not a very good idea....

 

Private discussion with the dev if you bring some good data could certainly be interesting... but public ones will allways turn into a never-ending useless debate.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

We have this data. Not everything can be found in internet, much paper-data was investigated in Soviet and German military archieves.

 

Well if you have it would be good but i never saw anywhere russian data about roll rates.

 

I wonder expecially Lagg3 -  if you made BOS LAgg3 according to your data it would be really interesting how Lagg3 could roll in pair with Fw 190 expecially at high speeds.

 

Another thing - if you have all data needed you probably have also RL manuals for Yak-1, Lagg-3 or LA5.  In these manuals which i got also there is maximum safe dive speed for all these fighters - which of course is different for all these planes.  So why in BOS all russian fighters could dive safetly with the same maximum speed - 750 IAS?  Maby Yak -1 which got maximum safe speed 650 IAS could stand these speed but i dont belive that LAgg-3 could do the same if manual restricted it for 600 km/h IAS.

 

 

There many holes in your game regarding flight model and performacne of BOS planes expecially relative performance.  Holes which your team for now mostly ingonres but these holes rise speculation about your team historical objectivness etc.

  • Upvote 2
Posted
There many holes in your game regarding flight model and performacne of BOS planes expecially relative performance.  Holes which your team for now mostly ingonres but these holes rise speculation about your team historical objectivness etc.

Then send Han all info needed to patch those holes.You seem to know everything.

  • Upvote 3

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...