Developer Diary, Part 125 - Discussion

[Feathered_IV]

I was wondering that too.  I hope everything is well with him and his family.

[Rjel]

Apologies if this is off topic but, where is Flat Spin Man these days, haven't seen him here for a while now.  

 

 

I was wondering that too.  I hope everything is well with him and his family.

 

I've been wondering too. He's always been a steadying influence on these boards.

[Frequent_Flyer]

We haven't made the decision on the following project yet.

That is encouraging and is cause for cautious optimism.

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

We haven't made the decision on the following project yet.

oh good this means your looking into a feasible fast out put, I hope its North Africa and all the area to south Italy, would be a nice large map with tons of options.

[busdriver]

I don't know why not ?

 

I apologize, this isn't really the right thread to discuss this, but as I've started ........

 

I appreciate , in real life, things like pilot experience and seat feel, would mitigate against it, but lacking many of the real life cues I would have thought that's exactly what would happen. Maybe utterly unobvious when flying alone in the sim but if you were flying next to another bomber that had just dropped several hundred kilos of bombs then I would have thought it was very much more noticeable. Maybe it's just me, but it's never occurred to me to reduce power when dropping bombs to ensure that I don't climb or speed up out of a formation ( not that I fly in a formation, but you know, if I did...... Yeh !!! and pigs might fly)

If it did occur, I'm not saying it does, I'm just curious about the physics, then I expect real pilots were trained to expect and compensate for it, sim pilots however might not even be aware of it happening, or mores to the point, care.

 

If you have some form of auto-pilot engaged (perhaps a basic altitude hold mode), then the airplane would tend to speed up. If you are "hand flying" and have the airplane trimmed properly to maintain a reasonable degree of straight and level flight at your current airspeed, then once the bombs are dropped the airplane will tend to climb as it seeks the "trimmed" airspeed. But it won't instantly balloon climb, as the power set during the bomb run is now "excess power" the airplane will accelerate...the nose will rise in an attempt to return to the trimmed airspeed...the pilot would feel the back pressure increase and counter this with forward yoke pressure AND trim to hold altitude.

 

I once dropped a pair of Mk-84s (2000 pounders) while in four-ship fingertip...non-standard circumstances, crummy weather off the coast of Korea, live weapons, didn't want to possibly divert carrying live bombs. That was in an F-16, but it was a non-event in terms of staying in fingertip formation.

 

Cheers

[Freycinet]

Also, just looking at footage of, for instance, B-17s dropping their cargo, you don't see them ballooning up as they release. Though you should probably take busdrivers word for it more than mine :-)

[Lusekofte]

Looks great.

 

Possibly the best created JU88 of all flight sims?

 

Highly doubt it since the COD one is very good. But this looks very nice

[Asgar]

Highly doubt it since the COD one is very good. But this looks very nice

no plane in Clod looks as good as the BoS planes or feels as real in my opinion. i'm sure this 88 will be the best ever to be created

[xvii-Dietrich]

Looks great.

 

Possibly the best created JU88 of all flight sims?

 

Hopefully, yes!

 

 

Highly doubt it since the COD one is very good. But this looks very nice

 

The CoD implementation of the Ju 88 is good, but it is full of problems...

 

... faulty bomb drop sequences, nodding-in mode-22, incorrect cockpit lights, no side-slip on Lotfe, only partially implemented radio/navigation systems, non-rotating C-stand turret ring, no limit on manifolds, unable to look around to see the levers on the left of the pilot, limited view from C-stand position, no navigation lights, no landing lights, no MG-reload animation, MG-continual-firing sound bug, indicator lamps incorrectly wired up, fuel-cocks not working correctly, no dive-brake indicator,... to name but a few.

 

So I am pretty confident that the A-4 implementation will be greatly superior to the A-1 in CoD.

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

The airframe of the 88 was designed by an American prior to the war. Much like the Christy chase on the T34 which both Americans and Britain turned down.

 

Chief

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

The airframe of the 88 was designed by an American prior to the war. Much like the Christy chase on the T34 which both Americans and Britain turned down.

 

Chief

The British implemented Christie suspension into their tanks, leading into to a dark age of British tank design.

 

Christie suspension itself is a pretty crap design, is way too heavy and takes too much internal volume.

[Asgar]

The airframe of the 88 was designed by an American prior to the war. Much like the Christy chase on the T34 which both Americans and Britain turned down.

 

Chief

dont start this again...it was already discussed in the forum and shown that it was not an American, Gassner got the US citizenship AFTER he left Germany and after he worked for Junkers

Edited March 14, 2016 by I./JG3_Asgar

[Frequent_Flyer]

The British implemented Christie suspension into their tanks, leading into to a dark age of British tank design.

 

Christie suspension itself is a pretty crap design, is way too heavy and takes too much internal volume.

It was such poor  engineering design, Albert Speer recommended the Germans copy it.!!!

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

It was such poor  engineering design, Albert Speer recommended the Germans copy it.!!!

Albert Speer was not an engineer.

 

The Russian tank designers themselves wanted to ditch Christie suspension on the T-34 before Barbarossa (see the T-34M)

Edited March 15, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Frequent_Flyer]

Albert Speer was not an engineer.

 

The Russian tank designers themselves wanted to ditch Christie suspension on the T-34 before Barbarossa (see the T-34M)

[Edited]

 

No need for insults.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Bearcat

[LukeFF]

You certainly are not a student of WWII, your bigotry does not allow for any intelligent discussion.

That was uncalled for.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

You certainly are not a student of WWII, your bigotry does not allow for any intelligent discussion.

Resorting to ad hominem are we?

 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/02/t-34-modernization.html

 

 

 

 

"Decree of the Committee of Defense within the Council of Commissars of the USSR

Moscow, Kremlin

 

On the production of T-34s with torsion bar suspensions

 

The NKSM (factory #183) must produce two experimental T-34 tanks with the following features by April 1st, 1941:

1. Individual torsion bar suspension.
2. Road wheels with internal shock absorption.
3. 1600 mm turret ring with protection from jamming and lead fragments.
4. A commander's cupola on the main turret with a dead zone of at most 10 meters.
5. A 5 man crew, of which 3 are in the turret (commander, gunner, loader) and two are in the hull (driver, radio operator).
6. Maximum speed: 65-70 kph.
7. New 600 hp V-5 engine (modernized V-2-K).
8. Other tactical-technical characteristics remain the same as defined by decree #428 on December 19th, 1940.
9. Perform factory trials by April 1st, 1941. Present the tanks for proving grounds trials on May 1st, 1941. 

NSKM and NKO must supply the KO with suggestions on producing this improved T-34 tank.

 

NKSM (Mariupol factory) must produce two hulls and two turrets by February 1st, 1941.

 

Chair of the Committee of Defense within the Council of Commissars, K. Voroshilov

Secretary of the Committee of Defense, M. Pugayev"

[Brano]

T-34M was interesting and much needed design change. Suspension and turret crew disposition was inspired by PzKpfw III Soviets bought from Germans and examined thoroughly before outbreak of hostilities.

[migmadmarine]

And on top of that, was Speer advocating the T-34's suspention specifically be copied, or just a vehicle of similar or superior capabilities in order to counter and defeat T-34? This would be the start of the program that led to the Panther, yes?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

As far as I know the Christie suspension was not meant to be copied. It was the basic desing of the T-34 and it's defensive capeabilities that drove the development of the Panther and Kingtiger. Technically the T-34 wasn't too impressive, it was due to it's characteristic angled armour that it worked well for the soviet armour doctrine.

 

The german torsion bar suspension was not bad at all and worked quite well for the time. The issue with most german tanks which utilized it was that it was too overloaded to work flawless (sth that was only to be solved with the late Panther series).

[migmadmarine]

As far as I know the Christie suspension was not meant to be copied. It was the basic desing of the T-34 and it's defensive capeabilities that drove the development of the Panther and Kingtiger. Technically the T-34 wasn't too impressive, it was due to it's characteristic angled armour that it worked well for the soviet armour doctrine.

 

The german torsion bar suspension was not bad at all and worked quite well for the time. The issue with most german tanks which utilized it was that it was too overloaded to work flawless (sth that was only to be solved with the late Panther series).

Figured so. 

[Roast]

We haven't made the decision on the following project yet.

 

How about Kuban next, followed by Kursk, gradually adding more LL planes

[I./JG1_Deschain]

How about Kuban next, followed by Kursk, gradually adding more LL planes

 

How about Malta

[ACG_KaiLae]

Hopefully, yes!

 

 

 

The CoD implementation of the Ju 88 is good, but it is full of problems...

 

... faulty bomb drop sequences, nodding-in mode-22, incorrect cockpit lights, no side-slip on Lotfe, only partially implemented radio/navigation systems, non-rotating C-stand turret ring, no limit on manifolds, unable to look around to see the levers on the left of the pilot, limited view from C-stand position, no navigation lights, no landing lights, no MG-reload animation, MG-continual-firing sound bug, indicator lamps incorrectly wired up, fuel-cocks not working correctly, no dive-brake indicator,... to name but a few.

 

So I am pretty confident that the A-4 implementation will be greatly superior to the A-1 in CoD.

You of course, have headed to Team Fusions bug tracker? To the bugmobile, batman!

[Jupp]

~S~ Fellows,

 

Jupp here.

 

"Seeing as old wounds, run deep, and new wounds, sting brightest, what, in heavens name, is all this fuss over who started the joke?

 

Expressively,

 

"Jupiter"

 

fini, fini, fini, ha!

 

~S~

[Feathered_IV]

No idea what you are talking about Jupp.  

[Roast]

How about Malta

 

Oh yes, naturally Malta, and later on North Africa

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I'm very happy for the Ju88 it looks epic and most likely will be. My only bug bear is that it will be too good and might push the balance in favor of axis too much.

 

 

 

Re Malta I think it could be very interesting but the island itself is quite small for bos scale with only two airfields. Also the nearest land is too far away for bos scale maps. So kinda sticky situation

Edited March 17, 2016 by AeroACE

[Feathered_IV]

Malta had Takali, Luqa, Hal Far, Safi airfields, and the seaplane base at Kalafrana. The racecourse was converted to an emergency landing ground too.

 

If the already short flight distance was a problem for online players, a separate MP map could be made that moves Malta north a bit so it sits just a few feet off the coast of Sicily.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Feathered_IV

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Ok feathered 4 airfields.

 

Also another point is that Malta is seriously dense in terms of scenery!! Every inch of the island is covered. I don't think even as good as the devs are they could represent it well and have it run well for most people.

 

There would be absolutely no survivable crash landings on land due to the high stone walls in all the fields.

 

All in all I would love Malta but don't think it would be possible practically

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Malta on its own is way too small. But if you add Sicily and make a rectangle to include both you get 90,000km^2 which is only slightly higher then 82500km^2 Stalingrad map and half of it is water.

Edited March 17, 2016 by RoflSeal

[-TBC-AeroAce]

The difference between them two areas is 8 10km grids per axis!! And as u said mostly water so performance hits might be very small.

 

Basically I would love Malta! But if u look at it in detail it wont fly!

 

I think we need a bigger crowd draw but a smart one!!!!

 

North Africa, Tubrok would be better

[Falco_Peregrinus]

very pretty plane the Ju 88, congrats devs.. and the cockpit is really beautiful!

I didn't realize how cramped the interior was for the crew, wow. One single shot or burst in there and no-one else able

to get the plane controls coming from another part of the plane.

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

on seconds thought, what about maybe?   Solomon islands with those plane sets, its got spits, Hurricanes, and Carrier's and F2 wildcats? and those SB2 bombers. 

[Antiguo]

on seconds thought, what about maybe?   Solomon islands with those plane sets, its got spits, Hurricanes, and Carrier's and F2 wildcats? and those SB2 bombers. 

 

 

would be great