What do you guys believe...

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

While I'd love to deliberate on Zhukov's rehabilitation and the reliability of Soviet military archives, this is both off-topic and bordering on politics so I'd suggest we stick to the theatre discussion thingy. To sum my view on it up, the whole thing is far more nuanced than presented here, and one can actually find lots of independent research in Soviet war history it because archives were opened and survivors of the war are always very eager to contribute, and as a result there are very fiery debates going on even today about multiple events. Like it is anywhere in the world, really.

 

One of the Kuban figures from the 16th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment: Georgiy Golubev performing checks in the cabin of his Airacobra. Together Golubev and Pokryshkin constituted a formidable Siberian pair - testament to its efficiency are Golubev's own 15 victories, and the fact that 35 of Pokryshkin's 59 official victories were done under Golubev's cover. Such was their coordination that once, after a flight leader ran away mid-flight leaving two inexperienced pilots to their fate, Golubev got in the way of enemy fire to protect Pokryshkin, who guided the new pilots through the battle and then home safely.

 

 

A very nice anecdote from Golubev on how this pair came to be:

 

After we left the airport, he told me: "You're a fellow Siberian, Golubev! Let's fly together."

 

I was at a loss, I couldn't find words to reply. An enormous responsibility had been laid on me - cover a pilot already well-known at the time in the country. Aleksandr Ivanovich clearly understood my confusion and softly put his hand on my shoulder.

 

"It's not that hard, Zhora. You need to be able to read my thoughts, and I will guess yours. There musn't be any words between us in the air! Transmit through the radio only the most important, briefly and clearly. The main part is to stay in a pair."

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Another pair who wrecked havoc over Kuban - one cheery Ukrainian who survived the war, Andrei Trud, and a Russian eccentric legend who went too soon, Vadim Fadeev.

 

 

Fadeev became a squadron leader at 16 GIAP on a handshake - the regiment was on transit from the Caucasus front to the rear for refitting. When the trucks carrying the pilots took a break, Fadeev bumped onto them and talked to some who he had become acquainted with back when he flew the I-16 over Ukraine and landed to refuel at 16 GIAP's airbase. He already had attained legendary status for both his skill in the air and his personality on the ground. The beard was kept "to scare the enemy", and once after landing his I-16 in no man's land he ran under bullets to the Soviet trenches, grabbed a rifle from the hands of a soldier there, rose it above his head and charged straight into the enemy. Upon seeing him all Soviet troops in the area charged as well in unison. Such was the surprise that the German soldiers abandoned their position before they could even fire. During that period the regimental commander Isaev was trying to get rid of Pokryshkin, who was undergoing court martial procedures, but the pilots took Fadeev to Isaev and asked if he could stay. After a strong handshake from the huge man, Isaev agreed. Fadeev shot down 20 enemy aircraft before his death on the 5th May, when him and Trud became separated from Pokryshkin's flight and were jumped by a large group of Bf-109s. Fadeev was wounded and attempted to go home, while Trud couldn't exit the battle with him. Like an excellent airman, Fadeev landed his Airacobra on a field within Soviet lines in one piece, but perished due to blood loss. On the 24th of May the announcement came that he had been named a Hero of the Soviet Union. On the 11th July his body was found.

[unreasonable]

Righty-ho: on topic. All this good stuff you have posted about the Kuban......  do you have inside information? Come on, you can tell us...

 

It makes perfect sense to me, actually, if the choice of another E front location fits best with the current plane set, developer's knowledge base and interests. Much more interesting than a Kursk scenario. So I personally have no problem with it, especially if we get some of the LL planes to add variety and keep the Yanks and Brits/CW pilots happy. Or unhappy, when they see how they are modeled, which is almost as much fun.

 

(PS Moscow badly needs a Hurricane).

 

I just wonder if we are wasting our time with our dreams of blue waters (Swordfish in the Med in my case)?

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Very cool news paper tool about brazilian squad presidential citation. It seems the North Americans were proud to recognize their effort and prowess

 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19860422&id=GTJPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3gIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6838,8411193&hl=pt-BR

[Brano]

Don't know if I remember it right,but it should be Fadeev who used to sing arias from opera when attacking ,abusing radio silence. Pokryskin mentioned that in his book :D

[Elem]

An afterthought to the Kuban planeset proposed. We could do away with the Il-2 and replace it with the U-2 instead, since they were very active as night bombers, spotters and anything you name in the area at the time

 

I would be amazed if the 777 developers, being Russian, didn't intend to recreate the exploits of the Night Witches at some point in this current IL-2 series. I don't believe it has been done in any previous flight sim and this 777 team are well placed to honour these brave ladies and what they did for their Motherland. Indeed, with female pilot models, the genre might well bring in a number of female players who may not otherwise be interested in flight sims. These same female pilot models could be used in missions by the 587 Dive Bomber Regiment with the Pe-2 and the 586 Fighter Regiment with their Yaks. Come on 777 team! Bring on the Po-2 and female pilots.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

In ideal they could add a female pilot model and a randomizer where one in every ten (for example) aircraft has pilot model #2.

 

Many if not most women in the Soviet Air Forces served in regular regiments, and there were also male night bomber pilots so that would add a nice balance. Feathered IV made a cool audio mod for the old Il-2 which replaced one out of the eight voice actors with a female voice, and the result was very nice and immersive. That being said under all that uniform the difference in models would be marginally noticeable, if at all.

[Elem]

Possibly. But the bottom line is we need the Po-2 to fly the Night Witch missions whether they be male or female pilots.

 

PS. The male nights bombers should probably be called Night Warlocks!

Edited June 7, 2016 by Elem

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Sneaking around moonlit mountain peaks or skimming the sea surface to avoid detection would make for great missions.

 

Brano, one could actually create that with the mission builder. Set a trigger for when the group engages that plays a male soloist singing for a while two minutes

[Brano]

Not sure which opera it was,maybe Eugene Onegin from Tchaikovsky 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You've given me an idea, I'll fire up the old Il-2 and see what I can do about it

[Elem]

Just to keep the team interested....

 

[Missionbug]

Hello guys.

 

I do love these threads of speculation, you can read them for hours, very interesting and definitely something to do while we wait for the Developers to put us all out of our misery or otherwise depending on your proffered theatre and viewpoint.

So here I go with what might have been if the original idea had materialised of the proposed merger of C.L.O.D and B.O.M back in the day.

 

The Eastern theatre and Western each with a map and plane set that would hopefully have contributed to each other in many ways to further build on what is an excellent game in its current form.

 

For the European, Britain/France cliffs map we could possibly have added the Ms 406 and Potez 603 to that existing game and used it for the end of the Battle of France from which we would naturally progress into the battle of Britain.  With that major event out of the way we can then turn our attentions to the taking back of Europe using that existing map for the early cross Channel sweeps on German occupied France.

 

I am sure that ultimately the B.O.S theatre would have been added and here we would be today with two Eastern scenarios still and again awaiting the announcement of the next theatre.

 

Now we already know the developers have rejected the merger of CLOD and B.O.S/B.O.M for whatever reasons technical or otherwise they feel are correct but let us have a look at the plane set we Could possibly be using in the proposed next theatre if it is indeed Eastern.  I for one feel it will be and am happy for it to continue along that path if it eventually incorporates the hostilities with Finland.

 

Cliffs of Dover aircraft possible usage between European and eastern maps:

 

Avro Anson:  Finland twin engine trainer.

Blenheim MK.I: Finland and Romania twin engine bomber.

Blenheim MK.IV:  Finland twin engine bomber.

DH 82A:  Used throughout the World and examples were used in Finland and Russia as trainers. 

(We currently do not have any type of training aircraft in our current game)

Do-17Z:  Finland twin engine bomber.

Fiat G50:  Finnish fighter.

Gladiator:  Finnish fighter.

He-115:  Finnish seaplane.

Hurricane MK.I:  Finland and Romania used this Fighter.

 

So even if the above were purely AI because 1C and 777 did not want clickable cockpits and it would be difficult to add them as flyable, surely the existing 3d could have been incorporated and it would give a huge variety of types as targets and for the skinners to paint.

If the two aircraft I mentioned earlier had been added to the European theatre they could migrate to the Eastern Front:

 

MS 406:  Finnish fighter.

Potez 63:  Romanian twin engine bomber.

 

So what to add into an eventual Eastern scenario to compliment what we might have had and what could they also be used for.

 

Lend lease has been mentioned extensively so the new types that immediately come to mind:

P-39 Aircobra:  Used widely by the Russians but could equally migrate to the cliffs map for sweeps over France.

A-20:  Again widely used by the Russians but again could also head for France.

Spitfire later marks:  Used by the Russians and could escort those A-20s into France.

Hurricane later marks:  Another type used widely in Russia but was also used extensively elsewhere.

 

Other new types to compliment the above:

I.A.R 80:  Romanian Fighter.   Would definitely need to be added to the Axis side as it was one of the main types used by Romania.

Tupolev SBs:  Two main types of twin engine bomber used by the Soviets and also the Finns.

Li-2:  Main Soviet transport throughout the conflict.

(The Li-2 and Ju-52 flyable would be great to have and give us a break from other mission types)

 

Besides the aircraft there would also have been extensive objects, ships and vehicles that would most likely have been equally at home in Europe and the East, not to mention those extra maps that were of no place in particular but gave mission builders and skinners the opportunity to use their skills and imagination to further the immersion and playability of the game.

 

Well we can dream, but just my two pence worth.

 

 

Take care.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

Edited June 7, 2016 by Missionbug

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The merger would be interesting, but ultimately impossible because Cliffs of Dover uses its own engine, while Battle of X uses a completely different one, built on the Rise of Flight engine.

 

I had a couple of minutes to spare, and I wondered, how was it to attack a dense bomber formation with escort while Vadim Fadeev sang an opera for everyone to hear. This is what I got

 

[Brano]

Good one Lucas    To improve on it a bit,you should include Pokryshkin shouting '' Вадим, Блин, прекратите петь! " 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Once they give us an Airacobra I promise I will re-do it, with customised voice acting and all that

[Brano]

I can help you with russian swearing 

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

He features prominently in this book... http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Airacobras-American-Against-Paperback/dp/0700616543

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Brano, you're hired!

 

Thanks for the tip Harry, I need to get it sometime, it looks very interesting.

[DD_Arthur]

 

Now we already know the developers have rejected the merger of CLOD and B.O.S/B.O.M for whatever reasons technical or otherwise they feel are correct but let us have a look at the plane set we Could possibly be using in the proposed next theatre if it is indeed Eastern.  I for one feel it will be and am happy for it to continue along that path if it eventually incorporates the hostilities with Finland.

 

Cliffs of Dover aircraft possible usage between European and eastern maps:

 

Avro Anson:  Finland twin engine trainer.

Blenheim MK.I: Finland and Romania twin engine bomber.

Blenheim MK.IV:  Finland twin engine bomber.

DH 82A:  Used throughout the World and examples were used in Finland and Russia as trainers. 

(We currently do not have any type of training aircraft in our current game)

Do-17Z:  Finland twin engine bomber.

Fiat G50:  Finnish fighter.

Gladiator:  Finnish fighter.

He-115:  Finnish seaplane.

Hurricane MK.I:  Finland and Romania used this Fighter.

 

So even if the above were purely AI because 1C and 777 did not want clickable cockpits and it would be difficult to add them as flyable, surely the existing 3d could have been incorporated and it would give a huge variety of types as targets and for the skinners to paint.

If the two aircraft I mentioned earlier had been added to the European theatre they could migrate to the Eastern Front:

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

 

Interesting post Pete .  The devs have indeed used plenty of the resources open to them from the defunct successor to CLoD which has helped speed up development and release of BoS.  Here's our La5 flying in its original game engine

 

 

and our '109F4 - flying over what appears to be the Volga.

 

 

Being chased by our IL2 by the looks of it.

 

 Yes they can use the 3D in the Digital Nature engine.  The problem with using stuff from CLoD is not a technical one.  CLoD was part funded by UbiSoft, the western distributors of the game.  They still hold an interest in the property.  After CLoD bombed on release UbiSoft pulled out from the planned eastern front successor to CLoD and this was funded by 1C games only.  Hence when 1CGS was formed they had rights to use what they wished from the abandoned successor game.

 

Of course, the 3D renders are only part of the work.  All this stuff has to have a flight model constructed for it in the Digital Nature engine - even if it's a.i. only.  That represents a significant effort in terms of limited resources.  Otherwise all these people calling for a biplane in this thread  ( simply enormous yawn  ) could be wetting themselves over this

 

 

 

[Missionbug]

Hello DD_Arthur, the whole premise I put forward was purely speculative but does give a flavour of what might have been had events been different, it seems so sad that all those lovely 3d models that some must have spent many hours on are now sadly abandoned.

 

At the end of the day politics and finance are part of every day life and the development team have to live within time and budget restraints like any other business so I dream on.

 

 

Now where are my clean underpants I seem to have wet these.

 

 

Take care.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[BlitzPig_EL]

That Po2 is a North Korean version.

 

Another of Luthier's nails to the coffin of combat flight simulation.

[Gambit21]

 

Of course, the 3D renders are only part of the work.  All this stuff has to have a flight model constructed for it in the Digital Nature engine - even if it's a.i. only.  

 

 

 

As a modeler of 3D aircraft I'd like to think it's the 3D model that's the most work, but from what I understand it's the AI, the LOD's and flight model that are the real chore.

You can throw 3D models at a development team all day long, but they're no good without all that other work as you know well.

[unreasonable]

 

Of course, the 3D renders are only part of the work.  All this stuff has to have a flight model constructed for it in the Digital Nature engine - even if it's a.i. only.  That represents a significant effort in terms of limited resources.  Otherwise all these people calling for a biplane in this thread  ( simply enormous yawn  ) could be wetting themselves over this

 

 

According to some who have looked at the detail, the biplanes in RoF have an FM which actually only models one wing. The visuals are just that: essentially cosmetic.

 

If that is the case (and I stress I am in no position to guarantee it), then making an FM for a biplane is no more effort than for a monoplane.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

According to some who have looked at the detail, the biplanes in RoF have an FM which actually only models one wing. The visuals are just that: essentially cosmetic.

Well, that's exactly what War Thunder does. Their engine doesnt have aircraft with more than one wing coded, so they basically fake it by increasing the total wing area. That of course is not perfect and makes some things fly like ... UFO, but thats just issue with Gaijin. Other example is J7W1 which is a canard plane, there are no push propellers in game, so they have simply made the FM the way propeller is in front of the aircraft (while it should be behind). 

[NN_RugbyGoth]

I guess we won't any announcement before july. Steam sales will be on around 24th June, They don't want to discount their brand new game, so they will have to wait the end of Steam sales to make it available on steam I guess, so the full release of BoM will be after Steam sales; and then we could expect some announcement for the future. 

 

Or not..., Who lives will see.

[PeterZvan]

According to some who have looked at the detail, the biplanes in RoF have an FM which actually only models one wing. The visuals are just that: essentially cosmetic.

 

If that is the case (and I stress I am in no position to guarantee it), then making an FM for a biplane is no more effort than for a monoplane.

 

I find that very hard to belive as the planes fly with with one or two wings....

The impact of wing loss is very accurate while flying - for instance Dr.I -> you loose left top wing - the plane behaves correctly. And its very different depending on which wing you loose - lower, upper...

Who has looked in detail - which people are making these claims.

As far as I understood noone outside the dev team has ever gotten so deep into the code to be able to see how the calculaitons are acctually run.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I really doubt they would model a biplane as having a huge single wing in the numbers, this 'in-depth investigation' sounds like cuckoo stuff by pseudo-experts trying to look smart. My experience with RoF is similar to Peter's. You can see how each wing is modelled separately when half your top wing is flapping in the wind and your aircraft is going bonkers because of it, until it is ripped off and you're done for.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I guess we won't any announcement before july. Steam sales will be on around 24th June, They don't want to discount their brand new game, so they will have to wait the end of Steam sales to make it available on steam I guess, so the full release of BoM will be after Steam sales; and then we could expect some announcement for the future. 

I was hoping for it in late May or early June, but as it is 8th June already I tend to agree that we might not see any update until July. Dang it, I hate waiting. 

[unreasonable]

I really doubt they would model a biplane as having a huge single wing in the numbers, this 'in-depth investigation' sounds like cuckoo stuff by pseudo-experts trying to look smart. My experience with RoF is similar to Peter's. You can see how each wing is modelled separately when half your top wing is flapping in the wind and your aircraft is going bonkers because of it, until it is ripped off and you're done for.

 

Here is the thread:  http://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/45460-fokker-dr1-fm-revisited/

 

The "pseudo-expert" is Chill31 who flies his own replica Fokker Dr1. He is investigating the NeoQB Dr1 for FSX. Obviously he cannot directly  investigate the RoF FM because it is secret. So does it model the wings separately?

 

I suppose if you really want to know you could ask the developers and see if you can get a straight answer.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Definitely not a pseudo-expert then, thanks for pointing me to it.

 

I read it through though, and I couldn't find any indication that RoF deals with it simplistically except for one post where he mentioned 'it has one wing' and that's it. Also, in the pingpong ball airflow video you can see the pingpong balls go through each wing differently, following the wind as it behaves through the airfoil. Considering the aircraft here are built as a 'glider model' with an engine to provide airflow, I can't see them going through the hassle of modelling the airflow through multiple wings while simultaneously not using that in the flight model.

[unreasonable]

When I look at the ping pong ball video what I see is the airflow round the lower wing as you expect - but they simply pass through the other wings as though they were not there. A nice demonstration of the air physics model, but at best inconclusive on the wing issue.

 

Anyone interested in flight modeling would do well to read this thread, btw: it is an interesting exercise in how to get an PC FM to approximate the performance of a real aircraft, with none of the usual "my plane is nerfed" diversions. The message is that it is not easy - just plugging in historical input data (airfoils etc) will not necessarily get you historical outputs.

 

After reading it, I came away convinced that RoF - like every other available PC flight simulator AFAIK - uses a monoplane model for all aircraft and will continue to so believe in the absence of a direct statement from the developers to the contrary, given that we are not going to see the actual FM any time soon, or at all.

 

Just to be clear - I am not saying that modeling a biplane (or triplane) as having one wing is necessarily a bad thing: it might well be the only practical way to do it given the limitations of current PCs. My comment was related to the issue of whether making a biplane FM in BoK would be any more difficult that making a another monoplane.  I do not believe that it would, so having a Po2 in BoK (or even better, a Gladiator and Swordfish in the Med ) would not be any special hurdle for the dev team to overcome.

Edited June 8, 2016 by unreasonable

[Brano]

Biplane modeled with one wing,why not. If it can bring comparable output with less CPU load. As example,lets say lower wing is ripped off due to overstress in dive (Ni-17) resulting in change of lift and drag on the damaged side of the "monowing". Plane goes into uncotrolable spin to the ground. Quite believable,at least for me. But I can imagine FM nerds arguing about HOW you should spin to the ground 

I suppose devs can also test such "simplifications" by comparing the results to the more sophisticated calculations within test department. Those that would not be viable for gaming purposes. In one DD there was stated that devs have far more sophisticated math model at their disposal. One that would melt down our CPUs if used in game,most probably 

[BraveSirRobin]

Definitely not a pseudo-expert then.

He's a DR1 expert. He knows nothing about how the flight models are programmed.

[PatrickAWlson]

I would be very surprised if RoF did not model wings individually.  The variations in wing type (parasol, mid wing monoplane, sesquiplane, biplane, triplane) would seem to be too significant to model as a single wing.  Many things, such as wing chord, length, spacing between wings, etc. all play into the FM.  I don't see how you could model a biplane as having a large single wing and end up with a FM of the fidelity that 777 produces.

 

So ... there is almost certainly FM code out there that knows biplanes.  It may have to be ported to BoS (where it may not currently exist), might have to be enhanced, but there has to be something already available in RoF.

[SAG]

what do i believe?......

 

I belive that the game is on the right track but its just moving too slow, not planeset/map-wise but features-wise. theyre only introducing new features as patches along the proccess of polishing bugs and stuff and the depth of the gameplay is coming at a very slow pace. 

 

i wish we had careers in SP but i would also love an MP career. something like what TAW is trying to make, but saddly these people are only a few and working for free so progress is slow as well. 

 

i just think that the slow progress is what keep the pilot numbers down since there is no real reason to stay online for large periods of time over weeks or months.

[unreasonable]

I would be very surprised if RoF did not model wings individually.  The variations in wing type (parasol, mid wing monoplane, sesquiplane, biplane, triplane) would seem to be too significant to model as a single wing.  Many things, such as wing chord, length, spacing between wings, etc. all play into the FM.  I don't see how you could model a biplane as having a large single wing and end up with a FM of the fidelity that 777 produces.

 

So ... there is almost certainly FM code out there that knows biplanes.  It may have to be ported to BoS (where it may not currently exist), might have to be enhanced, but there has to be something already available in RoF.

 

Well, Pat, if you read the thread you will see that Chill models a Dr1 using FSX, using the NeoQB FSX Dr1 data and then modifying it. He is convinced that the end result he gets behaves very similarly to his replica except in relation to yaw stability, where he cannot replicate his aircraft's behaviour.  FSX models a single wing.

 

Not only that, but he is convinced that his FSX model gets much closer to the RL behaviour than does the RoF Dr1, which is unsurprising, since the RoF developers did not have a flying Dr1 with which to make comparisons, only some design data and very limited and incomplete performance data.

 

This does not prove that RoF uses a monoplane model, but I think it does prove that a monoplane model can be used to get a perfectly workable triplane FM, so there is no obvious reason why RoF would not have used it.

 

Everyone is free to believe what they like, of course, there is only one way to be sure. Ask the developers.

[wtornado]

Great idea Lucas.

 

ummm...

 

Can she be my pilot?

 

 

 

 

In ideal they could add a female pilot model and a randomizer where one in every ten (for example) aircraft has pilot model #2.

 

Many if not most women in the Soviet Air Forces served in regular regiments, and there were also male night bomber pilots so that would add a nice balance. Feathered IV made a cool audio mod for the old Il-2 which replaced one out of the eight voice actors with a female voice, and the result was very nice and immersive. That being said under all that uniform the difference in models would be marginally noticeable, if at all.

I want pilot model # 2 to be her.

 

They can model her!

[Juri_JS]

what do i believe?......

 

I belive that the game is on the right track but its just moving too slow, not planeset/map-wise but features-wise. theyre only introducing new features as patches along the proccess of polishing bugs and stuff and the depth of the gameplay is coming at a very slow pace. 

 

i wish we had careers in SP but i would also love an MP career. something like what TAW is trying to make, but saddly these people are only a few and working for free so progress is slow as well. 

 

i just think that the slow progress is what keep the pilot numbers down since there is no real reason to stay online for large periods of time over weeks or months.

Exactly.

 

Only adding a new map and ten new planes once a year won't keep the Sturmovik series alive in the long run. The lack of new ideas/features in BoM is one of the reasons why I haven't bought it yet. As pure offline player with a distaste for the campaign system BoM just doesn't offer enough other content that would allow me to enjoy the game.

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

RoF and BoS FM is hugely off topic here, but I would like to share my thoughts on DN Engine's 'unique flight model'.

 

Here's a short video , start from 1:20 minute.

 

https://youtu.be/yxBQKBXK2iU

 

To quote Irish boy band Westlife , 'I am flying without wings...' .

 

At the end of a day both RoF and BoS are games , not simulators in strict sense of that word.