Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary, Part 161 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

None of you know anything about what WW2 felt like. This is just a computer game with a WW2 air combat theme. It's made for entertainment like all games. Some of you take this game as well as yourselves way too seriously...

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of you know anything about what WW2 felt like. This is just a computer game with a WW2 air combat theme. It's made for entertainment like all games. Some of you take this game as well as yourselves way too seriously...

 

What he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dev diaries should be free of bickering.

I've been guilty (just once) and felt like a tool for contributing to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to the reworked FM. I think it's going to change the subjective feeling about the aircraft a lot. While much is said to be more 'realistic', to me it often reads as more 'fun'.

 

I like the details you give for the particular aircraft, its going to be nice. What I do miss is a statement about the fix for the yaw instability of the P-40, I was hoping it got fixed now with all the other changes being made.

 

I hope they are just being curt about it, and have actually worked to make it correct.

BTW, I now have technical documents from Curtiss describing the stall speed at each weight of the AC....

post-16698-0-04985000-1497852061_thumb.jpg

post-16698-0-24315800-1497852072_thumb.jpg

Edited by Venturi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really am starting to hate this communities fourm. So much negativity, bickering, trolling and dumbfounded arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really am starting to hate this communities fourm. So much negativity, bickering, trolling and dumbfounded arguments.

You could post something positive then :)

 

There is lots of good info here. But just as in life, it is not easy to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it means for everyone. Its the virtual stick load (?).

Am I understanding your correctly when I think you say:

 

At low speed I will get at 100% stick = 100% deflection on my elevators AND in at 700 km/h a 100% stick will only get 50% elevator deflection!?

(just an arbitrary example)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but it's all your interpretation and fantasy.

1)You never were in combat in 1940-45.

2)You never know how many pilots have been involved into dogfights, not only group leaders.

3) You never have read any book about fighter pilots memories .it's very clear.

Then please stop to tell what your imagination is telling to your finger here, write only what you really know about TRUE WW2  fighter experience, not this crap of fantasy.cheers.

 

Stick to facts and quotes and remember to add sources.

Speculation and hearsay does not belong here.

Remember that pilots stories are personal and subjective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but it's all your interpretation and fantasy.

1)You never were in combat in 1940-45.

2)You never know how many pilots have been involved into dogfights, not only group leaders.

3) You never have read any book about fighter pilots memories .it's very clear.

Then please stop to tell what your imagination is telling to your finger here, write only what you really know about TRUE WW2  fighter experience, not this crap of fantasy.cheers.

 

Please point me to a pilots memoirs that recount a mission undertaken single-handed, with half a fuel load that lasted half an hour.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to beat a dead horse here, but that's not the point. There aren't going to be any examples of what you're asking for, but your explanation of air combat earlier is also overly simplified. Although dogfights did not occur as often in the real world as they do here, and they looked substantially different to the ones we have here, they did occur.

If you really want I can go look for quotes but I think that's a bit overboard for what were discussing here.

 

 

My point was never that real and virtual dogfights are the same however. Just that air combat both fictional and otherwise puts airplanes in areas of their performance envelopes that you can't measure with classic flight tests or some sort of calculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please point me to a pilots memoirs that recount a mission undertaken single-handed, with half a fuel load that lasted half an hour.

Loads of missions were flown alone, as the mission required.

 

Fuel loads could occassionally be altered to fit mission length and weapon loadout.

 

Missions quite often lasted less than an hour and sometimes as little as 15-20mins. Especially on the Eastern Front. How do you think Nadezhda Popova got to fly 16 missions in a single night?

 

I agree, that we don't fly in ways that closely resemble reality, but these are not the reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mountains :fly: 

 

I know! :joy:

I'm going to be curious as to how the AI handle flying around in them..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know! :joy:

I'm going to be curious as to how the AI handle flying around in them..

 

IL2-46 did have a few issues with the AI making friends with the mountains... at high speed, like the proverbial whale and bowl of petunias.

 

Oh no, not again...

 

 

 

 

 

:biggrin: 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always had the subjective impression that planes in this series behaved as if they were too light. Fluttering about a bit too much. I guess this dev update will fix that, which I look forward to seeing.

 

Frey, I've been saying this since day one, and have felt the wrath of some members because of my stance.   Nice to see that I'm not imagining things.

 

Also...

 

Jason...   How has this change affected my baby, the P 40?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to beat a dead horse here, but that's not the point. There aren't going to be any examples of what you're asking for, but your explanation of air combat earlier is also overly simplified. Although dogfights did not occur as often in the real world as they do here, and they looked substantially different to the ones we have here, they did occur.

If you really want I can go look for quotes but I think that's a bit overboard for what were discussing here.

 

 

My point was never that real and virtual dogfights are the same however. Just that air combat both fictional and otherwise puts airplanes in areas of their performance envelopes that you can't measure with classic flight tests or some sort of calculation.

 

I accept your point. :salute:   My anxiety was generated by this;

 

 Obviously you can't change everything based on the comments of one new guy who doesn't know how to fly his aircraft well, but there are certainly some people here with both enough real flying experience, and a good feeling for what is happening in their virtual airplane that when they say 'hey guys, maybe look at this because it seems to contradict the laws of physics' that it should be worth looking into.

 

This would seem to be an invitation to yet more half-arsed FM speculation.  I don't think there is anyone on these boards who's opinion on flight modelling I'd take over the dev's view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IL2-46 did have a few issues with the AI making friends with the mountains... at high speed, like the proverbial whale and bowl of petunias.

 

Oh no, not again...

 

 

 

 

 

:biggrin:

I love that HHGTTG has been so engrained in our culture, that references to it can be termed "proverbial".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I understanding your correctly when I think you say:

 

At low speed I will get at 100% stick = 100% deflection on my elevators AND in at 700 km/h a 100% stick will only get 50% elevator deflection!?

(just an arbitrary example)

 

 

Essentially yes, that is how it should work, after a fashion.

 

The problem with computer flight sims and our desk top controllers is that there is no real airflow affecting real control surfaces that are really linked to our joysticks and rudders.  Hence. a dive at 500mph IAS feels no different than sitting on the runway moving the control stick before takeoff.  The resistance is the same all the time. No matter how fast you go you can always move the control stick (or rudder) to it's full deflection.  This presents major difficulties for developers on how to implement control stiffening at high speeds.  Then add the fact that different aircraft have different manifestations of how their controls change with increase in speeds, and you have a really big can of worms to deal with.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bf 109 F-2/F-4/G-2/G-4:

4. Horizontal stabilizer shift time from end to end increased from 5 to 15 seconds according to the reference video.

5. Flaps extension time increased from 15 to 20 seconds according to the reference video.

What mean this? 

- Horizontal stabilizer shift time from end to end increased ..to 15 seconds for 4 turns,  15/4= 3.75 seconds per turn

Flaps extension time increased ..to 20 seconds, for full flaps= 8 turns; 20/8= 2.5 seconds per turn   

 

Why different time per turn, when the both wheels have the same dimensions, and they are placed together??.

even, when at low airspeed the Stabilizer handwheel is less stiffened than the flaps handwheel.

what is de video reference ?? 

Edited by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially yes, that is how it should work, after a fashion.

 

The problem with computer flight sims and our desk top controllers is that there is no real airflow affecting real control surfaces that are really linked to our joysticks and rudders.  Hence. a dive at 500mph IAS feels no different than sitting on the runway moving the control stick before takeoff.  The resistance is the same all the time. No matter how fast you go you can always move the control stick (or rudder) to it's full deflection.  This presents major difficulties for developers on how to implement control stiffening at high speeds.  Then add the fact that different aircraft have different manifestations of how their controls change with increase in speeds, and you have a really big can of worms to deal with.

Not a problem with Force Feedback joystick, there is tremendous difference how you perceive stick forces between sitting on runway and 500 kph dive...

But none force joys need some kind of dumping/less effectiveness emulation implemented at higher speeds.

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What mean this? 

- Horizontal stabilizer shift time from end to end increased ..to 15 seconds for 4 turns,  15/4= 3.75 seconds per turn

Flaps extension time increased ..to 20 seconds, for full flaps= 8 turns; 20/8= 2.5 seconds per turn   

 

Why different time per turn, when the both wheels have the same dimensions, and they are placed together??.
even, when at low airspeed the Stabilizer handwheel is less stiffened than the flaps handwheel.
what is de video reference ?? 

 

 

It's not per turn, it's the total time for stab and flaps to go from one extreme to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomcat,

 

Not everyone has a force feedback stick, in fact most do not.

 

I tried it years ago and it is still a fake feeling response, to me.   Add the fact that the best force feedback stick, the Microsoft, has been out of production for years now, and another solution is needed.

 

So far the very best force feedback implementation I have ever experienced is in the racing simulator Assetto Corsa.  It comes closest to my real race track experience then anything else I've tried.

 

Is anyone even making a high quality force feedback HOTAS set for flight sims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I accept your point. :salute:   My anxiety was generated by this;

 

 Obviously you can't change everything based on the comments of one new guy who doesn't know how to fly his aircraft well, but there are certainly some people here with both enough real flying experience, and a good feeling for what is happening in their virtual airplane that when they say 'hey guys, maybe look at this because it seems to contradict the laws of physics' that it should be worth looking into.

 

This would seem to be an invitation to yet more half-arsed FM speculation.  I don't think there is anyone on these boards who's opinion on flight modelling I'd take over the dev's view. 

 

 

In general yes I agree with you as well. Maybe I didn't articulate my point there well enough. I agree that speculation and uneducated opinions/fanboyism is bad. What I was going for is that sometimes the plausibility check of 'does this make sense' goes missing. DCS comes to mind here. There are things in their FMs which EVERY real pilot will tell you are flat out wrong. Crosswind landings and stick forces implemented to an absurd level for example. The FM dev there is always right and unless theres a chart large portions of the community will write you off as a lunatic. The reality is that there aren't charts for everything, and a bit of critical thinking is required.

 

I don't know the devs, and I'm sure they are more than qualified to do their jobs and do them well. But FMs are a surprisingly complex thing to do. Mistakes happen. Models that were once thought to be accurate enough and have taken all factors into account are later discovered to have left something out which was considered negligible at the time. There are people here who have been flying flight sims for years and years, and in addition also have 1000s + hours of real flight time. Yes Cessnas arent the same as fighter planes but when these people say ' thats not how that works in ANY airplane, and it seems to contradict the theory of how airplanes fly' I think it is worth at least taking a look at. Once again Im by no means suggesting a less scientific or some sort of willy nilly approach to developing anything. Also just my thoughts. The devs do what they want anyway. We're just here to yell at each other in the background as it were... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm going to be curious as to how the AI handle flying around in them..

 

DCS got away with it by ensuring a ground clearing and use of a standard elevation, I guess sea level. I made some missions for MI 8 choppers so I could fly formation and set altitude from ground, and the lead chopper went like a jo jo with this result . 

 

 

But I see some of the campaign missions are the same way , just impossible to follow since they loose speed in sudden elevation and dive to any lower ground. witch can be avoided if one pays attention to the hight over sea on start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not per turn, it's the total time for stab and flaps to go from one extreme to the other.

Please, read my post again, ..the two handwheels have diferente travel from end to end, trim 4 turns and flaps 8 turns, but both are equals in dimensions. Why diferent time per turn?.

 

 

What mean this? 

- Horizontal stabilizer shift time from end to end increased ..to 15 seconds for 4 turns,  15/4= 3.75 seconds per turn

Flaps extension time increased ..to 20 seconds, for full flaps= 8 turns; 20/8= 2.5 seconds per turn   

 

Why different time per turn, when the both wheels have the same dimensions, and they are placed together??.

even, when at low airspeed the Stabilizer handwheel is less stiffened than the flaps handwheel.

what is de video reference ?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Horizontal stabilizer shift time from end to end increased ..to 15 seconds for 4 turns

 

We have corrected number of turns for 109s stabilizers and now there are 6 turns from end to end for any Bf-109.

So, 15 / 6  = 2.5 sec per turn. This speed is the same like for the flaps.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have corrected number of turns for 109s stabilizers and now there are 6 turns from end to end for any Bf-109.

So, 15 / 6 = 2.5 sec per turn. This speed is the same like for the flaps.

Thank you for clarification. :) I'm sure all of the developers know by now that any mention of FM adjustments will be put under a microscope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for clarification. :) I'm sure all of the developers know by now that any mention of FM adjustments will be put under a microscope.

I thought the 109 had only 4 turns for the vert stab. 

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fiancée just left for a week - if there was a time to release the Spitfire, it's now!   ;)

lmao, we believe that wife is the biggest enemy to all the pilots, they can shot you down at any moment.

Here we call our wifes as the control tower, some guys would say "take off forbbiden from the control towers's order", hahaha

My fiancée just left for a week - if there was a time to release the Spitfire, it's now!   ;)

lmao, we believe that wife is the biggest enemy to all the pilots, they can shot you down at any moment.

Here we call our wifes as the control tower, some guys would say "take off forbbiden from the control towers's order", hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the 109 had only 4 turns for the vert stab. 

thinking is the enemy, education is the way and the light.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wait for the Kuban map is killing me.

 

Ha... the good old days! Kuban, the bridgehead, the Crimea... great maps, great battles!

 

Kuban_Bridgehead.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question, does anyone know how much the scale (compression) of the 1946 kuban map was? Was it full scale? (because it seemed a little small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Stalingrad/Moscow map compressed? And do we know from where to where the Kuban map will stretch and how big the compression will be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question, does anyone know how much the scale (compression) of the 1946 kuban map was? Was it full scale? (because it seemed a little small.

It is full scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please point me to a pilots memoirs that recount a mission undertaken single-handed, with half a fuel load that lasted half an hour.

 

 

Read Flying Solo by Roald Dahl as it recounts his experiences flying solo missions over Crete and attacking groups of bombers unaided.  I have no idea if he had a full fuel load though.

 

But then we play a game, and people will always game the game.

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha... the good old days! Kuban, the bridgehead, the Crimea... great maps, great battles!

 

Kuban_Bridgehead.jpg

We had so much fun on that map.

Shifted further east this time, which is good.

It's the Caucasus which we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Stalingrad/Moscow map compressed? And do we know from where to where the Kuban map will stretch and how big the compression will be?

Nothing has been compressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...