Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary, Part 191 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

On 08/04/2018 at 5:10 PM, 77.CountZero said:

 

Its 5th fighter airplane that flew in that operation by numbers used that day on axis side, around 40 avialable 24 flew in mission, only 190A8(and F8), 109G14(and G14AS), 190D9 and 109K4 flew in bigger numbers that day, so he is normal choice as 5th fighter airplane for axis side for that operation. Other avialable fighters were used in smaller numbers at that day then 262, so it fits more then 38L or TempV for allieds :biggrin: 

Well yeah another propeller plane would have been more appropriate that's my point if we take in account numbers flown.

24 planes doesn't sound overwhelming and actually the role of this jet was so minor that I think it's not really worth mentionning, also I'm curious about how it's EXTREME UNRELIABILITY will be simulated.

But don't get me wrong I want that plane and Im very happy that we'll get that sweet technology I just hope MP servers will have the common sense to only make a very few available and that the poor quality of materials used to build it will have an impact in the sim more specifically on the engines.

Can't wait to fly it or raid 262 airfields and rekt them at takeoff with a swarm of p-51s or something else.

Edited by Hauggy
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hauggy said:

Well yeah another propeller plane would have been more appropriate that's my point if we take in account numbers flown.

24 planes doesn't sound overwhelming and actually the role of this jet was so minor that I think it's not really worth mentionning, also I'm curious about how it's EXTREME UNRELIABILITY will be simulated.

But don't get me wrong I want that plane and Im very happy that we'll get that sweet technology I just hope MP servers will have the common sense to only make a very few available and that the poor quality of materials used to build it will have an impact in the sim more specifically on the engines.

Can't wait to fly it or raid 262 airfields and rekt them at takeoff with a swarm of p-51s or something else.

 

Which plane would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hauggy said:

Well yeah another propeller plane would have been more appropriate that's my point if we take in account numbers flown.

24 planes doesn't sound overwhelming and actually the role of this jet was so minor that I think it's not really worth mentionning, also I'm curious about how it's EXTREME UNRELIABILITY will be simulated.

But don't get me wrong I want that plane and Im very happy that we'll get that sweet technology I just hope MP servers will have the common sense to only make a very few available and that the poor quality of materials used to build it will have an impact in the sim more specifically on the engines.

Can't wait to fly it or raid 262 airfields and rekt them at takeoff with a swarm of p-51s or something else.

 

Why worry about how many there were and use this to second guess how appropriate it is?

It's a cool plane - it will be fun to fly -  the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Which plane would that be?

 

*Drumroll*

 

Spoiler

Image result for dornier do 335

 

:biggrin::biggrin:

 

 

On a more serious note... The 262 is a very appropriate choice for the LW for late 44/45.  Trying to find a substitute is just silly. 

Edited by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Which plane would that be?

 

It would be nice to have a dedicated bomber/attack aircraft for each side, rather than 5 fighters each

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time depicted in BoBp the Luftwaffe was or already had phased out most of its bomber units due to fuel shortages. Same goes for the destroyer units (these were converted into fighter units). As such the Me 262 fits better into the timeframe than any twin-engined bomber or destroyer.

Edited by csThor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 4:05 PM, 77.CountZero said:

Probably because more squadrons were equiped with mk9s then mk14 (14-15 squadrons used mk9 while 4-5 used mk14)  at the aifields attacked on the day of operation bodenplatte. 

 

So it seams Allied side is already geting some help when you see airplane choices on both side :P

 

 

Dear Mr. Zero

First of all, this was for the developers to read and not for you to defend!

 

Second:

You write: "Probably"!

Which indicates that you have not done homework!

 

Third:

The smiley of yours with a tongue out and you deserve to get the tongue washed in brown soap for pointing it at other people.

 

 

One a side note: I might come from a Sqd which is allied aligned, but these days EAF fly both sides and want to see a historic representation and are unlike you,  not a fanboy of either side.

 

 

8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Why worry about how many there were and use this to second guess how appropriate it is?

It's a cool plane - it will be fun to fly -  the end.

 

Some of us see the planes in strategic view. Not just one cool gadget over another.

In my opinion the flaw of DCS WWII is the lack of a good periodic historic plane-set.

I done my part of fighting 109K-4 in the Spit Mk. IX and visa versa, but the immersion gets lost which is why I fly this sim.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

It would be nice to have a dedicated bomber/attack aircraft for each side, rather than 5 fighters each

 

I think you'll struggle to find an aircraft that fits the scenario. I went looking and the best I came up with was the FW190F-8 which I assume we'll be getting alongside the FW190A-8.

 

Here's where it comes full circle. The bomber unit that was involved in the Bodenplatte scenario flew.... Me262s.

34 minutes ago, EAF_Starfire said:

 

Dear Mr. Zero

First of all, this was for the developers to read and not for you to defend!

 

Second:

You write: "Probably"!

Which indicates that you have not done homework!

 

Third:

The smiley of yours with a tongue out and you deserve to get the tongue washed in brown soap for pointing it at other people.

 

 

One a side note: I might come from a Sqd which is allied aligned, but these days EAF fly both sides and want to see a historic representation and are unlike you,  not a fanboy of either side.

 

 

 

Some of us see the planes in strategic view. Not just one cool gadget over another.

In my opinion the flaw of DCS WWII is the lack of a good periodic historic plane-set.

I done my part of fighting 109K-4 in the Spit Mk. IX and visa versa, but the immersion gets lost which is why I fly this sim.

 

 

So you're saying that the Spitfire IX and XVIs fighting in late 1944 and to the end of the war in 1945 did not fly the majority of the Spitfire missions and did not fly against Bf109K-4s regularly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EAF_Starfire said:

 

Dear Mr. Zero

First of all, this was for the developers to read and not for you to defend!

 

Second:

You write: "Probably"!

Which indicates that you have not done homework!

 

Third:

The smiley of yours with a tongue out and you deserve to get the tongue washed in brown soap for pointing it at other people.

 

 

One a side note: I might come from a Sqd which is allied aligned, but these days EAF fly both sides and want to see a historic representation and are unlike you,  not a fanboy of either side.

 

 

 

Some of us see the planes in strategic view. Not just one cool gadget over another.

In my opinion the flaw of DCS WWII is the lack of a good periodic historic plane-set.

I done my part of fighting 109K-4 in the Spit Mk. IX and visa versa, but the immersion gets lost which is why I fly this sim.

 

 

You posted in open forum for all to see and respond to, cant blaim me for interacting with your post and defending devs choices (and i see im not only one doing so ). If you realy wont/need answer from devs on this its easy to ask by email, but thats "probably" not what you wont :P 

And if you bather to check data other users presented to you, youll see that 9 fits from historical point of view perfectly.

And still my bias to one or other side didnt prevent me to see that Allied side is geting better 5 airplanes then Axis when you look at historical data of airplanes used in that operation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Hauggy said:

also I'm curious about how it's EXTREME UNRELIABILITY will be simulated

 

I don't think I agree with the rest of what you said,  but this is particularly correct.

 

In general,  failures were a fairly common issue in 1940s planes and in the sim we pretty much get FLAWLESS planes. I don't even remember having a jammed machinegun. I do mean random failures and not damage from mis-operation.

 

I understand it not being everybody's cup of tea, and more, I can pre-agree on the probable crowd that would be willing to present reasons why the game can do away with failures. However the fact remains that failures were somewhat common and for realism sake, we should have them. Still, they are completelly missing from the game.

 

Anyway,  since something like that could be easily turned on and off on realism settings,  there is really no argument NOT to have them. 

 

When you think about the 262,  that becomes even more relevant. Are we getting 100% flawless planes,  all the time? The thing was famed for its unreliability. Even throttling up too fast could cause a fire.

 

I am happy about getting the 262. But I think it would be the perfect time to consider including a general failure rate concept! And about time too!

Edited by danielprates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1946 had reliability as option, but if you think about it, modelling all the recorded faults into a reliability system is a gargantuan research and code work. 

Guns jam sure :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Which plane would that be?

I guess another version of the BF 109 following that logic, anyway i'm not advocating for any change i'm fine with it.

I'm more than happy about jet technology even if it's impact was so extremely minor, I'm expecting some versions with 500kg bombs under the nose and very sensitive and unreliable engines.

4 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

So you're saying that the Spitfire IX and XVIs fighting in late 1944 and to the end of the war in 1945 did not fly the majority of the Spitfire missions and did not fly against Bf109K-4s regularly?

I'm pretty sure he's saying the K-4 and or D-9 don't really fit for a battle of Normandy and that's part of why DCS ww2 sucks ballz.

I think thats a very valid point.

Edited by Hauggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =LD=Hethwill said:

1946 had reliability as option, but if you think about it, modelling all the recorded faults into a reliability system is a gargantuan research and code work. 

Guns jam sure :) 

 

Hehe. If we want to straight away dismiss the idea, it is easy to raise objections like that. "There could be 100s of different fails,  so lets not even start pondering about that",  right?

 

Well...  Doesnt have to be a complicated thing. Actually maybe only half a dozen fails,  and a random small chance of any of them happening. The following would suffice:

 

1. One or more pistons fail,  emulating a faulty spark plug or clogged injection. Results in partial MP loss.

 

2. Gasket failure. Leads to MP loss,  total or partial.

 

3. Sudden leaks of water/oil,  for whichever reason like a duct rupturing. Results in liquid loss,  which the game already models 

 

4. Electrical or hydraulical failure,  preventing use of flaps and/or landing gear.

 

5. Magneto failure. If happens to both,  engine stops.

 

6. Fire. Already modeled in the game. 

 

Thats it! Wouldnt that suffice to give some added realism?

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. Risky but nice to have as option for a career. I tend to use it 50/50 on my 46 pacific campaigns. That moment of "prayer" when regressing over the vast blue hoping everything works perfect :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, danielprates said:

 

Hehe. If we want to straight away dismiss the idea, it is easy to raise objections like that. "There could be 100s of different fails,  so lets not even start pondering about that",  right?

 

Well...  Doesnt have to be a complicated thing. Actually maybe only half a dozen fails,  and a random small chance of any of them happening. The following would suffice:

 

1. One or more pistons fail,  emulating a faulty spark plug or clogged injection. Results in partial MP loss.

 

2. Gasket failure. Leads to MP loss,  total or partial.

 

3. Sudden leaks of water/oil,  for whichever reason like a duct rupturing. Results in liquid loss,  which the game already models 

 

4. Electrical or hydraulical failure,  preventing use of flaps and/or landing gear.

 

5. Magneto failure. If happens to both,  engine stops.

 

6. Fire. Already modeled in the game. 

 

Thats it! Wouldnt that suffice to give some added realism?

 

 

Absolutely not. 

 

Flying 20mins to get to the target only to have a wing blown off by flak is frustrating enough, and that's entirely reasonable and completely par for the course.

Flying 15mins to get most of the way to the target only to have the engine seize or my plane arbitrarily catch fire or something, with no warning or explanation and no way to mitigate against it; that would be a whole different kettle of fish.

 

Realism or not, it would only take that to happen a few times for a lot of people to give up on the game entirely. 

This is still entertainment, after all. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

-snip-

 

Realism or not, it would only take that to happen a few times for a lot of people to give up on the game entirely. 

This is still entertainment, after all. 

 

Actually, random failures were one of the selling points of WoFF for me.

 

I welcome things like this - they contribute to a less hollow representation of the aircraft and the airwar in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

 

Absolutely not. 

 

Flying 20mins to get to the target only to have a wing blown off by flak is frustrating enough, and that's entirely reasonable and completely par for the course.

Flying 15mins to get most of the way to the target only to have the engine seize or my plane arbitrarily catch fire or something, with no warning or explanation and no way to mitigate against it; that would be a whole different kettle of fish.

 

Realism or not, it would only take that to happen a few times for a lot of people to give up on the game entirely. 

This is still entertainment, after all. 

 

It would seem you have your mind set to dismiss the idea,  closing your thought to the obvious: this would have to be a realism OPTION - you know,  the kind of thing you turn either "on" and "off"?

 

Off course,  full realism is something not all people like. You could turn it off. Lots of players would have it on. And we would all be glad. Or would you have it only your way?

Edited by danielprates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a random failure wrecked a long Iron Man career, I would be pissed off. Realistic or not.

 

If you want the option, I hope you get it - just not at the expense of "better" features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all about options and choice, but I can express an opinion as well as the next person. 

 

I almost exclusively fly MP, and due to the way my real life in meatspace keeps interfering with my virtual piloting aspirations I don't get airborne as much as I'd like. I also fly with a wingman about 90% of the time, a mate of mine.

We usually fly by prior arrangement and maybe I'll only get an infrequent hour or so.

If such a setting were set to on in whatever the most popular MP server was then you effectively have no choice, like how I'd far rather fly with GPS off but WoL has it on, and while TAW is down I'm stuck. 

 

Going to all the trouble of getting a flight session with my wingman, getting into a possibly busy server, choosing a target and getting part of the way there only for something to randomly break, too far to catch up with the formation if you respawn would just be an exercise in frustration. And thinking that at any moment you might go down with no way to stop it would wreck a lot of the fun. 

 

If you get shot down or crash or blow the engine now, at least you can learn from it and improve. Not so much if it's a random number generator deciding your fate. 

 

Long-winded answer there, it might be great for some people but not at all for me. And to be honest I'd rather the devs didn't spend their limited time implementing features that could prove divisive like this. 

 

Rearm and refuel though, there's a feature I'd fight for... 

 

Haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EAF_Starfire said:

Dear Mr. Zero

First of all, this was for the developers to read and not for you to defend!

 

Second:

You write: "Probably"!

Which indicates that you have not done homework!

 

Third:

The smiley of yours with a tongue out and you deserve to get the tongue washed in brown soap for pointing it at other people.

 

Geez, wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Royal_Flight said:

Long-winded answer there, it might be great for some people but not at all for me. And to be honest I'd rather the devs didn't spend their limited time implementing features that could prove divisive like this. 

 

Rearm and refuel though, there's a feature I'd fight for... 

 

Now just imagine your happiness if I were to actively defend in this forum that this suggestion of yours should be ignored by the developers, on the grounds that "I" don't play multiplayer and thus it deserves no development consideration! Some friendly forum this would be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another, Dev-boys, you`ll probably laugh in my face with the power of a tornado...

 

But have you ever thought about doing 1st person bails out of aircraft? I have never liked the 3rd person throw out whenever you bail or when you crash.

 

I loved 1st person bails in European Air War, getting  out the dying aircraft to tumble over in the air until your chute opened. There was always a level of virtual fear to doing that and it only added to the experience in my book.

 

I will probably never ask again in this lifetime. :(

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EAF_Starfire said:

 

Some of us see the planes in strategic view. Not just one cool gadget over another.

In my opinion the flaw of DCS WWII is the lack of a good periodic historic plane-set.

I done my part of fighting 109K-4 in the Spit Mk. IX and visa versa, but the immersion gets lost which is why I fly this sim.

 

 

With respect, you're either giving yourself way too much credit, or the rest of us too little.

1. The 262 saw plenty of action, every U.S. Mustang and Jug pilot from the war has stories about it.

2. How many of them there were has zero, ZERO bearing in your experience as a player using it in the sim or flying against it. We're not actually fighting the war here.

3. We're a LoooooOOOOONG way from DCS territory here...even bringing it up is in this context is a bit messed up frankly.

1 minute ago, seafireliv said:

Just another, Dev-boys, you`ll probably laugh in my face with the power of a tornado...

 

But have you ever thought about doing 1st person bails out of aircraft? I have never liked the 3rd person throw out whenever you bail or when you crash.

 

I loved 1st person bails in European Air War, getting  out the dying aircraft to tumble over in the air until your chute opened. There was always a level of virtual fear to doing that and it only added to the experience in my book.

 

I will probably never ask again in this lifetime. :(

 

Oh...we totally need the ability to bail out and run around an enemy base with a pistol, plinking AAA crews and such.

Epic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Oh...we totally need the ability to bail out and run around an enemy base with a pistol, plinking AAA crews and such.

Epic.

We need the ability to jump out of our aircraft after having landed it, before getting shot to pieces from an enemy fighter. And after having crashlanded, just sit there, is no end, that feels right, either.

And seeing your pilot after bailing out instead of everything around you from his view, is really odd.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yogiflight said:

We need the ability to jump out of our aircraft after having landed it, before getting shot to pieces from an enemy fighter. And after having crashlanded, just sit there, is no end, that feels right, either.

And seeing your pilot after bailing out instead of everything around you from his view, is really odd.

This^

 

also I believe in the days of “warbirds” when you bailed out you were able to shoot a pistol while gliding down lol... and when you dropped paratroopers, they charged towards the nearest airfield and blew up the tower to “capture/destroy”...

 

 

Fun times :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hauggy said:

I'm pretty sure he's saying the K-4 and or D-9 don't really fit for a battle of Normandy and that's part of why DCS ww2 sucks ballz.

I think thats a very valid point.

 

DCS does some things well but offering content that works well with each other... definitely not their strong suit. They desperately need some WWII aircraft that actually flew together. On that we could agree for sure.

 

Our Spitfire is a bit later than the DCS one too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

Now just imagine your happiness if I were to actively defend in this forum that this suggestion of yours should be ignored by the developers, on the grounds that "I" don't play multiplayer and thus it deserves no development consideration! Some friendly forum this would be. 

 

Chill your baps m8. 

You want a feature, I don't want a feature. We've both given our explanations and each made a case for and against.

I'm stating why I don't want it, nothing more or less. 

I'm not looking to pick a fight with you individually, nor does anyone else reading this actually care whether we agree or not. 

 

I mentioned Rearm&Refuel as a joke because it's a trivial feature that some want and some don't, like your random faults suggestion, and people fall out over it and it kicks off a shitstorm whenever it's mentioned. 

 

As to random faults; discuss it all you want. Luckily neither of us have any leverage over what the devs do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, danielprates said:

 it might be great for some people but not at all for me. And to be honest I'd rather the devs didn't spend their limited time implementing features that could prove divisive like this. 

 

31 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

Now just imagine your happiness if I were to actively defend in this forum that this suggestion of yours should be ignored by the developers, on the grounds that "I" don't play multiplayer and thus it deserves no development consideration!

 

A bit of an overreaction Daniel.  He clearly acknowledged that others may like it but he himself would not.  He merely stated a personal preference.  He then went on to state another personal preference ("..I'd rather..") No *active defence*. No campaign to have all contrary suggestions ignored because only his view is important.

 

I don't enjoy watching Reality TV though millions do and I would rather they put something better on during prime time but I am not campaigning to have Reality TV banned (though I am tempted)  ;-)

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

I don't enjoy watching Reality TV though millions do and I would rather they put something better on during prime time but I am not campaigning to have Reality TV banned (though I am tempted)  ;-)

Let them watch Reality TV, I would rather play BOX.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance of including Collector Tanks? I`d like to see tanks such as Wespe, Hetzer, Jagdpanter, Matilda, Stuart...?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mac_Messer said:

Any chance of including Collector Tanks? I`d like to see tanks such as Wespe, Hetzer, Jagdpanter, Matilda, Stuart...?

Wespe is an odd request. Isn't that artillery? I know some other tanks in the roster are sort of artillery but I'm nor sure how they'll play in a tank vs tank scenario in Tank Crew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking it will be like IL*2. Standard edition X amount of tanks and map. Premium is plus two collector tanks. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BorysVorobyov said:

I'm thinking it will be like IL*2. Standard edition X amount of tanks and map. Premium is plus two collector tanks. 

 

I'm fine with this business model.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope I am right in assuming we get the merlin 66 engine with this (the large bulging towards the front of the cowling kinda confirms this) , and then hopefully +25 boost and a lovely teardrop canopy as a field mod... but seeing as the canopy would probably change flight characteristics quite a bit (more work) and they are already encorporating clipped wings it seems unlikely... :( one can hope!! :salute: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bullets said:

I just hope I am right in assuming we get the merlin 66 engine with this (the large bulging towards the front of the cowling kinda confirms this) , and then hopefully +25 boost and a lovely teardrop canopy as a field mod... but seeing as the canopy would probably change flight characteristics quite a bit (more work) and they are already encorporating clipped wings it seems unlikely... :( one can hope!! :salute: 

In the DD Han said we're getting the LF.IX so yes, we're getting the Merlin 66. Can't imagine we'll see the tear drop canopy too late in the war.

 

1 hour ago, PA_Spartan- said:

Why did the clipped wings do to the Spitfire performance?

Any reference about that? I'm curious. :)

From a comparative test between clipped and standard wing Vb Spits in '42 by the AFDU so should be applicable to the IX.

Big increase in roll rate but also reduced inertia so it will feel crisper and more responsive when rolling.
Better acceleration in level flight and in dives.
Slightly faster from ground level up to 10,000ft, but from about 20,000 and higher slightly slower.
Climb (both zoom and continuous), differences so small as to be "hardly measurable" up to 15,000ft. Above 20,000 the standard wing tips have the advantage.
Turning circle, same results as climbing.
Take off and landing runs the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2018 at 1:57 AM, =621=Samikatz said:

 

It would be nice to have a dedicated bomber/attack aircraft for each side, rather than 5 fighters each

Maybe they'll add the B-26 and the Arado 234 as collectors one day.

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...