Developer Diary, Part 193 - Discussion

[HBPencil]

1 hour ago, PainGod85 said:

 

1. There were 8th AF planes involved in the Operation Bodenplattte attack (352nd FG, Asch).

 

2. There were 8th AF planes involved in anteceent (Operation Market Garden, Battle of the Scheldt) and subsequent operations (Operation Clarion) as quoted in the news post.

 

3. Your argument isn't even invalid, it doesn't exist.

1. Fair enough, good point. That raises the question if they maintained a supply of 150 octane or if they used the 9th's 100 octane supply? When based on the continent was the 352nd, both operationally and administratively, part of the 9th AF?

2. Another good point, but then were those units based at fields shown on the map? I ask as they would, I assume, be difficult to figure into the Career mode if they weren't based anywhere on the map. And if they were, did they have their own supply of 150 shipped in?

The above are legit questions btw, I'd genuinely be interested to know. I don't have the relevant sources and searching online has yet to yield definitive answers.

3. Dude, was that really necessary? I'm sure my initial reply to you wasn't in a tone that could reasonably be interpreted as aggressive or an attempt to flame you (it certainly wasn't my intention!), so why the needlessly snarky remark?

Edited May 21, 2018 by HBPencil

[PainGod85]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/trinder.html

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/100-150_Grade_Supply_23Nov44.pdf

 

 

 

 

This means the 2nd TAF definitely used 150 octane fuel on the continent - as such, the Tempest, Spit IX and whenever/if ever we get the Spit XIV should have boost pressures reflecting this.

 

The 2nd TAF also used at least one squadron then equipped with P-51s (No. 268 squadron, based at Gilze-Rijen during Bodenplatte). Considering deliveries of 150 octane commenced one day later, a pretty much rock solid case can be made for 81" MAP on the P-51.

 

Your second argument about planes taking off from continental airfields literally flies out the window because they included the P-38L. Only F-5s were stationed during Bodenplatte and P-38s had largely been replaced by P-51s around 1945, which means these had to have come from British airfields - and that means the P-38s over Europe had to have had access to 150 octane as well.

And when you start accepting entries from squadrons nominally operating from England, that means these were 8th AF planes. And THAT means the P-47s and P-51s in US service should have access to boost pressures corresponding to the use of 150 octane fuel as well.

 

To say nothing about balance aspects. If you really want to go up against 1.7 ATA G-14s, 1.8 ATA K-4s and 1.8 ATA D-9s in 57" P-47s, 67" P-51s, 60" P-38s and +18 PSI Spitfires while having numerical parity and half as much time at maximum permissible boost than they do, be my guest.

 

I'll watch your suicide from the ground.

[Custard]

No need to be a twat about it mate, honestly...

[71st_AH_Hooves]

I'm still in absolute aww at the rate and quality of work the team is pushing out.  This is basically what kind of development every combat simmer has wanted for the last 10 yrs!  

[mazex]

Wow - that map is so much bigger than expected! 

 

It almost feels like you would need four engines to explore all of it  I almost clicked buy on the F-18 hornet in another sim that I never fly for $60 - and I don't like the Hornet. Imagine a B-17, B-24 or Lancaster as premiums here... 

[ITAF_Rani]

1 hour ago, mazex said:

Wow - that map is so much bigger than expected! 

 

It almost feels like you would need four engines to explore all of it  I almost clicked buy on the F-18 hornet in another sim that I never fly for $60 - and I don't like the Hornet. Imagine a B-17, B-24 or Lancaster as premiums here... 

Yes the haevies as premium planes could be a good choice...they will sell a lot !!

[357th_Dog]

Yes absolutely having the heavies as premiums would be great!

My only concern would be the significant AI load from having 6 or so AI gunners at minimum for the go-it-alone types in a B-17 or B-24

[Jade_Monkey]

They have done an incredible job with the A20. The engine sounds are so damn good, especially with a bass shaker. I hope to see some of this goodness with the P47.

 

We are getting waaay ahead of the plan but if they ever decide to make a 4 engine plane i personally vote for the B24.

[Poochnboo]

 

 

4 hours ago, mazex said:

... For the sake of historical realism Imagine a B-17, B-24 or Lancaster as premiums here

Thing is, and I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere, you'd need England if you wanted any historical realism. All heavies would be airstarts without it. But really, no matter how many times you guys bring this up, Jason has said that they aren't doing them. Period. I can happily escort the mediums as well as I can escort the heavies. The mission isn't going to be all that different.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

I would say from this, it was quite unlikely any 8th AF FG based on the continent had 150 Octane, until some time after the inquiry started in February 1945.

Edited May 22, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, Poochnboo said:

 

 

Thing is, and I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere, you'd need England if you wanted any historical realism. All heavies would be airstarts without it. But really, no matter how many times you guys bring this up, Jason has said that they aren't doing them. Period. I can happily escort the mediums as well as I can escort the heavies. The mission isn't going to be all that different.

 

From the point of view of fighter pilots bombers had "airstarts", effectively. They had rendezvous points in the air where they would meet/depart but take-offs were separate.

[Poochnboo]

59 minutes ago, Ehret said:

From the point of view of fighter pilots bombers had "airstarts", effectively. They had rendezvous points in the air where they would meet/depart but take-offs were separate.

Well, yes, of course. I know this. The fighters hardly ever saw the bombers leaving or returning to base. But people want to fly the Libs, Forts, and Lancs so that wouldn't work. 

[Cpt_Cool]

11 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Well, yes, of course. I know this. The fighters hardly ever saw the bombers leaving or returning to base. But people want to fly the Libs, Forts, and Lancs so that wouldn't work. 

 

If there was a technically feasible way to get AI only heavies in the game, I am sure the devs would do it. The depth of gameplay that would add would be worth the inevitable calls to make them flyable (even in my hypothetical scenario where making them flyable is impossible).

[Trooper117]

Even if they were to make an ai version, it has at least 7 manned gun positions, plus the pilot logic... they all have to have ai coding, then multiply that by say, 20 bombers... you can see the problem there already, and that's not counting all the opposing fighters etc and ground objects...

[Talisman]

16 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

I would say from this, it was quite unlikely any 8th AF FG based on the continent had 150 Octane, until some time after the inquiry started in February 1945.

 

Interesting to see that this document also states that the RAF are already using 150 Octane.  Can't blame them for wanting it too.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Sharpe43]

6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Even if they were to make an ai version, it has at least 7 manned gun positions, plus the pilot logic... they all have to have ai coding, then multiply that by say, 20 bombers... you can see the problem there already, and that's not counting all the opposing fighters etc and ground objects...

add to that, the heavy bomber campaign was starting to get to its conclusion. You have attacks on Berlin, Dresden and the rammjager commando within the september to april timeframe of the game. There isn't much else. In that aspect the tactical battle seems way more challenging game play wise 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

6 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Even if they were to make an ai version, it has at least 7 manned gun positions, plus the pilot logic... they all have to have ai coding, then multiply that by say, 20 bombers... you can see the problem there already, and that's not counting all the opposing fighters etc and ground objects...

 

Agreed.

 

I get slow downs with about 8-10 pe2 in the air on sp or about 10-15 player controled planes in the same area on MP.

 

So from an AI point of view I could currently have 1-2 B17 before slow downs.

 

I really respect the AI actually having to use the FM and controls but maybe fr s heavy bomber we could have the old school style AI to make it work better.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

5 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

Interesting to see that this document also states that the RAF are already using 150 Octane.  Can't blame them for wanting it too.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

2nd Tactical Air force switched to 100/150 Octane in January through February 45.

[LLv34_Temuri]

11 hours ago, AeroAce said:

 

I really respect the AI actually having to use the FM and controls but maybe fr s heavy bomber we could have the old school style AI to make it work better.

With the current level of AI, I would go for old school style AI anyway. It's really like a gold ring in a pig's snout to have the current AI use the same FM as players.

[Custard]

4 minutes ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

With the current level of AI, I would go for old school style AI anyway. It's really like a gold ring in a pig's snout to have the current AI use the same FM as players.

 

I disagree, use bad AI FM with poor AI and you get crap like DCS AI. What we have isn't perfect, but AI fighters using the same FM as these player is a real feather in BoS' cap.

[LLv34_Temuri]

7 minutes ago, Custard said:

 

I disagree, use bad AI FM with poor AI and you get crap like DCS AI. What we have isn't perfect, but AI fighters using the same FM as these player is a real feather in BoS' cap.

I agree to disagree  Having an enemy fighter fly only a continuous turn riding the stall is not my idea of a feather in a cap  
That being said, I'd go for the simple FM at least for the bombers, which don't need dogfighting maneuvers and such.

[Custard]

Just now, LLv34_Temuri said:

Having an enemy fighter fly only a continuous turn riding the stall is not my idea of a feather in a cap  

 

Simplifying the FM would not fix that, as I'm sure you know.

[LLv34_Temuri]

Just now, Custard said:

 

Simplifying the FM would not fix that, as I'm sure you know.

I really don't know the details about how much more load comes from having the AI use the real FM, I just assume the load is heavier than what would be with a simpler FM.

[Jade_Monkey]

3 hours ago, LLv34_Temuri said:

I really don't know the details about how much more load comes from having the AI use the real FM, I just assume the load is heavier than what would be with a simpler FM.

I think what Custard means is that the way planes fly (e.g. constant turns) have nothing to do with the load, but with how they are programmed to behave.

 

In my experience, the weird quirks of the AI such as the turns are less noticeable in larger scale missions that combine bombers and fighters with an objective. These quirks are more obvious in a furball.

 

The one thing that i would like to see tweaked is the strong preference for inverted flying by AI.

[LLv34_Temuri]

4 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I think what Custard means is that the way planes fly (e.g. constant turns) have nothing to do with the load, but with how they are programmed to behave.

 

Understood.

[catchthefoxes]

I wonder if the update will come as a surprise or we’ll get news that it’s coming? Does someone know how it works?

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

1 hour ago, catchthefoxes said:

I wonder if the update will come as a surprise or we’ll get news that it’s coming? Does someone know how it works?

 

[Oyster_KAI]

2 hours ago, catchthefoxes said:

I wonder if the update will come as a surprise or we’ll get news that it’s coming? Does someone know how it works?

I thought the incoming update is bigger than dev's expect,they said early access will start at May,and now is near the end of May.
Hope we could enjoy a fantastic early access,worth the long waiting.

[BOO]

5 minutes ago, Takuya_liang said:

I thought the incoming update is bigger than dev's expect,they said early access will start at May,and now is near the end of May.
Hope we could enjoy a fantastic early access,worth the long waiting.

The couple of aircraft are in Beta testing. An update will bring these soon. But don't expect anything else like a map.  

[Avimimus]

Daylight bombing doesn't work due to the large concentrations of aircraft (which couldn't be modelled). But night bombing with aircraft being spawned in and out is possible - so a Bf-110 of Ju-88 night fighter variant, and a Lancaster & Mosquito would be viable from a technical perspective.

[RedKestrel]

24 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Daylight bombing doesn't work due to the large concentrations of aircraft (which couldn't be modelled). But night bombing with aircraft being spawned in and out is possible - so a Bf-110 of Ju-88 night fighter variant, and a Lancaster & Mosquito would be viable from a technical perspective.

I would buy a Mosquito premium plane. And the 110/Ju88 night fighter variants could work, but they were hunting large 4 engine bombers. The devs have continually stated that big 4 engine bombers are not coming to Il-2 BoX because the engine can't handle them and still perform. BoBP is going to push the engine already, throw in some big bombers and things will grind to a halt.

[Avimimus]

8 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

I would buy a Mosquito premium plane. And the 110/Ju88 night fighter variants could work, but they were hunting large 4 engine bombers. The devs have continually stated that big 4 engine bombers are not coming to Il-2 BoX because the engine can't handle them and still perform. BoBP is going to push the engine already, throw in some big bombers and things will grind to a halt.

 

Yes, I was just theorising - since you'd only have one or two enemy aircraft in a given engagement at night it would become quite doable.

 

But the fact is that in the United States there is little interest or knowledge of the night air-war - so it is assumed to not have market potential. Hence we'll never see it represented in a simulator (despite the fact that it was just as important in scale and impact as the daylight campaign).

[ADorante]

I have painful flashbacks of getting my offspring the wrong presents for their bday/xmas. "You are so stupid!" I love them, but sometimes I want to kill them.

[RedKestrel]

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Yes, I was just theorising - since you'd only have one or two enemy aircraft in a given engagement at night it would become quite doable.

 

But the fact is that in the United States there is little interest or knowledge of the night air-war - so it is assumed to not have market potential. Hence we'll never see it represented in a simulator (despite the fact that it was just as important in scale and impact as the daylight campaign).

I believe il2 1946 had night fighting capability. I think there are some downloadable campaigns too. Never got into it myself but I’m almost certain it was doable in that game.

[Avimimus]

On 5/25/2018 at 7:51 AM, RedKestrel said:

I believe il2 1946 had night fighting capability. I think there are some downloadable campaigns too. Never got into it myself but I’m almost certain it was doable in that game.

 

Alas, no. It didn't model aircraft from the night campaign at all (the Mosquito was intended for day use, as were all of the Bf-110 variants).

 

They did add searchlights, but that was it - and they were needed for the Po-2 and Lisunov-2.

 

What I'm suggesting would have three or four aircraft from the night campaign on the Western Front and some simulation of ground control/radars and evasive tactics.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Avimimus

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Alas, no. It didn't model aircraft from the night campaign at all (the Mosquito was intended for day use, as were all of the Bf-110 variants).

 

They did add searchlights, but that was it - and they were needed for the Po-2 and Lisunov-2.

 

What I'm suggesting would have three or four aircraft from the night campaign on the Western Front and some simulation of ground control/radars and evasive tactics.

Ah. Must have been a mod then. 

[TP_Sparky]

Sorry to interrupt the wingeing but does anyone have information on the sequence of BoBp a/c that will be released?  In pairs?  

 

(I love the new Spitfire IX.  Thanks, devs.)

[Legioneod]

28 minutes ago, TP_Sparky said:

Sorry to interrupt the wingeing but does anyone have information on the sequence of BoBp a/c that will be released?  In pairs?  

 

(I love the new Spitfire IX.  Thanks, devs.)

No one knows but the devs and even then things can change.

 

P-47 and Fw190 A-8 would be a good combo though, hopefully these two aircraft will be next.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Legioneod

[Poochnboo]

On 5/25/2018 at 7:51 AM, RedKestrel said:

But the fact is that in the United States there is little interest or knowledge of the night air-war - so it is assumed to not have market potential. Hence we'll never see it

Not quite valid. While I don't think that you are going to see this, it's not for the mentioned reason. That wouldn't really explain the market that there seems to be for this game, in general, since it's all about the Russian Front Air War. Something that "in the United States there is little interest or knowledge of."

[RedKestrel]

Just now, Poochnboo said:

Not quite valid. While I don't think that you are going to see this, it's not for the mentioned reason. That wouldn't really explain the market that there seems to be for this game, in general, since it's all about the Russian Front Air War. Something that "in the United States there is little interest or knowledge of."

Think you're quoting the wrong guy there...