What compromises to the current aircraft fidelity would you accept to go to the Pacific?

[JtD]

I'm a huge fan of historical accuracy when it comes to the behaviour of the aircraft in game. However, I don't see a problem with compromises, if accurate data is not available, go with best guess until it becomes available. It's far, far better than to not model something at all.

 

However, what I think would need to improve in this case would be the involvement of the developers on the forums and the speed at which information provided by the community was considered. The less solid the data base, the more discussion will be there and the more open to changes and updates one has to be to achieve the optimum accuracy possible.

[CCIP]

Hmm, I didn't think the situation with Japanese aircraft was that bad - it's true that a lot of the early-war variants didn't survive, and many of the multi-engine and experimental types didn't fare too well, but I still got the impression that a good amount of documentation survived on the core Japanese types, especially from the IJN. I think the trick would be to pick a good scenario - a campaign/period where the state of the data/documentation is about the best available, and stick with that. Considering how BoX has carved out the scope of its maps and scenarios carefully, I don't think it should be too big an issue. 

Otherwise, it's kind of a rhetorical question but - if no living or recorded source can give you an answer about a very specific detail of an airplane, does it actually matter? After all, how can you ever be historically accurate about something that preserved history can tell us nothing about? 
I don't mean that as license to make stuff up, of course - quite the opposite, I think there's still a lot of things to go on. We might not have access to an early-model Zero that didn't survive the war, but we do still have good documentation on later-model Zeroes, we know what the differences were, we might still have access to other aircraft that shared parts with it, technical data for the engines, and of course many different accounts of how it performed. In other words, there's no complete data set, but there's data points to build a reasonable projection from. And if, at the end of the day, you still can't confirm for sure where a certain knob was on the dashboard, or what exactly the startup checklist was... if nobody else does, would it really matter?

Also, I don't think it's a huge problem working with Japanese sources or data on their planes. Unless something changed in the last 20 years, Russian universities still turn out plenty of very proficient "Eastern Languages" specialists who probably wouldn't mind a job from 1C... it is not too hard to make contact with enthusiast communities in Japan about this kind of thing either - and barring that, any wartime or post-war testing that was done by Americans on Japanese aircraft should be long declassified and either openly available or relatively easy to get to via a FOIA request, as long as someone like Jason is willing to do the legwork for that.

[adler_1]

knob when i was a kid studying in England is a Dick !!! what has that got  to do with WW2 japanese aircraft flight models ??!! or do you mean japanese female models ?

CFS2  All the japanese enthusiasts who added japanese aircraft to CFS2 are now dead . If you contact the moderator Ramy at WWW.Simouthouse .com   he might be able to help , they started a legacy section as a tribute to Yashico and others . The strange thing though looking back over 19 years ago was that none off them ever spoke or could write English or ever appeared on the forum , i used to have the links to their own websites at the time just for downloading all in japanese . Man !!! how much time i spent on that game when they discovered it had a hidden mission editor that was never mentioned in the huge tutorial !!  How about adding the WARP TO feature in Mission Editor ? that was great !!

Edited October 23, 2018 by dog1

[pegg00]

On 10/20/2018 at 10:36 AM, pfrances said:

None. The attention to detail is this sim's greatest achievement. Good things come to those who wait.

If relevant documents are not available now, how will waiting longer help that at all?  Its either compromise or we get nothing, from my perspective.

Edited October 23, 2018 by pegg00

[unreasonable]

9 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

Let me stop you right there for the sake of accuracy.  A knob is internationally recognised as a rounded object found upon something you might put your hand on.  A door for example.  

 

A nob is a thing recognised among most Commonwealth countries as a rounded object somewhat closer to home.  It is found upon something which you might also put your hand on.  Indeed, some gentlemen here may have their hand upon it now.  

 

"Nob" is primarily slang for an aristocrat, or toff, of either sex.   (Used in a derogatory sense by people who for some bizarre reason believe that having high social status is a bad thing, Australians for instance).  I very much doubt that this is what you meant. A nob of the MP world would be someone like MeoScarfi, she of Ace in a Flight, inverted in a Ju 52 without any ammunition. If you had meant "nobhead", which is synonymous with "knobhead" or "dickhead", you should have said so, since shortening it makes the usage ambiguous.  

 

Unlike "nob", "knob" used in this context is a clear and unambiguous shortening: you would not use it about a female.  I accept, however, that usages vary: the English language is marvelously flexible.

 

On the Pacific   on the face of it compromise should not be the issue: it is just a matter if getting the best approximation for the truth given the available data - both from historic tests and the pure physics.  Unfortunately in the absence of hard data it is possible that you can get an extremist and vocal lobby arguing for a particular version of game balance as they see it in which case the little factual evidence that exists can get thrown out completely, because "it is a small sample so the answer could be anything". We have already seen this in the RoF Camel nerfing fiasco, which I would not be surprised to see carried over to the imminent FC NuCamel.   

 

This may not be much of a problem for the Japanese planes in BoP unless a vocal lobby emerges. What is the Japanese equivalent of Luftwhiner? 

 

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

A big issue with the camel was people wanting 1918 performance from 1917 camels; and of course the other side wanting the opposite.

 

Strangely, the Nerf went off in another direction entirely, but that's whatever by this point.

 

The NuCamel's gonna have engine mods. I hope. 

 

Also, can we call the IJN luftwhiner equivalent a kamikrybaby?

Edited October 23, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Feathered_IV]

I’m wondering what the spin recovery will be like on the new Camel.  The old one required you to suck the stick back into your chest and apply neutral rudder to straighten out.   It was so weird. 

[JV69badatflyski]

The accepted compromise would be linked to the TM issues 1C/777 will have to tackle even for Bodenplatte.
So an airplane code and manufacturer logo modifications would be perfectly acceptable.
Some planes having visible manufacturer logo on the side or in the cockpit, those will need to be deleted or "reworked" otherwise 1C/777 will have some possible issues, LocktheMartin and Boing-Boing  seems to love sending their TM trolls to anyone using their Trademarked names.
So how will be the Poney named in bodenplatte as the "P-51 Mustang" is registered in class9 (software/computer games)?..just as is the "B-25 Mitchell"...just for example....
I hope they tackled this issue already...

[Feathered_IV]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

What is the Japanese equivalent of Luftwhiner? 

 

I recall the phrase ricewhiner being used on the ubi forums in the old Pacific Fighter days, but only among a certain strata of individuals.

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

I recall the phrase ricewhiner being used on the ubi forums in the old Pacific Fighter days, but only among a certain strata of individuals.

 

Presumably by people who were being a little sakestic.

[CountZero]

lufftwafe guys usealy fly on usa side in pto, so i dont expect mutch complains from japan side ?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well since gaming history tends to repeat itself, the complaints from the Imperial Japanese side will be that the other team will NEVER play Japanese to even up the sides.

It happened that way in the old sim, and it will play out that way here as well.

 

 

[THERION]

1 minute ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Well since gaming history tends to repeat itself, the complaints from the Imperial Japanese side will be that the other team will NEVER play Japanese to even up the sides.

It happened that way in the old sim, and it will play out that way here as well.

 

 

 

Well, that's nothing new to us all - very often RED side is outnumbered by the BLUE side on the most common MP servers.

 

Tora! Tora! Tora! I've got my headband ready... ?

[Missionbug]

3 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Well since gaming history tends to repeat itself, the complaints from the Imperial Japanese side will be that the other team will NEVER play Japanese to even up the sides.

It happened that way in the old sim, and it will play out that way here as well.

 

 

 

 

Maybe there is the answer to this whole conundrum, Japanese planes are AI only.

 

If no one will play their side then I guess even you guys who do multiplayer will not mind and the team can just concentrate on the American aircraft, easy eh.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I guess the answers to the OP's question is with the least number of compromises that makes it viable. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

2 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

I guess the answers to the OP's question is with the least number of compromises that makes it viable. 

Hear, hear!

[ACG_Smokejumper]

On 10/20/2018 at 7:36 AM, pfrances said:

None. The attention to detail is this sim's greatest achievement. Good things come to those who wait.

 

Go fly the F2 and see if the manual radiators work.... See if you can switch from auto to manual and back in an F2 or F4.

 

I'd like them to be true to your words and finish some of the early aircraft....

 

 

EDIT//

 

SuperEtendard filled me in on my inaccuracy. Thanks buddy!

Edited October 23, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[40plus]

13 hours ago, pegg00 said:

If relevant documents are not available now, how will waiting longer help that at all?  Its either compromise or we get nothing, from my perspective.

 

Well I suppose my vote would be get nothing at all then. I'm drawn to the detail of this title. These guys appear to take pride in their work. 

I, for one, really don't care if we ever see the Pacific especially when there is so much more that can be done in the European war. I'm just one vote (if this were a democracy) and my vote would be to implement heavy bombers, the Mediterranean, Africa, Northern Eastern Front, BoB etc in a proper manner long before I'd support half-arseing the Pacific.

 

Again, just me. OP asked, that's my answer.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

4 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

Go fly the F2 and see if the manual radiators work.... See if you can switch from auto to manual and back in an F2 or F4.

 

I'd like them to be true to your words and finish some of the early aircraft....

The F-2 doesn't have a manual control mode, like in the Spit Mk IXe, switching off the automatic control make them open to 100% only. The F-4 can control it's radiators manually

It says so in the plane specs:

Quote

- In addition to full-automatic mode there is a special emergency mode for the radiator shutters, which can be used in specific situations. In this mode, the shutters are forced to be fully opened.

 

I mean it's a feature rather than a bug, or do you say this is incorrectly portrayed and the F-2 did have a manual regulation of the rads?

Edited October 23, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[40plus]

2 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

 . . . . . 

 

I'd like them to be true to your words and finish some of the early aircraft....

 

I'd vote for that.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Just now, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The F-2 doesn't have a manual control mode, like in the Spit Mk IXe, switching off the automatic control make them open to 100% only. The F-4 can control it's radiators manually

It's says so in the plane specs:

 

 

 

 

Thanks!!! I thought that was a bug for ages. It does indeed open to %100.

 

The F4 can control them manually but you can't switch auto back on, is that also correct so I don't keep thinking accuracy are bugs?

 

Thanks for filling me in.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

17 minutes ago, 7./JG26_Smokejumper said:

 

 

Thanks!!! I thought that was a bug for ages. It does indeed open to %100.

 

The F4 can control them manually but you can't switch auto back on, is that also correct so I don't keep thinking accuracy are bugs?

 

Thanks for filling me in.

mm that sounds strange, I can switch them back in automatic mode, never had it happen to be stuck in manual mode, be it a 109F or G.

This is the control for the radiators, it's below and ahead of the fuel quantity and fuel pressure indicators:



When it's on manual the pilot turns down the handle to Ruhe and when opening or closing them he turns it to Auf and Zu, then returning to the Ruhe. If you switch automatic back on again, he turns it up to the Auto position.

[=SqSq=switch201]

Ok I made a post a few days ago about to CFS2 and just came back. I guess any information CFS2 could provide is already known or inaccurate, but I have to ask why all the hate for the game? for its time I thought it was a really good sim.

[pegg00]

54 minutes ago, pfrances said:

 

Well I suppose my vote would be get nothing at all then. I'm drawn to the detail of this title. These guys appear to take pride in their work. 

I, for one, really don't care if we ever see the Pacific especially when there is so much more that can be done in the European war. I'm just one vote (if this were a democracy) and my vote would be to implement heavy bombers, the Mediterranean, Africa, Northern Eastern Front, BoB etc in a proper manner long before I'd support half-arseing the Pacific.

 

Again, just me. OP asked, that's my answer.

 

I think we can still get a phenomenal amount of detail even if it is fictionalized sightly. For example, we can look at trends from plane evolution that we are quite aware of and apply those trends to later Pacific aircraft that we do not have much info on. It wouldnt be totally imaginary, is my point. I would argue the Pacific is the most iconic theatre of WW2 and it would be a shame to never experience it virtually. But thats just me.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

25 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

mm that sounds strange, I can switch them back in automatic mode, never had it happen to be stuck in manual mode, be it a 109F or G.

This is the control for the radiators, it's below and ahead of the fuel quantity and fuel pressure indicators:



When it's on manual the pilot turns down the handle to Ruhe and when opening or closing them he turns it to Auf and Zu, then returning to the Ruhe. If you switch automatic back on again, he turns it up to the Auto position.

 

 

Yeah I see that switch. I can't seem to switch it back on in the F4. It works in the others. Binding issue for me perhaps?

[Drifter28]

Does anyone not notice the change in flight model fidelity with each successive generation of sim?

 

I had a go at Clod and its immediately apparent. Been a long time since the first Il2 - people couldn't even take off when they first tried it after eaw or whatever.

 

Here's a little home truth - fidelity is a function of the complexity of the flight model. The specifications fed into it are just a best guess based on whatever data is available. Pretty limited for historical planes.

 

If they think there is a market for the Pacific they're nuts not to make it because there are few documents left or they can't access them due to the language barrier. Anyone who complains about the turn rate of a zero is buying your game regardless. And by God they will be here complaining about how something handles no mtater what you do.

 

In the longer term il2 is facing a bit of an identity crisis over whether it is a survey or study sim. Personally I think they are risking fracturing their own market with such extensive dlc, and their only real option is to grow their market with a robust single player ai that attempts to imitate some human behaviour in flight representative of the stress of combat.

 

People forget that when these types of games were mass market, they were based around campaigns and stories. As it is now it only truly excels as a $200 multiplayer survey sim (if you want to play all the maps and not fly a spad vs a 109k) - this is not sustainable any further. That aspect of the game is at breaking point and that community cannot grow due to the price point. An idea would be a new base game with a mix of early and late war aircraft, but I think they're decided in this regard. 

 

So forget multiplayer, its only a small fraction of players and its mainly clowns in squads ganking randoms and telling themselves they're Aces, just like all these bloody obnoxious people devolve down to. 

 

Create a strong single player experience, and then you will have the raw product you need to really earn a return on that with dlc. You've just got to be careful that the silent bulk of your customers feel like they are getting value, and you're not trying to leverage a fan base too heavily - as that market can only shrink, and they won't waste their time arguing with your hard core fans here about it. They just opt out. DCS can only charge premiums because their target market is tiny - and its a study sim so it can never grow. By illustration if Creative Assembly didn't stumble into Warhammer, dealing with a lot of resentment from their very heavy leverage of their customers could be problematic for them, and there is a fair argument in the long term it limits their sales and dilutes their brand. They'd be better off structuring around fewer releases with more content and bank on more sales.

 

It's not always a zero sum game, which is why I mention it.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yet you, essentially, make it a zero sum game - SP/AI or apocalypse.

[sniperton]

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Yet you, essentially, make it a zero sum game - SP/AI or apocalypse.

In one respect he's certainly right IMO, and it's the investment cost barrier. Although technically BoX runs fine on an entry-level gaming PC, the investment needed to play it online competitively is quite big. You know, large screen, 4k, VR, quality stick, TiR, broadband, a beefy rig, and a forgiving wife. That's for lifelong enthusiasts mainly from the 1st world. Playing offline is a different matter, there's a huge market consisting of people not ready to spend $3000 for a hobby and not telling you all the time "I'll buy everything you deliver just to get my hand on the Nth version of the 109", but they can be lured in to buy the product by offering them some themed experience they can enjoy alone with whatever they have. You have to attract people of various kinds, it's as simple as that. Maybe it's not worth the try, it's up to Jason to decide.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Multiplayer has become a far larger part of gaming now compared to the 1990s and early 2000s.  It's gotten to the point that most games that aren't intended to push console sales(and so accept loss-making on the game itself) are multiplayer to some degree.

 

The buy-in for online play is an issue(though also a barrier for singleplayer to a lesser extent) , and one the developers attempted to address somewhat with mouse-control(which was responded to with shrieks of rage from grognards) .  They've also been more than sensitive to the need for the sim to run on lower-end PCs.

 

Regardless, it seems to me they have been taking seriously the need to produce singleplayer content judging from the campaigns already released and the emphasis being placed on the campaign for bodenplatte.

Edited October 24, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It's pretty clear the DEV's are alert to either camp based upon both content and statements. To a certain extent online is a little easier as all of the intelligence is supplied by the user (sometimes for better or worse BTW) but they certainly have put some big efforts into SP as well. They have made big strides in campaigns and Mr. Wilson continues to offer privately developed content as well. Jason and Co have readily stated the AI has limitations and they'd like to give it another look when they have time and budget. Time and budget is the major consideration.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Drifter it is interesting that you mention CA, and Total War: Warhammer, because look at the sales of their historical titles since Warhammer's release.

 

Look at the "Who's Playing?" charts on Steam.  Their newest historical game, just one month after release, had (and has) about the same number of people playing as Empire: Total War!

 

Rome II continues to receive new DLC and the number of people playing it, despite having a fanatical historic title fanbase, is dwarfed by Warhammer.

 

CA made a boatload of money on Warhammer.  They brought in a shitload of new fans; but it would appear they may have killed their historical titles in the process.  At least for the current term.

 

 

[Feathered_IV]

What levels of compromise would be acceptable in other areas of the Pacific?

 

For example, how many ships would be the minimum that you would expect?  I can well imagine the total being two carriers, plus a generic cruiser and destroyer each.  Perhaps a reskinned cargo ship from Kuban to go with them.  Would that be enough, or would you prefer the team concentrated on an area of the Pacific that didn't rely upon a large variety of ships to be credible?  What would be the acceptable number for you?

[Gambit21]

I fully expect a single carrier from each side with different markings, at least at first.

 

This to me seems like not only a plausible, but wise compromise. They can’t get away with the low poly-count of the old IL2 carriers. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The minimum ships needed, IMHO, would be one Heavy Cruiser type (CA) and one Light Cruiser type (CL), one Destroyer type (DD) and one large Aircraft Carrier type (CL) for each side, so a total of eight warships, and a generic merchant ship with different skins for both sides.  That's the bare minimum for starters.  An LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle Personnel) for the Allies, and the Daihatsu class landing craft for the IJN would be nice as well.

 

That would give mission makers a good base to work with.

 

Later a BB for each side would be nice, say one of the South Dakota class for the USN and a Nagato class for the IJN. (EL likes him some BBs, yes he does).

 

USS South Dakota...

 

 

Nagato...

 

• Edit

Edited October 24, 2018 by BlitzPig_EL

[Manstein16]

In response to the OP: My suggestion is to never let the perfect be the enemy of the good, especially when the perfect is potentially unobtainable.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

13 hours ago, Drifter82 said:

As it is now it only truly excels as a $200 multiplayer survey sim (if you want to play all the maps and not fly a spad vs a 109k) - this is not sustainable any further. That aspect of the game is at breaking point and that community cannot grow due to the price point. An idea would be a new base game with a mix of early and late war aircraft, but I think they're decided in this regard.

I think it isn't sustainable to make a game with the quantity of planes the old IL-2 1946 had, with the details BoX has, both graphically and in simulation. The only alternative I could see is if it sold by the millions, which would make them a profit over the millions it would probably cost. But sims are just not popular enough.

Notice that they take over one year to develop 10 planes with the current resources, it's just impossible to try to make the 300? planes 1946 has, with the current level of quality.

Edited October 25, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[PatrickAWlson]

On 10/23/2018 at 3:44 AM, unreasonable said:

 

"Nob" is primarily slang for an aristocrat, or toff, of either sex.   (Used in a derogatory sense by people who for some bizarre reason believe that having high social status is a bad thing, Australians for instance).  I very much doubt that this is what you meant. A nob of the MP world would be someone like MeoScarfi, she of Ace in a Flight, inverted in a Ju 52 without any ammunition. If you had meant "nobhead", which is synonymous with "knobhead" or "dickhead", you should have said so, since shortening it makes the usage ambiguous.  

 

Unlike "nob", "knob" used in this context is a clear and unambiguous shortening: you would not use it about a female.  I accept, however, that usages vary: the English language is marvelously flexible.

 

On the Pacific   on the face of it compromise should not be the issue: it is just a matter if getting the best approximation for the truth given the available data - both from historic tests and the pure physics.  Unfortunately in the absence of hard data it is possible that you can get an extremist and vocal lobby arguing for a particular version of game balance as they see it in which case the little factual evidence that exists can get thrown out completely, because "it is a small sample so the answer could be anything". We have already seen this in the RoF Camel nerfing fiasco, which I would not be surprised to see carried over to the imminent FC NuCamel.   

 

This may not be much of a problem for the Japanese planes in BoP unless a vocal lobby emerges. What is the Japanese equivalent of Luftwhiner? be knob just means one of tho

 

 

 

 

Or maybe knob just means one of those things on airplanes that you turn.  Just sayin  

[Porkins]

True confession: I've never flown a Japanese Zero, or any other plane for that matter. So I'm not going to know the difference if they're making it up or going off historical details. They could give the Zero the same flight model as the Spitfire and I wouldn't know the difference just so long as it turns into a fireball any time someone so much as looks at its fuel tanks.

[MasterShake]

On 10/20/2018 at 7:45 AM, Missionbug said:

Jason has already said the reason to postpone was a technical issue, there are not enough of the relevant documents available to build the aircraft to the fidelity of the current plane set so just how much realism can you as the purchaser of these titles settle for to get to your dream location?

 

How much compromise would the team themselves be prepared to accept?

 

Since there is airworthy A6M2's, A6M3's, A6M5's and one Ki-43 that I know of, couldn't the developers just make those aircraft as flyable on the IJN side? For the US side they could make either the F4U, F6F, SBD Dauntless and TBF Avenger flyable, since airworthy examples exist for those. That's 8 aircraft right there. Everything else that lacks data could be AI. That's just my take though.

 

EDIT - There is at least one Yokosuka D4Y Judy dive bomber that actually runs. The dev's might have to make the flight model out of wind tunnel test data like the DCS team is using to fill in the gaps, but it looks like everything else needed is there.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by SVTONY

[BlitzPig_EL]

You do realize that the engine in that Judy is from a DC3 yes?