Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 210 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, NoMoreSteam said:

this game is not about statistics. Most of allied fighters didn't encounter any resistance from German fighters in the last months of the war, so should we have just one German aircraft type therefore?

As I believe has been discussed above, it is an opportunity cost as well as an historical issue. BoBp includes the G-14, K-4 in two models, the D-9 and the 262 - not counting other sub-mods. There were a also couple of Do-335s flying, a few Ta-152s and the initial elements of He-162 units before April '45 - the point is not that they did not exist, the point is did they exist to any great utility in the time-frame and campaign coverage of the BoBp product? Thus, if the team takes the time to model an aircraft / model with very, very low numbers (1.98 ata K-4, D-9 with the Ez-42) is time taken away from modelling something that was used in large numbers. Hours on the small-use model is hours taken away from the aircraft that was used in larger numbers.

 

A K-4 with different engine settings is a relatively easy addition (ignoring the debate about how many actually saw service), so all well and good. Adding a late LF IXE should also be relatively easy if the team have time. An 'early' and 'late' Tempest V is also a relatively limited once the modelling is complete. There are other candidates as well. Dive flaps to a P-47? Much more work. A Spitfire XIV? A lot of work. I appreciate that the team made their decisions, even if mine might have been different.

 

The point is less that aircraft should be excluded, the point is more about applicability and utility given that the development team have limited time and budget. If I had $1m to spare I would throw it at the team and ask them to make everything, but alas that is not the way the world works.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

You sure your not confusing the P-47 with the P-51? 47 had metal control surfaces before the D-25. The way the manual words it the 15 gallon tank was up to the D-25 so it's kinda confusing the way it's worded but I'd agree it was a 30 gallon tank on the D-25.

 

Iirc the 56" for the D-22 - D26 was limited (without the upgrades) due to 130 fuel, with 150 fuel power settings of 65" + could be realized already iirc. The water injection was upgraded anyways to prevent detonation. Either way D-22 all the way up to D-40 could achieve the same power settings with the proper fuel/equipment.

 

If we really wanted to, we could boil it down to three blocks with a few modifications.

 

P-47 D-22. With Hamilton and Curtis props to represent the D-23 and D-22, could also have early settings of 56" and a mod to represent 65" - 70" with 150 fuel. And maybe even another mod of 64-130-w to represent 64" with 130 fuel.

 

P-47 D-28 Hamilton and Curtis props to represent D-25 - D28. Power settings of 56" to represent early D-25/D-26. 64-130-w (this is what we are already getting), and a mod for 150 fuel to represent 65-70".

 

P-47 D-30 Dive flaps, dorsal fin, and 10x HVAR to represent the D-40 as well.

 

Imo these three block with those modifications would be a good compromise to represent the P-47D.

 

I think you are getting confused. My statement was on the P-51 was a previous poster asking whether they would add other versions in later expansions e.g. P-51D-30, I answered no because there weren't major differences in the D blocks that couldn't be represented as a modification, unlike the P-47D.

Following sentence regarding water tank capacity, "On this ( referring to D-25) and subsequent series, the capacity has been doubled."
Problem with just modelling late razorbacks is that it doesn't really represent the early razorbacks, too big of a difference from to employment of Water to the canopy (with a canopy strut blocking your frontal view)

Image result for P-47G thunderbolt cockpit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

I think you are getting confused. My statement was on the P-51 was a previous poster asking whether they would add other versions in later expansions e.g. P-51D-30, I answered no because there weren't major differences in the D blocks that couldn't be represented as a modification, unlike the P-47D.

Following sentence regarding water tank capacity, "On this ( referring to D-25) and subsequent series, the capacity has been doubled."
Problem with just modelling late razorbacks is that it doesn't really represent the early razorbacks, too big of a difference from to employment of Water to the canopy (with a canopy strut blocking your frontal view)

Image result for P-47G thunderbolt cockpit

 

Ah, I thought you were talking about the P-47 not having metal surfaces, my bad. Also,  I think that poster was talking about the P-47 D30 not the P-51.

 

All razorback D blocks had that strut blocking your forward view. We could always add a D-11 to the list to represent an early Razorback but the D-22, D-28, and D-30 should be added eventually as well imo.

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


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

 

All razorback D blocks had that strut blocking your forward view. We could always add a D-11 to the list to represent an early Razorback but the D-22, D-28, and D-30 should be added eventually as well imo.

Oh yeah you are right, I just got confused because the bullet proof glass at some angles blocks it and makes it look as though there is a flat windscreen

P-47%20365th_zpstrvek86o.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

Oh yeah you are right, I just got confused because the bullet proof glass at some angles blocks it and makes it look as though there is a flat windscreen

P-47%20365th_zpstrvek86o.png

Yep. I really hope to see a D-22/23 one day, I think the cockpit is the most interesting of all the Thunderbolts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The bulges on the sides of the canopy - bit like early PR Spitfires - were they common?

Not at all. Majority of P-47 Razorbacks stuck with the stock greenhouse canopy. Very few use the malcolm or the bulged canopy in the pick above.

 

EDIT: Greenhouse not Birdcage.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not at all. Majority of P-47 Razorbacks stuck with the stock birdcage canopy. Very few use the malcolm or the bulged canopy in the pick above.

 

Field mod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding performance modeling:

At the end of the day this is a game and the team is obligated to make it at least somewhat balanced. Specifically it would be a bad move to to give one side a fighter that renders all or most of the other side’s lineup invalid by being a better turner while also meeting or exceeding the energy performance of all its foes, or vis versa. The variation in performance tests one can dig up for a given model of plane give a fair amount of room for balance. The team has always done a good job in this regard and I have confidence the same will be true with Bodenplatte.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

All razorback D blocks had that strut blocking your forward view.

 

I was under the impression some got a wrap-around forward windscreen ahead of the bulletproof panel:

Spoiler

 

Kansas_Tornado_II.jpg

 

aamahurin1.jpg

 

56th206.jpg

 

P47_Razor_back_Fusalage.jpg

 

 

However maybe this is just an optical illusion?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CMBailey said:

The variation in performance tests one can dig up for a given model of plane give a fair amount of room for balance. The team has always done a good job in this regard and I have confidence the same will be true with Bodenplatte.

 

They will and I don't disagree but... the "balance" should be achieved by selecting battles at which forces (numbers and tech) were equal; not by "tweaking" virtual specs. At least, the former is the preferred way.

Edited by Ehret

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

I was under the impression some got a wrap-around forward windscreen ahead of the bulletproof panel:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Kansas_Tornado_II.jpg

 

aamahurin1.jpg

 

56th206.jpg

 

P47_Razor_back_Fusalage.jpg

 

 

However maybe this is just an optical illusion?

 

 

I think it's the camera playing tricks, that last photo it's probably missing seeing as how damaged it is.

AirCorps Aviation is currently restoring a D-23 and it has the forward strut also.

 

Here's a D-22, you can just barely make out the forward strut.

900X_P-47D_Thunderbolt_in-flight.jpg

 

I'll have to dig around though just to be sure

 

Edited by Legioneod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

At the end of the day this is a game and the team is obligated to make it at least somewhat balanced. 

 

The team has made it clear that their goal is never, ever about balance. So, in the words of one Oleg, close that book and never open it again. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

The team has made it clear that their goal is never, ever about balance. So, in the words of one Oleg, close that book and never open it again. 

Then we've had a series of remarkable coincidences in which almost everything in this series is very playable against its foes in dogfights, to a greater degree than is found in some other games of this genre modeling the same planes. Maybe that's just the product of FM realism?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

The point is less that aircraft should be excluded, the point is more about applicability and utility

The side, which is weaker gets all extras (first). We have seen that in Moscow / Stalingrad, we see this now, we will see that in the Pacific theatre or elsewhere. It is about MP balance, like it or not.

It is more easily accepted by the community, than "tweaking" of aircrafts performance (which is even less resource consuming, than "extras", I believe).

Edited by NoMoreSteam
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soo Pfalz III and Camel also arriving in two weeks.

 

From what I've understood is that the Dr I is slightly better turning and/or more maneuverable than the Camel, while slightly slower. Spad is the fastest of the four, but where does the Pfalz land? Will it have any advantages over either the Spad or the Camel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LeLv76_Erkki said:

Soo Pfalz III and Camel also arriving in two weeks.

 

From what I've understood is that the Dr I is slightly better turning and/or more maneuverable than the Camel, while slightly slower. Spad is the fastest of the four, but where does the Pfalz land? Will it have any advantages over either the Spad or the Camel?

Pfalz will be a better diver than the Dr1 and faster than both the Camel and DR1 but slower than the SPAD.  Going by RoF it will also be more maneuverable in flat turns than the SPAD.  It is highly advised to fly the SPAD as you would a 190 but in a less aggressive manner as rolls bleed a lot more energy in WW1 AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Garven_Dreis said:

Pfalz will be a better diver than the Dr1 and faster than both the Camel and DR1 but slower than the SPAD.  Going by RoF it will also be more maneuverable in flat turns than the SPAD.  It is highly advised to fly the SPAD as you would a 190 but in a less aggressive manner as rolls bleed a lot more energy in WW1 AC.

 

So in short, Pfalz, especially high one, is much more dangerous than a Dr I to a Spad as the Pfalz might catch one in a dive(top speeds being close?) and force a turning fight. Is that correct? I'm not super informed on WWI fighters and was afraid it'd be a plane that can only dive 10-20 km/h faster than others, and otherwise be mostly a target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LeLv76_Erkki said:

 

So in short, Pfalz, especially high one, is much more dangerous than a Dr I to a Spad as the Pfalz might catch one in a dive(top speeds being close?) and force a turning fight. Is that correct? I'm not super informed on WWI fighters and was afraid it'd be a plane that can only dive 10-20 km/h faster than others, and otherwise be mostly a target.

In RoF if the SPAD is paying attention, has enough altitude, and doesn't get surprised he will dive away from the Pfalz at will.  This depends on how they model control surface flutter on both aircraft and engine over rev..  Currently the FC SPAD will loose ailerons and struts at 360kmh vs nearly 380kmh in RoF but the engine will sustain higher RPMs before receiving damage.  I'll take a wild guess and say that the SPAD will still out dive the Pfalz but will have to jink more to avoid the tighter MG grouping in FC.  Basically the SPAD XIII will be king of the one pass haul ass style of flying while the Pfalz will be more of a jack of all trades 2nd to the Albatross but more rugged and able to dive better than the Albatross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always liked the Pfalz. It's not for nothing it was mostly a second line fighter but it's a capable all-rounder and it can dive all it wants, which is its leg-up on the Albatros series. Performance alone won't win you many battles but a skilled pilot can do anything they want in that thing, and it's pretty, to boot! 

 

Exposed engine rocker valves....Mmmm...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life the Pfalz was considered very sturdy and reliable, good for trench-strafing and balloon busting missions. It doesn't appear to have been that much inferior to the Albatros D.Va (in my opinion, I like it a lot), but most pilots still preferred the Albatros. The Pfalz did have a few notable defenders who liked it, such as Max Holzem.

 

From Pfalz Scout Aces of World War 1 by Greg VanWyngarden:

 

Page 45-46: "Uniquely, Holzem recalled that the Pfalz D.III was a delight to fly. 'You flew this little bird. It was a real pilot's aeroplane.' He remembered that its ability to spin beautifully to the left saved his life more than once. He felt that the Pfalz could outdive many contemporary aircraft, and the type did indeed have a reputation as a superb diver. With full power, Holzem remembered, the pilot had to keep slight forward stick pressure, as the aircraft tried to go into a slight climb. With the power off it became nose-heavy and fell off to the right in a shallow dive. Holzem insisted that the Pfalz was in many ways superior to the Albatros, and was 'a great aeroplane on low level missions such as trench strafing and ground attack'. It was easy to land, and he often wheel-landed his Pfalz to save his tailskid from damage on the rough aerodromes of the day."

 

Page 19, on the Pfalz D.III and not our improved D.IIIa-variant: "The speed and climb of the new aeroplane was recorded as good and both the view from the cockpit and manouverability were 'excellent' ".

 

Page 50, the opinion of Oblt. Robert Greim, commander of Jasta 34b after test flying a D.III on 11.9.1917 : "Machine in every respect inferior to the Albatros D V. Very heavy control forces, very nose heavy, very slow, inferior rate of climb -- 4000 metres in 35-36 minutes".

 

So pilot opinions were rather divided.

Edited by Sotka94
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sotka94 said:

In real life the Pfalz was considered very sturdy and reliable, good for trench-strafing and balloon busting missions. It doesn't appear to have been that much inferior to the Albatros D.Va (in my opinion, I like it a lot), but most pilots still preferred the Albatros. The Pfalz did have a few notable defenders who liked it, such as Max Holzem.

 

From Pfalz Scout Aces of World War 1 by Greg VanWyngarden:

 

Page 45-46: "Uniquely, Holzem recalled that the Pfalz D.III was a delight to fly. 'You flew this little bird. It was a real pilot's aeroplane.' He remembered that its ability to spin beautifully to the left saved his life more than once. He felt that the Pfalz could outdive many contemporary aircraft, and the type did indeed have a reputation as a superb diver. With full power, Holzem remembered, the pilot had to keep slight forward stick pressure, as the aircraft tried to go into a slight climb. With the power off it became nose-heavy and fell off to the right in a shallow dive. Holzem insisted that the Pfalz was in many ways superior to the Albatros, and was 'a great aeroplane on low level missions such as trench strafing and ground attack'. It was easy to land, and he often wheel-landed his Pfalz to save his tailskid from damage on the rough aerodromes of the day."

 

Page 19, on the Pfalz D.III and not our improved D.IIIa-variant: "The speed and climb of the new aeroplane was recorded as good and both the view from the cockpit and manouverability were 'excellent' ".

 

Page 50, the opinion of Oblt. Robert Greim, commander of Jasta 34b after test flying a D.III on 11.9.1917 : "Machine in every respect inferior to the Albatros D V. Very heavy control forces, very nose heavy, very slow, inferior rate of climb -- 4000 metres in 35-36 minutes".

 

So pilot opinions were rather divided.

Was there considerable variation in individual airplanes of the same nominal model?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CMBailey said:

Was there considerable variation in individual airplanes of the same nominal model?

I'm not an expert on that. But I would imagine yes, given the different factories building the same plane type, wear and tear of missions, individual tinkering by the pilots and their mechanics etc. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stahel didn’t much like his Pfalz as I recall

 

5 minutes ago, Sotka94 said:

I'm not an expert on that. But I would imagine yes, given the different factories building the same plane type, wear and tear of missions, individual tinkering by the pilots and their mechanics etc. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Nothing a good ground crew could not rectify, in general, though no doubt some total lemons did make it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 10:27 AM, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

It's not low resolution (4k) but has a hand painted look to make it more authentic.

 

It looks a lot like a direct carry-over from RoF. It's simply low res, and has nothing to do with being "hand painted"

 

FС_SC_2.jpg

rise-of-flight-sopwith-camel-2.jpg

 

Same hairy edges, but at least in RoF it had realistic colors. Whereas in real life it looked hand painted, but the edges were not painted during an earthquake:

 

SS2591567.jpg?d63642833745

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please consider this observational rather than critical:

 

1 hour ago, Reflected said:

 

SS2591567.jpg?d63642833745

 

Many hand-painted roundels appear as in the picture above, showing colour bands described with concentric brush strokes.

 

Because of the low opacity of the paint I would expect to see the a deeper and more opaque line wherever paint was built up towards an edge:

 

This is especially prominent in the outer edge of the outer colour band between 3 and 7 o'clock and there also appears to be evidence of a drip beginning to form in the now-cured paint at the very lowest point.

 

What I believe my co-posters are referencing is a sharp-edged effect which is not consistent with applying a greasy paint or emulsion to doped linen.

 

For those unfamiliar with doped linen, the surface finish is very very smooth indeed and once treated does not have an obvious textile grain. To all intents and purposes it holds a shine just like sealed wood or sheet metal.

 

This is the type of edge texturing you'd expect if the RAF pilot had hand painted the roundel directly onto his knitted jumper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a little heretical, but to be honest I have a hard time telling the FC and RF a/c apart. I purchased FC because I loved RoF but visually I am unsure where the real differences lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I know this is a little heretical, but to be honest I have a hard time telling the FC and RF a/c apart. I purchased FC because I loved RoF but visually I am unsure where the real differences lie.

 

Have a look at the FC announcement in one of the old DDs here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I know this is a little heretical, but to be honest I have a hard time telling the FC and RF a/c apart. I purchased FC because I loved RoF but visually I am unsure where the real differences lie.

The aircraft are being ported over and given 4k textures. The difference between FC and RoF is a few years of development on the game engine. The Digital Nature engine of RoF is now very far behind the Digital Warfare engine of BoX/FC. Instead of spending tons of time and money on upgrading the RoF engine, they are bringing the goodies from RoF to BoX with FC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I know this is a little heretical, but to be honest I have a hard time telling the FC and RF a/c apart. I purchased FC because I loved RoF but visually I am unsure where the real differences lie.

 

Comparison of Rise of Flight and Flying Circus in DD#197.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-637218

 

I don't have both games but based on the screenshot I prefer the lighting of Rise of Flight and also the blue sky colour.

FC has a bit of a yellowish tendency compared to the cooler colours of RoF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys - I understand the concept and rationale, I meant visually from screen-shots alone.

 

Flying my Camel in VR? Now that is worth the price of admission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uufflakke said:

 

Comparison of Rise of Flight and Flying Circus in DD#197.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-637218

 

I don't have both games but based on the screenshot I prefer the lighting of Rise of Flight and also the blue sky colour.

FC has a bit of a yellowish tendency compared to the cooler colours of RoF.

I also prefer the RoF clouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Danziger said:

I also prefer the RoF clouds.

 

I much prefer the Rof clouds, plus no aliasing issues.

 

Rof Clouds.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

I didn't red all previous posts, so maybe my question is already answered somewhere, but I want to ask if it will be possible to play tank scenario campaigns co-op with my friends or we have to create multiplayer co-op missions if we want to play together. I really want to play a campaign or career together with my friends in the same tank but I don't know if this will be possible. Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Blooddawn1942 said:

I really hope they gonna fix the aliasing issue in front of clouds someday. 

 

A real experience killer for me... often just turn clouds off on quick missions just because I hate the “artifacts” that occur when flying in front of clouds in external view 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I never have clouds on in QMB. It's either very nasty looking on less than ultra settings or low performance on ultra setting.

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...