Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 213 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Please make the building damage an option for all the maps, including when we strafe or bomb them. Also when will my D9 be available? Great job on a fantastic sim!  I signed on from 2001 on the first version .

Edited by pencon
Because

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pencon said:

Please make the building damage an option for all the maps, including when we strafe or bomb them. Also when will my D9 be available? Great job on a fantastic sim!  I signed on from 2001 on the first version .

 

Not possible. No time or resources. Too labor intensive to retrofit current maps or make for all buildings on new maps.

 

Jason

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any time or resources to improve server performance? In case nobody told you it's getting worse every patch or so it seems.

Maybe it's time to consider reverting a few of the changes introduced earlier this year? Because a couple patches ago it was working pretty good and now once theres more than 60 players on a servers its quite awful no matter the map or mission...we are tired of flying in slow mo.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really curious on how do you get your flight mode, I fly P3D A2A aircraft I watched there youtube on how they work with real pilot with the real airplane, but for WW2 warbirds like the D9 I am not sure if there is a flying one (i look online and found an old youtube of 2 guys trying to turn the engine on couldn't find one with it flying-

just a curious question 

Edited by Shattered
clear some info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no words to show how I appreciate your job.

I was an old simmer enthusiast, then time was less. And less...

With BoS I was surprised, and even if a brand new father and have so few free time to "fly" I tried to build a decent PC with used parts.

I really love how did you manage the project, I own only BoS BoM for now, but I try to save money to fill the gap

My son is only 2, but soon I will teach him basis of (simulated) flight.

 

Thank you so much, hope you'll have a great 2019, not only for your job but for all you care about

(hope my english is good enough to be understood)

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the DD it says you've completed compressability modeling, does this mean you won't add to it? The reason I ask is because there seems to be a few things missing from the model and I was wondering if they'd be added in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible for the new in-game Tank Crew maps to show contours? The maps just now, while adequate for aerial stuff, show no indication of the folds and dips in the landscape which can be very useful for the tankies. Been taking my new shiny U-2VS out for a spin on the Lapino map and discovered a whole dry valley running east/west across the open Tiger-dominated death zone south of Polevoye(?) which I didn't know about. Would've seen that immediately on a contour map and been a bit cleverer. (Just a bit, mind...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crashbangwallop said:

Is it possible for the new in-game Tank Crew maps to show contours? The maps just now, while adequate for aerial stuff, show no indication of the folds and dips in the landscape which can be very useful for the tankies. Been taking my new shiny U-2VS out for a spin on the Lapino map and discovered a whole dry valley running east/west across the open Tiger-dominated death zone south of Polevoye(?) which I didn't know about. Would've seen that immediately on a contour map and been a bit cleverer. (Just a bit, mind...)

Sounds like an interesting idea. It could get kinda cluttered with all the towns, airfields, roads, railroads, and other stuff if you don't know what you're looking at. Also, the contour interval would be important.

It'd probably look something like this:

swissmap.png

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, [CPT]milopugdog said:

Sounds like an interesting idea. It could get kinda cluttered with all the towns, airfields, roads, railroads, and other stuff if you don't know what you're looking at. Also, the contour interval would be important.

It'd probably look something like this:

 

  Hide contents

swissmap.png

 

 

That would be perfect! These would be 10m vertical interval contours I think, much like UK Ordnance Survey maps but with relief shading!. I'm not sure how informative they'd be about the very slight undulations on most of Lapino. 5m contours would give much more relief detail, but also add to visual clutter if  presented too strongly - they need to be subtle, like your Swiss example. Spot heights - as above - wouldn't need to be shown, as they're not that useful for tankies just looking for for immediate hull down and cover info - and I like the idea of showing individual buildings.

As a static image, would it take so much processor use as to be impractical?

- Nice wee lake by the way, and not as steeply sloped as I had first assumed. Maybe 10m contours would do the trick, even on a landscape as seemingly featureless as Lapino :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if tankers in '43 had topo maps?   I like the idea either way, it's just that I like it even more if it is historically accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Does anyone know if tankers in '43 had topo maps?   I like the idea either way, it's just that I like it even more if it is historically accurate.

topographical maps were a thing since the 19th century
 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Sure, but did tankers have them in '43?

Certainly contour maps were issued. This one is a German army one, and would give a lot of valuable info about terrain relief to infantry and tankers on the ground trying to maneuver for cover

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/28544/what-are-the-height-units-of-contours-on-this-ww2-topographic-map 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Crashbangwallop said:

That would be perfect! These would be 10m vertical interval contours I think, much like UK Ordnance Survey maps but with relief shading!. I'm not sure how informative they'd be about the very slight undulations on most of Lapino. 5m contours would give much more relief detail, but also add to visual clutter if  presented too strongly - they need to be subtle, like your Swiss example. Spot heights - as above - wouldn't need to be shown, as they're not that useful for tankies just looking for for immediate hull down and cover info - and I like the idea of showing individual buildings.

As a static image, would it take so much processor use as to be impractical?

- Nice wee lake by the way, and not as steeply sloped as I had first assumed. Maybe 10m contours would do the trick, even on a landscape as seemingly featureless as Lapino :)

I agree, but you probably wouldn't need relief shading. The distance between contour lines would show it. The closer the steeper the hill, the further the shallower. The idea about having individual buildings would nice as well, I didn't even think of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had no idea the Jumo 213/D9 had that same supercharger sound just like the 109, sounds awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 3:39 PM, =FB=VikS said:

 

Hanbuch about armament description states that its should be that way, i think its cause lack of details and ways of simplification of things closer to war end.

 

only some of them because they run out of ammo counters... but please add them... it looks so bad with those empty holes )-:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

only some of them because they run out of ammo counters... but please add them... it looks so bad with those empty holes )-:

I like it that way, adds a certain flare to it and characterizes the shortages at the end of the war. Plus the MG151/20 is the important gun. The MG131 wont last much longer and isnt as important to keep track of.

Share this post


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

only some of them because they run out of ammo counters... but please add them... it looks so bad with those empty holes )-:

 

It's no different than the K-4. Look at the available cockpit images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 11:22 AM, EpeeNoire said:

you're right, the JV44 was also called "Papageienstaffel" (Parrot Squadron) due to the extraordinarily paint bellys of their D-9s and D-11s.

if I am not mistaken, some of these fancy paint FWs were also used to defend important infrastructure, such as railways and production sites, even


So, JV44 had D-9s and D-11s as well as 262s? Because the official aircraft count was 25, I thought all of those were 262s? Point being, do you know if the D-9/11s were just loaned out to JV44? Or were they officially apart of the unit? Anyways, wicked interesting stuff, thank you for enlightening me (us)!!

Also, long(ish) time player, first-time poster -- I'm absolutely blown away by the damage/physics modeling. Never thought something this detailed would make it into the game!

So... will this also function in the air component? I know the eventual goal is to sort of combine the air and tank components, but my question is this; When the damage model is finally releases, will I be able to fire my aircraft cannon at buildings and shred them?! If so, there goes any leftover ammo I have after a flight, those poor peasants and their outhouses... 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would have to be coded into each building.  It is coded that way for the tank maps but not the main game.  I imagine that while Jason said it was possible to do with the mission editor, to bring that level of damage fidelity to all of the previous maps was not a current task for the team.  At least that's What I got from his comments. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, KotwicaGoose said:


So, JV44 had D-9s and D-11s as well as 262s? Because the official aircraft count was 25, I thought all of those were 262s? Point being, do you know if the D-9/11s were just loaned out to JV44? Or were they officially apart of the unit? Anyways, wicked interesting stuff, thank you for enlightening me (us)!!

I think the FWs were in fact officially part of the JV44, but not as mainstay "Einsatzflugzeuge" - those were definitely only their Me 262s. The FWs were really only to provide cover for the Me 262s during take-off and landing. and about the count of 25 planes, I think that is including the FWs - but I don't really know, maybe someone else does.

 

I am not so sure about the railway and important infrastructure stuff, either - I believe to have read this somehwere, but can't find it anymore. so take that with a grain of salt

Edited by EpeeNoire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I guess the Devs used a picture of a "looted"  FW 190 Cockpit, because you can also find pictures without any  ammo counter..

 

here is one with all 4 Counters.

 

12b512e6920ce63c06d7e5abd228fa33.jpg

FW 190 D9

 

FW190D-Cockpit-Mainf-s.jpg

FW 190 D9

 

Hauptpanel.jpg

FW 190 D13

Edited by MrFies
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm not a complete ignorant on these subjects, I can clearly see my History and plane/tank knowledge is sadly insufficient for a full appreciation of your hard work. Thanks for your efforts in pleasing both the expert and the common guy. You may get some comfort in knowing that your excellent work is an incentive for some people to learn more.

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, PommyBBanzaiGuy said:

Since you update I can't run this program. can I have my money back please

 

Wrong place to post your problem here! It's rather uncertain that you will get some input for your problem. And btw. how are

we supposed to help you when you don't give use any information about your system's specification? What happens, when

you launch the game? Did it work before the update?

 

Don't take me wrong, but since the game seems to have been working before the update, the chance is quite low to get a

refund. It's like claiming a refund for your car because highway speed limit was reversed and your damn car cannot reach

the speed of 250 kph??? Ridiculous!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 10:01 AM, Jade_Monkey said:

 

Regarding the Dora, looks wonderful. Im curious about the history of that red underside. I read a bit about who did it but does not explain why they chose such a bright color.

 

I dunno if anyone has responded to you about this but. Those served with JV 44, they protected 262's on take off and landing, they had bright colors on the bottom so anti aircraft could ID them immediately and find the Americans and British easier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/31/2018 at 12:50 AM, Crashbangwallop said:

Is it possible for the new in-game Tank Crew maps to show contours? The maps just now, while adequate for aerial stuff, show no indication of the folds and dips in the landscape which can be very useful for the tankies. Been taking my new shiny U-2VS out for a spin on the Lapino map and discovered a whole dry valley running east/west across the open Tiger-dominated death zone south of Polevoye(?) which I didn't know about. Would've seen that immediately on a contour map and been a bit cleverer. (Just a bit, mind...)

 

Great idea but if one side has that info so will the other. Maybe best to find these things out ourselves 

Edited by AeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm stoked for this year. Does anybody know what the list of Allied planes on the gun sight in the Dora cockpit is for? Are those values to adjust the gun sight to for each plane? Also, Liberator this year? B-17? Arado 234? Komet? ME-410? Whatever's coming next I can't wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reinhardt said:

Wow, I'm stoked for this year. Does anybody know what the list of Allied planes on the gun sight in the Dora cockpit is for? Are those values to adjust the gun sight to for each plane? Also, Liberator this year? B-17? Arado 234? Komet? ME-410? Whatever's coming next I can't wait!

doubtful, afaik the devs only confirmed a AI B-25 for us. But who knows, with a map that big, they might well add a big boy as a collector plane (please)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Reinhardt said:

Does anybody know what the list of Allied planes on the gun sight in the Dora cockpit is for? Are those values to adjust the gun sight to for each plane?

 

Yes, it's to adjust the wingspan setting for the gunsight. 

 

(Interesting as well that the Germans chose to list the Hurricane instead of the Typhoon, which has a very similar wingspan). 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Yes, it's to adjust the wingspan setting for the gunsight. 

 

(Interesting as well that the Germans chose to list the Hurricane instead of the Typhoon, which has a very similar wingspan). 

 

Although when you consider that Sydney Camm's designs of other aircraft over the years only had a wing span of about 5ft difference which when you consider that is from WW2 to the Harrier is rather impressive!

 

RGDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2018 at 1:02 PM, Jason_Williams said:

 

Not possible. No time or resources. Too labor intensive to retrofit current maps or make for all buildings on new maps.

 

Jason

A simple no is quite acceptable. 

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

×