Jump to content
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part V

Recommended Posts


5
 
 Hello. One more week has passed. We finished two units of ground equipment (2 tanks), and also worked more on the technology. Some of these technologies have been graphics based and some physical. So for example, as we have mentioned in the forums, was extended speed range. More precisely those aspects of physics, which are related to the collision of objects at high speed (1200 km/h). We got a good result, but we have to make more tests in the online. Improved display of system damage of the aircraft, it will become more diverse and will look more realistic. Progress continues with the map, but it's still at the stage of assembly and processing of all information. We have already decided on the lighting and the general perception of how it will look like "that" winter.
 
Today we publish the second part of the video interview, which focuses on the MiG-3. For me this movie has provided quite a lot of new information and some moments I was frankly surprised. As it turned out, the reality presents many surprises. Look and you'll see what I mean.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wTZjYGyl-4

 

Full news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mig 3 more manouvrable than I16 - please let it be so!

 

Great video and a good update.

 

Thanks

 

 

Hood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "When I said "would like to return to the original "IL-2", I didn't mean graphics or physics, I mean only the perception of the players. We would like to make a project that would be difficult and realistic from the inside, but clean and easy on the outside, which you would want to go back and play over and over. Here is an analogy, my homeland is able to make things such as the AK-47 assault rifle J It???

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mig 3 more manouvrable than I16 - please let it be so!

 

That would be really against everything I've read about the two planes. Mig-3 was especially known for its good speed and high altitude performance. I don't say it is a brick, but considering how manoeuverable the I-16 was known to be, it is hard to believe that the Mig-3 would be even more...

It was probably a very good plane but it needed an experience pilot to get the most out of it.

Edited by SYN_Ricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you watch the accompanying videos, Ricky? An experienced pilot mentions this. 

 

Yes I've watched it afterwards. I'm not saying that it is wrong, but indeed it would be quite a surprise as it's the first time I hear someone comparing the two planes in that way. Given that he has flown both of course one has to give him quite some credit. It's gonna be interesting to see how the two planes turn out to be in game ;)

Edited by SYN_Ricky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, nice update :)
Nice vid, too.

 

To Mig vs. I16: I think though you'll find many other sources which say the oppsite, that i16 outturned Mig. That's a problem and somewhat what Loft mentioned; that history is in fact quite a bit subjective. There are so many factors which determine the planes and pilotes performance so you never really can't tell for sure.

 

Biggest problem is of course that we "players" don't behave in online wars like real pilots did in real battles. Meaning that more than often it wasn't the superiour plane which won the fight but the pilot's courage, fitness, the ability of thinking ahead, training and stuff like that. It's just impossible to render that into a game. Unfortunately.

 

So for example if you had to fight against a bf109 in your I16 in ww2, you just were scared in first place because you had to fight against this "superiour german technology", so you tried to fire a burst or tow to scare the kraut off and then triying to escape home. But in the game, you just can circle like a jerk, waiting for your chance to hit the 109's cooler. Not being afraid of not comming home again. These are just two very different approaches. -> I hope here will the achievement system help a bit to motivate the players to survive (like 50 flights online without being shot down = medal xy)

 

 

I'm also very interested how the planes are going to turn out in the game. In Il2 I was scared as hell if the enemy flew a I16, in my 109 it was almost impossible to shot it down (bad DM, weak german MG etc).

 

Greatgreat, can't wait for the first screenshots to come :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very surprised by his comment, though the I16 is quite a big aircraft with high drag and stubby wings while the Mig 3 is bigger it is fairly slim but with a large wing surface area.  The wing loading must be far lower for the Mig - this is an assumption so I don't mind being corrected.  But of course the I16 was slower and this may have reduced the turn radius etc.

 

I wonder if the re-built aircraft are very different to their wartime equivalents in terms of no weapons and no armour etc.  I expect so.

 

Hood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although my only limited knowladge of russian language (I learned russian more than 20years ago on elementary school) I think he was talking about manoeuvrability. That doesn't necessarily mean MiG-3 outturns I-16  in sustain turn (how many people often interpreted it probably). It's the same like the 190 was more manoeuvrable than 109 or Spitfire (in terms of forces in controls, roll rate speed, high speed control etc.) but it couldn't outturned them in sustained turn. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask: was MiG-3 used in significant numbers on the Stalingrad front in '42 November?

I have read that production ended in early '42 and they were replaced with other types in active frontline units  :unsure:

It would be really nice to have it though as it's a really beautiful plane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Thanks for the video and the update, intersting stuff. I do not bite and swallow the Mig-3 being more maneuverable than I-16. But again it all depends on the speed, altitude and other factors we are talking about. For example Finnish Brewster pilots said I-16 was a bit more nimble than Brewster but due it's quirky stall in a tight turn it was pretty even. And when facing Migs veterans said they were faster, but in NO WAY could outturn a Brewster. It was adviced to drag the Migs to a turn fight so they would slow down and Brewster could esily turn inside Mig and shoot it down. So I really would like to know more on this maneuverability thing, like speed/altitude/loadout etc. Anyways interesting stuff!

Edited by Flanker35M
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to ask: was MiG-3 used in significant numbers on the Stalingrad front in '42 November?

 

No. These aircraft didn't remain at the front in November. All of them were destroyed in August - September.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When I said "would like to return to the original "IL-2", I didn't mean graphics or physics, I mean only the perception of the players. We would like to make a project that would be difficult and realistic from the inside, but clean and easy on the outside, which you would want to go back and play over and over. Here is an analogy, my homeland is able to make things such as the AK-47 assault rifle J It???

Edited by Mastiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm reading it right, it is in low-speed maneuvers that the MiG 3 has the advantage.  The I-16's performance and stability drops off dangerously as the speed decreases.  The MiG's ability to maneuver at speeds that would throw an I-16 into a spin iswhere the advantage comes in.  I don't think he's saying the MiG is more nippy thatn the I-16 in every aspect.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello. One more week has passed. We finished two units of ground equipment (2 tanks), and also worked more on the technology. Some of these technologies have been graphics based and some physical. So for example, as we have mentioned in the forums, was extended speed range. More precisely those aspects of physics, which are related to the collision of objects at high speed (1200 km/h). We got a good result, but we have to make more tests in the online. Improved display of system damage of the aircraft, it will become more diverse and will look more realistic. Progress continues with the map, but it's still at the stage of assembly and processing of all information. We have already decided on the lighting and the general perception of how it will look like "that" winter.
 
 
1) One nice addition for IL-2 1946 made by Daidalus Team is radio navigation with beacons/AM stations, we can expect this in BoS?
 
No. But it's an interesting idea. Let's talk about this in the future. We'll try to make a step forward in the development of radio communications in comparison with the original "IL-2", to make them more meaningful and add a connection to ground units.
 
2) How do you plan on balancing the game. I'm sure you and the Devs have had alot of discussions about this. Didn???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope question #6 will be implemented - at least allow limiting plane types.

It's was very useful thing to have in IL2 dog fight servers using hmm.. Server Commander?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been lurking the last month.  

I really like the way things are going.

I like what I see and hear.

Keep up the great work.

This, to me, is like going to a 5 star restaurant

and ordering the "House Special"....

I just know...it's gonna be good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"MiG-3 exceeds I-16 in maneuverability at all altitudes"...  !!!

 

- Could it be because he doesn't fly the MiG-3 with historical armament, armour, fuel loads? - Goes totally counter to what I heard about the plane. Maybe he just loves it very much?  :-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The I-16 Type 18 has a wing loading of just 126kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 1830kg, wing area: 14.54m^2) whereas the MiG-3 comes in at 192kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 3350kg, wing area: 17.44m^2), an increase of 52%, so I personally cannot see how the MiG should ever be able to outturn the Rata...

 

The I-16 was known to be very agile but also a "hot" aircraft in that it gave little stall warning and could enter a very nasty spin. The MiG-3 also had handling problems at first until it had leading edge slats (similar to the Bf109's) installed which improved low speed flying characteristics but I highly doubt these could offset the 50% difference in wing loading!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice update. Positive and confident tone.

 

And now we know, it seems unlikely that we will have to worry that the Mig-3 will be "undermodelled."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a sleek machine that MiG-3 is! After CloD recently got me interested in WW2 era flying, BoS is revealing an entire nation's worth of aviation history that I've previously not really even known about. For that alone, I'm looking forward to BoS, even though I'll most likely remain a lousy combat pilot no matter the era or the airplane ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These videos must be costly and time consuming to make. Would love to see one on the I-16 and 153. Maybe even the 109? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the old 2001 IL-2 days I use to hate going up against those Migs. My friend Josh would switch sides and he'd always get into one of those Migs and give me a hell of a time. I use to plug my VCR in the back of my PC back then and I still have footage on tapes of fights in 2001. I should get it converted to disk.

Edited by Richie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The I-16 Type 18 has a wing loading of just 126kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 1830kg, wing area: 14.54m^2) whereas the MiG-3 comes in at 192kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 3350kg, wing area: 17.44m^2), an increase of 52%, so I personally cannot see how the MiG should ever be able to outturn the Rata...

 

The I-16 was known to be very agile but also a "hot" aircraft in that it gave little stall warning and could enter a very nasty spin. The MiG-3 also had handling problems at first until it had leading edge slats (similar to the Bf109's) installed which improved low speed flying characteristics but I highly doubt these could offset the 50% difference in wing loading!

Some other chacteristics than wing loading must come into play as well, though. I mean, the Rata must have a worse drag coefficient, with that flat snout. It would mean that during coarse maneuvers the drag could build up so quickly that a lot of energy is lost, and then it would be a question of stopping those maneuvers to avoid stalling out. Whereas the sleek MiG should conserve its energy much better, and then have more speed to bleed off when needed.

 

After all, the I-16 was a 1932 design, so it cannot quite have been the tie fighter it was in Il-2 Classic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well know data from WW2 claimed different situtation:

 

Turn times:

 

Mig3 ( with slats) -  22 sec

I-16 type 18 - 16 sec

I-16 type 24 - 18 sec

 

So i cant belive that Mig3 could outurn at low level I-16. Surly horizontal manouverbility was better in I-16. Of course vertical manouverbility is different story and Mig3 should be better one. Also at high alts more engine power and more wing area could do the job for MIG3 where it could turn better then I-16.  Both planes were known as a difficult to fly althouth late version of MIg3 had slats which improved slow speed handling which mention russian pilot from intrerview.

 

For comparion 109 F had turn times 19-20 sec. It was known fact that 109 F had adventage over Mig3 in horizontal manouvers at low alts although i could belive that at higher speeds Mig3 could be better then 109 if pilot could stand high G load  what also mention russian pilot in intrerview.

 

I also wonder about Mig3 replica expecially how much take off weight it has. I know only that it had Alision engine. WW2 Mig3 had take off weight ab. 3300 kg which was quite heavy comparing to other fighter like 109, Yaks etc.

 

Ed.

 

I found that Alison engine mounted in these Mig3 could be lighter about 200 kg and could have also more power then original AM35A.

Edited by Kwiatek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manouverbility is not just equal to turning circle. If it was then all claims that the FW 190 was a highly manouverble fighter would have been very odd, wouldnt it?  :huh:

Edited by TJT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other chacteristics than wing loading must come into play as well, though. I mean, the Rata must have a worse drag coefficient, with that flat snout. It would mean that during coarse maneuvers the drag could build up so quickly that a lot of energy is lost, and then it would be a question of stopping those maneuvers to avoid stalling out. Whereas the sleek MiG should conserve its energy much better, and then have more speed to bleed off when needed.

After all, the I-16 was a 1932 design, so it cannot quite have been the tie fighter it was in Il-2 Classic...

 

With that flat snout, drag would be high at all times, not only in turning. Actually, I would think the drag would increase less proportionally when turning than in many other fighters, thank to a very high initial drag.

Edited by Friendly_flyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manouverbility is not just equal to turning circle. If it was then all claims that the FW 190 was a highly manouverble fighter would have been very odd, wouldnt it?  :huh:

 I was thinking exactly the same. And it is something i always say when this kind of discussion starts.

The FW example is perfect, it was said to be highly manouverable, but they were not talking about crcling around like crazy, they were talking about real combat moves.

 

Yes maybe I16 could do a turn in less time but at what speed? would you ask kindly to you opponent in a 109 to maintain your optimal speed all the time?

 

The pilot talks of Mig3 being able to do manouvers at high speeds AND also at very low speeds. So in an evolving combat starting at 3000m at 500kmh and ending at 500m at 150kmh wich one is more manouverable? think aobout the I16 being so prone to enter a spin that it will freak you out.

 

Graphics charts are great to compare different caracteristics of planes in the sim to they real conunterparts, but they mean Sh%$?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people talk keep talking about turn times when maneuverability is the plane's ability to change its attitude under the influence of its controls.

Edited by 6S.Manu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people talk keep talking about turn times when maneuverability is the plane's ability to change its attitude under the influence of its controls.

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The I-16 Type 18 has a wing loading of just 126kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 1830kg, wing area: 14.54m^2) whereas the MiG-3 comes in at 192kg/m^2 (takeoff weight: 3350kg, wing area: 17.44m^2), an increase of 52%, 

 

 

 

 

Thanks  :rolleyes: 
 
OMG !!  With this data... 
 
FW 190 Will out turn the La 5,  for sure .  :biggrin: 
 
If the MIG 3 outturn an I16... all is possible !  and nothing is valid!
 
:big_boss: 
 
All people think like this (Power / Weigth ) and (Weight / Wing Area)
 
Only  maybe....
 
(Power / Weigth ) must be change for (Power / Drag coefficient)
(Weight / Wing Area)  must Change be for (Weight / Wing Lift  coefficient )
??
Edited by Mustang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about a difference of over 50% in wing loading, that is not an easy thing to overcome! The I-16 also scores in the power/weight department so how should the MiG-3 ever be able to come out first in a slow speed turning fight? The Rata will turn both faster and in a smaller radius than the MiG-3, same goes for all of its enemies on the Eastern front (except for maybe some of the early Italian fighters).

 

Of course the MiG is a much better energy fighter being little over 100kmh faster and should leave the I-16 standing in a dive but thats it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good god, the MiG-3 is such a beautiful aircraft. It beats the Spitfire, for me. I think.

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...