Jump to content
Han

Game version 3.101 discussion: Me 262 A, T-34-76 UVZ 1943, Albatros D.Va, S.E.5a

Recommended Posts

With regard to the new engine start-up procedure, the following quote seems apt:

 

"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time."

 

Personally, I will never understand why people complain about having more options.

  • Like 5
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manstein16 said:

Personally, I will never understand why people complain about having more options.

 

Especially since it's something that (1) has existed for some time now with the WWI planes and (2) is something a good number of people have asked for on the WWII side. 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

supercilious attitude doesn't become you mate, although it's entirely predictable.  Without dumbclucks like me spending money on this sim it's going to end up like DCS, , so online anyway, mass participation won't happen.  This is in stark contrast to the original il2, which gave nearly 2 decades of fun to thousands online and after which this sim is named, I thought there might have been an intention to evoke those halcyon days, it's beginning to look like I was wrong.

I was just being polite saying good bye to someone who was leaving. :good:

But considering you are still here,  it seems now you just wanted some attention or just no luck fishing??? :rofl:

 

Edited by 6./ZG26_Gielow
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question to developers. Do not think it would be appropriate to extend the Russian aircraft more powerful types such as. Yak3 and La7. So far, you are expanding the German for newer and most powerful types with which the first models of Russian aircraft can not keep a steady step ... I understand now that it is modern to be on the side of the German fascists against the Russians and of course you are busines, but it would be much fair ...

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm, I guess you don't understand the situation? Aircraft are being added for Bodenplatte - German vs. Allied aircraft (in this case not involving Russia). No need to currently add mid/late '44 Russian aircraft as there isn't currently a Russian campaign being worked on that need them (and neither Yak3 or La7 saw service in Kuban (too early)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my point of view adding Me 262 in Berloga it is not a very happy thing. Now I am running after "rockets" (Me 262) and fight time to time. It is a pitty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Redwo1f said:

Hmm, myslím, že vy to nechápete situáciu? Lietadlá sú pridané pre Bodenplatte - German vs. spojeneckých lietadiel (v tomto prípade, okrem Ruska). Nie je potrebné, aby v súčasnej dobe pridať strednej / neskoré '44 ruská lietadla, pretože nie je v súčasnej dobe pracuje ruská kampaň, ktorá ich potrebujú (a ani Yak3 alebo LA7 videl službu v Kuban (príliš skoro)).

But I understand, I know it's mainly for Bodenplatte. Only in the case of multiplayer everyone is sitting in "K" and now they will sit in "262" and Russian will still crawl in "LaG3". The other side works like a flying duck ...😉
They could give them at least as collectibles as it would be fairly fair in the server-side

22 minutes ago, richard2909 said:

Z môjho pohľadu pridanie ma 262 v Berloga to nie je veľmi šťastný vec. Teraz som beží po "rakiet" (ME 262) a bojovať čas od času. Je to škoda. 

I will all sit in 262 ... it will be a "fair" fight ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

69. The error that caused the Flying Circus aircraft propellers to have more power than RoF ones has been found and fixed. The notable difference was found at lower flight speeds, but additional research showed that this error made during porting of RoF planes to Flying Circus more or less affected all flight characteristics of the Flying Circus aircraft. In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034. You can see the updated flight characteristics of Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a in their in-game descriptions, while updated descriptions for other Flying Circus aircraft will follow in the next update when we redo all the required measurements;

 

A few questions arise from the last statement.

 

1. This kind of sounds like the Descriptions (Specs) will be changed to match game performance rather than the other way round. Say it ain't so.

 

2. The Specs in Description are different between FC and RoF. The SE5a for example, lists a top speed of 223kph at msl, whereas in RoF it was 218kph. That's a 5kph increase. Are we to assume a different SE5a is being modelled or different data sources used?

 

3. Related to 2. above, with v3.101 the SE5a achieves 220kph in-game against its spec of 223, but the Spad now only hits 215kph of its 220 spec target!

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Helo said:

Question to developers. Do not think it would be appropriate to extend the Russian aircraft more powerful types such as. Yak3 and La7. So far, you are expanding the German for newer and most powerful types with which the first models of Russian aircraft can not keep a steady step ... I understand now that it is modern to be on the side of the German fascists against the Russians and of course you are busines, but it would be much fair ...

 

The topic is about 3.101, not about what Soviet planes you want to see in the future.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JG27_Kornezov said:

This is not difficulty settings those are annoyance settings. When you have limited time and what you want is to get into the action as fast as possible this is the last thing you will ask for.

 

Tell that to the guy's who regularly fly 90 minute plus bombing missions on TAW and spend 10 minutes or more just taxiing to a take off position so that they can take off together.

 

Should they give up everything they are doing, just so that a few people can "get into the action as fast as possible"? What sort of compromise can be made there? Air-start? :rolleyes: 

 

What do you do when such a bomber formation is forming up for take off? Are you the kind of guy that just cuts across the base in front of everyone because you want to "get into the action as fast as possible"? 

 

If you don't like the server settings or it's rules, join a server you do like and if you can't find one, make one of your own and if you are too lazy to do any of that, it's you that needs to compromise!

 

And what a massive compromise it really is eh? All you need to do in a 109/190 is nudge the throttle forward an inch and hit the e button. For a 262 you need to ignite the engines and it's easy, plus any lost time in a 262 on the ground is made up for by it's sheer speed when airborne.

 

Additionally, the best opportunity to combat a 262 is when it is on or around it's base, so extra historically correct time to get going in a 262 is a good argument for allowing it on servers where balance is often a talking point.

 

19 hours ago, JG27_Kornezov said:

I was not mentioning the technocrat anywhere.

 

That's true, it most certainly was me who mentioned the technocrap™ :) 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

2. The Specs in Description are different between FC and RoF. The SE5a for example, lists a top speed of 223kph at msl, whereas in RoF it was 218kph. That's a 5kph increase. Are we to assume a different SE5a is being modelled or different data sources used?

The Flying Circus aircrafts arent going to mirror rise of flights current build, as they admittedly changed RoF planes to be more balanced instead of historically accurate later on in their development. The FC aircrafts are said to mirror a prior build of plane stats that are more historically accurate rather than balanced, which I understand that they should prefer. 

Share this post


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

But I understand, I know it's mainly for Bodenplatte. Only in the case of multiplayer everyone is sitting in "K" and now they will sit in "262" and Russian will still crawl in "LaG3". The other side works like a flying duck ...😉
They could give them at least as collectibles as it would be fairly fair in the server-side

 

I will all sit in 262 ... it will be a "fair" fight ..

 

It's not "mainly for Bodenplatte", it is for Bodenplatte.

This is a complaint for the server(s) you play on, not the dev team. The server operators are the people allowing non-period-specific, Early Access aircraft to be flown in a completely non-historical setting. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

69. The error that caused the Flying Circus aircraft propellers to have more power than RoF ones has been found and fixed. The notable difference was found at lower flight speeds, but additional research showed that this error made during porting of RoF planes to Flying Circus more or less affected all flight characteristics of the Flying Circus aircraft. In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034. You can see the updated flight characteristics of Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a in their in-game descriptions, while updated descriptions for other Flying Circus aircraft will follow in the next update when we redo all the required measurements;

 

A few questions arise from the last statement.

 

1. This kind of sounds like the Descriptions (Specs) will be changed to match game performance rather than the other way round. Say it ain't so.

 

2. The Specs in Description are different between FC and RoF. The SE5a for example, lists a top speed of 223kph at msl, whereas in RoF it was 218kph. That's a 5kph increase. Are we to assume a different SE5a is being modelled or different data sources used?

 

3. Related to 2. above, with v3.101 the SE5a achieves 220kph in-game against its spec of 223, but the Spad now only hits 215kph of its 220 spec target!

 

Thanks



Good questions, thanks!
The order of things is:

 

When we develop every next plane FM we are based on sources we have and check that final flight performances in game corresponds to given refs.
Since the FM is rather complicated, there are always slight deviations of in-game flight performances from the real life. We strive to make them minimal, but nevertheless it is impossible to achieve full compliance with the real life, especially given the fact that the data in different sources also differ.
After all, we put to the game description the flight performances which we achieved in the game, for let you know what you get in the simulator. So you can compare these data with sources yourself.

As for the comparison of the description in RoF and FC, when we worked on RoF we made several corrections of the FM for some planes, but not always corrected their description there. Also we have been made flight tests in RoF in hand-mode, therefore the results might be not very precise.
Now, in GB and FC we do these tests using special dev tools, and now the result of these tests is very precise. We are going to retest all the flight performances of the FC planes soon, and then you'll be able to make your own conclusions about their compliance with the sources.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 8
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

The Flying Circus aircrafts arent going to mirror rise of flights current build, as they admittedly changed RoF planes to be more balanced instead of historically accurate later on in their development. The FC aircrafts are said to mirror a prior build of plane stats that are more historically accurate rather than balanced, which I understand that they should prefer. 

No this is false. We never did anything for balance. There were long running debates about ROF FMs over many years and we made some changes after years of debate, but we eventually regretted them and felt they weren’t accurate changes. That is all. We never do anything just for the sake of balance. Don’t make such false comments about us. We’ve said over and over and over that we don’t tweak planes for balance.

 

Jason 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks @AnPetrovich for the detailed response. 

 

Much to look forward to in Flying Circus. 

 

Edited by US103_Baer

Share this post


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

 

Nie je to "hlavne pre Bodenplatte", to  je  pre Bodenplatte.

Jedná sa o sťažnosť pre  server (y) , ktorú hráte na, nie dev tímu. Prevádzkovatelia servera sú ľudia, ktoré umožňujú non-period-specific, Early Access lietadlo byť letecky prevezený v kompletne non-historickom prostredí. 

But the server administrator doesn't put an airplane there that doesn't exist ... and disable "K" or "262" is not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, haluter said:

2x and 5x zoom options would be great!

And as headsets and GPU's driving them become more capable?

 

Stick with current zoom as as high visual fidelity VR headsets come online -  it is an unfair advantage to non VR players.

 

Remember 2D zoom is there to mitigate small monitors and have enough FOV on the screen (zoom out) to be able to fly in 2D.

 

To have super zoom in VR which already gives 1 to 1 world scale  is not necessary and as mentioned with 2nd gen VR headsets - quite an unrealistic and unfair advantage.  Did pilots carry binoculars to Id targets in cockpits???

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hallo FliegerSimFreunde...ihr seid die GRÖSSTEN; Danke für die tolle Arbeit hier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Mit FliegerGruß

 

Norbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2019 at 7:23 PM, CptSiddy said:

La-5FN boost is borked, please fix  :( 

 

Await next patch/hot fix:

 



In connection with the addition of new technologies related to a turbojet engine to the project, a large code architecture was refactored and optimized for engine systems, in particular, superchargers too. After that, for example, single-speed blowers failed for testers - the impeller was wedged. This was repaired, but unfortunately, the lost afterburner on the FN, none of us noticed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, blitze said:

And as headsets and GPU's driving them become more capable?

 

Stick with current zoom as as high visual fidelity VR headsets come online -  it is an unfair advantage to non VR players.

 

Remember 2D zoom is there to mitigate small monitors and have enough FOV on the screen (zoom out) to be able to fly in 2D.

 

To have super zoom in VR which already gives 1 to 1 world scale  is not necessary and as mentioned with 2nd gen VR headsets - quite an unrealistic and unfair advantage.  Did pilots carry binoculars to Id targets in cockpits???

Don´t be silly, the VR guys can barely ID anything further than a km without extra zoom. And consider that SP exists btw.

Edited by Psyrion
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

No this is false. We never did anything for balance. There were long running debates about ROF FMs over many years and we made some changes after years of debate, but we eventually regretted them and felt they weren’t accurate changes. That is all. We never do anything just for the sake of balance. Don’t make such false comments about us. We’ve said over and over and over that we don’t tweak planes for balance.

 

Jason 

 

That is what makes iL-2 the best! 😍:fly:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The topic is about 3.101, not about what Soviet planes you want to see in the future.

Can't make this stuff up. You certainly have far more restraint than I do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Will there ever be any added mechanic to address the common evasive tactic in MP, stick jerking? While these moves may be plausible as far the physics are concerned, surely there must have been some reason why we don't see records of real pilots going HAM on their stick when someone is on six. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sokol1 said:

See what happens when you press "E" in Me 262 (6:26): 😀

 

https://youtu.be/oBH0ULVmsow?t=384

 

Must be a prototype because the way he starts it must be powered by 2  lawnmowers 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, pa4tim said:

Must be a prototype because the way he starts it must be powered by 2  lawnmowers 😎

 

But Me 262 "APU" are two 10 HP 2 cycles engines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGUqV0dl9gA

After this "APU" receeive electric starter

https://youtu.be/kjcVr8meOM4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz25KDRE9F4

http://lucafusari.altervista.org/page7/RiedelAnlasser.html

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sneaksie said:
Dear friends,
 
3 days after update 3.101 we release this hotfix to address the problems caused by the many changes and improvements of the recent release. We continue to improve the sim and hope you'll enjoy it.
 
1. Multiplayer: fixed some missing gunfire sounds and animations;
2. Multiplayer: when another player mans a turret of your plane or tank, an erroneous message 'reload the gun' won't appear and reloading sound won't be heard;
3. Multiplayer: when another player mans a turret of your plane or tank, erroneous messages about the main gun damage and repair won't appear;
4. Multiplayer: when another player mans a turret of your plane or tank, he is able to control the gunsight without issues;
5. Multiplayer: when another player mans a turret of your plane or tank, he is able to rotate the visors correctly;

6. Graphics setting Dynamic resolution factor won't cause the gunsight to glitch during firing;

7. There is a new exterior visual effect on player controllable tanks - gunfire smoke exits the tank through the ventilation exhaust;
8. Gunsight camera won't turn off for a short time whenever a turret control is turned on or off;
9. Me 262 A: an error that made it too stable in lateral (pitch) direction has been fixed;
10. Me 262 A: a graphical error on the tail has been fixed;
11. Me 262 A: canopy jettison lever is animated;
12. Spotter won't endlessly shout about the enemy;
13. VR: all closed gunsight cameras have 2x zoom enabled by default (VR zoom button gives 2x more, resulting in 4x zoom maximum);
14. Bf-109 F4: all skins should be accessible now.

Has the bug with the La-5 and La-5FN engine boost been fixed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All welcome changes! Looking forward to further improvements.

Share this post


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

Has the bug with the La-5 and La-5FN engine boost been fixed?

 

Yes.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12. Spotter won't endlessly shout about the enemy;

 

Is that what I think it is - the radio comms repeating over and over...?  😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that also solves the disappearing sound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Sneaksie said:
13. VR: all closed gunsight cameras have 2x zoom enabled by default (VR zoom button gives 2x more, resulting in 4x zoom maximum);

 

Oooh! I'm going to go check this out now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

 

Oooh! I'm going to go check this out now.

They finally did it, might have to jump back in and check it out..

 

Now where did I put my contacts.

Share this post


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

 

...

 


why for Spitfire 9 and P-47 engines when using all emergancy or boost of 5 min it takes 10min of having to fly on continuous to recover that 5min of emergancy/boost fully ?

while on 109G14 and 109K4 when using full lenght of 10min of emergancy it takes also 10min of flying on combat power to recover emergancy to full 10min ?
Why on me262 when use all 15min emergancy, it gets fully recovered after flying 20min on continuous ?
Why on 190A8 when use 3min of emergancy you have only 10min of combat left insted 30min, and mesage recovered emergancy dont even ever show up ?
Why on P-47 after using full 5min of boost you have only 10min of combat left before message expired show up, insted of 15min that is said in specs, when on 109G14 and 109K4 you have full 30min of combat left after using full 10min of emergancy ?

Why on 190D9 when using MW50+emergancy for 10min it gets fully recovered in 15min on combat power, and im able to use full 30min of combat power after 10min of MW50 expired

 

and how should player track all that ( as using boost on P-47 and 109D9 but ata or MP lower maks 5min and 10min limit longer so its hard to know without message when its realy expired) when recovered and expired messages dont show up on techchat when instrument panel option in realisam is turned off, but all other technical messages show up. Is it posible to get explanation on what impact recovery times on what airplanes and why some use up combat regimes and some dont and some take 2xmore to recover and some 1x ?

 

Thanks

Edited by 77.CountZero
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the new hotfix the 262 really is unstable now with the front armor + cannons removed and full fuel! I love it, you've done an excellent job dev's ☺️

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot for the life of me figure out how to open the damage overlay for tanks. My "enter" key just opens chat like always, and my "num enter" does nothing. I can't find the damage overlay in keybindings either. Has anyone else gotten it to work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sneaksie said:
 
 ...we release this hotfix....
 
12. Spotter won't endlessly shout about the enemy;

 

If I were rich, the Devs would be in my will!  Thank You. Thank You. Thank You!

 

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...