Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 227 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, CSW_Hot_Dog said:

Yeah Herne, exactly, and thats the dissapointment.

 

[edited]

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

The 51 had a..trick wing profile. Not necessarily due to it being laminar flow, but it was very low drag which is great for speed but also caused very tricky snap stall wing drop properties which I imagine can be hard to code

 

Shouldn’t be. Just review the original A3 data. Bah bump bump ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw you guys, I think in another 10 years or so you will definitely be above average developers. Ergo keep up the good work to ensure this eventuates.

 

A Nonny Mouse

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm surprised to see the amount of negativity that pops up from such a positive thing like the particular DD we're talking about.

Come on guys, reconsider your unrealistic expectations, put yourself into their shoes for a split-second and finally try to enjoy what we have first, and look forward to what we're gonna get next.

 

 

:drinks:

Mike

Edited by SAS_Storebror
typo
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great update this week...great dd. Very innovative on pilot phys..the aircraft are as expected excellent..view distance and lastly the great news abt new programmer and ia. Good show chaps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That extended visibility would help out a lot when flying MiGs and Sabers at very high speeds over Korea.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
  • An advanced model of pilot physiology that includes complex fatigue modeling that takes into account G-overload fatigue, overload frequency, alternation of positive and negative overloads, wounds, having a G-suit, lack of oxygen and oxygen supply system. The model will also simulate a loss of consciousness and ability to control an aircraft after experiencing too sharp or too severe overloads. The algorithms it is using are based on the research of various institutes. The introduction of this model is likely to change the flow of air combat, especially in multiplayer. However, those who find it too difficult and unfamiliar will be able to switch it off as realism option (it will also be a server setting).

 

Many great news in this DD, but this one looks the best. Thanks a lot! 

You have great priorities, not only adding the new content but improving the game as a whole.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact visibility and pilot's tiredeness will be great improvements. Can't wait to see the final result. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing update, so many things to loo forward to. Great work!

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

increase the maximum visibility distance for planes and ships from 10 to 100 km

 

wow  thats Incredible  . DEVS you make a great Job  and you never disappointed me !   Take the time you Need for your high Claims .

Edited by ER*Wumme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic DD, really looking forward to Sept !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always loved the design of the P-38: the twin boom nacelles and the gondola like fuselage.

As a kid I enjoyed my Airfix plastic model kit of it.

 

I still don't know to what extend the P-38 is based on the Dutch Fokker G-1 built in 1936.

The German Fw 189 seems to be based on captured G-1's but how that is related to the P-38 I have no clue.

Perhaps there is no link and the P-38 was designed independendly?

 

 

Fokker G-1.jpg

Fw 189.jpg

P-38.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing I don't understand about that design:

By not putting the cockpit behind an engine, aren't you causing far, far more drag than you would otherwise have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Here's the thing I don't understand about that design:

By not putting the cockpit behind an engine, aren't you causing far, far more drag than you would otherwise have?

 

I have no idea about the subject but as a laymans guess,  perhaps the drag of two engines in front of a slim boom is so much less than the drag of two engine pods and a full fuselage that even adding the drag of a cockpit pod leaves you winning?  

 

*EDIT*  I found this

  p-38-wayne-fig1e.jpg

Which I suppose shows that it did have a lower thrust/drag performance than the P51  & FW190 but I suppose the advantages the design brought (eg nose cannons, long range, no torgue, tricycle u/c, ability to lose an engine etc.) made it a good deal.

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex

Share this post


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

Perhaps there is no link and the P-38 was designed independendly?

The P-38 was designed with the Bf-110 in mind. At the time, that destroyer kept every Generals juices flowing. So it had to be a twin engine AC. The problem was how to place the turbos. The engine nacelles are smaller in the fighter, thus they extended rather significantly. The twin boom layout was just the best solution to have the smallest airframe possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Here's the thing I don't understand about that design:

By not putting the cockpit behind an engine, aren't you causing far, far more drag than you would otherwise have?

 

You could have the cockpit on one of the booms... but then you'd have to land on a single wheel :rofl:

 

I'm sure the legendary Kelly Johnson had thought of all the advantages of that design when he came up with it. I mean, this is the same guy who later gave us the SR-71 and so many wonderful aircraft  

 

Actually, another thing that goes behind the engine in the P38 pods, is the all-important turbocharger. I suppose having it there instead of the pilot and guns more than pays off for the extra drag of that perfectly streamline central gondola. 

 

Curious fact, the same nose shape of the P38 was later reused on the F-80 Shooting Star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Holy Mother of Lockheed! That P-38 looks fantastic. That just HAS to be my ride, in here. It has to be. I hope I don't suck in it as badly as I do the P-47.

But I'm surprised at the fact that the Lightning is almost done. I thought it would be our last airplane, but it sounds as though the Mustang has a way to go. With all the information available on the P-51D, I had expected it to be one of the first and it looks as though it may be the last.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to getting my ass kicked in P-38!

Don't forget what Han told us in DD 2019:

"It should be noted that while many Mustangs still exist around the world, including airworthy ones, most of them are combinations of different modifications, including post-WWII ones. Therefore we're spending a lot of time researching tech schematics, spare parts catalogs, and similar documents to make sure the final result will be as authentic as possible."

 

Personally, I deeply respect and appreciate this.

 

Have a nice day.

 

:salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, FlyingShark said:

Don't forget what Han told us in DD 2019:

"It should be noted that while many Mustangs still exist around the world, including airworthy ones, most of them are combinations of different modifications, including post-WWII ones. Therefore we're spending a lot of time researching tech schematics, spare parts catalogs, and similar documents to make sure the final result will be as authentic as possible."

 

Very true. I once saw a video of one airworthy P51 on youtube, and the proud owner remarked on how he removed the six gun openings from the wings, and this new unbroken leading edge had given the plane some 8 knots less on its stalling speed.

 

That only goes to show, any P51's flying today can't be exactly a match for their war-time flying characteristics.

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Unless something has changed in their business model there is not and will not be any holding back of content. The team cannot afford to do that for a laundry list of reasons.

 

This was my understanding as well. But from the DD it seems that some of those aircraft will be ready some time before the end of September and thus held back for a little while.
I would like to get some clarification from the devs though as to the exact meaning of the words in the DD and if they are held back: why.

 

BlackHellHound1

:salute:

Edited by BlackHellHound1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you all did it on purpose. Ignore BoBP totally in the update to amaze us in a DD. The visibility, those gorgeous planes coming, the pilot physiology, etc. What a beautiful way to start my day 😄

Share this post


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

That extended visibility would help out a lot when flying MiGs and Sabers at very high speeds over Korea.

 

Yeah.......I did wonder about that.....

 

So far, we have the water tech. from RoF adapted into the game but no float planes or aircaft dropped torpedoes or carriers (:)) to fully exploit this feature yet.

We now have the 262 with its jet engine characteristics modelled and a transonic flight model too.

 

Put the two together;

  

:cool:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This a very good DD, the improvements to be implemented are what a lot of people have been asking for on these forums and will greatly enhance what is already a very good game. 

 

The new aircraft sound exciting, I for one will have trouble deciding which one to fly. 

 

Well done to Jason and the team for the constant positive additions  to the game. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the hard work, exciting times ahead.  

Share this post


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

This is fantastic!

 

Referring to Parallel Projection, and a small problem with IL-2 that has appeared with canted display headsets like Pimax and Index: As you are in the corresponding code-section right now, please take a look at a problem in IL-2's object culling. Wide FOV headsets with canted displays like Pimax and Index have a problem: The right side of the picture does not render objects in the last ~20°. So objects stop getting rendered while they are still in the right eye's right peripheral corner - too early.

123.png.f892e5e1c7c05b97112692da6bb7466c.png

This is because both headsets use canted displays. The object range pulls over the radiant from the left side of the left eye towards the right side of the left eye. Then it adds another FOV for the right eye. However, the 2 FOVs are offset, and that offset is missing in the center in IL-2's object culling calculation. As a result, the range of the offset is missing on the right side of the right eye. It is not something the headset manufacturers can fix, but a variable in the engine - a new deal, in which IL-2's engine needs adaptation.

 

Please ask your engineer to look into that, to offset where the culling starts on the left side of the right eye. To anyone interested, this is not per-se an IL-2 "bug", as there was no need for it before these two headsets hit the market. Maybe you already plan to include this into a Parallel Projection fix, that would be fantastic as well and help both Index and Pimax owners to better performance too.

 

 

As always,

big fan of your work and best regards!

 

Fenris

 

P.S. Love the view distance increase. So many were waiting for this, and great how you listen to what the community would like. And cannot wait for the P-51.

 

Hey Fenris - Agreed on many points including a Huge Thank you to the Devs.

 

Parallel Projections for Cantered HMD's would be a lovely improvement. 

 

As for Object Render Culling on the RHS - I will test some more but so far - static objects are not affected.  Only, so far as I can determine, is it is aircraft that are culled early from the RHS early (before they leave the Field of View Area of the HMD wearer).  Landscape, ground based objects, clouds, and own aircraft are all visually represented.  Definitely something that needs to be investigated and maybe a 2 birds with the 1 stone fix would be tweaking the engine for to remove the need for Parallel Projection.

 

As for people disappointed about aircraft releases for BOBP, well the Devs have to have something to release when they release BOBP.  They have given us much to enjoy already as well as countless improvements across the board.  The additions as outlined in the Dev Diary Update are great and I am very interested on how it will all pan out on final release.  I hope AI suffers fatigue as well as players and it will remove, I hope, some of the UFO antics online.

 

Onward and Upward as they say 💥

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100 km visibility guess I'll need a new VR headset. Maybe The HP reverb? The new pilot philology sounds very interesting, I always felt the spitfire pilots would of gassed out pulling hard G's same with the me262. wonder if we will get a fatigue meter that drains and  fills with aggressive and passive flight or once you gas out your pilot you need to land, I suspect it will be similar to the flight model when your pilot takes severe damage and the stick response is limited. Sound finally getting fixed my biggest complaint so thanks again nothing worse than having to reboot every hour to get audio back. Other wise it's going to be a long two months waiting kinda like when you were a kid  in October and Christmas is right around the corner.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am actually genuinely excited about getting the lightning. Its always been one of my favourite planes ever since I was a 10 year old kid and got my first computer - a 25Mhz 386SX with 4mb of RAM and a 14"VGA monitor (I know, it was a beast!) - and one of the first games I got on it was Aces of the Pacific, Red Baron 1 and, later, Aces over Europe. Anyone remember this:

 

 

And I used to play all of them with this awesome CH joystick:

 

220px-Ch_products_mach_2_joystick.jpg.b597d0bd6b2a318c79fdcb631180bfc4.jpg

 

Ah yes, thems were the days..

Edited by Flashy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Back when sticks all had physical trim adjustment. I miss that.

Ch fighter sticks still have it. 

Share this post


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

The P-38 was designed with the Bf-110 in mind. At the time, that destroyer kept every Generals juices flowing.

Rediculous assumption. That's incorrect according Ben Kelsey. He was an aeronautical designer, test pilot, and an officer in the USAAF. He was very influential in getting the Army Air Force flying some of the great airplanes it wound up with. 

He was pushing the P-38, at the time. He was in a meeting with Hap Arnold, commander in chief of the AAF. 

After an intense meeting, Arnold finally said, " Kelsey, what makes you think that this P-38 is going to be any good?" Then he added, "The ME110 is a twin engined fighter....but it's just no good!"

Kelsey said, "General, to begin with, the P-38 is a very dfferent kind of airplane. It isn't a two-seater. It's much more advanced in design, it's faster and it's right!"

Hap Arnold replied with, "Oh, okay Kelsey, all right. Get going and get on with it!"

It doesn't sound as though "every Generals juices" were flowing to me. The AAF was well aware of how the RAF had kicked the ass of BF110 squadrons over England during the Battle of Britain.

By the way, that story comes from Warren M. Bodies excellant book, "The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definative Story Of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" the more difficult is the task the more interesting is the result."

 

well let's hope the AI does other thing than going in circle 24/7.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, namhee2 said:

thanks for the information. I suffer a great ignorance , when "Bodenplatte" finish, what's next?😁

Hockey season starts, so it's sorted

 

17 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

[edited]

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

just out of curiosity, what exactly is wrong with his comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

Kelsey said, "General, to begin with, the P-38 is a very dfferent kind of airplane. It isn't a two-seater. It's much more advanced in design, it's faster and it's right!"

And yet he sold another heavy twin engine fighter aircraft. The Bf-110 surely had the same promises stapled to it. (And delivered, just ask the Poles. Or RAF bomber crews.)

 

21 minutes ago, Poochnboo said:

After an intense meeting, Arnold finally said, " Kelsey, what makes you think that this P-38 is going to be any good?" Then he added, "The ME110 is a twin engined fighter....but it's just no good!"

This is actually a very funny display of chauvinism. The Bf-110 clearly is one of the best airframes produced by Germany back then while the US had few competitive fighter types in service at the time. Besides, still two years into service there were maybe two or three types of aircraft that had a reasonable chance in a fight against the 110, while the Lightning hardly made it past the „controversial“ stage throughout its service life, unless it was put against significantly inferior material in the Pacific.

 

Despite Arnolds antics, the heavily armed twin engine fighter was very much popular in the thirties as a concept. And that is what I was referring to. They built them in many versions. British, French...they all did. The Lightning is a much later plane. They still went for the same concept, but drawing on 5 years of experience gained by previous models. It is by all means a better performing aircraft.

 

Kelsey might think a lot of himself by omitting the rear gunner in a fighter. The British dared such in a bomber.

 

However, regarding the flow of the juices (in America) I stand corrected. It is not clear what they liked. Looking at it again it seems like by 1941 they just found out which aircraft got shot down faster than it took for producing them.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

However, regarding the flow of the juices (in America) I stand corrected.

Yeah, that was really the only thing you said that I had a disagreemant with, and is what my whole post was about. That they, in some way, feared the '110. It's bad points were well known to the AAF. There were USAAC officers in England during The Battle, as observers.They got a chance to view downed German airplanes while they were there. And they of course witnessed them in battle.

Edited by Poochnboo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 19//Moach said:

 

You could have the cockpit on one of the booms... but then you'd have to land on a single wheel :rofl:

 

I'm sure the legendary Kelly Johnson had thought of all the advantages of that design when he came up with it. I mean, this is the same guy who later gave us the SR-71 and so many wonderful aircraft  

 

Actually, another thing that goes behind the engine in the P38 pods, is the all-important turbocharger. I suppose having it there instead of the pilot and guns more than pays off for the extra drag of that perfectly streamline central gondola. 

 

Curious fact, the same nose shape of the P38 was later reused on the F-80 Shooting Star

Slight correction the P-80 was originally designed by Bell,. Lockheed took over the project and kept the original Bell design.

Share this post


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

The AAF was well aware of how the RAF had kicked the ass of BF110 squadrons over England during the Battle of Britain.

 

That's just another myth.

The 110 had a better Kill/Loss ratio than the 109 during BoB. It also had a larger share of fighter kills, despite it's slightly smaller fracton among the order of battle.

 

The RAF did certainly not kick the 110's rear over Britain during BoB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

That's just another myth.

The 110 had a better Kill/Loss ratio than the 109 during BoB. It also had a larger share of fighter kills, despite it's slightly smaller fracton among the order of battle.

 

The RAF did certainly not kick the 110's rear over Britain during BoB.

 

The Bf-110 and the Ju-87  were  rendered obsolete during the  BOB,in fact the 110 had the dubious distinction of needing a fighter escort . If the 110 did have better k/d ratio it would be because the 109  had no range and could barley engage before needing to return to base. The Luftwaffe was forced to use the 110. No myth, when the were used as intended as an interceptor against the bomber stream they were annihilated. However, like  other poor designs  including the Ju-87 it went on to be relatively successful against the VVS.

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...