Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary 227 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Frequent_Flyer said:

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

 

The number of kills against Spitfires and Hurricanes suggest otherwise.

Also, the source of this claim can be put into the "doubtful & dubious" category

 

Again, the 110 had a larger relative fraction of kills against RAF fighters than the 109 did.

It also had a better K/D ratio than the 109.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

The number of kills against Spitfires and Hurricanes suggest otherwise.

Also, the source of this claim can be put into the "doubtful & dubious" category

 

Again, the 110 had a larger relative fraction of kills against RAF fighters than the 109 did.

It also had a better K/D ratio than the 109.

"doubtful and dubious" ,I did not quote a source,nor have you. The Hurricane is credited with  more total kills than the Spitfire during the BOB. Does this make the Hurricane a better fighter ? 

The BOB lasted 6 months , the war lasted 5.5 years for the Luftwaffe.  History tells the 110 was poor at what it was designed to do.

 

Share this post


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

"doubtful and dubious" ,I did not quote a source,nor have you. The Hurricane is credited with  more total kills than the Spitfire during the BOB. Does this make the Hurricane a better fighter ? 

The BOB lasted 6 months , the war lasted 5.5 years for the Luftwaffe.  History tells the 110 was poor at what it was designed to do.

 

1) No source is needed, as the source is wrong anyway. I suspect Galland supported this hypothesis. Many of his narratives don't stand actual historical research, though.

2) Strawman.

3) What's the point? The 110 did great in the MTO and even greater in the East.

4) Where exactly? The 110 did quite well in most jobs it did - including in those it wasn't designed to do.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

1) No source is needed, as the source is wrong anyway. I suspect Galland supported this hypothesis. Many of his narratives don't stand actual historical research, though.

2) Strawman.

3) What's the point? The 110 did great in the MTO and even greater in the East.

4) Where exactly? The 110 did quite well in most jobs it did - including in those it wasn't designed to do.

 

 

You decide the validity of a source and than rewrite history. ... Not interested.Name a German aircraft that didn't perform well against the VVS. Hell the Brewster Buffalo had a better K/D ratio than the 110 against the VVS. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jason for stepping in as this is not a suitable place for such discussions.  The History section is the appropriate location.  And thanks Jason for another great update, to you and the team!

Share this post


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

 "I sure wish I had some Japanese airplanes to shoot down!" I don't know, maybe it's just me.

 

No it's not only you, my wish also.

 

1c7d8208c646f59696c2657a113be9d9.jpg

Edited by bzc3lk
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pilot physiology is going to be the best thing, right now we can fly in very unrealistic way with extreme Gs, even negative. Or fly without oxygen at 10 km.

I hope it's going to change the game in this manner.

Visibility is very velcome also.

Thanks.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great things coming to the sim! That P-38 is gorgeous!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I’m not into the WW2 side of Il-2 currently, but daaaang! That P-38 looks cool! 😎 But most of all, thank you so much for increasing object visibility! I know it is probably a lot of work, but that really is one fix that I’ve wanted ever since I came over to Il-2 with Flying Circus. Thanks guys! 🤗

Edited by JG1_Hotlead_J10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI all ,it good to see were on track and not so long await for the planes in sept,i and others are hopeing in not show long of a date that we can  or should be able to fly the b25 as a good deed , if you would, we would be greatful, would make for a good combo of the b25 and p38? the quick mission id really like to be able to add more planes really ive asked for this a few times, as they did in the old il2 in the end,it wouldnt be to hard to do so ,would it ???  ive moaned at the times I fault needed it, and been happy when you listened,the moaning really is a wanting to fly the project planes that are being worked on more qiucky, I like the rest cant wait quick anuff to fly the great work you do, you no im to the point a-b ,id like a map of the cliff of dover, as we have a hell of a lot, I mean a hell of a lot of planes to go with that map,that my wish and hope and prayer, were all in this togeather were all give to each other what we want ,let just do it in style,apart from that good work really was mildly suprized with the 262 she nice and better than I thought,so again thank you all for your comittment to this game, Jason ~ 

  ps I no im word blind and I just don't care lol

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/27/2019 at 5:14 AM, Uufflakke said:

 

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?

 

The Fokker G1 went into service in ‘37

The FW 189 went into service in ‘38

 

A design request for a twin engine interceptor with top speed of 360+ mph, 20,000 foot ceiling, tricycle landing gear and armed with cannon was issued in February ‘37. Lockheed proposed the XP 38. Unless Kelly Johnson was talking to German designers, those 2 aircraft were unrelated. The Me110 was already in service, so might have been considered.

 

Original concept sketches... except for the tail, #1 is pretty close to the 110

 

A967-B175-1575-4838-8-E48-D690359712-AE.

 

Sorry for the OT, great DD, I’m quite content to wait until September and get 3 awesome Allied fighters all at the same time!

 

i might also have to put some WWI escort missions together with those new 2 seaters trying to take recce photos over the “front lines”

 

 

Edited by Jaegermeister
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

The Fokker G1 went into service in ‘37

The FW 189 went into service in ‘38

 

A design request for a twin engine interceptor with top speed of 360+ mph, 20,000 foot ceiling, tricycle landing gear and armed with cannon was issued in February ‘37. Lockheed proposed the XP 38. Unless Kelly Johnson was talking to German designers, those 2 aircraft were unrelated. The Me110 was already in service, so might have been considered.

 

Original concept sketches... except for the tail, #1 is pretty close to the 110

 

A967-B175-1575-4838-8-E48-D690359712-AE.

 

Sorry for the OT, great DD, I’m quite content to wait until September and get 3 awesome Allied fighters all at the same time!

 

i might also have to put some WWI escort missions together with those new 2 seaters trying to take recce photos over the “front lines”

 

 

 

Hot damn I wish we got #2 or #6, I bet they'd look spectacular

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering why the last 3 planes are the hardest to develop I wonder? Also was wondering why the B-25 will only be AI? Ju-52 is bigger and 3 engines. I am in no way complaining at all. Just curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 3:11 PM, RedKestrel said:

 If they could even increase ground object draw to 15 or 20 km high alt bombing would be much more feasible.

 

That would be awesome !!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now my PC is struggling in BOX career with 10km visibility. I hope that there will be some improvements in CPU/AI. Im worried that together with Bobp map it will be even greater slowfest. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jimmyjam said:

I was just wondering why the last 3 planes are the hardest to develop I wonder? Also was wondering why the B-25 will only be AI? Ju-52 is bigger and 3 engines. I am in no way complaining at all. Just curious. 

Why are the hardest. I dont know, but I can guess that the amount of expectation is very high, so the danger of not delivering is very real.

Also some members of the forum, me inclouded think it might have something to do with implementing some new feture/sistem, like more detailed fuel mamagment, etc in wich case there is no point in releasing a plane just to have to revise it soon afther.

 

The ju52 was released as AI only first, and made flyable later.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jimmyjam said:

I was just wondering why the last 3 planes are the hardest to develop I wonder? Also was wondering why the B-25 will only be AI? Ju-52 is bigger and 3 engines. I am in no way complaining at all. Just curious. 

Many more mannable positions, turrets and the strain of multiple AI in each B-25 have been given as reason by the developers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jimmyjam said:

I was just wondering why the last 3 planes are the hardest to develop I wonder? Also was wondering why the B-25 will only be AI? Ju-52 is bigger and 3 engines. I am in no way complaining at all. Just curious. 

P-51 has a deceptively complex 3D model. And the flight model has a lot of quirks that they need to get right (especially given the high bar fans of the plane will hold them to). So far we were dealing with known entities (109s, 190s, and Spitfires) or aircraft with fairly gentle handling characteristics (the P-47). I believe they started very early on the 262, anticipating more issues with it, and then got it done quicker than they thought.

The issue with the tempest was that it was extremely difficult to get good photographs and images of the cockpit, so work was probably delayed on it until proper sources could be found. The Tempest has a pretty advanced wing and the flight modeling may be tricky there too.

The P-38 has two engines and therefore a more complex 3D model as well. And I think it was probably last in the pipeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big applause! This is the type of Developer Diary I am happy to have.

Excellent. A big thanks to the dev team!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

All the little things are falling into place. Next they will announce that they have a fix for the funny clouds and that custom icons are coming. 

 

 

Keep up the shazam! !

Edited by AeroAce

Share this post


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

Many more mannable positions, turrets and the strain of multiple AI in each B-25 have been given as reason by the developers. 

I would gladly accept this airplane as flyable, with only the pilots and maybe the nose position available for use by the player. They could work on making the other positions usable as we enjoy flying it, and  add that capablity in a later update. 

Edited by Poochnboo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I would gladly except this airplane as flyable, with only the pilots and maybe the nose position available for use by the player. They could work on making the other positions usable as we enjoy flying it, and  add that capablity in a later update. 

I wholeheartedly agree. IF we ever get to the Pacific, I so want to fly the B-25 off the Hornet.

Edited by Rjel
spelling off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I wholeheartedly agree. IF we ever get to the Pacific, I so want to fly the B-25 off the Hornet.

I'll fly the B25 from anywhere. Oh, and by the way, I changed that "except", in my post, to "accept!" D'uh!

 

On 7/28/2019 at 8:49 AM, JG1_Hotlead_J10 said:

I’m not into the WW2 side of Il-2

I'm..uh, sorry....what? Did you say, umm...huh! No, I'm sure you didn't say...huh? Oh, I get it...you're one of those toothpicks and cloth kinda' guys! Not interested in WW2 airplanes....it's blasphemy, I tells ya'!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Having completed all these tasks, we'll increase the maximum visibility distance for planes and ships from 10 to 100 km and the resulting visibility distance will realistically correspond to the lighting and weather conditions. "

 

YES!  Makes me excited for the game again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 3:45 AM, HappyHaddock said:

 

There are plenty of case where viewing distances do need to be increased, and a convoy of ships is just one, as are the contrails on bomber formations. I merely hope we don't get a situation that in enabling people to spot convoys of ships or bomber formations from 50+km we also end up in a situation that something as small as a single biplane seen against a dark sky at dusk is also visible at more than 50km.

 

Everything the devs have said about what they are attempting sounds positive, lets hope they can deliver increased viewing distances only where they are appropriate.

 

 

 

 

Pretty sure from my reading and interpretation of the DD that view distance is going to be based on lighting and object sizes (maybe read again carefully)

So doesn't sound like we will be seeing "single biplane seen against a dark sky at dusk is also visible at more than 50km." to my reading of what was said.

But I hope to see larger planes and formations at further distances and , larger objects and wakes and trails etc.

 

 

Quote

Improved visibility distance of planes and ships. The main difficulty in the development of this feature was making the dynamic objects show at great distances without a steady stream of data reporting their position and orientation. Another important thing is to model the lighting of the airplane even at long range - we discarded the idea of having just black dots at these distances, where the visibility of an object is determined by the position of the sun, brightness and hue of the sky, haze, etc. All this is impossible to model having only a black dot. The distant planes flying at high altitudes will have contrails and ships will have visible wakes. It is also important to have more or less equal terms for owners of different monitors. Having completed all these tasks, we'll increase the maximum visibility distance for planes and ships from 10 to 100 km and the resulting visibility distance will realistically correspond to the lighting and weather conditions

 

Time will tell, but personally I don't think the devs are going to want to make a hash of this , they already know that will go down like a lead brick. (esp with the whiners, well maybe anything will be a lead brick with them) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's how it actually works, though.  Air conditions and light reflection are paramount in seeing other aircraft at distance.  Contrails you can see for a long ways.  Look into the air sometime, during the day, at a contrail and try to spot the commercial aircraft.  If the aircraft is far away, and you are on the ground, then the aircraft is likely not illuminated from below by the sun.  What do you see?  A blurry spot with contrails clearly exiting the rear.  I have 20/20 vision, and I routinely see contrails with barely (or not) being able to see the aircraft up at 35000 ft except for implying the position from the trails.  

 

Now, if you are above or concurrent with such an aircraft, you will see the reflection off the skin at midday.  Obviously this is different for morning/evening sun angles, and if the devs have really put all this in, I am super impressed.

 

For any nay-sayers:  a true 100km view distance, if we see it happen in game, will be outclassing all other flight sims.  I have hope they've done it right.  It will blow DCS out of the water in this one aspect.

Edited by II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no mather how it will work it will be big improvment on what we have now, it will be easyer to not get suprised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/28/2019 at 4:16 AM, bzc3lk said:

 

No it's not only you, my wish also.

 

1c7d8208c646f59696c2657a113be9d9.jpg

Just use the Macchi with a Japanese skin. Then shoot down the Macchi's with the P38 over the jungle (kuban low mountains with early morning haze in the valleys) and the illusion of an aerial fight over Gudalcanal is total.

Edited by IckyATLAS
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

Pretty sure from my reading and interpretation of the DD that view distance is going to be based on lighting and object sizes (maybe read again carefully)

So doesn't sound like we will be seeing "single biplane seen against a dark sky at dusk is also visible at more than 50km." to my reading of what was said.

But I hope to see larger planes and formations at further distances and , larger objects and wakes and trails etc.

 

 

 

Time will tell, but personally I don't think the devs are going to want to make a hash of this , they already know that will go down like a lead brick. (esp with the whiners, well maybe anything will be a lead brick with them) 

 

This.

Its pretty clear that the 100km visibility distance is the proposed maximum possible for both ships and planes. its the same bubble for both object types and a large ship could absolutely be seen from the air at that distance in the right circumstances. The extreme max distance on the visibility of the planes will allow sighting contrails at long distances but very, very few people are going to be spotting aircraft at more than, say, 20-30 km. Right now a lot of people have trouble spotting at 10 km. I know that I do as my monitor is not great. Its still a great improvement.

I trust the devs know what they're doing. Its ambitious, but I don't think they'd say they were working on it if they didn't have reasonable confidence they could be successful. Otherwise, they would have just caved and said "Yeah, we're totally going to do that" at any time over the past few years and just never followed through or made a mess of it. They don't propose a feature or improvement unless they've already figured out that its possible to do. Maybe it won't work out but the attempt is being made. 

Share this post


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

very few people are going to be spotting aircraft at more than, say, 20-30 km. Right now a lot of people have trouble spotting at 10 km. I know that I do as my monitor is not great. Its still a great improvement.

I have already the whining in front of my eyes for larger zoom, so they can see aircrafts at possibly max distance.😉

Share this post


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

I have already the whining in front of my eyes for larger zoom, so they can see aircrafts at possibly max distance.😉

Oh God No, I hope you're not right.  May as well outfit these birds with in cockpit radars if you are.  Not like GPS is an issue for quite a few 🙄

 

"Mommy, I'm lost - Google Maps says No!"

Share this post


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

Oh God No, I hope you're not right.  May as well outfit these birds with in cockpit radars if you are.  Not like GPS is an issue for quite a few 🙄

 

"Mommy, I'm lost - Google Maps says No!"

The irony is I find it easier to navigate in Il-2 than in real life already.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Switching over to this sim from a certain FTP game has been continually satisfying for me, and it just gets better and better.
Thank you, devs.
Perhaps most of all, for not compromising on what you want this game to be, and taking the time to do things right.
 

 

Edited by von_Michelstamm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is the correct thread but it seems relevant. Can you make scrambling fighters behave a little more like it should. Flying a bomber to 5000m+ (18000ft+) to conduct a bombing run is the defense against the scrambling fighters. You climb, you do your mission and you return home, only to find that when you decent 20km from home base the scrambled fighters are there too. Ok i can understand that they are pissed, but they did a 200 (give or take) km flight into enemy contested territory, unchallenged to shoot the bombers ? Even if they went after the bombers, nothing along the way caught their attention ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't know if this aspect of Boden Platte has been brought up, but will the weather modeling reflect the Northern European weather of the period? I believe the winter weather is a given, based on the actual operation, but as the map is presented here the lead-up to the operation takes place a few months earlier. d'oh! Mission planner!😁

thank you,

Flyby out

Edited by ACG_Flyby
stating the obvious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't wait to see how much payload Wings of Liberty is going to lock on the Tempest and P-38.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said:

I honestly can't wait to see how much payload Wings of Liberty is going to lock on the Tempest and P-38.

Payload? What do you mean, they are fighters they can’t carry a payload \s

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...