Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Developer Diary 229 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This is not the place for that discussion and anyways, it's not even released yet! How do you guys know if its going or not to run with X settings? 

 

I suggest you guys share your oppinion but keep your complaints until it's  at least released.

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

This is not the place for that discussion and anyways, it's not even released yet! How do you guys know if its going or not to run with X settings? 

yeah, I would hate to have had some of these guys on my side in a fight. Sheer negativity before they even get it.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

This is not the place for that discussion and anyways, it's not even released yet! How do you guys know if its going or not to run with X settings? 

 

I suggest you guys share your oppinion but keep your complaints until it's  at least released.

 

Sure I don’t know for sure but Jason’s reply wasn’t promising and just looking at the aircrafts gauges in the trailer and comparing them to real life ones, looks like 3700rpm with 9lb of boost.

Haha Stickz it is far from negativity :) I don’t want this to be the case I’m just disappointed it’s likely turning out this way. Also has 0 reflection on my airmanship :salute:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bullets said:

 

Sure I don’t know for sure but Jason’s reply wasn’t promising and just looking at the aircrafts gauges in the trailer and comparing them to real life ones, looks like 3700rpm with 9lb of boost.

Haha Stickz it is far from negativity :) I don’t want this to be the case I’m just disappointed it’s likely turning out this way. Also has 0 reflection on my airmanship :salute:

Don't worry, text messages can be a little bit strange to read sometimes. I beg you pardon but I suggest we all wait till the team release their work. So far has been great and I am sure the will try their best to make the most accurate version possible

Share this post


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

...far from negativity... 

 

I wouldn't trust your navigation skills either.  ;)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

I wouldn't trust your navigation skills either.  ;)

 

I’m actually a bit of a whiz kid with one of these and an air chart actually ;) 

1131px-E6b-front.jpg

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

I’m actually a bit of a whiz kid with one of these and an air chart actually ;) 

 

 

Good for you. No 'Jason-post over-analyser' or 'random-screenshot over-analyser' involved, I see. Navigation is based on analysis of information you have, not guesswork based on prior prejudice. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Good for you. No 'Jason-post over-analyser' or 'random-screenshot over-analyser' involved, I see. Navigation is based on analysis of information you have, not guesswork based on prior prejudice. 

 

So you are telling me you don’t see the tempest running at 3700rpm and 9lb of boost in the trailer, and can’t make the simple link using available data online (and the post in the dd confirming the use of the iia engine) that the iia ran at 3700rpm with 9lb ?  I think that’s a good analysis of the information that’s been made available with minimal guesswork. Would be very happy to be proved wrong though :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

.. based on analysis of information you have, not guesswork based on prior prejudice. 

 

Uh, I think the lads asking about the boost have based their questions on the information available? 😬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bullets said:

Would be very happy to be proved wrong though :) 

You can run ANY Sabre at these ratings. The picture doesn't tell you too much. You are supposed to use that rating for takeoff. They flew it the right way in the vid. Just because you might be allowed to use mor boost, it is not automatically advisable to max out your power for takeoff. These crates are very much overpowered and they generally do not require max throttle for propper takeoff. These pics and vids mainly show a very beautiful aircraft. Not much more. Myself, I was just surprised by his nomenclature, as it went agianst what I've come across so far, meaning I have no clue what Jason exactly specified and saw that in context with the old manual.

 

What is "in" our Tempest, we see when it ships. But isn't that a very specific trait of the aircraft? Ever since they put the forst rivet in one, it was good lots of speculation but nobody for sure knew what's in it despite having strong opinions about it. In essence, we're getting a true Tempest. I have no worries about that.

 

(But I'd be lying to say that I am not very, very curious what Jason learned about the aircraft and their specifications. I'm sure he finds the right words when it ships.)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The back armor plate is a waste of bubble cockpit, why british didnt use armor glass?

I firmly believe 4 hispano on the Tempest in GB is as powerful as 4 mk108 on 262, if not more powerful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 7:09 AM, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

will be there a video about the P38 too?

 

On 8/30/2019 at 7:07 AM, Lythronax said:

The music in that trailer was a bit loud, would've loved to hear the Sabre's soundset. But alas this really is a work of art!

enginesounds aremost important

Share this post


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

 

So you are telling me you don’t see the tempest running at 3700rpm and 9lb of boost in the trailer, and can’t make the simple link using available data online (and the post in the dd confirming the use of the iia engine) that the iia ran at 3700rpm with 9lb ?  I think that’s a good analysis of the information that’s been made available with minimal guesswork. Would be very happy to be proved wrong though :) 

 

No. I am telling you that I don't take a single screenshot of a random beta video as a basis to make any assumptions as to what engine parameters may or may not be modelled in-game. Because assuming that the screenshot proves anything is not only guesswork, it is guesswork based on your self-evident intention to  assume the worst. You don't know if the engine was being run full-throttle. You don't know if the beta currently models the engine as intended. you don't know if the beta instruments accurately report the beta engine performance. You don't know if engine boost is an optional mod setting. You are in no position whatsoever to 'prove' anything, other than the fact that you are obsessed with picking arguments with the developers based on your ridiculous assumptions that somehow you can deduce the performance of the final released product from a beta screenshot.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, 8./JG5_seaflanker819 said:

The back armor plate is a waste of bubble cockpit, why british didnt use armor glass?

 

Because

a) you can look around the headrest no problem and

b) armoured glass is a lot heavier than an equivalent plate of armour grade steel and

c) the glass is also more expensive/harder to produce.

 

You'll find armoured glass for rearward protection almost exclusively in ww2 planes with rather small cockpits.

Edited by JtD
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

No. I am telling you that I don't take a single screenshot of a random beta video as a basis to make any assumptions as to what engine parameters may or may not be modelled in-game. Because assuming that the screenshot proves anything is not only guesswork, it is guesswork based on your self-evident intention to  assume the worst. You don't know if the engine was being run full-throttle. You don't know if the beta currently models the engine as intended. you don't know if the beta instruments accurately report the beta engine performance. You don't know if engine boost is an optional mod setting. You are in no position whatsoever to 'prove' anything, other than the fact that you are obsessed with picking arguments with the developers based on your ridiculous assumptions that somehow you can deduce the performance of the final released product from a beta screenshot.

 

I can’t argue with that :salute: I did say I would like to be proved wrong.. I was assuming the worst. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 8./JG5_seaflanker819 said:

The back armor plate is a waste of bubble cockpit, why british didnt use armor glass?

Armored glass vs a steel plate protecting my back. Are you kidding? I'll take that steel plate, thank you.

Share this post


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

 

I can’t argue with that :salute: I did say I would like to be proved wrong.. I was assuming the worst. 

 

Don't worry Bullets, we'll rub it better m8:biggrin:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Don't worry Bullets, we'll rub it better m8:biggrin:

 

Will you tuck me in and bring me hot coco too? :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 10:00 PM, EAF19_Marsh said:

A Tempest, a Spitfire, a Mustang, a Lightning and a Thunderbolt walk into a bar in Dusseldorf and the barman says...

 

Warum ist Bier in England so warm? Was ist damit Los? :drink2:

Share this post


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

Will you tuck me in and bring me hot coco too? :blush:

 

No but we'll get yer mum to run it under the cold tap.:)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAF Museum at Hendon is indeed superb and I've visited twice as it is only 50 miles away. The WW1 and Luftwaffe exhibits are worth the visit; they have an intact 262.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Jason and Team, a terrific article that should make everybody realize the dedication and passion that goes on behind this flight sim to make it the best on the market today.

When I was younger, I was very much like you, the Tempest being one of my favorite WWII fighters. This of course was helped by reading (over and over again) books like Pierre Clostermann's 'Big Show' and Roland Beaumont's 'My Part of the Sky'. Clostermann's descriptions about flying the Tempest were enthralling, especially describing how he walked away after crashing one. Roland Beaumont was a test pilot (as well as a distinguished fighter pilot)during WWII and helped develop the Tempest. His descriptions about developing the Tempest and later on leading his Wing in combat flying the Tempest are a must read. He particularly helped in countering the VI flying bombs over the UK because the Tempest was the one of the few aircraft fast enough to catch up to them.

The other very interesting part of the Tempest story is the development of its engine - the 24 cylinder Napier Sabre, which was also used in the Typhoon. In the early stages of the engine was notoriously unreliable - many pilots found their '7 Ton' Typhoons difficult to control once their engines failed (you can imagine?).

If members are interested in reading a good pictorial read about the development of both aircraft, get hold of a copy of 'Typhoon and Tempest at War' by Arthur Reed & Roland Beaumont, published by Ian Allan Ltd London.

Finally I would like to pay tribute to the original Tempest model designer who produced a stunning rendition of the aircraft in IL2 Sturmovik 1946. Having this aircraft led to the production of my campaigns - 'The Big Show' and 'My Part of the Sky'. I am now learning to use the new mission builder for 'Boddenplatte' and hopefully will have the new Tempest in action again (hopefully with a Typhoon?)

DFLion

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is truly amazing about all of this is the fact they are working hard on not one, but three new releases at that same time.

Incredible what they are pulling off !

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Armored glass vs a steel plate protecting my back. Are you kidding? I'll take that steel plate, thank you.

Armored glass has done a great job on yak1b la5fn and 109g/k, at least in GB

By the way, whether glass or steel armor can only protect you from bullet not shells

Edited by 8./JG5_seaflanker819
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I'm floored by what flight simmers will rant and argue passionately about. Or, to paraphrase, rarely in the history of entertainment software have so many people gotten worked up on so little. 🤘

  • Haha 7
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

Yes.  Different coloured plots of land.  Dozens of which can be fitted within the large fields depicted and which can still be discerned in the recon photo from a height of 20,000ft or more. 

It seems to be a characteristic of western Europe at that time.  By comparison the very large fields in the screenshot and the grey city texture reminded me a lot of the map in Cliffs of Dover.

 

It is hard to judge how field textures will finally turn out to be on  BOBP map since it is all work in progress. But indeed around Düsseldorf there used to be allotment as can easily be discerned even  on these tiny images:

https://originals.dotkadata.com/#!1&1=&jaar[]=1940&jaar[]=1945&extent[south]=51.10020208453177&extent[west]=6.43875130744334&extent[north]=51.272354953732&extent[east]=6.950988856271465&extent[description]=Neuss

Different from what is shown in the video.

 

In The Netherlands we have allotment as well.  And Düsseldorf is not so far away from the Dutch/German border. About 50 km.

On this website https://www.topotijdreis.nl/ the high rez topographic maps show the small strips of grassland.

(The website speaks for itself; slider on the leftside for selecting the year and + -  for zooming in and out. )

 

By the way, anyone noticed Düsseldorf still seems to be unpopulated? Same for the city that shows up at 07:18 in the bottom right corner of the video.

But as said earlier, it is still  work in progress.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful plane. Well done. I was a mechanic in my distant youth. When I first heard of a Sabre, I was in heaven. So compact; so innovative; so much going on. The engine sounds will be a challenge. 'That can't be right. It's the size of a Griffon but sounds like a Formula I.'

 

Zackly ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2019 at 3:40 PM, Semor76 said:

I must say, compared to the rest of the sequences in the video, the placement of Düsseldorf looks terrible. Doesn´t fit the high quality of the video et all. looks more like default Microsoft Flight simulator X. I hope this is still early beta.

540802646_DusseldorfIL2.jpg.83de650091c6b962a34c9ef14bc54145.jpg

 

The perspective is not the same in the screenie and in the photo... Look at the harbour basins.

 

In light of keeping frame rates down I think the map looks absolutely top-notch. You can always add polygons and textures if you don't care about looking at a slide show. That's the real-world trade-off developers, unlike thread posters, must always keep in mind. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your dedication and obvious love of these wonderful planes, it shows in the quality that is IL-2: BoX. My favorite game, indeed! Very excited for the Tempest, and P-51, but I can't wait for the P-38!!! The P-38 is a little dream of mine in this awesome sim. Keep up the love and hard work! :-)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious but without expectation about the new physiological model. I'm an enthusiast of all things that made simulation better and more real but I'm distrustiful if the hard G maneuvers without punishment will take an end. Defensive flight online is clearly dubious. If devs are reading i would like to ask if its possible to add structural damage when performing G maneuvres beyond the aircraft limits. Anti cheat policy is nice too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, =BLW=Tales said:

structural damage when performing G maneuvres beyond the aircraft limits

 

Been implemented for about a decade (Rise of Flight). Also if you take structural damage, the limits diminish, and you can suffer a failure under loads that would otherwise be survivable. So the system is quite sophisticated, and has been a bright spot in the damage modeling since the outset of the sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cpt_Cool said:

 

Been implemented for about a decade (Rise of Flight). Also if you take structural damage, the limits diminish, and you can suffer a failure under loads that would otherwise be survivable. So the system is quite sophisticated, and has been a bright spot in the damage modeling since the outset of the sim.

Nice to read about that. Why is not implemented on IL2 GB yet? On some moves VVS take more than 600 km/h and pull a hard g without structural damage. On old il2 mig had reluctancy to follow on a dive since the wings should fall apart more than 700 km/h. After Team Daidalous you can't pull too much at very high speed or the aircraft should suffer structural damage. Some people are "confused" but it was implemented on old il2. Team Daidalous have done a good work before.

 

See the image, im not talking shit:

 

https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/443530-limit-load-factors-ww2-fighters-eg-spitfire-mustang.html

 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/36012/why-does-overspeed-cause-structural-damage-or-failure-when-limit-load-factors-ar

 

image.png.973d8d014e68a682768c0dc4037dbff2.png

Edited by =BLW=Tales
Complete.
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2019 at 10:50 AM, Freycinet said:

 

The perspective is not the same in the screenie and in the photo... Look at the harbour basins.

 

In light of keeping frame rates down I think the map looks absolutely top-notch. You can always add polygons and textures if you don't care about looking at a slide show. That's the real-world trade-off developers, unlike thread posters, must always keep in mind. 

You mean creating a perfect 1:1 recreation of the world in my ww2 combat Sim isn't something I am entitled to? What even is a polygon? Who cares I want perfection and after paying for this product I expect it, better yet I'm entitled to it! 

 

/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, =BLW=Tales said:

Why is not implemented on IL2 GB yet?

 

Again, in case you missed it:

 

1 hour ago, Cpt_Cool said:

Been implemented for about a decade

 

1 hour ago, =BLW=Tales said:

VVS take more than 600 km/h and pull a hard g without structural damage

 

Take La-5FN to max altitude, point that sucker at the earth, hold it there, see what happens, and get back to us. This is of the utmost importance, and we are all relying on you to complete this mission.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen a plane broke his wings after a pullout, hard g, at 650 km/h in this game. I made a test in quick mission, dived in a yak 7b, picked up speed and yanked the pitch, nothing, no structural damage.

Edited by =BLW=Tales
misspelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...