Developer Diary, Part XIV

[Uufflakke]

After seeing the above ingame screenshots I'm still wondering about one thing: Do the cockpits also get dynamic shadow effect just like there is on the external of the plane?

 

I remember another Developer Update with an attached cockpit screenshot but without shadows and there was this debate about the level of detail, 3D parts, 2D textures with fake 3D effect etc. and painted shadows on panel.

 

So, will we have dynamic shadows in BoS like in CloD and RoF?

(I hope so... )

[DD_bongodriver]

BoS is going to use a modified RoF engine so I don't see why it would not have dynamic shadow.

[Bearcat]

I was going to say the same thing. I think that visually it will be at least as good as RoF if not better.. similar to the relatonsip between IL2 & FB.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

I believe that there is an area where pilot accounts.. especially if you can get pilot accounts from both sides like sturmkraehe said, and historic data will converge to give a pretty good account of what was possible.. You can talk to axis and allied pilots or read their accounts of aircraft and look at historic data and come to a conclusion. No pilot.. Japanese or American will ever say that a Zero can catch a P-47 in a dive..  or that a F-6 can out turn a Zero .. it is all relative.

 

I quite agree, but then again, you don't need pilots accounts to know that...

[hiro]

Pilot accounts give a feel for the aircraft via their descriptions and details, that simple stats don't give. A case in example, since it's fresh in my mind is the '12 dodge charger and the '01 toyota supra. They are both considered race cars, but the charger carries alot of momentum, when you corner it, you have to hold it steady or the momentum can throw the car around. The supra corners differently, its snappier, but if you gas it too much it has little slip and can drift alot easier. 

 

 

When on freeway cruising speed, the supra can quickly pull away, it has this touchy ness, like a lurching, while the charger's weight holds it back, and it has  this rocking chair pull but once its going, its going. 

 

Compare this to a BMW 7, you barely feel the acceleration, but your speedometer and looking outside gives you the indication you're accelerating . . .

 

One can infer this by comparing the weights and suspension, and data, but game designers wouldn't know how to do this to translate it over to the gamer, unless they did the approach the Gran Tourismo team (and put sensors in cars to get the feel of it, but still the Gran Tourismo team used lots of driver input) or felt it themselves or had someone with experience explain it. 

 

Or that article where they got a Soviet pilot from World War 2 to fly IL-2 (dunno if it was 1946 or earlier), and see how close it got to the real thing, and they said how he reacted with his body to certain turns, reacting to the G forces and how the aircraft turned. 

 

I remember when practicing stalls in the Cessna 152 my head would shake if it was a really bad stall, and how the plane would do a little jerking shimmy, like a tumble before recovery, and basically it was almost hands off, and it would nearly right itself.  I remember a Citabria, that was harder to stall and when I did it, it kinda slid down and the nose dropped, but it more responsive, and needed more finessing to recover. But the Cit was way more touchy and responsive. 

 

Stuff like that can't get from a chart, its good to use as many sources (pilot, charts, opposing observations, captured plane flight data, real era footing etc) as possible to give the whole picture, which should be the aim of any sim (good thing this one's headed in that direction). 

[JG13_opcode]

Ugh, let's put this baby to rest.

 

There is no aspect of flight that can't be quantified.

 

The only limitations are:

 

a) areas where our understanding of physics is incomplete, i.e. quantum mechancs

 

b) areas where we don't have enough data

 

That's it. There's no magical qualities that can be described in words but not modeled with mathematics.

 

If the simulation doesn't simulate a C-152 stalling very well, that means the simulation fidelity is not high enough, or that there was insufficient data to derive a realistic stall model. What it DOES NOT mean is that "you can't get it from a chart."

 

You can. You just didn't have the right chart.

Edited April 7, 2013 by JG13Doggles

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Thanks for the update. Screenshots were nice. And you guys seemed to have fun at the dogfight :D

[BlackSix]

I am very impressed by all the hard work and dedication put into the sim. I have a question though : since it is hard to balance between all the data, real flight experience, real WWII pilot's testimonies, and all that is known about WWII planes, at what point will the developers and "hardcore" comunity will feel that the FM (s) are about as close as can be to the real thing ? Is it possible to ever  obtain a concensus about FM ? It seems to me that there is always someone bringing in some other data from another source with other specifications. Just curious to see how this very specific issue will be resolved...If ever ? ;-)

 

After seeing the above ingame screenshots I'm still wondering about one thing: Do the cockpits also get dynamic shadow effect just like there is on the external of the plane?

 

I remember another Developer Update with an attached cockpit screenshot but without shadows and there was this debate about the level of detail, 3D parts, 2D textures with fake 3D effect etc. and painted shadows on panel.

 

So, will we have dynamic shadows in BoS like in CloD and RoF?

(I hope so... )

 

I can't answer now, please write your questions in this special thread:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/7-questions-for-developers/

[Uufflakke]

@BlackSix:

I had hoped for a clear answer like "Yes" or "No".   

It is still a mystery to me whether we will have dynamic shadow effect or not.

As you can see some members are quite sure it will be done but as far as I remember vaguely it won't be included.

Because of the amount of work on it, deadline, budget. Or something like this.

Maybe I'm wrong but the screenshots of the planes and the cockpits in previous update confuse me.

 

Like I said I hope it will be included. For me personally it is an essential thing to buy the game or not.

It adds so much to the immersion.

After I've seen these shadow effects in CloD and RoF I miss it in IL2:1946 every time I play it.

 

Anyway, as requested I wrote down my question in the other thread.

 

 

Cheers, Uuff.

[JG4_Sputnik]

@BlackSix:

I had hoped for a clear answer like "Yes" or "No". 

It is still a mystery to me whether we will have dynamic shadow effect or not.

As you can see some members are quite sure it will be done but as far as I remember vaguely it won't be included.

Because of the amount of work on it, deadline, budget. Or something like this.

Maybe I'm wrong but the screenshots of the planes and the cockpits in previous update confuse me.

 

Like I said I hope it will be included. For me personally it is an essential thing to buy the game or not.

It adds so much to the immersion.

After I've seen these shadow effects in CloD and RoF I miss it in IL2:1946 every time I play it.

 

Anyway, as requested I wrote down my question in the other thread.

 

 

Cheers, Uuff.

BoS is going to have dynamic shadows, hell, they even said that the dynamic lighting is going to influence the scratches of the canopy glass.

[Uufflakke]

BoS is going to have dynamic shadows, hell, they even said that the dynamic lighting is going to influence the scratches of the canopy glass.

 

That had to do with the reflections on canopy glass, not shadows.

Quote from Developer Diary 10:

 

"9) Will there be reflections from scratches in the canopy glass?!

IMO this would look absolutely great as it really gives you the feeling that you are sitting in glassed in surrounding. It doesn't have to be disturbing and should maybe be visible in certain angles only while maneuvering...

 

Yes."

[Freycinet]

Did I ever tell that I very like the way you model spinning propellors? I already did with ROF and now I do even more. Very very nice!

 

Let's just remember that any sign of the three turning propeller blades is something no person would ever see. It is only in photography that you see blurred individual blades. Persons see turning propellers as just a uniform disk, either darkened or reflective, depending on the angle to the light. 

[ST_ami7b5]

Thanks for the update.

The IL-2 is beautiful!

[Foobar]

Let's just remember that any sign of the three turning propeller blades is something no person would ever see. It is only in photography that you see blurred individual blades. Persons see turning propellers as just a uniform disk, either darkened or reflective, depending on the angle to the light. 

I was talking of the propellor's side view wich can clearly be seen in reality. IMO in no other game/sim the side view of a spinning propellor is as nice as in RoF.

 

However I know what you were referring to and I fully agree

[MACADEMIC]

I was talking of the propellor's side view wich can clearly be seen in reality. IMO in no other game/sim the side view of a spinning propellor is as nice as in RoF.

 

However I know what you were referring to and I fully agree

 

Actually you can see the propeller blades in real life too, when the engine is running at low revs/idle. 

 

MAC

[Foobar]

To make it clear what I was talking about:

 

[philiped]

Foobar, all those screenshots are taken from different angles thus invalidating your comparison.

 

For example, here is a better one of CloD which IMHO is very realistic and less film-like than the latter

 

[=RvE=Windmills]

Looks just right, nice quality without being too insanely detailed.

 

Come to think of it, will these models have soft body physics like RoF?

[hiro]

Ugh, let's put this baby to rest.

 

There is no aspect of flight that can't be quantified.

 

The only limitations are:

 

a) areas where our understanding of physics is incomplete, i.e. quantum mechancs

 

b) areas where we don't have enough data

 

That's it. There's no magical qualities that can be described in words but not modeled with mathematics.

 

If the simulation doesn't simulate a C-152 stalling very well, that means the simulation fidelity is not high enough, or that there was insufficient data to derive a realistic stall model. What it DOES NOT mean is that "you can't get it from a chart."

 

You can. You just didn't have the right chart.

 

 

I wasn't making the point that flight can't be quantified nor physics can't give a reason why things happen. What I am saying that charts have a limitation in describing the TOTAL flight experience.

 

 

I wasn't implying there's a magical aspect that can't ever be described (although flying has a mysterious allure to humans). Flying includes a human aspect, a feel for something. The human experience of the whole thing. There's a psychosomatic reaction that goes on in people when they fly (or use vehicles). I'm talking about making a landing, and depending on which plane or angle, one can sense (after flying for some time) if they are too low, or if the ball is slipping, or what adjustments they need.  

 

 

There's also the reality of things that unfold, that a chart can't tell. I'll draw the Vietnam war example, the current thought (also the development of the F-4 ) was that guns (cannon) was archaic as swords, hence the F-4. On paper and on charts, the sidewinder and sparrow worked, and it was viable. 

 

But introduced in wartime, Murphy's law applied. Can't tag long range because you need to see who are shooting at. The MiG's got close, and locking doesn't work in your face. And we know what happened since then: Every fighter the US has produced always has cannon. Shaw's Fighter Combat book has lots of scenarios using cannon in a modern age of all aspect missles. Granted there's more to this (and Shaw does a good job of explaning it) 

 

The pilot w/ combat experience, that tested the F-4 probably mentioned the missing gun, but weren't listened to. 

 

Human experience and feeling is necessary to paint a accurate picture . 

 

 

And also in closing, look at Developer Diary, Part XIV; why did they do the organized dogifights? Why they didn't just bust out the charts from countless threads in banana, ubi, and from books?

 

 

They flew in mock dogfights to get a feel, to get experience, and because its cool :D. They didn't pore through charts, they went out and did it, and learned more in the process. Sometimes experience is better than reading about it . . . But also I agree charts is necessary in to quantify the parts of the experience that can be quantified. 

 

But I'm glad the devs see this

[BlitzPig_EL]

Doggles,

 

I think the one thing that pilot's can bring us is this...

 

 

Feel.

 

 

You can have two very different aeroplanes, that both have similar, if not identical performance, as verified by the charts.

 

OK?

 

However, aircraft 1 is very twitchy, and takes great finess to achieve the numbers, whereas aircraft 2 is very easy to fly and reaches the edge of it's

performance envelope with little drama for the pilot.

 

Does this not make sense?

[JG13_opcode]

Doggles,

 

I think the one thing that pilot's can bring us is this...

 

 

Feel.

 

You can have two very different aeroplanes, that both have similar, if not identical performance, as verified by the charts.

 

OK?

 

However, aircraft 1 is very twitchy, and takes great finess to achieve the numbers, whereas aircraft 2 is very easy to fly and reaches the edge of it's

performance envelope with little drama for the pilot.

 

Does this not make sense?

Yeah I fully understand what you're saying.

 

But I'm not saying they're useless, full stop. I'm saying they're useless for getting specific or even relative performances, because they don't tell you how twitchy or how docile the aircraft is.

 

But, respectfully: You can get quantifiable data regarding twitchy/docile aircraft behaviour from stability and control investigations, etc. You can tell, from the data, whether the aircraft will roll like a P-38 or like a Fw 190. You don't need to try to match vague pilot accounts when it comes to performance, and IMHO that causes more problems than it solves.

 

If the simulation fidelity is good, then those flying qualities should naturally expose themselves due to the nature of the flight model. When fidelity is poor, then you get the CLOD Bf 109 that drops a wing and snap-rolls as if the leading-edge slats aren't even there, rather than mushing its way through. Pilot accounts will tell you some of this, but they won't tell you why such-and-such was true, and so you end up with corner cases that don't behave the way they ought.

 

There's necessarily a degree of difficulty in conveying "feel" through a computer monitor and USB joystick. I can't speak for the developers but if I was in their position, I'd be doing those mock dogfights not to get the "feel" of things but to try to gather data that isn't easily available, like the effect of prop wash on a close-flying attacker, pilot fatigue, what it sounds like to pull G's in a creaky old aircraft, what it looks like when you chase an enemy into the sun, etc. etc.

 

The other reason I'd be flying mock dogfights is so that all my developers would have a baseline of shared experience. Something they can compare the final product to and go "Yeah, this is a pretty darn good approximation of what dogfighting was really like" or "No, this doesn't really capture the franticness of the situation."

 

There's also the reality of things that unfold, that a chart can't tell. I'll draw the Vietnam war example, the current thought (also the development of the F-4 ) was that guns (cannon) was archaic as swords, hence the F-4. On paper and on charts, the sidewinder and sparrow worked, and it was viable. 

 

But introduced in wartime, Murphy's law applied. Can't tag long range because you need to see who are shooting at. The MiG's got close, and locking doesn't work in your face. And we know what happened since then: Every fighter the US has produced always has cannon. Shaw's Fighter Combat book has lots of scenarios using cannon in a modern age of all aspect missles. Granted there's more to this (and Shaw does a good job of explaning it) 

 

The pilot w/ combat experience, that tested the F-4 probably mentioned the missing gun, but weren't listened to.

That's a completely different scenario. The guys who designed the F-4 knew perfectly well that the missile wouldn't work at close range, and I'm sure they had "chart data" to back it up. They just didn't care.

 

The problem there is that the weapon was a new design, and it was poorly suited to the tactical situation. That's not the same problem as using vague historical accounts to re-create a previously-existing aircraft.

 

It's like designing a brand new assault rifle without getting advice from soldiers vs. trying to re-create the Lee-Enfield in a game without using the blueprints of the original gun and just using anecdotes from people saying "the Enfield had a higher penetration than the German Mausers."

 

Those are completely unrelated conversations.

Edited April 8, 2013 by JG13Doggles

[BlitzPig_EL]

Understood.

[AX2]

I read a book about 30 years ago..., Something caught my attention... I remember the complaints of a Grumman F4F Wildcat Pilot...!

"The real Climb rate of my Wildcat its close to half of Grumman charts. " 

The charts ... ... not always will tell you the truth.

 

Edited: 

Like another example ..The charts will not tell you everything

Inteview Benedikt Ilyich Kardopoltsev-

 

 

- Did you fly La-5 or La-5FN?

I had plain one, three tanks and with gargroth. We used to have five-tank planes in other squadrons. We also had several FN planes in our GvIAP, but they were not given to young pilots ???

Edited April 9, 2013 by Mustang

[JG13_opcode]

Understood.

S~

[Foobar]

Foobar, all those screenshots are taken from different angles thus invalidating your comparison.

 

For example, here is a better one of CloD which IMHO is very realistic and less film-like than the latter

 

hehe, you're referring to a screenshot on my blog Yes I know that image of course, although I've never seen propellors of that quality on my own pc. Must be a question of different video cards and drivers. I admit that one is looking very good but I think that 777's efforts rather point to the right direction.

 

Cheers

[philiped]

Aha yes your blog is an excellent resource for SoW/CloD photos (and an excellent read too). 

 

My propellers in CloD look exactly the same from that angle, so perhaps it is a driver thing? I have an ATI 6990.

[Foobar]

Aha yes your blog is an excellent resource for SoW/CloD photos (and an excellent read too). 

 

My propellers in CloD look exactly the same from that angle, so perhaps it is a driver thing? I have an ATI 6990.

 

Unfortunately exact railway doesn't play a major role in flight sims nowadays

 

I have a Gf 560. I've always thought that CloD would look best with Nvidia. Things may have changed...

[smink1701]

Nvidia works for me