Japanese Aircraft

[Livai]

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

When Jason laid out his vision a few years ago he called it the 'Spirit of '46' referencing IL-2: 1946 which was massively successful. But a "remastered IL-2: 1946" using the old game

 

From my view, the true 'Spirit of '46' is IL-2 1946. RoF, BoX and CloD go different ways.

 

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

But a "remastered IL-2: 1946" using the old game engine isn't going to happen. Simulation engine technology has moved on and the current team doesn't have experience with that engine.

 

You can run two game engine simultaneously the frist one is for example IL-2 1946 and the second Game Engine is BoX or CloD doing the Graphic part only - advantage the player always can switch between the two Game Engine in the Game how the planes maps looked in 2001 compared to now.

 

Why for example the Unreal Engine can be used as Game UI replacement for a different Game Engine or as Graphic part for a different Game Engine. Most Game Engine are modular you can use them as a whole or parts from them how the Unreal Engine as example.

 

When you use the IL-2 1946 FM in BoX what in the end we get? - A IL-2 1946 remastered

 

1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The cockpits and the exteriors doesn't seem to be the problem here or at least less of a problem. IL-2: Great Battles is a fairly deep simulation in terms of the systems for their warbirds and not having data for that kind of information makes it harder for them to come up with realistic renditions of the aircraft. A lot of educated guessing can make for a bit of a mess. I can see why they want to get as much detail as possible. WT should rarely be held up as being accurate historically... they go through the motions but they just make stuff up as they go along. It's almost 'kit-bashing' in the traditional plastic modeling sense. It works for them but there are different priorities and interests here.

 

Who knows what is the real reason. In 2004 with Pacific Fighters nobody said it is a difficult task. Now to do the same with much higher Poly Count a problem................

WT has Japanese Aircrafts their Cockpits and the planes itself look in WT very accurate but everything else like the DM and the maps in WT look worse, are worse compared to CloD and BoX Quality.

[BlitzPig_EL]

52 minutes ago, Rjel said:

From this picture, is it certain that was a Japanese version or a captured DC-3/C-47 painted in Japanese’s colors?

 

The engines and props with spinners give this away as being of Japanese origin.

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I've posted this before but let's try again.  There is a very good reason why the developers don't just try for "good enough".  They can't.  What do you think this is, some table driven 1980s sim that you can just plug numbers into?  It's physics based.  That means that you need real numbers to get real performance.  Once you are close you can tweak for accuracy, but there are real limits as to how much you can fudge.  That's why proper data is so important.

 

I get the idea behind other things, especially visuals.  Fudging a cockpit a bit is IMHO not that big of a deal.  Being less than perfect on external details is IMHO not that big of a deal.  But you cannot simply start plugging in semi random guesses into the physics engine and believe that you are going to get good results.  Trying to build an aircraft set this way would be a nightmare for the development team.

 

 

Jason said main problems are missing data on some cockpit instruments and their functionality, hard performance data on those planes seems not to be problem.

 

If PTO is ever going to happen i don't expect it to be fully fleshed and with amount of content we've got with current expansions.

They can go with 3 flyable IJN planes, Zero is well documented and achieveable to develop, what's left is one dive bomber and one torpedo bomber which at the end can be single plane since they could change loadout from bombs to torpedos.

So finding missing data or translations narrows to one or two IJN planes which i hope is doable, both regarding info and funding translations.

Also bombers are less prone to FM criticism than fighters.

 

All that could make Midway very possible!

I'm sure we'll get PTO eventually but nowhere near in content amount we have now, more likely one or two dlc with way less planes from which many of them could be reused among pto battles.

[kendo]

7 hours ago, Livai said:

Many Publisher do remakes of their most popular games. Why not IL-2, too? IL-2 has two soild game engines so where is the problem for a IL-2 1946 Anniversary Edition with remastered graphics, planes and maps done in BoX or CloD Quality. Better FM can be always added later.

 

WarThunder has Japanese Aircrafts and Carriers to do their Cockpits and the Planes itself is not the problem.

 

The whole point of il-2: 1946 was to take everything that had already been created and put it into one package, with a few 'what if' add-ons to tempt those who had already bought it.

 

But there aren't the 100+ existing aircraft made to BOX standards to just plug into the game engine. And we know how long it takes to produce one newly modelled aircraft and map. No way it is going to happen. And even if they could magically conjure up all those new 3-d models, no way would they then bolt on out of date/obsolete il-2: 1946 FMs.  

 

[Art-J]

3 hours ago, Rjel said:

From this picture, is it certain that was a Japanese version or a captured DC-3/C-47 painted in Japanese’s colors?

 

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

The engines and props with spinners give this away as being of Japanese origin.

 

To clear things up a little...

 

The plane on painting and photo is an early L2D2 version, thus shorter crew cabin, shorter carb intakes, longer exhaust, faired-over ADF antenna (though spinners are most likely later addition) and overall similarity to DC-3.

 

Longer cabin and bigger engine cowlings people usually recall were added later in most popular / recognized L2D3 version.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Art-J

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Jason said main problems are missing data on some cockpit instruments and their functionality, hard performance data on those planes seems not to be problem.

 

If PTO is ever going to happen i don't expect it to be fully fleshed and with amount of content we've got with current expansions.

They can go with 3 flyable IJN planes, Zero is well documented and achieveable to develop, what's left is one dive bomber and one torpedo bomber which at the end can be single plane since they could change loadout from bombs to torpedos.

So finding missing data or translations narrows to one or two IJN planes which i hope is doable, both regarding info and funding translations.

Also bombers are less prone to FM criticism than fighters.

 

All that could make Midway very possible!

I'm sure we'll get PTO eventually but nowhere near in content amount we have now, more likely one or two dlc with way less planes from which many of them could be reused among pto battles.

 

It's not about performance data. Performance data provides the target - the expected results.  How do you get there?  What is the center of gravity?  Weight distribution?  Airfoil?  Details around aileron construction?  Details around the cowling?  Wing shape and precise dimensions?  All of the different inputs into the physics model.  That's what is needed.  The performance falls out when you put those numbers into the physics engine.  Get those numbers wrong and the only thing that you know is that performance is wrong.

 

As you point out the Zero is pretty well documented, but how many Kates, Vals, Oscars and Bettys are left?  

 

My understanding is that getting these numbers is very difficult.  The original IL2 might have gotten away with it because the physics engine is almost certainly less detailed.  With the new engine you have to have those numbers.  You might be able to fudge a little but there is a breaking point where you have to admit that you just don't have enough data.

 

But yes.  I am an unabashed ETO guy but I do hope we can see PTO in the not too distant future.  

[GarandM1]

6 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

It's not about performance data. Performance data provides the target - the expected results.  How do you get there?  What is the center of gravity?  Weight distribution?  Airfoil?  Details around aileron construction?  Details around the cowling?  Wing shape and precise dimensions?  All of the different inputs into the physics model.  That's what is needed.  The performance falls out when you put those numbers into the physics engine.  Get those numbers wrong and the only thing that you know is that performance is wrong.

 

As you point out the Zero is pretty well documented, but how many Kates, Vals, Oscars and Bettys are left?  

 

My understanding is that getting these numbers is very difficult.  The original IL2 might have gotten away with it because the physics engine is almost certainly less detailed.  With the new engine you have to have those numbers.  You might be able to fudge a little but there is a breaking point where you have to admit that you just don't have enough data.

 

But yes.  I am an unabashed ETO guy but I do hope we can see PTO in the not too distant future.  

Sad as it may be, you make a good argument. It really all depends on how much data they already have. Are they guessing at a couple of instruments or all of the things you mentioned? I am certainly ok with them making some educated guesses in places, but you are right about there being a certain threshold to even be able to make educated guesses. I don't have much experience with 1946 (I got on the flight sim wagon while Kuban was in development), but I think a lot of us can agree the standards of 1946 don't match with Great Battles and that the PTO should not be a simple copy/paste of the very old and likely inaccurate flight model of the past. 

[Ribbon]

4 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

It's not about performance data. Performance data provides the target - the expected results.  How do you get there?  What is the center of gravity?  Weight distribution?  Airfoil?  Details around aileron construction?  Details around the cowling?  Wing shape and precise dimensions?  All of the different inputs into the physics model.  That's what is needed.  The performance falls out when you put those numbers into the physics engine.  Get those numbers wrong and the only thing that you know is that performance is wrong.

 

As you point out the Zero is pretty well documented, but how many Kates, Vals, Oscars and Bettys are left?  

 

My understanding is that getting these numbers is very difficult.  The original IL2 might have gotten away with it because the physics engine is almost certainly less detailed.  With the new engine you have to have those numbers.  You might be able to fudge a little but there is a breaking point where you have to admit that you just don't have enough data.

 

But yes.  I am an unabashed ETO guy but I do hope we can see PTO in the not too distant future.  

Even i know "hello world" in C++? you're the expert here in programming!

 

Thanks for clarifying how those things work, i'm sure a lot of here will find your reply interesting, enlighting and usefull making some thing clear when we discuss it in the future.

 

I hope Val and Kate data (blueprints) will become available to Jason....those two planes would make PTO possible.

We don't need million planes to enjoy certain theatre!

[Gambit21]

6 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

As you point out the Zero is pretty well documented, but how many Kates, Vals, Oscars and Bettys are left?  

 

There's actually a few flying examples of Oscars around.

I watched 2 of them fly at the same time a few years ago.

[ShamrockOneFive]

11 hours ago, Livai said:

 

From my view, the true 'Spirit of '46' is IL-2 1946. RoF, BoX and CloD go different ways.

 

 

You can run two game engine simultaneously the frist one is for example IL-2 1946 and the second Game Engine is BoX or CloD doing the Graphic part only - advantage the player always can switch between the two Game Engine in the Game how the planes maps looked in 2001 compared to now.

 

Why for example the Unreal Engine can be used as Game UI replacement for a different Game Engine or as Graphic part for a different Game Engine. Most Game Engine are modular you can use them as a whole or parts from them how the Unreal Engine as example.

 

When you use the IL-2 1946 FM in BoX what in the end we get? - A IL-2 1946 remastered

 

 

Who knows what is the real reason. In 2004 with Pacific Fighters nobody said it is a difficult task. Now to do the same with much higher Poly Count a problem................

WT has Japanese Aircrafts their Cockpits and the planes itself look in WT very accurate but everything else like the DM and the maps in WT look worse, are worse compared to CloD and BoX Quality.

 

I think you're dramatically oversimplifying something that's really complex. Digital Nature and Digital Warfare and whatever the codename that the original IL-2 engine had (if it ever had one) are not at all compatible or based on similar technologies. I very strongly doubt that your concept there is practical for a small team to do on a bespoke simulation engine.

 

Pacific Fighters release was plagued with missing content and broken promises. It was a hard task to get references to aircraft and it was only 5-7 years later did at least some of those get officially patched with the Team Daidalos group filling in a few of those pieces. That's not to mention the legal trouble that they got into. That's not specific to modeling details but anyone who says that Pacific Fighters went well is looking back with some rose coloured glasses.

 

 

Jason's comments speak to the difficulties very well. And Pat Wilsons comment just above fills in the rest of the blanks for the difficulties that modeling at a higher detail level requires.

7 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

It's not about performance data. Performance data provides the target - the expected results.  How do you get there?  What is the center of gravity?  Weight distribution?  Airfoil?  Details around aileron construction?  Details around the cowling?  Wing shape and precise dimensions?  All of the different inputs into the physics model.  That's what is needed.  The performance falls out when you put those numbers into the physics engine.  Get those numbers wrong and the only thing that you know is that performance is wrong.

 

As you point out the Zero is pretty well documented, but how many Kates, Vals, Oscars and Bettys are left?  

 

My understanding is that getting these numbers is very difficult.  The original IL2 might have gotten away with it because the physics engine is almost certainly less detailed.  With the new engine you have to have those numbers.  You might be able to fudge a little but there is a breaking point where you have to admit that you just don't have enough data.

 

But yes.  I am an unabashed ETO guy but I do hope we can see PTO in the not too distant future.  

 

Very well said Pat!

[Enceladus828]

On 3/3/2020 at 6:23 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

Pacific Fighters release was plagued with missing content

Absolutely Shamrock. No flyable TBM Avenger (and B5N Kate until TD 4.12), lack of Japanese ships such as only 3 carriers, Akagi, Shokaku and Carrier Generic (Hiryu), battleships are the King George V Class, several destroyer types, but that’s pretty much it. The American side is a little better, but not so great, no battleships, no USS Iowa. No Rabaul until TD 4.13, and a small map of Guadalcanal until TD 4.11. I really hope that perhaps in several years, TD can release some more Japanese ships to the game. They’re available on SAS as well (probably that’s one of the few reasons why I like those mods).

On 3/3/2020 at 6:23 PM, ShamrockOneFive said:

5-7 years later did at least some of those get officially patched with the Team Daidalos

I’m quite curious where they got the cockpit info for the B5N from, as well as a few others like the N1K1, and Ki-45? It’s also a question if they and other game developers containing Japanese aircraft can share to the devs (well, some of it) where they got their cockpit sources from?

 

That being said, I wonder if any former IL-2 1946 players have gone back to that game (with TD patches or mods installed ) just so they can fly in the PTO and Japanese planes, or if they’re like “been there, done that.” not going back.

 

Overall, well said Shamrock.?

Edited March 8, 2020 by Novice-Flyer

[bzc3lk]

6 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

 anyone who says that Pacific Fighters went well is looking back with some rose coloured glasses.

 

 

Oleg must be wearing some of those "rose coloured glasses". According to him Pacific Fighters went well in the sales department, even if it was incomplete.

 

Oleg: Aces Expansion Pack sold the worst. Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters both sold very well.

Read more: http://www.simhq.com/air-combat/il-2-sturmovik-part3.html

 

The bigger issue is the current Game Engine and its ability to handle a carrier task force under attack without your game going into slow-mo. Until we see revamped version two of the Digital Warfare engine,  a Pacific Theatre installment involving carriers will just remain a pipe dream.

 

 

[kendo]

Think Shamrock was referring more to development issues and problems rather than sales.

[danielprates]

4 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

That being said, I wonder if any former IL-2 1946 players have gone back

 

I have tried and found it impossible. Just can't do it anymore. Not now that I have gotten so used to something so much more realistic. The graphics are an eyesore, but I can handle that; its more about the FM, engine management etc. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

I still have two installs of '46 on my drives.  One a stock, up to date TD version, and one with the HSFX mod.  When I feel the need for some blue water and palm trees action I fire up the HSFX version and run one of the missions I made long ago, or just set up a quick mission in say the Ki61 vs. the Hellcat or P40.  It's still as fun as it was then.  Some people, IMHO, forget that fun and enjoyment can be, and often are, independent of super duper modern graphics, or count the rivets modern damage modeling.

Edited March 4, 2020 by BlitzPig_EL

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 hours ago, bzc3lk said:

 

Oleg must be wearing some of those "rose coloured glasses". According to him Pacific Fighters went well in the sales department, even if it was incomplete.

 

Oleg: Aces Expansion Pack sold the worst. Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters both sold very well.

Read more: http://www.simhq.com/air-combat/il-2-sturmovik-part3.html

 

The bigger issue is the current Game Engine and its ability to handle a carrier task force under attack without your game going into slow-mo. Until we see revamped version two of the Digital Warfare engine,  a Pacific Theatre installment involving carriers will just remain a pipe dream.
 

Wasn't referring to the sales. Sales were good and the community definitely increased in size when Pacific Fighters launched. It was unfortunately the worst launch of the series with IL-2 Sturmovik, IL-2 Forgotten Battles and the Ace Expansion pack all being fairly well received.

 

Don't get me wrong, I loved the Pacific content to death. I had a ton of fun with it and everything that came after. But it wasn't a smooth launch and there were many months of issues, questions on where some content was, etc. Team Daidalos helped redress at least some of the missing holes in the aircraft lineup several years later.

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I still have two installs of '46 on my drives.  One a stock, up to date TD version, and one with the HSFX mod.  When I feel the need for some blue water and palm trees action I fire up the HSFX version and run one of the missions I made long ago, or just set up a quick mission in say the Ki61 vs. the Hellcat or P40.  It's still as fun as it was then.  Some people, IMHO, forget that fun and enjoyment can be, and often are, independent of super duper modern graphics, or count the rivets modern damage modeling.

 

Exactly - there are some times when I want to fly PTO and I fire up a modded 1946. In modded state, it's still enjoyable and not a bad sim. The community has done a nice job keeping it at least relevant. It does feel dated in some aspects, but it's fun and the AI can be quite challenging. I just flew an F4F mission and P40 mission last night, as a matter of fact. The quick mission builder in 1946 is a great tool, in my book. It generates some really challenging missions and there are tons of different maps and planes to choose from. The variety is a huge factor in favor of the sim.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[Feathered_IV]

8 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Sales were good and the community definitely increased in size when Pacific Fighters launched. It was unfortunately the worst launch of the series with IL-2 Sturmovik, IL-2 Forgotten Battles and the Ace Expansion pack all being fairly well received.

 

Oleg entrusted Luthier with the development of Pacific Fighters and had to step in at the end to salvage it.  

[Enceladus828]

Slightly OT here. The game Silent Hunter 4 (made by Ubisoft Bucharest in 2007) had most (at the very least) of the Japanese ships that saw action in the Pacific. Not really sure how accurate the ships were modeled (the IJN Mogami was the mid war version with the aircraft carrier stern); the sinking physics and when the magazines would explode sometimes wasn’t very accurate. The aircraft were okay, but certainly better DMs than in SH5 un-modded version.

 

I mean, if the devs could track down this team and try to find their source materials for these ships, that could very well help them.

 

Cheers.

[Rolling_Thunder]

On 3/4/2020 at 1:44 PM, Feathered_IV said:

 

Oleg entrusted Luthier with the development of Pacific Fighters and had to step in at the end to salvage it.  

And your source?

[Feathered_IV]

1 hour ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

And your source?

 

Oleg mentioned it on the banana forum back in the day.  He said he had to pause the early work on the Storm of War game and was sleeping under his desk at the office for the last few weeks before going gold on PF, because there was no time to go home.   That was around the same time he was involved in two car accidents in a little over a week, and the community set up a PayPal account to help get him a new car.  

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

Oleg mentioned it on the banana forum back in the day.  He said he had to pause the early work on the Storm of War game and was sleeping under his desk at the office for the last few weeks before going gold on PF, because there was no time to go home.   That was around the same time he was involved in two car accidents in a little over a week, and the community set up a PayPal account to help get him a new car.  

 

I'll second this. I remember all of that happening.

 

Part of the Maddox Games team had to switch back to Pacific Fighters to rescue it.

[J2_Oelmann]

9 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Slightly OT here. The game Silent Hunter 4 (made by Ubisoft Bucharest in 2007) had most (at the very least) of the Japanese ships that saw action in the Pacific. Not really sure how accurate the ships were modeled (the IJN Mogami was the mid war version with the aircraft carrier stern); the sinking physics and when the magazines would explode sometimes wasn’t very accurate. The aircraft were okay, but certainly better DMs than in SH5 un-modded version.

 

I mean, if the devs could track down this team and try to find their source materials for these ships, that could very well help them.

 

Cheers

I doubt its hard to come by for data for japanese ships. Even exterieur models of every airplane is easily available. Scale modellers so them for decades to a high degree of detail. I also doubt there is a Lack of literature. Japan ist obsessed with their navy and everything connected to it. I doubt aswell that it is difficult to get somebody hired who speaks japanese.

 

I would think it is as hard to get data ob any german plane. The reason must be somewhere else. 

Even If people say the engine can't handle carrier operations. Half asia was a warzone Back then. Make it battle of Birma or any other continental conflict zone.

[Rolling_Thunder]

10 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

Oleg mentioned it on the banana forum back in the day.  He said he had to pause the early work on the Storm of War game and was sleeping under his desk at the office for the last few weeks before going gold on PF, because there was no time to go home.   That was around the same time he was involved in two car accidents in a little over a week, and the community set up a PayPal account to help get him a new car.  

 

9 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I'll second this. I remember all of that happening.

 

Part of the Maddox Games team had to switch back to Pacific Fighters to rescue it.

Thanks for the replies. I wasn't trying to be a dick, "facts" are being thrown around these days, not just game related, with no real evidence of their authenticity. Not only that but the blind acceptance of anything posted on the internet without question has made me weary.

Appreciated.

[DD_Arthur]

9 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

Part of the Maddox Games team had to switch back to Pacific Fighters to rescue it.

 

i remember.  It was significant in that CLoD was under full development at the time and Oleg had to take his eye off the ball.............