Developer Diary 260 - Discussion

[fergal69]

Joystick for moving tank turret will make life easier.

[Habu]

Nice update.

 

May you add an option to hide the Gmeter, or better, a choice of what the player want to display.

[mattebubben]

40 minutes ago, TX-Zigrat said:

Wow the changes described here sound really great, I am really encouraged by what what I perceive to be a recent "pivot" to better listening by the developers (on the G issue and on the spotting issue). 

 

The haze looks fantastic in my opinion, too.

 

Great job!!

 

Well the Recent Poll on the G issue showd that a Majority thought the current High G tolerances to be fine.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/64918-g-resistance-of-the-virtual-pilot-opinions-and-discussion/

 

Which has me a bit concerned/confused,

since my reading of section about "modeling a pilot reaction to high-G loads" makes it sound like they will increase the tolerances.

 

But that confused me since the poll shows that those that want that are in the minority so if they want to follow the communities voice on the topic why change it?

(And with the main complaints being in regards to negative G and push and pull maneuvers etc and not high positive G loads)

 

If they have new data that shows the need for some modifications to the G-System then im 100% fine with that but then why the Poll and the mention about the

"constructive discussions in our community" on the topic.

 

But i could have misunderstood what they ment so il wait for them to clarify the changes on the G-System before i make a judgement =P.

I just hope they dont increase the G-Tolerances just to satisfy the loud minority.

[Swing]

very nice DD 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Swing

[RedKestrel]

7 minutes ago, mattebubben said:

 

Well the Recent Poll on the G issue showd that a Majority thought the current High G tolerances to be fine.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/64918-g-resistance-of-the-virtual-pilot-opinions-and-discussion/

 

Which has me a bit concerned/confused,

since my reading of section about "modeling a pilot reaction to high-G loads" makes it sound like they will increase the tolerances.

 

But that confused me since the poll shows that those that want that are in the minority so if they want to follow the communities voice on the topic why change it?

(And with the main complaints being in regards to negative G and push and pull maneuvers etc and not high positive G loads)

 

If they have new data that shows the need for some modifications to the G-System then im 100% fine with that but then why the Poll and the mention about the

"constructive discussions in our community" on the topic.

 

But i could have misunderstood what they ment so il wait for them to clarify the changes on the G-System before i make a judgement =P.

I just hope they dont increase the G-Tolerances just to satisfy the loud minority.

Well there's lots of good documentation going around in that thread aside from the poll, so it seems to me it will likely be a tweak of how pilots react to the onset rate of the g-forces as well as when rapidly moving between negative and positive g-forces. 

There's some complaining in the thread but also some enlightening studies and documentation. 

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

4 minutes ago, mattebubben said:

 

Well the Recent Poll on the G issue showd that a Majority thought the current High G tolerances to be fine.

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/64918-g-resistance-of-the-virtual-pilot-opinions-and-discussion/

 

Which has me a bit concerned/confused,

since my reading of section about "modeling a pilot reaction to high-G loads" makes it sound like they will increase the tolerances.

 

But that confused me since the poll shows that those that want that are in the minority so if they want to follow the communities voice on the topic why change it?

(And with the main complaints being in regards to negative G and push and pull maneuvers etc and not high positive G loads)

 

If they have new data that shows the need for some modifications to the G-System then im 100% fine with that but then why the Poll and the mention about the

"constructive discussions in our community" on the topic.

 

But i could have misunderstood what they ment so il wait for them to clarify the changes on the G-System before i make a judgement =P.

I just hope they dont increase the G-Tolerances just to satisfy the loud minority.

The change is more in common with i.e for example if you ever played a first person shooter and spam the default jump button and you could effectively keep jumping with out getting shot, and suffering fatigue from jumping. This is what’s needed to change for the pilot in game. Don’t quote me on this because I’m not sure what all is changed. Or going to be changed. 

[mattebubben]

1 minute ago, 71st_AH_Mastiff said:

The change is more in common with i.e for example if you ever played a first person shooter and spam the default jump button and you could effectively keep jumping with out getting shot, and suffering fatigue from jumping. This is what’s needed to change for the pilot in game. Don’t quote me on this because I’m not sure what all is changed. Or going to be changed. 

 

1 minute ago, RedKestrel said:

Well there's lots of good documentation going around in that thread aside from the poll, so it seems to me it will likely be a tweak of how pilots react to the onset rate of the g-forces as well as when rapidly moving between negative and positive g-forces. 

There's some complaining in the thread but also some enlightening studies and documentation. 

 

I completely agree that changes need to be made in certain areas.

But its the mention of "High-G loads" that has me confused.

 

Since the areas that primarily need tweaking is not the High-G area

(But rather Onset and Negative G as you both mentioned).

 

I completely agree that it needs to be tweaked (and i said as much in that thread)

but since the high G component is to my mind (Max G before blackout)

is the part of the system that im completely fine with (as it seems does a majority of people).

 

But yea on further reading (going through the last few pages of that Thread since ive been out of the loop for the last 1-2 weeks)

It sounds like that is the focus (and not increasing the High positive G) but i wish they had worded this in a clearer way (Mentioning negative G or push pull etc)

[=AD=uumembwa]

Very nice news?

But...

1)Why old and hard 8xMSAA but not modern and faster TXAA?

2) Axis control for turret that's good but why we still not have normal axis management in game interface? For me that turret control will be useless, i suppose. Must be good axis management in the game for good gameplay. Active/inactive axe,  relative or straight control, etc.

[shirazjohn]

Sounds like another great update on its way. With msaa x8 coming I'm afraid my gtx1080ti will have to go to pasture.

[357th_KW]

The improved aircraft visibility is going to be great.  I love that we’re getting adjustable haze along with it!  Can the mission designer define the height of the haze layer?

[Guest deleted@134347]

wouldn't it be cool to have fog or low flying clouds over the Kuban mountains... so you can evade enemy there, get lost, crash in to the mountain.. etc..  one can dream.. ?

 

[Habu]

You can have it, it's up to the mission builder to choose the right weather

 

Here is a vidéo i have done :

 

[Noisemaker]

2 minutes ago, Habu said:

You can have it, it's up to the mission builder to choose the right weather

 

Here is a vidéo i have done :

 

That's great.  I'd love to have that in SP campaign.

 

[jollyjack]

31 minutes ago, Didney_World said:

wouldn't it be cool to have fog or low flying clouds over the Kuban mountains... so you can evade enemy there, get lost, crash in to the mountain.. etc..  one can dream.. ?

 

 

I am not sure but think Saldy made a nice one with a Ju52 transport through the clouds ...

It might be Buffel52, mission 04 Transport of Wounded soldiers ...?

Edited September 11, 2020 by jollyjack

[migmadmarine]

Seeing the life vest on the pilot model, with the channel coming will we have working life vests so that our pilot's aren't insta-dead if they bail over water?

[Gambit21]

24 minutes ago, Didney_World said:

wouldn't it be cool to have fog or low flying clouds over the Kuban mountains... so you can evade enemy there, get lost, crash in to the mountain.. etc..  one can dream.. ?

 

 

Open the editor and do it.

[Noisemaker]

I seriously want this for the night bomber Po-2/U2 campaigns.  Makes spotting targets more difficult, but gives you a real chance to evade search lights (Every mission I've flown so far is mostly clear skies with cloud layer way higher than the Po-2 can reach). One can only dream.

 

[Taxman]

Thank for today's DD.  Team BOX keeps providing us with great innovative improvements.  Looking forward to this update, the next couple of weeks might prove to be long but worth the wait.

[Guest deleted@134347]

43 minutes ago, Habu said:

You can have it, it's up to the mission builder to choose the right weather

 

 

 

wow.. I had no idea! Thanks for the info. I fly in MP mostly and those MP mission dev guys don't resort to this kind of atmospheric trickery.. ?

[keeno]

Great DD, so much info.......... but that Hurricane!!?

[RedKestrel]

5 minutes ago, Didney_World said:

 

wow.. I had no idea! Thanks for the info. I fly in MP mostly and those MP mission dev guys don't resort to this kind of atmospheric trickery.. ?

In MP there's two factors that seem to restrict a lot of the weather options that are technically available.
1. If there it too much cloud and atmospheric effects it causes performance issues for those with lower end machines, which people don't like. It disadvantages those without the hardware to run the game smoothly with heavy cloud and lots of activity.

2. If there's lots of cloud, fog, etc. its harder to see other planes or ground targets, and people complain about not being able to get kills or roll ground targets. People will even refuse to fly missions with heavy cloud cover.

The first is a legitimate issue for those with lower end machines, the second is just people focusing way too much on stats and kills. So mission designers do tend to shy away from dense weather a bit, though I'm seeing more variety lately, especailly now that the cloud aliasing issues is mostly resolved and planes don't appear as ugly blobs against clouds.

[I./JG1_Baron]

1 hour ago, shirazjohn said:

Sounds like another great update on its way. With msaa x8 coming I'm afraid my gtx1080ti will have to go to pasture.

No, 1080Ti is  good. I have the same GK and IL2 runing perfectly. 

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

All fantastic news, and the Me262 pilots with have to hone their fast landing skills. Pierre Closterman's book highlighted how bad the flak was around these places, only 2 of them survived an attack on a flak infested target, for little or no gain. Took real guts to do that day after day.

[Missionbug]

A lot of good stuff to look forward to, especially another campaign from Alexander, maybe he will do one for the Hurricane one day, excellent DD, thank you very much for the update news guys, really appreciated.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[Yardstick]

 

A bit of feedback on the USAAF pilot model.  If he is meant to be wearing an A-2 flight jacket, then unfortunately that looks nothing like one.  Whilst the fit is good, A-2's don't have buttons and the colour should be russet brown or seal brown.  The A-2 should also have a wind flap over the zip and has epaulettes.  Please look to correct as the A-2 is the iconic flight jacket and synonymous with USAAF airmen. 

 

Real A-2s:

 

Also if his trousers / pants are meant to be his service dress pinks, then they are also the wrong colour.   

 

 

On reflection if that flight jacket is meant to have a fur collar then it looks more like a US Navy M-422a (below), which is completely wrong for a USAAF pilot.

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Yardstick
Update

[shirazjohn]

2 hours ago, I./JG1_Baron said:

No, 1080Ti is  good. I have the same GK and IL2 runing perfectly. 

I agree the 1080ti has been a great card but as i prefer to have the graphics settings on the higher side and play in vr i think it maybe time for an upgrade. I have the reverb g2 on preorder so will see how it performs with my current rig before changing anything. 

 

[Jeronimo83]

The update looks great, as always.

question: will we also be able to select “minimal haze” in overcast weather? I think overcast currently always has maximum haze.

[Vortice]

Pls can we have a user OCD update next because the IL2 world just doesn't match my individual expectations at present.

 

I can publish charts, graphs, spreadsheets, blurry videos and other random shit if that will help you to fulfil my personal ambitions.

 

Thx 4 dat

[Boomerang]

Thank you Team.

[THERION]

15 minutes ago, Vortice said:

Pls can we have a user OCD update

 

Are you sure about this? I thought this is a combat flight simulator, or did I really missed something?

 

"Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a common, chronic, and long-lasting disorder in which a person has uncontrollable, reoccurring thoughts (obsessions) and/or behaviors (compulsions) that he or she feels the urge to repeat over and over."

 

Strange...

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, Yardstick said:

 

A bit of feedback on the USAAF pilot model.  If he is meant to be wearing an A-2 flight jacket, then unfortunately that looks nothing like one.  Whilst the fit is good, A-2's don't have buttons and the colour should be russet brown or seal brown.  The A-2 should also have a wind flap over the zip and has epaulettes.  Please look to correct as the A-2 is the iconic flight jacket and synonymous with USAAF airmen. 

 

Real A-2s:

 

Also if his trousers / pants are meant to be his service dress pinks, then they are also the wrong colour.   

 

 

On reflection if that flight jacket is meant to have a fur collar then it looks more like a US Navy M-422a (below), which is completely wrong for a USAAF pilot.

 

 

 

The pilot's wearing a B-10 jacket, which is era correct.

 

Don Gentille's wearing one in this picture:

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

The textile flight jacket replaced the leather A2, mostly because of cost to produce.

[Yardstick]

29 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

The pilot's wearing a B-10 jacket, which is era correct.

 

Don Gentille's wearing one in this picture:

 

 

 

 

The Type B-10 gradually replaced the A-2 from c. early to mid '44.  The current late war USAAF pilot (Bodenplatte) wears the B-10. 

 

Some pilots preferred the fabric jackets (Gentile, Gabreski spring to mind) but many stuck with their A-2s and original issue jackets were still being worn by pilots well into the '50s, with many seeing service during the Korean War.  

 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Yardstick

[HBPencil]

Nice DD as always, especially nice to see the Hurri in-game. ?

As a Kiwi it's great to see that the campaign will be about No. 486 (NZ) Squadron so I have couple of points to consider before it's released:

- the RAF (and by extension the Empire/Commonwealth airforces) didn't use ordinal indicators with the squadron numbers (-st, -nd, -th, rd).
- I'm not sure if this will influence the name of the campaign, but the squadron's motto "Hiwa hau maka" translates as "Beware the wild winds".
- the Tempest in the artwork should have a Sky coloured spinner rather than black.

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

 

The pilot's wearing a B-10 jacket, which is era correct.

 

Don Gentille's wearing one in this picture:

 

 

Just curious, is that an RAF life jacket he's wearing?

Edited September 12, 2020 by HBPencil

[pilotpierre]

Anudder eggs celent DD, Mercury bow coops dev mens (and Ladies If appropriate)

[FTC_Zero]

Can you reveal any details how G-force changes would look like?  Btw., Turret joystick control and visibility improvements are good new indeed ?

[Lusekofte]

Great pic of the Hurricane. Great job thank you

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, Habu said:

You can have it, it's up to the mission builder to choose the right weather

 

Here is a vidéo i have done :

 

 

Really nice! Reminds me of Tadoussac!

[BlackSix]

4 hours ago, HBPencil said:

As a Kiwi it's great to see that the campaign will be about No. 486 (NZ) Squadron so I have couple of points to consider before it's released:

- the RAF (and by extension the Empire/Commonwealth airforces) didn't use ordinal indicators with the squadron numbers (-st, -nd, -th, rd).
- I'm not sure if this will influence the name of the campaign, but the squadron's motto "Hiwa hau maka" translates as "Beware the wild winds".

- In briefings, this unit will be called No. 486 Squadron or No. 486 without -th.

- No, it had no influence, we started with the name of the aircraft when inventing a name for the campaign.

No. 486 Squadron was chosen for two reasons:

- This squadron of 5 Tempest units took the most active part in the battle on January 1. The rest of the squadrons arrived too late (No. 56), participated with small forces (No. 3), or did not fly at all in the morning (No. 80 and 274)

- I've a book Tempest Pilot by C.J. Sheddan from No. 486. Unfortunately, he returned to the squadron after being wounded too late and did not write about early fall events, but there was a lot of other valuable information.

[BladeMeister]

I am a little confused, nothing new really, but I thought the G effects on the pilots in mission had already been reworked and integrated into TGBS several updates back? Is there a problem with what has already been created, blackouts if you pull to many Gs for to long? I must have missed something???

 

"we have come to decisions on two aspects of the sim which are very important for the players: providing a required visibility level for the airplanes in a dogfight and modeling a pilot reaction to high-G loads."

 

S!Blade<><