Jump to content

Developer Diary 273 - Discussion


Recommended Posts

DaveLang2907
8 minutes ago, longjap said:

I'm doubting you have played MSFS to say it doesn't model ground detail good enough for low level action. The objects are being generated with centimeters accuracy...

I'm sorry but I have FS2020 and this just isn't true. It looks great from altitude but down low you can see many flaws where the AI has misinterpreted the data. Bridges partially underwater etc.

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

 

Yes, Jason stated that the map can be used for the period 1941-1944. I think there will be a pre-invasion version without the ALGs so you can do all kind of interesting things like Operation Jubilee. Of course, don't expect all airfields in UK will be 100% accurate for any given date, so I guess we'll have to live with having some airfields being there that didn't exist in 1942 etc.

 

 

Yes, the generated buildings are very detailed and good looking. But now fly in MSFS and do a mock bombing run on an average bridge and you will see what is meant by Andy. It looks pretty shitty tbh, the fake overlay roads, the course textures, the AI cars teleporting... This was not meant to be seen up close. Can it be improved with their tech? Absolutely, but I doubt it will be Asobo's priority to cater for combat sim requirements.

 

 

Ah ok, I understand, but I think this might be easily overcome by tuning the AI and changing priorities from civ to combat.

 

9 minutes ago, DaveLang2907 said:

I'm sorry but I have FS2020 and this just isn't true. It looks great from altitude but down low you can see many flaws where the AI has misinterpreted the data. Bridges partially underwater etc.

 

Sure there are flaws, but I think we need to agree to disagree. For me the world down low is much more convincing in MSFS then in any other sims. Problems with possible targets are easily overcome to design those by hand. The technology demonstrated is very impressive, I just hope something similar could be designed for our beloved IL2. Computer generation / computational design has the future. Manually designing a large convincing and engaging piece of the world by hand is very labour intensive.

But if I remember correctly, I've read in a developers diary someday they have certain generative techs to play around with.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Juri_JS
1 hour ago, Blitzen said:

I have wondered about mission planning for the the Arado 234.I remember it being really well modeled in the original IL-2 1946 but pretty useless ( for me) in game play. I can see with the new map some photo recon possibilities but I’m betting SM & Campaign use will be pretty limited both in number & type of missions based mostly in getting in & getting out ( and taking photos?) That beggars the question will we be able to take pictures & if so how a successful mission & its corresponding photos be judged?

I guess something like this is planned for career mode. Since one of the last updates the "Mission Type" list in the mission editor shows several new entries, some of them are recon missions, including photo recon.

 

I hope we can also get a camera for the Bf-109 G-6 to recreate the Luftwaffes pre-invasion recon missions.

Edited by Juri_JS
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyJWest
13 minutes ago, longjap said:

I'm doubting you have played MSFS...

 

I've got something like 400 hours logged in MSFS, and have actually played a fair bit longer, since a bug (now fixed I think) meant that flights weren't all being logged. I'm currently flying an XCub in a virtual world tour, having covered something approaching 30,000 nautical miles in that so far. I think I've got a fairly good grasp of how well MSFS models detail.

 

And no, you can't generate objects with 'centimeters accuracy' from the satellite data being used, which is what is used for almost everything MSFS shows beyond the specific higher-detail stuff I've already described (hand-crafted & photogrammetric). Commercially-available satellite data doesn't have pixels that small, and if military satellites do (which is unlikely for reasons of simple physics) they certainly aren't going to make it public.

 

If it wasn't such an obvious waste of time, I could go outside the house I'm living in (in London, but beyond the photogrammetry area) and take a few photos to upload. And then compare them to what MSFS shows. It's impressive in that it places buildings in the right locations, or thereabouts. It certainly isn't 'centimeter accuracy' though. The buildings are all stock items. Some are better guesses than others, but nobody would think they were modelled on the actual specific buildings they are supposed to represent. And beyond the buildings and trees, almost everything else in the area is just a texture on the ground. The Thames nearby is frankly a mess, with all sorts of weird bumps in it. It is, as I say, impressive that they can model the entire world using this technology, but Asobo can't work miracles, even with the funding they have.

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

I guess something like this is planned for career mode. Since one of the last updates the "Mission Type" list in the mission editor shows several new entries, some of them are recon missions, including photo recon.

Yea, I figure the continued development of Flying Circus means that the features from RoF for things like photo-recon will be carried over in some form. So that could fit well for the Arado. Otherwise I imagine they will fly very similar mission profiles as the 262s of Kg-51.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LukeFF
3 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

Of course, don't expect all airfields in the UK to be 100% accurate for any given date, so I guess we'll have to live with having some airfields being there that didn't exist in 1942 etc.

 

I think what you can expect is all British airfields will be modeled as they were by the spring of 1944, which effectively is when airfield construction in the UK ended during the war. And, thankfully, there is ample info out there showing what those airfields looked like in their final wartime state.

2 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Yea, I figure the continued development of Flying Circus means that the features from RoF for things like photo-recon will be carried over in some form. So that could fit well for the Arado. Otherwise I imagine they will fly very similar mission profiles as the 262s of Kg-51.

 

One interesting thing I've learned about the Ar 234 is that almost all of their bombing missions were carried out as dive-bombers, not level bombers. The reason for this was primarily because it was too hard to maintain close formation in the Ar 234 - they could only do so if they slowed down, but that would have negated their speed advantage. That, and the course control system was never fully developed between the Lotfe bombsight and the plane itself. So, instead they would make their way to the target one by one at max speed at about 6000 meters and then make a dive at the target. It's all explained really well in a new book called "Blitz Bombers".

Edited by LukeFF
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
migmadmarine

So similar to how the game formats the night bombing raids for the Stuka and Fw-190 but in daylight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
LukeFF
9 minutes ago, migmadmarine said:

So similar to how the game formats the night bombing raids for the Stuka and Fw-190 but in daylight. 

 

Yes, very much so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
migmadmarine

Should the 262 fly the same format? Always seemed strange to me that they try to fly form. 

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

Should the 262 fly the same format? Always seemed strange to me that they try to fly form. 

 

I'd imagine so, but I've yet to read anything about how they flew to and from their targets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Melonfish

I'm a little conflicted about posting in here, I mean do I speak my peace and get the thread locked again...

 


at any rate I'm glad to see the discussion open again, and the port and improvement to the boden yard is very welcome, i'd just rather like some more frank discussions about other parts of the map without dollies being thrown.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jeanba
11 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Should the 262 fly the same format? Always seemed strange to me that they try to fly form. 

I have read that they used low level high speed attacks rather than dive bombing in an old (early 90's) airforce monthly magazine.

But this has to be taken carefully

Link to post
Share on other sites
migmadmarine

I imagine that "Dive bombing" in the context of these jets meant shallow long dives rather than anything like what a Stuka or Ju-88 would have done, so I don't think those two notions are incompatible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Juri_JS
12 minutes ago, jeanba said:

I have read that they used low level high speed attacks rather than dive bombing in an old (early 90's) airforce monthly magazine.

But this has to be taken carefully

 

I found this in "Me 262 BOMBER AND RECONNAISSANCE UNITS":

Quote

The target was normally approached at 4000 m, the bombs being dropped in a steep dive. The distance from the air base to the target is 230 km. On return, also made at 4000 m, the aircraft's main fuel tanks still contained an average of 350 litres each.

 

Attack altitude could vary, but apparently bombs were almost always dropped in a dive from higher altitudes. Low level attacks would only make sense when dropping SC/SD bombs. The AB cluster bombs the Me-262s often carried had to be dropped above 1000 m to correctly open and disperse.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DD_Friar

All this talk of the low level quality of the MSFS flight sim compared to IL2

 

I doubt very much that if you were to be at ground level (eg driving a tank) through a wooded area on MSFS you would see all the different types of trees with individual branches and topography.

 

The maps designed by the team for a flight sim are amazing at ground level.

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

 

I found this in "Me 262 BOMBER AND RECONNAISSANCE UNITS":

 

Attack altitude could vary, but apparently bombs were almost always dropped in a dive from higher altitudes. Low level attacks would only make sense when dropping SC/SD bombs. The AB cluster bombs the Me-262s often carried had to be dropped above 1000 m to correctly open and disperse.

Thank you, my sources are very old !

Link to post
Share on other sites
easterling77
3 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

 

I found this in "Me 262 BOMBER AND RECONNAISSANCE UNITS":

 

Attack altitude could vary, but apparently bombs were almost always dropped in a dive from higher altitudes. Low level attacks would only make sense when dropping SC/SD bombs. The AB cluster bombs the Me-262s often carried had to be dropped above 1000 m to correctly open and disperse.

Good Osprey source I guess👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
=NTAC=Professor_Fate

Better and better... Well done (again)!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Koenigstiger

Hello tankers,

 

here for examplee

 

dIlpNhC.thumb.jpg.b3907c372910035db97cc8118c09d0ea.jpg

 

81681089-74d1-4f23-a698-29c6e61d4c62.jpg.22342cd7fefe8620b730117cfcd2a01b.jpg

 

traditional-farm-gate-in-montenegro-b4rf3k.jpg.1b197e27eccabe8850e1ca04f7d8beb1.jpg

and plaese don`t foget the right tank-versions of 1944 !!

 

1892940517_Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-721-0359-35_Canteloup_Panzer_VI_(Tiger_II_Koenigstiger).jpg.a00874295e26a104e20492280de895d2.jpg

 

Good luck

 

Guenther

Link to post
Share on other sites
CountZero
21 minutes ago, Koenigstiger said:

Hello tankers,

 

here for examplee

 

dIlpNhC.thumb.jpg.b3907c372910035db97cc8118c09d0ea.jpg

 

81681089-74d1-4f23-a698-29c6e61d4c62.jpg.22342cd7fefe8620b730117cfcd2a01b.jpg

 

traditional-farm-gate-in-montenegro-b4rf3k.jpg.1b197e27eccabe8850e1ca04f7d8beb1.jpg

and plaese don`t foget the right tank-versions of 1944 !!

 

1892940517_Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-721-0359-35_Canteloup_Panzer_VI_(Tiger_II_Koenigstiger).jpg.a00874295e26a104e20492280de895d2.jpg

 

Good luck

 

Guenther

BoN map is made for airplanes

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thad
56 minutes ago, CountZero said:

BoN map is made for airplanes

 

Yes. Primarily.  :coffee:

Link to post
Share on other sites
CountZero
21 minutes ago, Thad said:

 

Yes. Primarily.  :coffee:

He will be desipointed big time if he expect what he posted to be modeled in BoN map, it seam to me he dont understand in this game there is maps made for airplanes and maps made for tanks, and depending on that, level of detail is differant. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40plus
1 minute ago, CountZero said:

He will be desipointed big time if he expect what he posted to be modeled in BoN map, it seam to me he dont understand in this game there is maps made for airplanes and maps made for tanks, and depending on that, level of detail is differant. 

 

Even the one map we have made for tanks (just a small subsection of one map) doesn't have that level of detail.

It's a pretty safe bet that anyone expecting that will be very disappointed.

 

I'm envisioning the BoN map will be similar to the BoBP map with hedgerows that resemble the tree rows in the farming areas of the Kuban map.....solidly good enough for air combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Koenigstiger

Hello freaks,

 

Yes / Yes -

 

- Gentlemen of the Air Force

- Navy men

- Army soldiers

 

what is not can still come. You pilots did not initially think that TC would come onto the market as an offshoot.

 

Good luck

 

Guenther

Link to post
Share on other sites
40plus
3 minutes ago, Koenigstiger said:

Hello freaks,

 

Yes / Yes -

 

- Gentlemen of the Air Force

- Navy men

- Army soldiers

 

what is not can still come. You pilots did not initially think that TC would come onto the market as an offshoot.

 

Good luck

 

Guenther

Not disagreeing with the wish...… just tempering expectations so the Devs don't get any undeserved backlash.

 

Cheers :drinks:

Link to post
Share on other sites
CountZero
36 minutes ago, Koenigstiger said:

Hello freaks,

 

Yes / Yes -

 

- Gentlemen of the Air Force

- Navy men

- Army soldiers

 

what is not can still come. You pilots did not initially think that TC would come onto the market as an offshoot.

 

Good luck

 

Guenther

I think if they decide to do TC 2 on west front , even on Normandy area, it would get separate map for it covering smaller area in total but with high detail like Prokhorovka map has, having full BoN map on that level i dont think they would make.

Link to post
Share on other sites
beresford

Do you understand the 'invisible tree' bug well enough to preclude it from the new maps?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ShamrockOneFive
4 hours ago, 40plus said:

 

Even the one map we have made for tanks (just a small subsection of one map) doesn't have that level of detail.

It's a pretty safe bet that anyone expecting that will be very disappointed.

 

I'm envisioning the BoN map will be similar to the BoBP map with hedgerows that resemble the tree rows in the farming areas of the Kuban map.....solidly good enough for air combat.

 

That seems likely. It's also, IMHO, not too bad for tank fights. Kuban map works fairly well in my experience online with it. We've have great battles tree row to tree row. If they can give us decently good enough looking bocage that should be fine too!

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Leifr
4 hours ago, 40plus said:

I'm envisioning the BoN map will be similar to the BoBP map with hedgerows that resemble the tree rows in the farming areas of the Kuban map.....solidly good enough for air combat.

 

Yes, but wholly incorrect for western Europe.

I would love to see a smaller and more accurate map made for Normandy with Tank Crew in mind - it would be an instant purchase for me!

Edited by Leifr
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
migmadmarine
4 hours ago, Leifr said:

 

Yes, but wholly incorrect for western Europe.

I would love to see a smaller and more accurate map made for Normandy with Tank Crew in mind - it would be an instant purchase for me!

Well, if they do a normandy related TC module, then you'd get that. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jollyjack

Saw the pic of the new Antwerp Railway junction and LeHavre, BON map. Promising!

 

Will the Rheinland map be updated too? At times i really get frustrated by all those essentialbut omitted things there .... 

Just now been trying to get something historical around Antwerp involving trains.

Pff, my great grandfather built the station there; what's there pictured in Rheinlland is just far too mediocre.

 

I know i should not complain, it's a flight sim, heard yeh', but i bought BoP at the pre release price back then, and still feel disappointed, even as flight sim.

 

As TC is at times quite nice to involve with other maps like Rheinland, i hope that better tanking options are part of the holygrounds IL2 planning ...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dakpilot
5 hours ago, jollyjack said:

Saw the pic of the new Antwerp Railway junction and LeHavre, BON map. Promising!

 

Will the Rheinland map be updated too? At times i really get frustrated by all those essentialbut omitted things there .... 

Just now been trying to get something historical around Antwerp involving trains.

Pff, my great grandfather built the station there; what's there pictured in Rheinlland is just far too mediocre.

 

I know i should not complain, it's a flight sim, heard yeh', but i bought BoP at the pre release price back then, and still feel disappointed, even as flight sim.

 

As TC is at times quite nice to involve with other maps like Rheinland, i hope that better tanking options are part of the holygrounds IL2 planning ...

 

I'm confused 

 

The updated Antwerp railway is on the Rheinland map

 

I think a re-read of the DD will show the plans for updating Rheinland map

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
CCG_Pips
19 hours ago, beresford said:

Do you understand the 'invisible tree' bug well enough to preclude it from the new maps?

 

This story of invisible trees (or invisible stones) is greatly exaggerated. I wandered a lot on the map deemed to be the worst (Velikiye Luki) and I was able to enter the forests without encountering an invisible tree every minute.

As in reality, it is advisable to drive slowly (12 / 13km per hour) and everything is going well.

Have you tried driving any engine (cars or any type of vehicle) in an unmaintained forest ? with holes, rocks hidden by brush? with dead tree trunks lying down? Me, yes in the forests of southern Senegal with an armored vehicle .... believe me, the speed was not 12 km per hour but rather 5 km per hour .....

 

something else, why the Allied staffs (French and English) did not think for a single second of defending the French Ardennes in 1940? Just because no one could imagine that German tanks and a whole army of armored vehicles could pass through this forest !!! Moreover, they did not cross it at more than 12 km per hour and they took a long time to come out to the rear of the French army.

 

Therefore, accept the forests as they are .... they are rather realistic and allow us to adapt reality to our simulator. What is reality? driving on a road is much easier and faster than having to cross a forest !!!

 

😉

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Han unpinned this topic

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...