Jump to content

Developer Diary 278 - Discussion


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Shedding wing fabric,

Other ww1 planes had this problem. Alb for example, it's just not so widely talked about.

 

14 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

poor roll rate

Never read about that in flight tests.

14 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

sometimes balky throttle

Same as 90% of the planes with rotary engine.

 

14 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

not easy to deal with torque

 

Again, typical rotary engine torque, but way better in that respect than the Camel or Fokker DR1. 

Edited by Jaws2002
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

poor roll rate

 

I'm sorry, Pat, but if the RoF FM is carried over then it will be one of the best rolling plane we have. Which makes sense if it has high wing loading.

 

There are two figures floating around regarding its wing surface: 20m2 and 16m2. According to the RoF store page the 20m2 figure was used. This should put its wing loading somewhere between that of the SPAD and the Sopwith Camel and affect its theoretical sustained turn accordingly.

 

SPAD XIII: 820kg / 20.2m2 = 40.6kg/m2

Nieuport 28: 698kg / 20m2 = 34.9kg/m2

Sopwith Camel: 700kg / 21.46m2 = 32.6kg/m2

 

Now if the 16m2 figure was actually used, it has a much higher wing loading, even than that of the SPAD: 698kg / 16m2 = 43.7kg/m2

 

A lot can be said (and has been said) about the Gnome Monosoupape, but with its engine off the N28 is also unable to hold a sustained descending turn, which even the SPAD is able to do. This simply suggests a very high wing loading. In other words, it would be a WWI F-104 Starfighter.

 

Lockheed_XF-104.jpg

 

Simply put: there are two figures floating around.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Other ww1 planes had this problem. Alb for example, it's just not so widely talked about.

 

Never read about that in flight tests.

Same as 90% of the planes with rotary engine.

 

 

Again, typical rotary engine torque, but way better in that respect than the Camel or Fokker DR1. 

 

I have already conceded that it was better than the Alb and Pfalz.  The N28 was a 1918 plane.  By June of 1918 the D.VII was coming on line in a big way.  The D.VII did not have shedding problems, diving problems, rotary torque, etc. 

 

Comparing the N28 favorably to 1917 types ... sure, and for a couple of months it really was fighting 1917 types so it did fine.  However, that changed fast.  By June those 1917 types were being withdrawn rapidly and the N28 was facing the D.VII in large numbers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see more bombers, the PTO would be great, I am not in trucks, but I raised this question once, would it be possible to have pilot to go out of the plane to do walk-around to inspect for example battle damage or prior to takeoff familiarize with the airport. That would be cool if technically doable... I would pay for that..
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

I have already conceded that it was better than the Alb and Pfalz.  The N28 was a 1918 plane.  By June of 1918 the D.VII was coming on line in a big way.  The D.VII did not have shedding problems, diving problems, rotary torque, etc. 

 

Completely agreed. I think no one can claim that the Nieuport 28 was fantastic by 1918 standards, especially compared to the Fokker D.VII(F). Neither was the Sopwith Camel, for example.

 

It was a crap plane (and real men fly crap planes, kudos to the USAS), but it would seem no one ever seems to agree why it was crap...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of that, but do you know that, had the war gone into the winter of 1918-1919, the US air service was planing to go back to the Nieup28, because of hte horrible reliability of the engine in the Spad, during cold weather.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks great! - thanks for the update. 👍

(However, the French WWI craft always have such poor pilot vision relatively speaking -- tis why I rarely fly them in WOFF (or FE2 or ROF))

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

Completely agreed. I think no one can claim that the Nieuport 28 was fantastic by 1918 standards, especially compared to the Fokker D.VII(F). Neither was the Sopwith Camel, for example.

 

It was a crap plane (and real men fly crap planes, kudos to the USAS), but it would seem no one ever seems to agree why it was crap...

 

In mid 1917 it would have been a great plane.  In mid 1918 it was just not really quite as good as the other planes that were coming out.  Along with the Snipe and maybe SSW it was among the last of the rotaries.

 

I read something interesting that there was an N28A version in the works that fixed the shedding problem, put the guns in the normal position, and clipped the wings.  It seems that plane was quite good.  Just never saw action outside of pole racing.  By then the war is over, rotaries are a dying technology, and things are moving in different directions.

 

But it is a looker.

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

 

In mid 1917 it would have been a great plane.  In mid 1918 it was just not really quite as good as the other planes that were coming out.  Along with the Snipe and maybe SSW it was among the last of the rotaries.

 

I read something interesting that there was an N28A version in the works that fixed the shedding problem, put the guns in the normal position, and clipped the wings.  It seems that plane was quite good.  Just never saw action outside of pole racing.  By then the war is over, rotaries are a dying technology, and things are moving in different directions.

 

But it is a looker.

Real men fly Nieuport bebès. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

In mid 1917 it would have been a great plane.  In mid 1918 it was just not really quite as good as the other planes that were coming out.  Along with the Snipe and maybe SSW it was among the last of the rotaries.

 

I read something interesting that there was an N28A version in the works that fixed the shedding problem, put the guns in the normal position, and clipped the wings.  It seems that plane was quite good.  Just never saw action outside of pole racing.  By then the war is over, rotaries are a dying technology, and things are moving in different directions.

 

But it is a looker.

 

It sure is!

 

About the Snipe, it remained in British service until the mid 20's with its 230hp Bentley BR2, so rotaries weren't quite on the way out yet. And the Siemens-Schuckert, well, it was unfortunately designed on the losing side. The Siemens-Halske contra-rotating engine design would have eventually allowed rotary engines to get into the 300hp+ ranges, somewhat offsetting the physical limits of a spinning engine block — simply because the engine was spinning one way and the propeller the other. Hence it could generate the same amount of torque as a normal rotary engine, but with half the RPM. Don't ask me how... German engineering. Much like the clean lines and internal bracing of the Fokker D.VII, this is technology that would get lost to time and only rediscovered later.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we talk about Nieuport 28, here's a reare occasion of a fight between Nieup28 and DVII, as remembered by both pilots:

 

20210402_133646.thumb.jpg.b4f2ca117ee1e344491e28638aced80e.jpg20210402_133840.thumb.jpg.41371d4c80a6f81a3baa4c6ef1fadddd.jpg

20210402_133927.thumb.jpg.806ca9377dcb1c2356bac5c9286e6721.jpg

 

 

I'm very excited about Nieuport 28. It was, by far, my favorite plane in ROF and i spent many, many hours in it.🥰 

 

Thank you GOZR for introducing me to that fun little thing.

Edited by Jaws2002
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

has there every been any discussion about adding infantry to the game? I feel like with tanks, its especially needed now. Would be great to strafe infantry columns and patrols.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Retrofly said:

has there every been any discussion about adding infantry to the game? I feel like with tanks, its especially needed now. Would be great to strafe infantry columns and patrols.

it will be added at some point in the future,  this is know fact from game producer 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Thank you GOZR for introducing me to that fun little thing.

 

GOZR!

He was the one who made me aware of 6DOF for IL2:1946. Never heard of 6DOF in those days. :biggrin:

I watched his video over and over again. 'How does he do it. Moving around with his head and zooming in and out like that?'

Head tracking and 6DOF was a game changer for me.

 

Sorry for getting off topic. :rolleyes:

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Shedding wing fabric

 

To be fair, not all squadrons experienced problems with shedding wing fabric, so that points more to it being a manufacturing problem, rather than a design problem.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The N28 and paratroopers?

Thats nice but the real big news are the plans to expand and reorganise the team.

 

That has big implications for what they can do and the timescales they can do them over. It also shows they and 1C are confident in their investment decisions.

 

We’re about that time in the development cycle where they must be thinking hard about the next expansion(s).

 

I wonder what’s cooking.

 

😎

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole DD sounds like a pledge to be honest.

All that's needed to get sales going up, is proper .50 cals.

There. I said what many are probably thinking. I hope I'm allowed to do that without getting roasted, afterall this is where we discuss the DD.

  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

That level of detail for the paratrooper is insanely good! Competing with AAA FPS games.

 

We've come a long way since the first low poly models (some of them still visible manning the artillery etc). 

 

Great job as usual!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All is looking great.

 

Just a question/suggestion regarding the tactical markings, for Luftwaffe aircraft could this be extended to include the rudder surfaces, so that one could have the choice to display or not display the faux harken?

 

Keep up the great work

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NIK14 said:

The whole DD sounds like a pledge to be honest.

All that's needed to get sales going up, is proper .50 cals.

There. I said what many are probably thinking. I hope I'm allowed to do that without getting roasted, afterall this is where we discuss the DD.

 

rqRR0A3.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Haha 10
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be lovely to be able to fly the plane that drops those beautiful paras, it's ripe for a paid add on.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love that Nieuport 28.C1. The French made that just for us left handers with that crazy left side staggered machine gun design.:P

Paratroopers, awesome, but where is the leg bag that gets ripped off of the Paratroopers leg once they jump? You gotta have the leg bag, COMMON MAN!:rolleyes:

Keep up the good work Team 1C. Can't wait for the next update.

 

S!Blade<><

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

Love that Nieuport 28.C1. The French made that just for us left handers with that crazy left side staggered machine gun design.:P

Paratroopers, awesome, but where is the leg bag that gets ripped off of the Paratroopers leg once they jump? You gotta have the leg bag, COMMON MAN!:rolleyes:

Keep up the good work Team 1C. Can't wait for the next update.

 

S!Blade<><

Ain't there since it fell off

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NIK14 said:

The whole DD sounds like a pledge to be honest.

All that's needed to get sales going up, is proper .50 cals.

There. I said what many are probably thinking. I hope I'm allowed to do that without getting roasted, afterall this is where we discuss the DD.

 

I would hazard a guess more potential customers are affected and discouraged by shenanigans with Xsolla payment service. This issue hits not only guys anal about .50s, but the others as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple days ago I managed to persuade a friend to get into IL-2. He liked Bodenplatte but probably gonna start with BOS from Steam as soon as the next sale hits. In case I would gift him BOBP later, is it possible to buy it from IL-2 Site and move it to his Steam account?

Edited by Ouky1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ouky1991 said:

Just a couple days ago I managed to persuade a friend to get into IL-2. He liked Bodenplatte but probably gonna start with BOS from Steam as soon as the next sale hits. In case I would gift him BOBP later, is it possible to buy it from IL-2 Site and move it to his Steam account?

 

Yes, he needs to link his steam account to his forum account and then he can use any codes gifted via the IL2 store

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

That level of detail for the paratrooper is insanely good! Competing with AAA FPS games.

 

We've come a long way since the first low poly models (some of them still visible manning the artillery etc). 

 

Great job as usual!

Yes, those models have enough polygons for FPS,  we can have that if the performance footprint is not bad ,but how they're are looking I can admire watching replays. IMHO 

animations are more important from pilot perspective, those nice models can look alive in game when they have all necessary animations modeled and won't break immersion when they teleport,  are transparent or use magic to spawn hat on the head. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Yes, those models have enough polygons for FPS,  we can have that if the performance footprint is not bad ,but how they're are looking I can admire watching replays. IMHO 

 

I trust/hope number of polygons to draw is dynamic with distance, i.e., that with increasing distance some polygons are discarded (maybe by having a "detailed" and a "rough" model for each object). I'll seldom be close enough to a paratrooper to require full detail on the chap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

I trust/hope number of polygons to draw is dynamic with distance, i.e., that with increasing distance some polygons are discarded (maybe by having a "detailed" and a "rough" model for each object). I'll seldom be close enough to a paratrooper to require full detail on the chap.

For sure it is, like other objects in the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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...