Developer Diary 299 - Discussion

[PatrickAWlson]

DFW is the most needed plane in the FC list.  A Corps recon plane(wish the RE8 was in the queue) that is the workhorse of the German air force.  Very uncool.  Very, very important for any kind of career mode.

 

Great news on the Normandy map too.  From a career mode perspective it is arguably more important than the planes  (blasphemy!)

[Thad]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Oliver said:

The screenshots look great. Any static aircraft to go along with the Great War vehicles?

 

I would prob dip my toes into ground vehicles if I could get my hands on that Humber or an Daimler. ?

 

More ground vehicles are very welcome. I wonder how many of them will be playable. ?

[Jason_Williams]

12 minutes ago, No_Face said:

I was hoping to know the name of the 2 collector tanks.
It's not the case, but this DD is quality so I pass the towel for this time. ?

 

?

 

Later this month I will announce the new tanks.

 

Jason

[CCG_Pips]

Euh !!!! HAN......Reno is Renault.......?

Edited November 12, 2021 by CCG_Pips

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

Wonderful looking Me-410, whatever versions I'm impressed. 

Am I the only one that saw that searchlight and thought '"Put that bloody light out!!" (A famous quote from Dads Army, a popular British TV comedy of the 70's)

[Blitzen]

I am very much looking forward to what they do with the gunner’s position in the 410 and how they will make it operational ( aiming firing etc.,) It will be very different from the single gun approach in the Ju-88 and perhaps “interesting” in VR mode.I look forward to screenings of same.

[willb0408]

1 hour ago, [1Tac]DisCHQ said:

 

kinda off topic but, the moment your company goes public is the moment your company is doomed.

 

Yeah it's definitely a kind of  black hole you don't want to get too close to... lest you pass the event-horizon and can't escape it ?

[Avimimus]

32 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Later this month I will announce the new tanks.

 

Jason

 

Later this month is approximately sometime in the two weeks (for everyone who is watching). It is always a bit amusing to me when something actually is 'two weeks' (following the old meme).

 

 

12 minutes ago, Blitzen said:

I am very much looking forward to what they do with the gunner’s position in the 410 and how they will make it operational ( aiming firing etc.,) It will be very different from the single gun approach in the Ju-88 and perhaps “interesting” in VR mode.I look forward to screenings of same.

 

I'd understand if they decided to make the gunner AI only... but that three headed Cerberus of a gun-sight is pretty stunning. I think it'd definitely be worth it.

 

Btw. I wonder if they'll let use fly the 410 as a single-seater to save weight?

 

[migmadmarine]

Very excited to hear that Flying circus is getting flaming onions, always wished we had those in RoF. I hope Beutepanzer Mk.IV will also be included, given these were the primary German tank of the war. 

[smink1701]

2 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

I think that might be a very good date for the P51-B/C release. Let´s see.

Amen

[Obelix]

It's RENAULT FT not RENO FT ?

 

http://voitures.renault.free.fr/

 

Why FT? Because it was the way the models were designed (Type AB, EU etc)

Edited November 12, 2021 by Obelix

[CUJO_1970]

30 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Btw. I wonder if they'll let use fly the 410 as a single-seater to save weight?

Highly doubtful, it was rare in practice and the pilots liked having a gunner back there.

 

410 looks great, and very complicated to model I’m sure.

[Mac_Messer]

Nice. The inflight refuelling system is on schedule, I see.

[Ribbon]

All the things listed above are just a fraction of what we and our partners are working on at the moment, so please stay tuned - we'll be able to tell you more about the other development streams in our next Dev Diaries.

 

Famous "Month of suprises" from the BoK era?

B25 announcement and preorder??.....or maybe official torpedo mod for ju88a4 as "collector modification"

 

Just watched Tweleve o'clock high 2 days ago, B25 will be quite good immersion substitute for B17

[Jade_Monkey]

Very nice detailing in the bunker concrete ?

 

I hope you guys get a chance to make smaller airfield objects like ammo crates, bombs, oil barrels, cranes, etc

[ww2fighter20]

2 hours ago, 616Sqn_Tyggz said:

 

This?

 

Dev blog #280

 

That's the LCT, LST is quite an bit larger and was even used to transport the LCT's.

[Pict]

3 hours ago, Asgar said:

grocery shopping ? 

 

The silent treatment paid of in the end huh 

[LuftManu]

So much hype for the 410. It looks beautiful and with that excellent sight. Gonna be a treat in VR! Top Dev update!

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Sweet!   Looking forward to all of it.  Update much appreciated!

[GNC_Pablo_53]

Dear gents,

What about the C-47? It was out for Pre-order a long time ago, and since May, I haven't heard any news nor any development update. For how long should we 

(ppl who preordered the C-47 since day one) wait until we get any news or the actual plane gets released?

I remember the cockpit was almost finished by May21 and the rest of the model was already almost done, since this was a playable adaptation of an already existing AI plane.

At this point I feel like I'm really missing something, or this should have been mentioned/updated/released some time ago.

Thanks very much!!

[blitze]

3 hours ago, BornToBattle said:

Amazing! But how do you top each dev update? Simple…

 

HAVE THE STUDIO GO PUBLIC WITH STOCK OFFERING!

I agree with you on the Amazing part but.

 

Are you mental with the Public Stock Offering idea?  How to sink a great developer in 2 seconds flat.  Nothing like inviting EA or Ubisoft to the dance to ruin a good thing.?

[itsbillyfrazier]

Very nice update guys, thanks.

[JLean]

Great DD! Full of new goodies 

Cannot wait announcements & updates within "two weeks".  

 

 JLean

[pilotpierre]

Gooking lood indeedy. Most Saturday mornings are like Xmas daymornings here in the land of the ked rangaroo.

keep up the wood gerk 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Highly doubtful, it was rare in practice and the pilots liked having a gunner back there.

 

410 looks great, and very complicated to model I’m sure.

 

I suppose... but part of me is fascinated by that 1945 desperation (might be a reason why the He-162 seems so interesting). Also, it gives us a P-38 counterpart in the Fw-187/Ta-154 kind-of niche - and one which actually saw service.

[[-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR]

 

friendly fire

 

 

f

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Highly doubtful, it was rare in practice and the pilots liked having a gunner back there.

 

 

Yup, and the performance gained by dropping the guns/gunner was minimal. The loss of situational awareness from an extra pair of eyes was a poor tradeoff.

 

A better idea might've been to eliminate the barbettes and the awkward aiming system, and just mount a conventional hand-operated 13mm gun position for the gunner. Would save a bit of weight, and the efficacy of the defensive armament would probably be unchanged.

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

Just watched Tweleve o'clock high 2 days ago, B25 will be quite good immersion substitute for B17

Maybe, but the B-26 would be more historic at least as far as an escorted massed USAAF bomber formation.

[oc2209]

22 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

I suppose... but part of me is fascinated by that 1945 desperation (might be a reason why the He-162 seems so interesting). Also, it gives us a P-38 counterpart in the Fw-187/Ta-154 kind-of niche - and one which actually saw service.

 

I doubt the 410 can rival the P-38 in terms of having fighter-like agility. Especially against fighters like the Spit and Mustang.

 

I see the 410 as more of an agile light bomber than a nimble heavy fighter.

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Very nice detailing in the bunker concrete ?

"I said it to Orville and I said it to Wilbur, that thing will never fly."

[Jaws2002]

18 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

A better idea might've been to eliminate the barbettes and the awkward aiming system, and just mount a conventional hand-operated 13mm gun position for the gunner. Would save a bit of weight, and the efficacy of the defensive armament would probably be unchanged.

 

That remote control weapon station was pretty advanced. The Russians intel agents, studying a captured Me410 were very impressed. The guns are very light for heavy MGs and had very high rate of fire. The installation was also light and offered a very wide field of fire compared to a single gun.

 If you are still going to put a gunner back there, the extra gun and extended field of fire didn't hurt that much.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Jaws2002

[oc2209]

1 minute ago, Jaws2002 said:

 

That remote control weapon station was pretty advanced. The Russians intel agents, studying a captured Me410 were very impressed.

 

Advanced and effective are often two different things.

 

I have serious doubts (based on combat reports, however anecdotal) as to the system being markedly more accurate than conventional gun mounts.

[Ribbon]

14 minutes ago, Rjel said:

Maybe, but the B-26 would be more historic at least as far as an escorted massed USAAF bomber formation.

What ever devs bring B25 or B26 i'll be more than happy (even B25 is pretier), to finally have proper bomber cockpit, copilot and crew....and to feel i'm finally flying bomber!

Got bored of fighter look alike cockpits of A20 and Pe2.

This is huge immersion breaker for me.

[Pict]

28 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

Advanced and effective are often two different things.

 

I have serious doubts (based on combat reports, however anecdotal) as to the system being markedly more accurate than conventional gun mounts.

 

Seems like it would be effective to me. One gunner, sitting in a comfortable upright position, yet covering a very field of fire both above and below the aircraft to the rear.

 

If it really hadn't been effective, do you think the Germans would have continued with it?

 

It was after all initially developed and used on the Me-210, so it had already been combat tested before the Me-410 was rolled out. The Me-410 was known to have been an effort to squash all the bugs of the Me-210, so if the rear armament system was retained, it was for a good reason and not because it was ineffective.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Pict

[Avimimus]

55 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Yup, and the performance gained by dropping the guns/gunner was minimal. The loss of situational awareness from an extra pair of eyes was a poor tradeoff.

 

Well... I think the weight of a human being (~100kg) is significant compared to many of the other 'lightening' field modifications we have in the sim. Also, one can remove the seat, oxygen, and some other equipment. I also believe they sometimes removed the gunsight/barbettes in the single-seater field-modification... so that would be significant.

 

I wonder how much the barbettes actually weighed? Something like not carrying around an extra SC-250 that you can't drop?

 

53 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I doubt the 410 can rival the P-38 in terms of having fighter-like agility. Especially against fighters like the Spit and Mustang.

 

I see the 410 as more of an agile light bomber than a nimble heavy fighter.

 

I didn't say it'd be a good counterpart

[oc2209]

4 minutes ago, Pict said:

If it really hadn't been effective, do you think the Germans would have continued with it?

 

*cough* He-177 *cough*

 

Sorry, had to do it.

 

Seriously though, I'm not saying the 410's defense system was utterly useless; I'm just saying it looks like it was more trouble than it was worth, for no (as I can tell) discernible increase in combat value.

 

It was complicated, technically impressive, yes--but did it actually outperform conventional gun mounts? I can't find any evidence that it did.

 

And if it did not, then we must ask: why not just use a normal defense configuration?

[Noisemaker]

55 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Well... I think the weight of a human being (~100kg)

I don't think anyone outside of Göring and Churchill weighed anywhere near 100Kg in WW2.  Certainly not in military service.

[oc2209]

57 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Well... I think the weight of a human being (~100kg) is significant compared to many of the other 'lightening' field modifications we have in the sim. Also, one can remove the seat, oxygen, and some other equipment. I also believe they sometimes removed the gunsight/barbettes in the single-seater field-modification... so that would be significant.

 

This is but one pilot's opinion, but here goes:

 

"Some bright spark had the absurd idea to convert the 410 into a single-seater. By dispensing with the radio operator, the radio gear, and the rearward guns, they thought to make the machine so fast that attacks from behind no longer needed to be considered.

 

"What a deadly error! The proponents of this idea soon found that the extra 20 km/h was not enough to make up for the experienced eyes of a rear gunner and the moral effect of having the guns. To place the meanwhile despised aircraft in the hands of us instrument flyers crowned it all."

 

--Fritz Buchholz, circa Feb. '44

 

He's a (clearly disgruntled) flight instructor pressed into Luftwaffe combat service.

 

The problem with trying to lighten the 410 so that it's more agile, is that it must have a base amount of agility to begin with. And nothing I've read indicates it does.

 

Russian analysis of the 410 compares it favorably to the Pe-2 and Tu-2--they further go on to say it's hopeless against a fighter. So they are clearly thinking of it along bomber lines.

 

Eric Brown outright despises the 410 in no uncertain terms. Granted, he's a little prone to hyperbole, but still.

 

It's agile enough--for a bomber. If Germany was in a position to have air superiority and it needed an attack plane with more oomph than a Fw-190, the 410 would've been an admirable replacement for the Stuka, perhaps. That's the best way to think of it, in my opinion.

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

but did it actually outperform conventional gun mounts? I can't find any evidence that it did.

Simply if you look at the field of fire, it's a superior system. It's hard to find evidence for how much more effective it was compared to a traditional setup. the guns were potent enough for defensive weapons, the system offers a much wider field of fire, over a standard setup, but with the numerical superiority the allies had at the time, what could an extra gun do.

8 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

t's agile enough--for a bomber. If Germany was in a position to have air superiority and it needed an attack plane with more oomph than a Fw-190, the 410 would've been an admirable replacement for the Stuka, perhaps. That's the best way to think of it, in my opinion.

Agree. It's a heavier multirole aircraft with a lot more range than regular fighter-bombers.  Good for a wide range of missions. Not something designed to go out against spitfires, Yaks or mustangs.

[Pict]

6 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Simply if you look at the field of fire, it's a superior system. It's hard to find evidence for how much more effective it was compared to a traditional setup. the guns were potent enough for defensive weapons, the system offers a much wider field of fire, over a standard setup, but with the numerical superiority the allies had at the time, what could an extra gun do.

 

Agreed.

 

Additionaly, to cover that field of fire a "traditional" gun mount would have required either additional gunners or the gunner would have to reposition himself between gun mounts.

 

That alone makes it much more effective.