Developer Diary 299 - Discussion

[NoelGallagher]

so the other part of the developenment meas tank 

are we gonna get the announcement of 2 new tank on next DD? huh? 

?

[Asgar]

1 minute ago, NoelGallagher said:

so the other part of the developenment meas tank 

are we gonna get the announcement of 2 new tank on next DD? huh? 

?

TC2! they need something be for DD number 300!

[NoelGallagher]

1 minute ago, Asgar said:

TC2! they need something be for DD number 300!

i like that even more haha

yeah forget about collectors tank

if we can get TC2 anouncement   

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

9 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

It's AI only at the moment, though Janson has suggested that he'd like to see it flyable at some point, but lacks the resources currently.

Well, I’ve heard that the F4 Phantom is engineering proof that you can make a brick fly pretty well with big enough engines.

[Noisemaker]

7 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Well, I’ve heard that the F4 Phantom is engineering proof that you can make a brick fly pretty well with big enough engines.

I seem to recall hearing Janson say in a podcast, the the biggest difficulty the team is facing is the engineering behind how the druids flew the large stone blocks from Wales to their current location.  Once that's worked out, we should have a flyable Stonehenge in about two weeks.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Be sure!

[Canvas25]

1 hour ago, Noisemaker said:

I seem to recall hearing Janson say in a podcast, the the biggest difficulty the team is facing is the engineering behind how the druids flew the large stone blocks from Wales to their current location.  Once that's worked out, we should have a flyable Stonehenge in about two weeks.

 

I'm Welsh and I can confirm that they were taxied to Stonehenge. Start the two week timer!

[Freycinet]

Fabulous update, you really outdid yourselves this time!

[Rjel]

12 hours ago, ACG_Orb said:

Will stone henge be flyable?

I hope not. With power off, they drop like a stone.

[Strewth]

20 hours ago, -332FG-drewm3i-VR said:

Best DD in a long time! The pillboxes look really great and Stonehenge is a wonderful touch. I hope the map is filled with recognizable landmarks. DCS really set the bar high with its Channel Map and while IL-2 probably won't be as detailed, the overall experience will be far superior if the map turns out to be on the level of the Kuban map.

 

12 hours ago, 76IAP-Black said:

But you cant play it on an average PC 

 

12 hours ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

 

Or on high end pc in VR!

Plenty of nice details you don't notice from the air and map being unplayable for majority......one of the reasons Normandy map server being full and Channel map server being empty.

 

11 hours ago, Strewth said:

I am still fine tuning, but average 85 to 90fps with a Reverb-G2, with most settings on ultra or high. Got as low as 65 to 70fps flying low over Antwerp and Stalingrad.

It is great in VR, but yes, you must have a rig to run it properly.

Cheers.

 

9 hours ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

I am bit confused, do you think on il2 or dcs?

I was talking about dcs Channel and Normandy map performance.

I also run g2 with i7 10700k and rtx3080 and find il2 maps run better, yes dcs Channel map is way more detailed and nicer but all that means nothing to me since it is unplayable for me in VR.

I do like nice graphics but i also want good performance, i hope il2 devs will keep performance on current level and priority when it comes to BoN map, regardless of map details.

I have faith they'll find perfect balance!

My apology.
When I read "Best DD in a long time", I thought that the reference was to IL-2.
Since there was no actual direct reference to DCS as the main part of the discussion, apart from being mentioned in at the same time as IL-2 and there was no reference to DCS at the beginning of any other reply; I naturally assumed that the general conversation core was the DDS for IL-2

Cheers

[76IAP-Black]

10 hours ago, Strewth said:

 

 

 

 

My apology.
When I read "Best DD in a long time", I thought that the reference was to IL-2.
Since there was no actual direct reference to DCS as the main part of the discussion, apart from being mentioned in at the same time as IL-2 and there was no reference to DCS at the beginning of any other reply; I naturally assumed that the general conversation core was the DDS for IL-2

Cheers

Exactly ?

[Lusekofte]

Nice, always liked that DFW C.V.

 

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

My tuppenceworth on the ME-410, I think it's a mean looking beastie, Seen the one an RAF Cosford, looks a bit rough in places, but there was a war on! By the time it came into service IMHO it's not so much of a 'fighter' as and bomber attack weapon. Get it into the air ahead of the enemy formations, make a firing pass and skedaddle as quickly and as bravely as possible. If I came across fighter opposition I'd make a head on pass and then utilise the "Stonehenge flight model" and get to the weeds in the direction of home as quickly as possible and let my rear gunner become an ace. I recall  that the older version of iL-2 the 410 had a form of fast firing cannon that I was able to tear up a 4 engine bomber with. (I'm not an expert on German Cannon types). It would be interesting to have that some time in the future. 

I think we won't get much time to line up the single cannon for the perfect shot, but hopefully any hit with that thing will be a gamechanger for the unlucky recipient. 

Really looking forward to it.

[Ribbon]

15 hours ago, Strewth said:

 

 

 

 

My apology.
When I read "Best DD in a long time", I thought that the reference was to IL-2.
Since there was no actual direct reference to DCS as the main part of the discussion, apart from being mentioned in at the same time as IL-2 and there was no reference to DCS at the beginning of any other reply; I naturally assumed that the general conversation core was the DDS for IL-2

Cheers

No need for any kind of apologies, i assumed since IAP Black didn't mention it even we knew the subject that it may be confusig for others ?

I shouldn't mention dcs here in the first place

[Livai]

How many variants of the V1 - bomb the Germans build? I asking this Question because you can see below a different V1. Which one is correct?

 

[Asgar]

20 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Well, I’ve heard that the F4 Phantom is engineering proof that you can make a brick fly pretty well with big enough engines.

Tbh though with 158kN of thrust anything will fly ?

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, scotsmanFlyingscotsman said:

I recall  that the older version of iL-2 the 410 had a form of fast firing cannon that I was able to tear up a 4 engine bomber with. (I'm not an expert on German Cannon types). It would be interesting to have that some time in the future.

 

The original Il-2 had a Hungarian Me-210 with a 40mm Bofors for the AI. You might have flown a modded version of that?

 

More likely you are remembering the Me-410D mod with Mg-213/Mk-213 cannons? These were revolver cannons that, in some ways, are the progenitors of the famous Aden 30mm cannons used into the '80s. However, they didn't see service - so this was very much a '1946' mod.

 

I personally found that the 6x20mm Mg-151 field modification was more effective against bombers - saturating a larger area at long ranges. I also really liked the 2x30mm Mk-103 loadout (which had production cancelled but may have seen some use - although it seems most likely it didn't make it out of trials). Both would be really neat field mods to have (or Collector Planes). However, I wouldn't count on it. I suspect we'll have access to the following loadouts:

- 2xMg-17 & 2x20mm cannon & bombs

- 2xMg-17 & 4x20mm cannon

- 2x20mm cannon and 1x50mm cannon

 

There is also a possibility of the 37mm Flak 43 with 16 rounds (~4 times the rate of fire than our existing 37mm cannon). There is also the possibility of four underwing rockets, and the possibility of conversion to a single seater (unlikely to be included I think - but still interesting).

[fergal69]

5 hours ago, scotsmanFlyingscotsman said:

My tuppenceworth on the ME-410, I think it's a mean looking beastie, Seen the one an RAF Cosford, looks a bit rough in places, but there was a war on! By the time it came into service IMHO it's not so much of a 'fighter' as and bomber attack weapon. Get it into the air ahead of the enemy formations, make a firing pass and skedaddle as quickly and as bravely as possible. If I came across fighter opposition I'd make a head on pass and then utilise the "Stonehenge flight model" and get to the weeds in the direction of home as quickly as possible and let my rear gunner become an ace. I recall  that the older version of iL-2 the 410 had a form of fast firing cannon that I was able to tear up a 4 engine bomber with. (I'm not an expert on German Cannon types). It would be interesting to have that some time in the future. 

I think we won't get much time to line up the single cannon for the perfect shot, but hopefully any hit with that thing will be a gamechanger for the unlucky recipient. 

Really looking forward to it.

 

Sat in that plane ?

 

Was a society member at RAF Cosford back in the late 80's. Was assigned to work on the Lincoln, did some painting on the JU52, & got into a few other planes when they were being worked on. 

[Rapierarch]

On 11/13/2021 at 9:12 PM, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Well, I’ve heard that the F4 Phantom is engineering proof that you can make a brick fly pretty well with big enough engines.

 

And F-104 is the proof that you do not need wings to fly

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, Rapierarch said:

 

And F-104 is the proof that you do not need wings to fly

 

And the F-117 is proof that aerodynamics are overrated ?

 

Aerodynamic CFD analysis of an F-117 bomber | SimScale

Edited November 14, 2021 by sevenless

[BlitzPig_EL]

And the Mig 15 is proof that if you don't get your wing design just right, add fences!

[Bremspropeller]

Too bad, the Fencer was another aircraft...

[Pict]

On 11/12/2021 at 10:47 PM, oc2209 said:

*cough* He-177 *cough*

 

Sorry, had to do it.

 

I'll accept that apology, as you should be sorry for pulling one line out of the middle of my point and throwing the He-177 at it, which is not at all relevant in this case. You did this to avoid my point altogether as it is a far stronger case than your assumption.

 

Here's what I said;

 

On 11/12/2021 at 10:35 PM, Pict said:

 

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.

 

The point I was making was that major modifications were made to the Me-210 in order to make it effective, so many and so drastic that they gave the result an new designation Me-410.

 

The rear defensive equipment was not changed at all. Had it been as poor as you assume, and that all you have is an assumption, then surely they would have changed it during the redesign.

 

They significantly changed the wings after all, so changing the rear guns would be easy to do at that time. All done after combat experience with the Me-210, which continued in service with the Hungarian Air Force. So they had plenty enough data on the rear armaments effectiveness.

 

That was my point and it still is.

 

==================

 

On 11/12/2021 at 10:47 PM, oc2209 said:

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?

 

It is easy to prove that the Me-410 rear armament was more effective than "conventional gun mounts".

 

If you replaced the Me-410 setup with the same setup as the Me-110 or Ju-87, you would immidiately loose all your range of fire below and to the rear of the aircraft. Result = less effective defense to the rear.

 

If you tried to have upper and lower "conventional gun mounts" in order to in some way replicate the Me-410's vertical field of fire, then you would run into another problem.

 

You would either need to have two rear gunners, or have one that could swap between gun stations. The former would require a larger fuselage and all the additional weight that goes with it. The latter would also require a large rework of the rear cockpit area, but neither would offer the width of field of fire of the Me-410 system, without a major rework of the fuselage.

 

Two rear gunners is obviously out of the question from the additional weight factor alone.

 

One rear gunner swapping from sitting to lying prone on the floor, will always mean that the gunner cannot swap from one to the other as fast as the Me-410 system, nor would he be able to track a target in the vertical without interuption and maintain the same level of situational awareness. Result = less effective defense to the rear.

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Pict

[ST_Catchov]

On 11/14/2021 at 9:03 AM, Rjel said:

On 11/13/2021 at 8:37 PM, ACG_Orb said:

Will stone henge be flyable?

I hope not. With power off, they drop like a stone.

 

I'm surprised she flew at all. But the idea of plonking into Germania incognito like a trojan horse to infiltrate the nazis was a good one. It's what made Britain great.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Pict, how could the 410's gunner have any ability to aim the guns below his line of sight?  A fighter coming up from the 410's low six would never be seen, or were they crewed by the same omniscient chaps that are the rear gunners on the Stukas in the sim? 

Edited November 15, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Pict, how could the 410's gunner have any ability to aim the guns below his line of sight?  A fighter coming up from the 410's low six would never be seen, or were they crewed by the same omniscient chaps that are the rear gunners on the Stukas in the sim? 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, No gunner has ever been more fearsome than the tail gunner in the '46 A-20. I'm glad they have toned that guy down in this iteration.

 

[Blitzen]

I am looking forward to the 410, but can someone answer this : how did it compare performance wise with the Mosquito or perhaps the P-38? I’m not talking about straight ahead speed, but range,climb rate,turn radius, bomb load etc.?Is used only as a light bomber would it have been viewed as more of a success, like the Mosquito? I’m guessing it will be fun in quick missions, but as a campaign plane it will probably turn out to be easy meat..?

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, Blitzen said:

I am looking forward to the 410, but can someone answer this : how did it compare performance wise with the Mosquito or perhaps the P-38? I’m not talking about straight ahead speed, but range,climb rate,turn radius, bomb load etc.?Is used only as a light bomber would it have been viewed as more of a success, like the Mosquito? I’m guessing it will be fun in quick missions, but as a campaign plane it will probably turn out to be easy meat..?

 

It should be quite a bit less manoeuvrable. It apparently had heavy, poorly harmonized controls, and an abrupt wing drop/spin with relatively little warning. So, it sounds like the worst parts of a Bf-110, Bf-109, and Fw-190 combined... however, it apparently accelerated very well in a straight-away or dive.

 

It should be slightly faster than our Mosquito variant (378 mph), but slower than the P-38L (414 mph). The single seat field mod of the Me-410 should theoretically approach 400 mph (compared to 388 mph for the normal  Me-410A). However, we are unlikely to get this field mod.

 

Overall the Me-410 should be harder to intercept (as it can extend away from an attacker) and a rear attack will be more difficult due to the low closing speeds giving the gunner plenty of time to react. So, I agree that it was probably more suited as a fast reconnaissance and bomber aircraft than it was as a fighter. That said, I don't know what its absolute turn rate was.

[LukeFF]

35 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Overall the Me-410 should be harder to intercept (as it can extend away from an attacker) and a rear attack will be more difficult due to the low closing speeds giving the gunner plenty of time to react. So, I agree that it was probably more suited as a fast reconnaissance and bomber aircraft than it was as a fighter. That said, I don't know what its absolute turn rate was.

 

Eh, actually, the Me 410 was known for having lousy acceleration, even when intercepting bombers. So, a lot is going to depend on having really good positioning before the enemy is sighted. 

[Asgar]

On 11/14/2021 at 6:53 PM, Avimimus said:

More likely you are remembering the Me-410D mod with Mg-213/Mk-213 cannons? These were revolver cannons that, in some ways, are the progenitors of the famous Aden 30mm cannons used into the '80s. However, they didn't see service - so this was very much a '1946' mod.

Funny, considering that the US, UK and the French took prototypes of the weapons home to study I‘d say the 213 series is the progenitor of pretty much all „modern“ Revolver cannons  

Edited November 15, 2021 by Asgar
Typo

[Blitzen]

I was just thinking of a what if scenario and that was what if the shoe had been on the other foot & the Mosquito had been developed by the Germans ( I'm thinking  not of Kurt Tank's Ta-154, but the actual Mosquito.) How would it have performed in the Me-410's place? Would it have been a better heavy fighter attacking B-17 formations & evading intercepting P-47's or P-5i's? Clearly it was in British hands a brilliant light bomber ( ok and night fighter as well ,) but never needed to be tested in fighter vs fighter combat and just how would it have done attacking heavily defended targets like the 210 & the 410 had to do? the 410 did have some pretty successful interdiction missions over England that sorta- kinda were like the Mosquitos did over Germany. It was underused in this role but did have potential, even in its "hard to handle" state.

We'll have a chance to see the differences when we get both aircraft this year but even though I love this sim I'm not sure we can always trust it's FM in comparing Allied Apples with German Oranges...

( I should add both these aircraft have been available to fly over at the much modded by SAS version of the older Il-1946 sim ...these days -they even have the Ta-154 as well. Not badly moddled either although the interiors look a little cobbled together. At any rate I personally believe their FM's might be a bit inaccurate as well..so we just have to wait & see here in GB,I guess.)

[Avimimus]

41 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Eh, actually, the Me 410 was known for having lousy acceleration, even when intercepting bombers. So, a lot is going to depend on having really good positioning before the enemy is sighted. 

 

Good to know. I was actually coming back here with the thought to add a citation... which was that this assessment came from a British test pilot (Cpt. Eric Brown)... So what amounts to anecdotal evidence based on limited testing (and, yes, he was also talking about its acceleration in a dive). So your additional info is quite appreciated. I'm always happy to find out that I'm somewhat mistaken!

[--[---MAILMAN----]

"Don't know about the rest but the B/C will have both canopies available. Check out the pics in both this DD and DD 292 for the original canopy."

 

My mistake.  You are correct sir, I brain cramped and forgot that I had read that the two canopies would be available for the player to choose from in the original DD and again in DD 292.  Thank you for pointing it out to me and jogging this old brain.  The Malcolm Hood was a field modification to some, but not all of the B & C variants, with some non-Malcolm hood Mustangs finishing out the war with the original canopy.

 

My question regarding the 85 gallon fuselage tank not being installed in the P-51B-5-NA/P-51C-1-NT and the interior mirrors (production line installation) included in both models still stands.  If the development and flight model is too far along to change and will have the 85 gallon tank included then the developers should re-designate the plane P-51B-7-NA/P-51C-3-NT.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, --[---MAILMAN---- said:

The Malcolm Hood was a field modification to some, but not all of the B & C variants, with some non-Malcolm hood Mustangs finishing out the war with the original canopy.

 

Yes, and to be a bit more precise, almost all of the RAF's P-51 Mustang IIIs had the Malcolm Hood, while the USAAF ones were a mix of both. The British really disliked the original canopy. Additionally, Steve Hinton was once asked about the original canopy, since he's flown a P-51B/C, and he bluntly said that it sucks. ?

Edited November 15, 2021 by LukeFF

[Soilworker]

On 11/13/2021 at 11:46 AM, Noisemaker said:

It's AI only at the moment, though Janson has suggested that he'd like to see it flyable at some point, but lacks the resources currently.

 

 

On 11/13/2021 at 9:23 PM, Noisemaker said:

I seem to recall hearing Janson say in a podcast, the the biggest difficulty the team is facing is the engineering behind how the druids flew the large stone blocks from Wales to their current location.  Once that's worked out, we should have a flyable Stonehenge in about two weeks.

 

@Jade_Monkey I take it back. ?

Edited November 15, 2021 by Soilworker

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

On 11/14/2021 at 6:47 PM, fergal69 said:

 

Sat in that plane ?

 

Was a society member at RAF Cosford back in the late 80's. Was assigned to work on the Lincoln, did some painting on the JU52, & got into a few other planes when they were being worked on. 

Hi Fergal 69, 

I did my Tel course at RAF Cosford 73, some years later came back on the TCC course and we had an afternoon at the museum, I gave a conducted tour of the planes and potted histories, the guys said I should have applied for tour guide, haha. The cockpit looks really cramped, I was amazed how claustrophobic it was when I was able to pull the hood over when sat it a Spitfire, very much 'on your own' in that one and yes I am very jealous

On 11/14/2021 at 5:53 PM, Avimimus said:

 

The original Il-2 had a Hungarian Me-210 with a 40mm Bofors for the AI. You might have flown a modded version of that?

 

More likely you are remembering the Me-410D mod with Mg-213/Mk-213 cannons? These were revolver cannons that, in some ways, are the progenitors of the famous Aden 30mm cannons used into the '80s. However, they didn't see service - so this was very much a '1946' mod.

 

I personally found that the 6x20mm Mg-151 field modification was more effective against bombers - saturating a larger area at long ranges. I also really liked the 2x30mm Mk-103 loadout (which had production cancelled but may have seen some use - although it seems most likely it didn't make it out of trials). Both would be really neat field mods to have (or Collector Planes). However, I wouldn't count on it. I suspect we'll have access to the following loadouts:

- 2xMg-17 & 2x20mm cannon & bombs

- 2xMg-17 & 4x20mm cannon

- 2x20mm cannon and 1x50mm cannon

 

There is also a possibility of the 37mm Flak 43 with 16 rounds (~4 times the rate of fire than our existing 37mm cannon). There is also the possibility of four underwing rockets, and the possibility of conversion to a single seater (unlikely to be included I think - but still interesting).

Aye that was the one, I'd forgotten that it was an "What if 1946" mod. Regardless of what we get I'll be happy with it....I might not survive very long, but I'll be happy with it. Thanks for the good information about the weapons

[Enceladus828]

On 11/13/2021 at 1:23 PM, Noisemaker said:

the the biggest difficulty the team is facing is the engineering behind how the druids flew the large stone blocks from Wales to their current location

According to legend, Merlin levitated the rocks from Wales to their current position using his hands. When you think about that, that's the only explanation that makes sense ?.

Or, it could be that Stonehenge was built over 12,000 years ago by a technologically advanced society, more advanced than us, that was destroyed in the Great Flood.

[Noisemaker]

2 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

According to legend, Merlin levitated the rocks from Wales to their current position using his hands. When you think about that, that's the only explanation that makes sense ?.
 

 

Right, Merlin engines it is.

 

The question is, how many?

Edited November 16, 2021 by Noisemaker
Additional info.

[Monksilver]

On 11/16/2021 at 9:36 PM, Enceladus said:

According to legend, Merlin levitated the rocks from Wales to their current position using his hands. When you think about that, that's the only explanation that makes sense ?.

 

 

On 11/13/2021 at 8:23 PM, Noisemaker said:

I seem to recall hearing Janson say in a podcast, the the biggest difficulty the team is facing is the engineering behind how the druids flew the large stone blocks from Wales to their current location.  Once that's worked out, we should have a flyable Stonehenge in about two weeks.

 

That isn't the legend - see Geoffrey of Monmouth's Rex Historia Britannia. The Giant's Circle was taken from Mount Killarus in Ireland  and whilst it was done by Merlin (Myrddin is proper name, Merlin is a Latin corruption) he didn't use his hands to levitate anything but "placed in position all the gear which he considered necessary and dismantled the stones". The stones weren't flown across the sea but Merlin took them to the Britons' ships and stored them onboard and they set sail for Britain. The legend doesn't say how they were then conveyed from the shore to their current site which was the site of the graves of the British nobles slaughtered by the treacherous Saxons under Hengist on the night of the long knives.  Merlin used the same equipment to re-erect the giant's circle just as it was in Ireland.  This was done for his king Aurelius Ambrosius, not King Arthur who Merlin never met.

 

So to get the Giant's Circle to fly off would involve desecrating a British war memorial. In this context British means Celtic not the Saxons who later became the English and who were the mortal enemies of the British.

 

But when you think of Merlin having an engine that could lift those stones you can see why they called the plane engine Merlin.

 

On 11/16/2021 at 9:36 PM, Enceladus said:

 

Or, it could be that Stonehenge was built over 12,000 years ago by a technologically advanced society, more advanced than us, that was destroyed in the Great Flood.

 A great flood, now that brings us to the Welsh legend of the inundation of Cantref Gwaelod ...

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Monksilver

[Canvas25]

Cymru am byth!