Developer Diary 308 - Discussion

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, Fafnir_6 said:

Yeah I hear you about RoF.  It's almost as though we'd need a slow 2-seater pack (BE.2c, Farman F40, Albatros C.III, Aviatik C.I).  I'd pay top dollar for that :).

 

Cheers,

 

Fafnir_6

 

Me too. Even just a couple of them - or just the Moraine-Saulnier L (as it was used by both sides and came in multiple configurations). With that aircraft you get a nice target for both sides, plus its historical interest as the first 'fighter' aircraft.

 

Regarding the Albatros C.III and Aviatik C.I - they are both going 142-145 km/h... which means they still easily outpace our D.H.2

 

The outwardly similar LVG C.II might be a better pick as it only reached 130 km/h and had a fixed forward firing gun and bombs (first aircraft to bomb London). It was also built in similar numbers to the others. The Albatros C.I was also about 130 km/h and some had field mods with a second gun firing forward (although operated by the observer I believe). Finally, some Aviatik B were retrofitted with the side-rails for defensive guns that the Aviatik C.I received - it wouldn't have the forward firing gun or bombs of the LVG, but it would be an Aviatik with a defensive armament - and would only go 115 km/h (something even the Sikorsky S-16 could attack). The Albatros B.II also received a gunner in some cases and went about 120 km/h - so that is another option.

 

Anyway, a couple of targets for the 1916 era is a nice dream for FCIV!

 

P.S. I also really like the Farman F.40 - although I suspect a Voisin V might be more ideal for scope. The French pushers and the B.E.2c are historically important and numerous aircraft in 1916. The Caudron G.IV is also interesting due to the number of options for field mods.

[Vortice]

Nice skies and a brand new target. Can't wait.

[ITAF_Rani]

Waiting his release...this is an interesting reading

 

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by ITAF_Rani

[LuftManu]

Bloody Biscay! yay!

I am really intersted in the new sky / no banding. The golden hour pics are awaiting!

[danielprates]

I never understood why some were painted with a make-believe glazed nose over the solid nose like that. Can anyone explain this? It appears so unnecessary.

[CUJO_1970]

21 minutes ago, danielprates said:

I never understood why some were painted with a make-believe glazed nose over the solid nose like that. Can anyone explain this? It appears so unnecessary.

 

Oh look it's a harmless Ju88A-4 let's attack it head on

 

Oh look I'm dead.

[danielprates]

8 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

Oh look it's a harmless Ju88A-4 let's attack it head on

 

Oh look I'm dead.

 

Seeing as it wasnt designed to fly around in slow level flight attracting unsuspecting allied fighters, I cant help to feel that isn't quite it. Also I never read or heard of them doing it. Odds are they would get shot down more often then not.

 

Edit. I have no doubt it is meant to make it to look as the bomber version, that is obvious, but it doesnt seem useful to put them in a "master and commander movie" type of situation. I can see them attacking sunderlands, bombers, ground targets etc. But flying slowly to attract spitfires, mustangs etc.? Come on. It has to be more subtle thsn that.

Edited February 19, 2022 by danielprates

[Guest deleted@83466]

It might not be to fool Allied pilots in actual combat, but to fool Allied reconnaissance analysts when they have an aerial photo of it on the ground.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by SeaSerpent

[Juri_JS]

52 minutes ago, danielprates said:

Edit. I have no doubt it is meant to make it to look as the bomber version, that is obvious, but it doesnt seem useful to put them in a "master and commander movie" type of situation. I can see them attacking sunderlands, bombers, ground targets etc. But flying slowly to attract spitfires, mustangs etc.? Come on. It has to be more subtle thsn that.

As far as I know the fake glazing was only used by Ju-88C units on the eastern front. These 88C's often flew train busting missions far into enemy territory, either alone or in small groups without any fighter escort. Anything that might give a small advantage when encountering enemy fighters in such missions was certainly welcome.

[US103_Baer]

 The new sky when coupled with the new clouds and some new adjustments to the lighting, combines to make a beautiful scene!

 

Adjustments to lighting.  Interesting.  Wonder if this will impact spotting, especially nearer contacts and those against ground clutter.

 

The current enhanced long range spotting seems good for WW2, but is quite inappropriate for WW1 with its slow moving aircraft. You can essentially see contacts across the entire map - when zoomed out. Of course if you zoom in a bit they disappear.

This rather kills immersion and restricts stalking tactics. 

 

 

[ww2fighter20]

1 hour ago, danielprates said:

 

Seeing as it wasnt designed to fly around in slow level flight attracting unsuspecting allied fighters, I cant help to feel that isn't quite it. Also I never read or heard of them doing it. Odds are they would get shot down more often then not.

 

Edit. I have no doubt it is meant to make it to look as the bomber version, that is obvious, but it doesnt seem useful to put them in a "master and commander movie" type of situation. I can see them attacking sunderlands, bombers, ground targets etc. But flying slowly to attract spitfires, mustangs etc.? Come on. It has to be more subtle thsn that.

I got an diecast model of the winter livery C6 and it's description notes:

 

'In a bid to trick Soviet fighter pilots into continuing their tried and tested bomber strategy of head on attacks, 4. Zerstörerstaffel/KG 76 painted false 'bomber noses' on their C-6's during the winter of 1942-43. F1+XM served with this unit from the end of 1942 based at Taganrog, in the Ukraine.'

[CAFulcrum]

The sky looks incredible!

[BMA_FlyingShark]

Looks great.

Small question though, will the new runways be part of the upcoming update too?

 

Have a nice day.

 

[354thFG_Panda_]

Ju88 looks nice, very much looking forward to the sky upgrades! 

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

Not so sure how often an 88 managed to tangle with the PE-2 but excellent pictures. Wonder how many fighter pilots last thoughts were, "Ha! an 88, I'll do a head on and he's toast!" Hard work against any single engine, but they only have to make a mistake and cross it's path! Looks really different and smart with the modifications. 

Really looking forward to this

[FodderMonkey]

Please, can we do this with the A-20 as well?  With over 2,800 of the hard-nosed version produced it wasn't a minor variant, and it existed in every theatre.  That said, I'm grateful for this version of the Ju-88, and can't wait to get my hands on it!  Thanks!

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Looks like we are getting a MG131 for the tail gunner. Good job devs! !

 

Next patch will be a great opportunity to fix the AI gunners aiming which is pretty broken. Maybe it's just a bug on oxygen system because they are shooting like drunken  men.

 

Thus,  we twin engines crews can fight back ponies pilots death star 50 cals and open some holes on theirs ego. ???

 

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, scotsmanFlyingscotsman said:

Not so sure how often an 88 managed to tangle with the PE-2 but excellent pictures. Wonder how many fighter pilots last thoughts were, "Ha! an 88, I'll do a head on and he's toast!" Hard work against any single engine, but they only have to make a mistake and cross it's path! Looks really different and smart with the modifications. 

Really looking forward to this

 

I've actually been experimenting with the Ju-88A4... if the Pe-2 is fully laden with a bomb load - it looks like we may be able to run it down. A Pe-3 that has used up much of its fuel... maybe not.

 

So I think I've been pessimistic actually.

 

 

  

15 minutes ago, FodderMonkey said:

Please, can we do this with the A-20 as well?  With over 2,800 of the hard-nosed version produced it wasn't a minor variant, and it existed in every theatre.  That said, I'm grateful for this version of the Ju-88, and can't wait to get my hands on it!  Thanks!

 

Yes, an A-20 or Pe-3 would be nice companions to the Mosquito and Ju-88C. With the A-20 it'd probably be an A-20G-1, correct? Assuming we don't get a Pacific theatre any time soon.

[Docjonel]

I remember when flight sims came on CD-ROMs in boxes and I would look at the artwork on the cover and say "I wished the sim looked like the illustration on the box!"

 

This sim now looks better than those illustrations!

We are fortunate indeed to be enjoying such times courtesy of 1C-777 Studios

[danielprates]

16 hours ago, ww2fighter20 said:

I got an diecast model of the winter livery C6 and it's description notes:

 

'In a bid to trick Soviet fighter pilots into continuing their tried and tested bomber strategy of head on attacks, 4. Zerstörerstaffel/KG 76 painted false 'bomber noses' on their C-6's during the winter of 1942-43. F1+XM served with this unit from the end of 1942 based at Taganrog, in the Ukraine.'

 

17 hours ago, Juri_JS said:

As far as I know the fake glazing was only used by Ju-88C units on the eastern front. These 88C's often flew train busting missions far into enemy territory, either alone or in small groups without any fighter escort. Anything that might give a small advantage when encountering enemy fighters in such missions was certainly welcome.

 

16 hours ago, ww2fighter20 said:

I got an diecast model of the winter livery C6 and it's description notes:

 

'In a bid to trick Soviet fighter pilots into continuing their tried and tested bomber strategy of head on attacks, 4. Zerstörerstaffel/KG 76 painted false 'bomber noses' on their C-6's during the winter of 1942-43. F1+XM served with this unit from the end of 1942 based at Taganrog, in the Ukraine.'

 

Oh I see. The idea was not to fly around luring fighters, more like if a Ju86c was flying towards a target and got bounced by interceptors, there was a change the enemy planes would mistake them for less threatening targets and underestimate them. Yes that seems more like it. Thanks guys. 

[RonaldWHART]

The new update looks like it's going to be very good appreciate your efforts

[Diggun]

5 hours ago, danielprates said:

if a Ju86c was flying towards a target and got bounced by interceptors, there was a change the enemy planes would mistake them for less threatening targets and underestimate them

Its not that.

 

On 2/19/2022 at 1:25 AM, SeaSerpent said:

It might not be to fool Allied pilots in actual combat, but to fool Allied reconnaissance analysts when they have an aerial photo of it on the ground.

It's this.

 

New '88 looks like a beautiful target.

 

New sky & lighting looks awesome.

[hendrikvanderven]

what a pleasure to fly IL-2 enjoy it every day keep up the good work

[Asgar]

5 hours ago, Diggun said:

Its not that.

 

It's this.

 

New '88 looks like a beautiful target.

 

New sky & lighting looks awesome.

You’re wrong

[ShampooX]

Any chance we can get a Panzer skin in a dark green or brown color in the official skin files?  It sucks that with the combination of yellow skins and the adjustable render zones we can easily be spotted by planes at longer/higher distances.  It would be nice if you gave German tanks darker skins.

[Cybermat47]

6 hours ago, Diggun said:

Its not that.

 

It's this.

 

All the sources I can find state that it was intended to fool enemy fighters into making head-on attacks.

 

It honestly makes sense. Being able to trick your enemy into choosing to attack your strongest point is a great tactic.

 

I doubt it paid off every time - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it rarely paid off - but as far as I can see, it was an idea that had more positives than negatives. 

[HofVanStrudel]

after sky will you update terrain textures?

[III/JG52_Speedwulf77]

Great Job !  cant wait for the new skies .. and the Ju

since the last awesome "Cloud Update" i cannot fly in that other M....Sim anymore in VR  (looks like mickeyMouse Paint compared to IL2 VR)

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

Beautiful plane, but why i would choose it over 110? 110 is better in every way i can think of.

[Jizzo]

1 minute ago, LLv24_SukkaVR said:

Beautiful plane, but why i would choose it over 110? 110 is better in every way i can think of.

Because, JU have to! ?

[Asgar]

12 minutes ago, LLv24_SukkaVR said:

Beautiful plane, but why i would choose it over 110? 110 is better in every way i can think of.

Bombload?

[AEthelraedUnraed]

On 2/19/2022 at 3:38 AM, US103_Baer said:

The current enhanced long range spotting seems good for WW2, but is quite inappropriate for WW1 with its slow moving aircraft. You can essentially see contacts across the entire map - when zoomed out. Of course if you zoom in a bit they disappear.

This rather kills immersion and restricts stalking tactics. 

I thought the "enhanced long range spotting" was an optional setting?

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

3 hours ago, LLv24_SukkaVR said:

Beautiful plane, but why i would choose it over 110? 110 is better in every way i can think of.

in the real world ?

Range ...... not important in game, true. A Bf 109G-2/R6 has more firepower.

[senseispcc]

Give me, give me more, always more, I want more, we need more... But we love it,  and thanks the team for it. Thanks! 

[US103_Baer]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I thought the "enhanced long range spotting" was an optional setting?

Yes and no. 

There is still an enhanced setting, but the last spotting change introduced a 'lite' version of this as standard for the game. 

 

Easily tested.  Max Zoom out will enable planes at huge distances to be seen as small specks. Then start to zoom in on them and they disappear.  If you try with icons on you'll notice that the icons will fade and disappear at long range... but the plane specks are still visible. Mmmm.

 

I think it works OK in WW2, but is inappropriate and unnecessary for WW1. 

[danielprates]

11 hours ago, Cybermat47 said:

 

All the sources I can find state that it was intended to fool enemy fighters into making head-on attacks.

 

It honestly makes sense. Being able to trick your enemy into choosing to attack your strongest point is a great tactic.

 

I doubt it paid off every time - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it rarely paid off - but as far as I can see, it was an idea that had more positives than negatives. 

 

Yeah for sure it can't be meant to fool recon planes, that at least is clearly not thr case.

 

All of the many ww2 examples of what a airplane decoy had to look like to fool a recon plane - and it wasnt much - will show that those ju88 fake noses are meant to fool somenone else.

 

In fact, I am eyeballing here, but it seems the fake noses are meant to looke like something apt of being mistaken by someone 1000, 2000ms next to it, judging from the level of detail - so, approaching planes most likelly. Otherwise the level of detail would make no sense. Also, the noses are painted all around (top, sides, bottom....), not something you would imagine meant to be seen by recon planes from above.

[LuftManu]

18 minutes ago, danielprates said:

 

Yeah for sure it can't be meant to fool recon planes, that at least is clearly not thr case.

 

All of the many ww2 examples of what a airplane decoy had to look like to fool a recon plane - and it wasnt much - will show that those ju88 fake noses are meant to fool somenone else.

 

In fact, I am eyeballing here, but it seems the fake noses are meant to looke like something apt of being mistaken by someone 1000, 2000ms next to it, judging from the level of detail - so, approaching planes most likelly. Otherwise the level of detail would make no sense. Also, the noses are painted all around (top, sides, bottom....), not something you would imagine meant to be seen by recon planes from above.

 

Gues it's still worth a try, huh? 

To be honest, if you see this shape of aircraft, you will try the safe approach which in this case can get you killed or damaged.

[AndyJWest]

I think many people misunderstand the purpose of camouflage. It isn't always possible to hide something entirely, but often just adding an element of doubt as to what is being looked at can give a tactical advantage. Consider the dazzle camouflage used on WWI warships - you can't really hide one, but painting it so it is less obvious exactly which way it is going may be all that is needed. Or again, consider the fake cockpits sometimes painted on the underside of modern fighters. Confuse the enemy, gain an advantage. I suspect the fake glazed noses on solid-nose Ju 88s were done in the same spirit. Paint is cheap...

 

Edit: I see LF_Gallahad has made the same point, while I was writing....

Edited February 20, 2022 by AndyJWest

[CountZero]

8 hours ago, Asgar said:

Bombload?

10xsc50 on ju88c6 as only load it have, 110 can take 12, and have more other options, so 110g2 is better option if hes after pure performance value

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

we got Dev pictures where the ingame 88C carries heavier bombs on wingbombracks. So it will be propably more than the internal 10x50kg bombs (instead of a fuel tank) possible in game.

 

See Dev Diary 293

Edited February 20, 2022 by III/JG53Frankyboy