Developer Diary 328 - Discussion

[CountZero]

33 minutes ago, 616Sqn_Tyggz said:

...
Lastly, the Churchill tank must be given the option to be equipped with Western front ammunition that saw use right up until the end of the war. HE, APCBC and APDS.  The Churchill had a considerable presence in North West Europe, leaving us with a "Soviet only" version will severely crush its mission design potential... Especially considering the highly anticipated Normandy map and the Churchills important role in that region.



I had hoped to make a Churchill IV campaign on the Rhineland map, but I fear that'll have to get canned now.

Well then you would have to give all other tanks that you can use in Normandy map their correct ammo till end of war, modifications, and skins/camuflages they didnt use in BoP but used in west front... SO you either spend development time to give every tank same , favor one tank only or do as its done, make tanks how they were for BoP only, keeping it fair. They said two collector tanks were selected to be this two because they fit BoP , not any other air map in game, they have to fit tank map and SP for it, so its normal that they dont have ammo or guns that didnt exist in that battle, if there was no limit that tank have to be BoP timeline tank, then im sure we would be getting mutch better tank then slow and undergun churchill will be.

4 hours ago, Deacon352nd said:

While I’d like to see more tank types developed, I have to wonder why all the efforts were placed to introduce a tank of which 235 were placed in the USSR’s hands while there thousands of B17’s in the war but nothing is done to include these planes either as AI’s or human piloted. 

There was 12k+ F6Fs build and yet we aint gona see one here, but we got bubble spit xiv, its just not fair ?

 

[Lofte]

1 hour ago, 616Sqn_Tyggz said:

They were only widely used in North Africa; anywhere else and it's a very rare thing to see. (Including in the Soviet Union)

Rear fuel tank, Eastern Front

[616Sqn_Tyggz]

14 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Well then you would have to give all other tanks that you can use in Normandy map their correct ammo till end of war, modifications, and skins/camuflages they didnt use in BoP but used in west front... SO you either spend development time to give every tank same , favor one tank only or do as its done, make tanks how they were for BoP only, keeping it fair. They said two collector tanks were selected to be this two because they fit BoP , not any other air map in game, they have to fit tank map and SP for it, so its normal that they dont have ammo or guns that didnt exist in that battle, if there was no limit that tank have to be BoP timeline tank, then im sure we would be getting mutch better tank then slow and undergun churchill will be.

This argument is flawed and essentially asking for the devs to do the bare minimum and never expand beyond that. Should 1C not have made the Churchills smoke mortar functional just because the other tanks don't have working smoke launchers? Definitely not.

A great mistake was made when they produced their Spitfire Vb and P-40 E which were limited to only what the Soviets fielded them with. This mistake was learned from and not made with the Hurricane II as it rightly features modifications used by both the Brits and Soviets.

While it would be ideal if the tanks got ALL of their modifications, paint schemes and ammunition, the truth is most of our current tanks are fairly representative as they are. The Churchill, if released with just one shell type wouldn't be faithful at all to the enourmous breadth of service they saw. I'm not asking for the 3D model to be changed or for any technical modifications which may change its functionality. Just extra shell types.

Server owners would be able to limit the shell types the Churchill can use on the incredibly popular Prokhorovka missions.

P.S

Churchills and Shermans WITHOUT welded tracks and appliqué armour in Northwest Europe were the minority. But I'm being realistic here, extra shells shouldn't be anywhere near as hard to implement.



 

 

1 minute ago, Lofte said:

Rear fuel tank, Eastern Front

Cheers, Lofte. I've also got this photo, but what I'm saying is the majority of Churchills DON'T have the extra fuel tank. So can it please be an optional mod?

[migmadmarine]

2 hours ago, Lord_Strange said:

From the dev diary we are discussing:

 

The only type of cannon shell featured a fairly high armor penetration. However, it was solid, i.e. did not feature a bursting charge, and this significantly reduced its after-penetration effect. Also, the lack of high-explosive fragmentation shells in the ammunition load was reducing the range of tasks carried out by the tank.

 

Yes, no HE or APHE is limiting, but it is historically accurate. From the sounds of it, the Soviets weren't happy about this either.

Hang on, that could be no HE frag only, not fully precluding high explosive. Though then again I recall no-HE of any sort being a thing for Matilda II's 2pdr, so no EH could well be the case.

[[SN]_Reaper_]

6 часов назад, Mm1ut1 сказал:

Could you post a picture of the view through the gunner’s sight ? Magnifying power ?

 

Sight should be No.39 Mk IV with 3x magnification and 13° field of view

 

http://wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=119:british-sighting-telescopes&catid=49:other-data&Itemid=61

[CountZero]

7 hours ago, 616Sqn_Tyggz said:

This argument is flawed and essentially asking for the devs to do the bare minimum and never expand beyond that. Should 1C not have made the Churchills smoke mortar functional just because the other tanks don't have working smoke launchers? Definitely not.

A great mistake was made when they produced their Spitfire Vb and P-40 E which were limited to only what the Soviets fielded them with. This mistake was learned from and not made with the Hurricane II as it rightly features modifications used by both the Brits and Soviets.

While it would be ideal if the tanks got ALL of their modifications, paint schemes and ammunition, the truth is most of our current tanks are fairly representative as they are. The Churchill, if released with just one shell type wouldn't be faithful at all to the enourmous breadth of service they saw. I'm not asking for the 3D model to be changed or for any technical modifications which may change its functionality. Just extra shell types.

Server owners would be able to limit the shell types the Churchill can use on the incredibly popular Prokhorovka missions.

P.S

Churchills and Shermans WITHOUT welded tracks and appliqué armour in Northwest Europe were the minority. But I'm being realistic here, extra shells shouldn't be anywhere near as hard to implement.



 

 

Cheers, Lofte. I've also got this photo, but what I'm saying is the majority of Churchills DON'T have the extra fuel tank. So can it please be an optional mod?

And to me your argumants are flawed, and mess with no clear rules with modifications on airplane side shows it. Some airplanes get modifications they didnt use more then 1-2 times, while others dont get comon modifications just because it dont fit area or what not, there is no clear rule exept that some airplanes have to have mods only used in that dlc while others can have what ever if it looks cool, its just favoratisam...

 

If tank is selected because it can only be tank that fit BoP, then it should have things that it used in BoP, and not things it used in africa italy or france. If historical accuracy didnt mather for tank choice , then why even select poor tank like churchill, why not add pershing or IS-2 and so on... its just collector tank, mission maker can select to use it or not... why sherman dont have 76mm or t-34 85mm guns, and why axis tanks dont have more green como by default, and so on...

[PatrickAWlson]

A request as Normandy goes through beta test - can people please try AI led takeoffs from different airfields?  The are an ungodly number of fields where the AI flies into trees or a hill, spins in winter, or does weird things like jostling for position when they are already lined up on the runway.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Might simply be a matter of data and actual series of machine available to them at their location.  Russian team, Russian series tank in the museum, Red Army documents....

[moustache]

12 hours ago, 616Sqn_Tyggz said:

This argument is flawed and essentially asking for the devs to do the bare minimum and never expand beyond that. Should 1C not have made the Churchills smoke mortar functional just because the other tanks don't have working smoke launchers? Definitely not.

A great mistake was made when they produced their Spitfire Vb and P-40 E which were limited to only what the Soviets fielded them with. This mistake was learned from and not made with the Hurricane II as it rightly features modifications used by both the Brits and Soviets.

While it would be ideal if the tanks got ALL of their modifications, paint schemes and ammunition, the truth is most of our current tanks are fairly representative as they are. The Churchill, if released with just one shell type wouldn't be faithful at all to the enourmous breadth of service they saw. I'm not asking for the 3D model to be changed or for any technical modifications which may change its functionality. Just extra shell types.

Server owners would be able to limit the shell types the Churchill can use on the incredibly popular Prokhorovka missions.

P.S

Churchills and Shermans WITHOUT welded tracks and appliqué armour in Northwest Europe were the minority. But I'm being realistic here, extra shells shouldn't be anywhere near as hard to implement.



 

I am for this idea (if the translator has done his job well and I have understood correctly...): as well take out the tanks with all their modifications and leave it to the server manager or the modders to adapt then according to the need for balance or historical realism!

it would be great if the additional armor was integrated into the game (this is already the case with the tiger and the PzIV...)

 

 

10 hours ago, dragon_7611 said:

16 hours ago, Mm1ut1 said:

Could you post a picture of the view through the gunner’s sight ? Magnifying power ?

 

Sight should be No.39 Mk IV with 3x magnification and 13° field of view

 

http://wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=119:british-sighting-telescopes&catid=49:other-data&Itemid=61

the game is expected to respect historical magnification and remove zoom?
do you know if the Russians kept the original optics ("in English"...), or if they developed their own optics for this tank?

[[SN]_Reaper_]

2 часа назад, moustache сказал:

the game is expected to respect historical magnification and remove zoom?
do you know if the Russians kept the original optics ("in English"...), or if they developed their own optics for this tank?

 

I wish they would have removed the zoom in the sights and left the fixed magnification. After all, binoculars do that. Why not fix the sights.

 

On the second question. As far as I know the sights used in the equipment supplied under the Lend-Lease Agreement were original.

 

The USSR experimented with replacing the Matilda gun with the F-34 system, in which case a Soviet TMFD (ТМФД) sight was put in. There was no point in developing a new sight for Western guns.

[moustache]

50 minutes ago, dragon_7611 said:

I wish they would have removed the zoom in the sights and left the fixed magnification. After all, binoculars do that. Why not fix the sights.

that would be cool, but it would then also be necessary to remove the reinitialization of sights when changing positions, because for the moment, it is impossible to confirm a shot by switching to the commander...

[Ptolemy_Soter]

I have a technical question here.

Why tanks are better modeled than aircrafts ? (higher poly count for tanks, shapes are more realistic)

Tank Crew is just another module in the Great Battle series.

I assume it to be done by the same team with the same tools they use since Battle of Stalingrad.

 

So why the same level of model quality cannot be used on both tanks and aircrafts ?

[IckyATLAS]

26 minutes ago, Ptolemy_Soter said:

I have a technical question here.

Why tanks are better modeled than aircrafts ? (higher poly count for tanks, shapes are more realistic)

Tank Crew is just another module in the Great Battle series.

I assume it to be done by the same team with the same tools they use since Battle of Stalingrad.

 

So why the same level of model quality cannot be used on both tanks and aircrafts ?

If what you say is true in terms of poly-counts it is not the only element and by far that can contribute to the global visual quality.

On what base you say that the shapes are more realistic with Tanks than with planes? Can you elaborate please.

Regarding tanks and planes there is an element that contributes to high poly-count needed for tanks and that is the surfaces.

The planes have large surfaces and shapes that even if not flat are much less convoluted than those of a tank shape and the turret with all the details like the multiple wheels and the detailed tracks. Turrets and the main and smaller gun are more detailed probably and all this increases the poly budget. There is also the fact that the tank battles are on a lower speed and distance than planes so the details are seen nearer. But again this has nothing to do with correct shapes.

Edited August 28, 2022 by IckyATLAS

[Spinnetti]

On 8/27/2022 at 7:58 AM, Deacon352nd said:

While I’d like to see more tank types developed, I have to wonder why all the efforts were placed to introduce a tank of which 235 were placed in the USSR’s hands while there thousands of B17’s in the war but nothing is done to include these planes either as AI’s or human piloted. 

Because the people doing the tanks are different than those doing the airplanes and apparently can't swap them and they have capacity to work on some tanks... so better new tanks than nothing! I still want the Hetzer and Jagdpanther!

[Avimimus]

7 hours ago, moustache said:

that would be cool, but it would then also be necessary to remove the reinitialization of sights when changing positions, because for the moment, it is impossible to confirm a shot by switching to the commander...

 

Alternatively they could expand the amount of communication between crew... e.g. the commander signalling a hit or providing a correction.

 

I find that I'm often quite vulnerable when I'm in the gunner seat because the AI commander doesn't tell me if he spots enemy armour

 

I think this is one area where gameplay could be significantly improved - better modelling of spotting difficulties for enemy tanks (a bit similar to what DCS has done - i.e. having the AI scan different areas at different times, and have probabilities of missing something based on range and time of day) - while also having AI crew communicate more information to the player about what they are seeing.

 

IMHO, it'd remove a lot of frustration (especially for beginner tankers).

 

 

  

8 minutes ago, Spinnetti said:

Because the people doing the tanks are different than those doing the airplanes and apparently can't swap them and they have capacity to work on some tanks... so better new tanks than nothing! I still want the Hetzer and Jagdpanther!

 

Indeed the 3d models are done by a third party...

 

Also, I agree that the casemate tanks are cool. I'd really enjoy either of those. Hopefully the StuG sells well enough to cause them to decide to give us one of them.

[[CPT]Crunch]

1 hour ago, Ptolemy_Soter said:

I have a technical question here.

Why tanks are better modeled than aircrafts ? (higher poly count for tanks, shapes are more realistic)

Tank Crew is just another module in the Great Battle series.

I assume it to be done by the same team with the same tools they use since Battle of Stalingrad.

 

So why the same level of model quality cannot be used on both tanks and aircrafts ?

Because an airplane moves through the map faster with a far greater number of objects and graphics loading entering the active computation and rendering zone, far heavier loading on CPU and GPU flying a plane than driving a vehicle where the scene and map change very slow and steady.

[LukeFF]

48 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Because an airplane moves through the map faster with a far greater number of objects and graphics loading entering the active computation and rendering zone, far heavier loading on CPU and GPU flying a plane than driving a vehicle where the scene and map change very slow and steady.

 

It's more to do with the fact that computer processing power has improved dramatically, so that's allowed models with better/increased detail in recent years. Compare, for instance, the Yak-1 cockpit versus the Yak-9, or the Fw 190 A-3 vs the D-9. 

[Gambit21]

Luke is correct.

 

Computer processing power has increased to the point where we shouldn’t be noticing polys anywhere unless you zoom way in and look very closely. Poly (or more correctly vertex) count isn’t the thing that it used to be.

 

They’ve increased the mesh quality with every release. Maybe not to the extent that our computers allow - but the change is very noticeable.

 

 

 

 

 

[Avimimus]

The older aircraft still look really good though - and even better with the 4k texture overhaul that community members contributed to.

[Freycinet]

When you look at the interior of one of the tanks in-game you are not seeing the exterior, or you only see a very small slice of it. When you fly a plane in-game you see the cockpit and huge exterior views at the same time, so the computer processing needs are much bigger. 

[BOO]

9 hours ago, Freycinet said:

When you look at the interior of one of the tanks in-game you are not seeing the exterior, or you only see a very small slice of it. When you fly a plane in-game you see the cockpit and huge exterior views at the same time, so the computer processing needs are much bigger. 

.....unless youre in Ju88 when you can see bugger all but engines ?

[Noisemaker]

10 hours ago, BOO said:

.....unless youre in Ju88 when you can see bugger all but engines ?

Mosquito somewhat the same...

 

[senseispcc]

I am very happy to see that the game is going forwards and I hope nearly reaching it completion stag, or am I to optimistic? Nearly, does not mean next week or next month but hope does live longer and I hope to live a very long life and enjoy the game for a very long time! Thanks to all the teams that produce this wonderful simulation! 

[GasTeddy]

On 8/27/2022 at 1:01 PM, Vortice said:

If it's a Churchill you can run it on pure alcohol and it will work just fine.

 

Just like the person from who it got its name...   

[moustache]

since there is no announcement on this threat from the developers does anyone know if the smoke bombs will be added to all the tanks (smoke pot for the tiger and the PzIII and smoke shells for the sherman)? at least for the multi solo will see when we see ...

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

2 hours ago, moustache said:

dado que no hay ningún anuncio sobre esta amenaza por parte de los desarrolladores, ¿alguien sabe si las bombas de humo se agregarán a todos los tanques (olla de humo para el tigre y el PzIII y proyectiles de humo para el sherman)? al menos para el multi solo veremos cuando lo veamos...

[giullep]

no news...good news

Edited September 4, 2022 by giullep

[moustache]

7 minutes ago, giullep said:

no news...good news

not here...

 

[ZachariasX]

I have some screenshots, as the AI interpteted: "IL2 battle of normandy released in 2 weeks."

 

DALL-E:

 

pixray:

 

NightCafé:

 

I must say, the AI has a bloody good understanding of software that is being scheduled for release in two weeks time. Then again, it takes one to know one.

[jollyjack]

On 9/4/2022 at 10:50 AM, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

dado que no hay ningún anuncio sobre esta amenaza por parte de los desarrolladores, ¿alguien sabe si las bombas de humo se agregarán a todos los tanques (olla de humo para el tigre y el PzIII y proyectiles de humo para el sherman)? al menos para el multi solo veremos cuando lo veamos...

 

¿Qué?

Edited September 7, 2022 by jollyjack

[Regingrave-]

28.08.2022 в 05:14, PatrickAWlson сказал:

A request as Normandy goes through beta test - can people please try AI led takeoffs from different airfields?  The are an ungodly number of fields where the AI flies into trees or a hill, spins in winter, or does weird things like jostling for position when they are already lined up on the runway.

It's physically impossible to test every one of hundreds of airfields with every one of dozens of planes that are in the game, not to mention it will be a colossal waste of time we would use to test much more important things. So if there's a problem with a particular aircraft on a particular airfield, it's better to report it.

 

Also note that, just like in real life, not every airfield can be used by every plane, some planes, like Arado or heavily loaded Me-410, are supposed to take off from long concrete strips, not from some grass field, and there's no wonder that they won't do that.

Planes not able to take off from the airstrip are to be considered an issue only if they're supposed to take off from this particular strip, like in the Career mode, where squadrons are bound to their historic airfields.