Developer Diary, Part 74

[JG4_Sputnik]

I find it sad that this forum now has been saturated with FW-190 cockpit whines.

 

Not that I consider the cockpit perfect - far from, but IL-2 BOS is much more than just that dreaded FW+190 cockpit.

 

The dev's did respond and changed the cockpit, but nobody has said it would be the final change.

I´m sure the dev's will look further into it, but they also got higher goals to reach before release.

 

I hope that focus soon will shift back on actually flying and fighting, rather to keep bashing the same issue over and over again, filling this forum with all kind of sketches, photos etc. that literally does nothing to prove anything.

 

 

FinnJ

 

 

 

So why did they change the bars in the first place when "sketches, photos etc. that literally does nothing to prove anything."?

I would claim that most of the photos in fact did prove A LOT. If I were you, I would be glad that I can benefit from such knowlege as the comuity provides. It turns the "game" into a "Sim", it helps getting the product better and as realistic as possible. In fact it's "free" research work provided by the fans of the planes.

 

Of course, in the end its up to the devs what sources they believe in and what they do and what they don't. But as long as there are no charts shown on which the FM is based on (like they do for DCS), or it is simply said "we work on blueprints" but the cockpit doesn't look like on blueprints nor like on actual photos, well, the debate continious.

 

What annoyes me most is that some people consider this effort they benefit from as well as "whining". I'd suggest that if you (I don't mean you specificly) only post to this threat about the meta discussion and analyse how people interact to each other you'd better be posting nothing at all. Because then there's more space for research, comparison and hard facts.

No hard feelings,

cheers

Edited August 3, 2014 by JG4_Sputnik

[SCG_Neun]

The wonderful thing about all this.....is post 109FM/gunsite placement posts.....and there were hundreds.........the 190 has gotten extremely quick response and feedback from the Dev's.  That's a "huge" improvement in communication from them and we "founders".  I could be wrong....but I haven't seen anything from the Dev's denying the need for additional improvements, so maybe the posts would be better served in a specific 190 subject category and not in this one....where I like to visit and read the latest......on the sim as a whole....not just the 190, which even though it wasn't in the Battle of Stalingrad...I understand is a favorite plane for many here on the forum.....

[Leaf]

So why did they change the bars in the first place when "sketches, photos etc. that literally does nothing to prove anything."?

I would claim that most of the photos in fact did prove A LOT. If I were you, I would be glad that I can benefit from such knowlege as the comuity provides. It turns the "game" into a "Sim", it helps getting the product better and as realistic as possible. In fact it's "free" research work provided by the fans of the planes.

 

Of course, in the end its up to the devs what sources they believe in and what they do and what they don't. But as long as there are no charts shown on which the FM is based on (like they do for DCS), or it is simply said "we work on blueprints" but the cockpit doesn't look like on blueprints nor like on actual photos, well, the debate continious.

 

What annoyes me most is that some people consider this effort they benefit from as well as "whining". I'd suggest that if you (I don't mean you specificly) only post to this threat about the meta discussion and analyse how people interact to each other you'd better be posting nothing at all. Because then there's more space for research, comparison and hard facts.

No hard feelings,

cheers

 

I don't think that is what annoys people. It's that some give off a sense of entitlement. Along the lines of "how dare the devs release a non-final version of a plane when the game is not even finished yet?!" As if certain forum members somehow "deserve better". 

Free research for the devs is of course brilliant, but it's not like the FW 190 is the last thing that they have to do before release.

[Rama]

It turns the "game" into a "Sim"

No... maybe it helps the game to be better or the Sim to be better, but information given by the community doesn't "turn" a "game" into a "Sim".... developping a Sim instead of a simple game is dev choice only

 

 I'd suggest that if you (I don't mean you specificly) only post to this threat about the meta discussion and analyse how people interact to each other you'd better be posting nothing at all. Because then there's more space for research, comparison and hard facts.

I totally agree with this suggestion.... and I'd suggest that everybody, including you, follow this wise suggestion.

 

I don't think that is what annoys people. It's that some give off a sense of entitlement. Along the lines of "how dare the devs release a non-final version of a plane when the game is not even finished yet?!" As if certain forum members somehow "deserve better".

Criticizing other's members forum behavior don't help making these threads constructive.

[fjacobsen]

So why did they change the bars in the first place when "sketches, photos etc. that literally does nothing to prove anything."?

I would claim that most of the photos in fact did prove A LOT. If I were you, I would be glad that I can benefit from such knowlege as the comuity provides. It turns the "game" into a "Sim", it helps getting the product better and as realistic as possible. In fact it's "free" research work provided by the fans of the planes.

 

Of course, in the end its up to the devs what sources they believe in and what they do and what they don't. But as long as there are no charts shown on which the FM is based on (like they do for DCS), or it is simply said "we work on blueprints" but the cockpit doesn't look like on blueprints nor like on actual photos, well, the debate continious.

 

What annoyes me most is that some people consider this effort they benefit from as well as "whining". I'd suggest that if you (I don't mean you specificly) only post to this threat about the meta discussion and analyse how people interact to each other you'd better be posting nothing at all. Because then there's more space for research, comparison and hard facts.

No hard feelings,

cheers

 

The reason I was posting was not to tell who are wrong or who are right.

I simply find it to be sad that almost the only thing posted here the last 14 days are posts about the FW-190 cockpit.

 

The cockpit is most probably not right, but simply keep filling the forum with sketches, photos etc, does not make sense.

I´m sure that the devs are aware that they must look further into this issue, and I´m sure they will, so please give this issue a break and start debating other parts of the sim.

 

They allready did respond to community requests and therefore most probably also will on current issues.

 

We are now at 63%, so 37% still remains to get the rest done, if 1-2% is then spend to make the FW-190 cockpit right, then we all can be happy.

 

Look at it from the developers perspective...

They still have to finalise the HE-111, add single missions and a campaign, as well as adding all kind of additional vehicle and structure models and features.

 

 

FinnJ

[Rama]

I simply find it to be sad that almost the only thing posted here the last 14 days are posts about the FW-190 cockpit.

On another side, the FW-190 cockpit change is the principal novelty brought by the game version introduced by this thread.... so there's no wonders that most of the posts talk about it.

Whatever it make you sad or not, posters have the right to post about these issues, as long it's done factually and in a constructive way...

 

For the last time, please stop all criticizing each other's behaviors. this is what makes the discussions unreadable, start the disputes and derail the threads.

[Dakpilot]

The wonderful thing about all this.....is post 109FM/gunsite placement posts.....and there were hundreds.........the 190 has gotten extremely quick response and feedback from the Dev's.  That's a "huge" improvement in communication from them and we "founders".  I could be wrong....but I haven't seen anything from the Dev's denying the need for additional improvements, so maybe the posts would be better served in a specific 190 subject category and not in this one....where I like to visit and read the latest......on the sim as a whole....not just the 190, which even though it wasn't in the Battle of Stalingrad...I understand is a favorite plane for many here on the forum.....

 

Although the 190 is a main subject of this Dev update I have found it hard to keep up with all the useful posts and (some) opinions in all the various and repeated  190 topics, I can only imagine the work and (wasted) time for one of the devs to keep tabs on all that. I would second a dedicated FW190 thread and proper bug/suggestion reports....prob too late now

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JG4_Sputnik]

No... maybe it helps the game to be better or the Sim to be better, but information given by the community doesn't "turn" a "game" into a "Sim".... developping a Sim instead of a simple game is dev choice only

 

You are right, should have been: turns a Sim into a even more sophisticated Sim

 

 

 

We are now at 63%, so 37% still remains to get the rest done, if 1-2% is then spend to make the FW-190 cockpit right, then we all can be happy. Look at it from the developers perspective... They still have to finalise the HE-111, add single missions and a campaign, as well as adding all kind of additional vehicle and structure models and features.

 

All clear and part of me thinks the same way. BUT, the whole "the sim is just X %" arguments doesn't bring us much further imho because - either we do share our oppinions now or we don't.

 

AND the last timewe had such a heated debate about the Sim was when they released the Stalingrad City Map. Many people said "well the Sim is only 30%, so the city itself is also only 30%". But this is kind of a bit a short thinking, because the city didn't change radicaly since then which I had fully anticipated. The city is now how it is. This example shows that that major changes are much less likely to happen once a chunk of the Sim is established and "accepted" by the majority of the comunity.

 

Anyway I think I don't have much more to add to the FW190 cockpit discussion so I'm about to shut up now We well see how it turns out, I guess the devs have all the necessary material to do it right, and I know they are talented and wilingly enough, I will take a wait and see approach for a while.

Cheers

Edited August 3, 2014 by JG4_Sputnik

[I.JG420Felix]

I'm really starting to enjoy the game and the new features coming each week. The game also seems to be running much better since the last update (being one of those people with the 6970 gpu). Yes, the pit of the 190 needs work but please remember all the things the team has got right. 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Sorry if my written english was bad, but Dakpilot's pic proved the point. A quick and dirty hack'n'slash job. Original problem were not the side windows and their struts but the front. Reducing the sides and adding it to middle does not fix the issue of the windscreen and the sight being too high. Sure a week is too short time to fix a thing like this so let's see what happens in the future.

Edited August 3, 2014 by LLv34_Flanker

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Well id like to take a moment and thank 777 for connecting the wiring from the fuel gauge to the fuel tanks! For the first time i referenced fuel in a measure of Liters as opposed to a percentage. Very much added to the realism.

 

Can anyone answer, did they ever reference the fuel in pounds or kilograms per hour? When did that start taking place?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I've seen German reports on their engines telling consumption in litres per hour. Should have a button on Fw190A to tell how much fuel you have left in Front/Rear tanks. There is also the switch for selecting either one. Still happy if the fuel economy on planes is correct, not some "priuslike"

[71st_AH_Hooves]

S!

 

 I've seen German reports on their engines telling consumption in litres per hour. Should have a button on Fw190A to tell how much fuel you have left in Front/Rear tanks. There is also the switch for selecting either one. Still happy if the fuel economy on planes is correct, not some "priuslike"

Are you insinuating that BoS furl burn rates are incorrect?

I haven't experienced that. When friends and i go up on a sortie we are often gauging fuel weight vs time available for CAP. Many times we are "Bingo" before we know it.

 

That is purely an experience, no matter of fact burn rate info. Does anyone have those numbers laying around in a book somewhere?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Not saying anything. There is plenty of pilot manuals that state the correct values, so should be easy to test. 

[Uufflakke]

That is purely an experience, no matter of fact burn rate info. Does anyone have those numbers laying around in a book somewhere?

 

Height and speed in relation to fuel consumption of the Fw-190 A-3:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-a3-glctt-30july42.pdf

 

It is all in German by the way.

Höhe = Height

Kraftstoffverbrauch = Fuel consumption

 

And here info of the Fw-190 A-8 (in English)

http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf

(page 122 and further)

[Han]

It's compromise. REVI on it's natural high will provide line of sight which will be on the level of plane nose cowling - there will be no any visibility to forward-down.

 

IRL due to prism optical effect REVI line of sight was rised to level which you have now in the sim. To provide it without prism effect we have rised the REVI body.

 

We have had a choise - realistic visibility of the targets or realistic visibility of the gauges.

In first attempt we have tryed second one. But it was near unplayable. So we have decided to turn to realistic targets visibility.

 

There is no solution now to have both things 100% realistic. So, we have done our choise. Release will show how our choise match with customers expectations.

[LuftManu]

Thanks for all of your efforts Han and Dev team

[=38=Tatarenko]

Han please could you raise the La-5 sight a bit too? That would be great.

[MACADEMIC]

Han, 

 

What are the chances that a real time refraction shader can be added to the game engine some time in the future?

 

MAC

[Han]

Han,

 

What are the chances that a real time refraction shader can be added to the game engine some time in the future?

 

MAC

It's second real time full-scale render, it will drop performance twice or more.

Possibility is near to zero.

Han please could you raise the La-5 sight a bit too? That would be great.

Our data shows that we have correct position of the sight in La-5 now.

[=38=Tatarenko]

OK I respect that.

[sallee]

Thanks for the feedback, Han.

The size of the file means nothing!

The following two images are both 159Kb





Using the size of the files as evidence displays a distinct lack of understanding.

So that cat is really huge, right? Or is it a big picture of a small cat?

[JG4_Sputnik]

Thanks for the feedback, even though I would be happyer if you had 'simulated' refraction or prism effect by changing the 3D model rather than by putting the REVI higher.

 

But I your statement is well appreciated and helps us to understand the design decision of the team.

Cheers and salute!

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Right. Let's see what future brings then.

[Mac_Messer]

So if the Focke Wulf is not correct, I wager it gets discounted until it is?

[widgeon]

 

 

RL due to prism optical effect REVI line of sight was rised to level which you have now in the sim. To provide it without prism effect we have rised the REVI body.

 

 

Thanks for the information, and your thoughts on the matter.

 

In terms of a the compromise, what prevents the following approach?....

 

Keep the Revi in its normal position, and simulate the prism (refraction) effect by narrowing the lower frame of the armor glass?

This way the pilot's view of the instrument panel would improve.

[Jaws2002]

It's compromise. REVI on it's natural high will provide line of sight which will be on the level of plane nose cowling - there will be no any visibility to forward-down.

IRL due to prism optical effect REVI line of sight was rised to level which you have now in the sim. To provide it without prism effect we have rised the REVI body.

We have had a choise - realistic visibility of the targets or realistic visibility of the gauges.

In first attempt we have tryed second one. But it was near unplayable. So we have decided to turn to realistic targets visibility.

There is no solution now to have both things 100% realistic. So, we have done our choise. Release will show how our choise match with customers expectations.

But it can be done right. It was done right before in games and even free mods:

[Rama]

Keep the Revi in its normal position, and simulate the prism (refraction) effect by narrowing the lower frame of the armor glass?

If I read Han correctly, narrowing the lower frame of the armor glass will not change the obstruction of the nose cowling on the LOS and the lack of forward-down visibility.

Only refraction will (with "normal" position), and refraction isn't modelled.

[LizLemon]

If I read Han correctly, narrowing the lower frame of the armor glass will not change the obstruction of the nose cowling on the LOS and the lack of forward-down visibility.

Only refraction will (with "normal" position), and refraction isn't modelled.

 

But lowering the frame will definitely look better then what we have now, as well as making it possible for the revi to be in its correct position. This is the best option if they can't use a refraction shader on the windscreen. 

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Thanks for the words Han. After release, if there is a large negative reaction to the 190 (or any aircraft for that matter) is the team open to adjustments of the model? Ihope you can lower the Revi slightly as any lower pov helps view the bottom dashboard.

 

Cheers! You are doing great work!

Edited August 3, 2014 by =SE=Hooves

[Rama]

But lowering the frame will definitely look better then what we have now, as well as making it possible for the revi to be in its correct position.

"Look better" maybe, but "making it possible for the revi to be in its correct position", no.... read Han again:

 

REVI on it's natural high will provide line of sight which will be on the level of plane nose cowling - there will be no any visibility to forward-down.

 

As I see it, the only thing that would make the Revi position "look better" and at the same time allows forward-down visibility would be to place the upper instrument panel and the protective bead higher in the cockpit... and this would be a big change in the cockpit 3D model.

[Gambit21]

It's compromise. REVI on it's natural high will provide line of sight which will be on the level of plane nose cowling - there will be no any visibility to forward-down.

 

IRL due to prism optical effect REVI line of sight was rised to level which you have now in the sim. To provide it without prism effect we have rised the REVI body.

 

We have had a choise - realistic visibility of the targets or realistic visibility of the gauges.

In first attempt we have tryed second one. But it was near unplayable. So we have decided to turn to realistic targets visibility.

 

There is no solution now to have both things 100% realistic. So, we have done our choise. Release will show how our choise match with customers expectations.

Thank you for taking the time to respond here.

Cheers

[ShamrockOneFive]

Loving the external view of the He111. I've slowly become more of a ground pounder and I look forward to spending some more time with the Pe-2 and He111. Should be fun to have both of these aircraft in the finish product with lots of interesting targets to attack hopefully.

[LastRightsXIII]

 

 

As I see it, the only thing that would make the Revi position "look better" and at the same time allows forward-down visibility would be to place the upper instrument panel and the protective bead higher in the cockpit... and this would be a big change in the cockpit 3D model.

 

 

Yes.

That is the impression  I've had since the release of the 190.

[pilotpierre]

Thanks for keeping us informed Zac. At least we know you are trying to accommodate the forums wishes.

[SeriousFox]

Dev said it's a compromise for the forward visibility because BoS's default view is a same height as Revi sight.

How about make default view just like the one from other sims, and add a key for snap view for 'aim down sight' ??

 

I think that's a proper solution rather than a compromising things which probably cause more debate when the game actually releases and more players starts to play this game. (I can assure that lots of people won't like the product they get for $20)

[LastRightsXIII]

Would this work properly with head track ?

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Height and speed in relation to fuel consumption of the Fw-190 A-3:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-a3-glctt-30july42.pdf

 

It is all in German by the way.

Höhe = Height

Kraftstoffverbrauch = Fuel consumption

 

And here info of the Fw-190 A-8 (in English)

http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/Manual-FW190a8.pdf

(page 122 and further)

ty fir this info, ill see if google can help translate.

[Matt]

The lower instrument panel can only been seen properly if you move the head almost all the way back and all the way down. Regardless of what the position of the Revi (which for me was never a real issue, same for the horizontal bar) and the default viewpoint is, i just don't think the lower panel is in the correct position. I think the gap between the lower and upper panel is too small, but it's tough to judge from the current cockpit view. It might be easier to check this, when we get access to the model viewer (assuming that it still works like that one from RoF).

 

Also at least the size of the vertical struts could still be adjusted without causing a problem to other parts of the cockpit and without the need to actually model refraction.

[Rama]

Dev said it's a compromise for the forward visibility because BoS's default view is a same height as Revi sight.

No, this isn't what they said.

The default view can be adjusted by the player so isn't a problem in itself.

 

The problem is (whatever the pilot head position) that, because of the lack of refraction, the "normal" position of the Revi doesn't allow to follow a target below the horizon ("forward down"), so to summerize:

- "Normal" position of the Revi + refraction would work (but refraction isn't modelled, so it doesn't work).

- Actual position of the Revi without refraction do the job.

 

is it more clear?