Developer Diary, Part 74

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 If you look at the pic below it seems the lower instrument panel is quite a bit lower than in game. The gap is bigger etc.

[Panzerlang]

Let's, for a moment, forget about the refraction and the position of the Revi. It seems to me that we should be able to both clearly see the lower instrument panel and thin canopy struts when the pilot's eye-line is level with the top of the padded coaming.

 

But the Revi has to sit higher to take account of the lack of refraction, necessitating a higher pilot eye-line, which in turn causes the lower instrument panel to be slightly obscured.

 

Regardless of all of that, the canopy struts could be made thinner (simulating refraction).

 

To fix the issue with the lower instrument panel it would have to be brought closer to the pilot's knees.

 

I'm thinking the struts can be easily done but shifting the instrument panel would be a major ball-ache.

 

Personally I'm unable to duck my head low enough to see the panel but that might be my Track IR needing a jiggling in the profile, though it seems the game's code doesn't allow the pilot's head to duck that low.

 

I would ask that the struts be made thinner, the Revi stays where it is and the instrument panel stays as it is. The dials can be read, with difficulty (in my case at least), but I do consider the struts to be a significant issue in combat which needs to be addressed.

[=38=Tatarenko]

You prob know this but there is an instrument panel view key at KP. (or KP, on the continent). It helps with compasses and similar.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Need to map it to my HOTAS. Still waiting for OR, so no TIR in inventory..

[Dakpilot]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8477-fw190-new-update-superb/?p=143420

 

Pic of Revi in high position and of panel gap

 

For those having trouble seeing lower instruments use default "view instrument" snap view on numpad of keyboard, for convenience map to button, this is easier than looking at panel in R/L but is good compromise to take into account lack of peripheral vision at realistic FOV in game

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Han]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/8477-fw190-new-update-superb/?p=143420

 

Pic of Revi in high position

I've supposed that REVI vertical position was adjustible, now looks like I was right.

So, our compromise REVI position even not unrealistic, it is just unusual.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Maybe the revi mount isn't unrealistic but the lower frontal bar that forces us to aim with it the way it offset is.

 

I've flown it extensively in MP yesterday and find it extremely difficlt to shoot at delfections higher than 20° due to the bar obscuring my line of sight to the enemy aircraft. I just hope you consider polishing it slightly further till release.

Edited August 4, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[Panzerlang]

Until/unless it's fixed, and you can't enjoy it the way it is, avoid using it. There are two good 109s available (assuming their cranky FMs are sorted by release. And even if not they're still viable planes).

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Oh it's not like I'm not enjoying it - the FM is very enjoyable to me so is the overall detailing of the aircraft - it's just this small thing hindering the fun somewhat. Even though I'm more a 109 guy I feel like the 190 has it's charme and deserves to be used at it's best.

 

It's not to me to ask for this change, it's up to the comunity. Let's don't forget this plane is infact premium content and meant to please it's customers to encourage them buying it.

 

Just my 2ct.

Edited August 4, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuka

[Mick]

... these are the views I get in my IL2-1946 game, FW190 A3, modded by Claymore, if this helps ...

 

 

 

 

 

[Panzerlang]

Is that 1946 lower panel 3D or 2D?

[T_Rod]

... these are the views I get in my IL2-1946 game, FW190 A3, modded by Claymore, if this helps ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why the devs cant do something like this?

[Mick]

... well since it is stock cockpit, first repainted by Capt Flushmeister (aka John Wallin) then repainted and modded by Claymore, I suppose it is 2 D ...

[Livai]

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.

 

If you or the Team tested both choise

 

1. realistic visibility of the gauges

2. realistic visibility of the targets

 

can you post a Screenshot or Video? 

 

Because there are maybe some out there who like to see what you mean with " But it was near unplayable ".  I is hard to believe how unplayable would look like if I dont see it?  Since it is a Premium Plane.

 

If I can get both 100% realistic I would choise realistic visibility of the targets, too 

[hotRodRoach]

Han,

Thank you very much for taking the time out of what I am sure is an massively busy work schedule right now. It is certainly very much appreciated!

 

Perhaps though, in keeping with Superghostboy's "hard to believe ... if I don't see it" , I should respond to nothing; since if any of you do not show up in person at my door with proper ID, I should not believe any of you are real

[Livai]

Perhaps though, in keeping with Superghostboy's "hard to believe ... if I don't see it" , I should respond to nothing; since if any of you do not show up in person at my door with proper ID, I should not believe any of you are real

 

Our Money is real that we spend for and hope for............................

 

" But it was near unplayable " is like the game would run 30 fps than with 60 fps if you understand what I mean. There is still hope to get both things 100% realistic.

 

I need to see it to understand what he mean with " But it was near unplayable ".  Dont forget it is a 19.99$ Premium Plane.

[Rama]

Removed some useless dispute...

 

Next post using provocation, sarcasm, personal argument or foul language will grant his author some rest period

[Revvin]

Why the devs cant do something like this?

 

Because its less historically correct than what we have now? In my opinion the sides are far too open in the IL-2 pit that was posted

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Because its less historically correct than what we have now? In my opinion the sides are far too open in the IL-2 pit that was posted

But I showed you several pictures, which got deleted, that this is not true. Hell, even the "Bug-fix" in this update, made the side windows bigger in BoS.

[Brano]

IL2 1946 with Mods as reference?This is what we call ''historical accuracy'' nowdays?

[Bussard_x]

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.

I think the revi it is not the problem, it's the front panel including the leather frame that is placed too low. If this is redesigned higher the lower panel becomes visible. Should be doable I think.

[Mick]

IL2 1946 with Mods as reference?This is what we call ''historical accuracy'' nowdays?

 

... I never wrote anything about "historical accuracy" regarding the IL2-1946 FW190 A3 screenies I posted ...

 

If you want to watch anything related to "historical accuracy" regarding cockpits (the Bf109 E3 cockpit is still WIP, the oxygen is missing for ex), just watch this, based on an heavily modded  IL2-1946 though ...

 

[BlackDevil]

 

New issue (at least for me) Contrail inception is 4500 meters now.  Should be 6800 - 7000 meters.

Says who ? Give us a layer analysis of Stalingrad 42 at a specific date, and we can discuss your point.

[smink1701]

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.

And there you have it.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Guys, this topic is not to discuss the differences you may see between diferent sims. Please use the right topics and section for that. All off-topic posts has been deleted.

[Dakpilot]

" Dont forget it is a 19.99$ Premium Plane."

 

Just got back from a nice breakfast , was it premium? still debating, the eggs benedict were a touch underdone for my liking and the ham was definitely not premium, it was however quite edible and I don't feel ripped off. 

 

It did cost slightly more than $20 and I did not complain  whether I will still be flying it in a few years is debatable though......

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SeriousFox]

I miss the days we used to buy full game with just $30...

[sallee]

It's like a sort of continuous loop, isn't it!

[Leaf]

I miss the days we used to buy full game with just $30...

 

And I'm sure the devs miss the days when that method was still profitable.

[CreepiJim]

Back in the good old days, games were made and finished, then released to the public with demos available. Then there was a time when games were developed to alpha/beta stages with testers under NDA before the release version was sold to the public. Nowadays games are funded before the development even starts and the expectations grow with the development stages. You can play these games before release as early access.

 

Even AAA titles going through public "beta" stages were released as such with massive issues. Now that should tell you something about actual play testing and the ability/will to actually make these changes. I know several games that were released as a beta to fund the game instead of fixing bugs. The lack of testing procedures, reporting tools and change logs should be a sign of an actual development stage or just fund raising period.

 

From a developer perspective they'd like us to pay and not play until the project is complete. Bad enough that these backers have their own opinions and are trying to influence the game to fit their needs. In the first early access stage, the website stated the EA is to "make this game better"...of course they dropped this sentence after the first outcry after the developers decided to actually talk to their english community and tell the shocked fans that BoS is not what many had hoped, which is good on one hand, so we know what we end up with and bad, as many dropped the project right there. The target audience is not on this forum as clearly stated. We are just the guys paying for someone elses game.

[=38=Tatarenko]

Nonsense. I'm paying for my game and I love it. I'm paying for the best IL-2 model (incl physical model, flight model etc) that there has ever been. Then I'm paying for the amazing environment. I've walked through Stalingrad and can recognise a huge stack of places from the map. Plus other areas - for example the way the Don slopes are on the western banks at Kalach. I like the way the clouds work too.

 

I'll give you an example how good Stalingrad is. When the map was first released, I said to the Devs, that open ground between Tsentralniy and Voroshilovskiy Raions is actually a wide valley. Here is a photo of it. Next week it was a valley in the game. I had one other issue on the map. Next week it was fixed too (I'm sure it was already on the list and just needed the 3D object).

 

By the time it is released I will have got what I paid for. Will it be perfect and 100% to my tastes? No. Because we all have different tastes.

 

But I'm very confident it will be the best environment for flying an IL-2 you could have. And actually for all the other planes too, whatever your tastes. I certainly didn't pay for anyone else's game, I'm happy with this one.

[sallee]

Nonsense. I'm paying for my game and I love it. I'm paying for the best IL-2 model (incl physical model, flight model etc) that there has ever been. Then I'm paying for the amazing environment. I've walked through Stalingrad and can recognise a huge stack of places from the map. Plus other areas - for example the way the Don slopes are on the western banks at Kalach. I like the way the clouds work too.

 

I'll give you an example how good Stalingrad is. When the map was first released, I said to the Devs, that open ground between Tsentralniy and Voroshilovskiy Raions is actually a wide valley. Here is a photo of it. Next week it was a valley in the game. I had one other issue on the map. Next week it was fixed too (I'm sure it was already on the list and just needed the 3D object).

 

By the time it is released I will have got what I paid for. Will it be perfect and 100% to my tastes? No. Because we all have different tastes.

 

But I'm very confident it will be the best environment for flying an IL-2 you could have. And actually for all the other planes too, whatever your tastes. I certainly didn't pay for anyone else's game, I'm happy with this one.

Well said.

This is the point. There are enough points of view to need fifty separate games, a copy of each of which would cost £3,000.

[CreepiJim]

The environment is nice, the flight model good enough for me, the physics too. The damage model needs some improvements, the visibility of course needs a huge buff and the engine management could be improved. However, what I am not taking lightly is the lack of aircraft simulation. What is a Ju-87 good for, when it is just a poor fighter without the most notable feature? And while I appreciate you got the game you wanted, I came here just for the Ju-87 and am utterly dissapointed. Now the Devs said there might be some love for the Stuka after release, I take it as a "maybe" not a promise. So I did not get what I paid for. Other games give me the same level of fun and realism but not a Ju-87 as BoS should have.

 

The involvement you mentioned is based on your status as a beta tester, not as a backer with the advertisement of "getting involved".

[steppenwolf]

EA is a risk no matter what, it's almost a gimmick. Anyone who's been involved in RoF should not be surprised by the direction of this game or what's been going on here though.

[Leaf]

The involvement you mentioned is based on your status as a beta tester, not as a backer with the advertisement of "getting involved".

 

Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you're getting at here? 

Aside from personal disappointment with the Ju 87 (what was its most notable feature?), which is a shame, I don't understand what exactly you were expecting.

[Rama]

The involvement you mentioned is based on your status as a beta tester, not as a backer with the advertisement of "getting involved".

You got it all wrong.

Ian (Tatarenko) involved himself helping others getting informations about the game, with translations about informations given in the russian forum, long before he became a beta tester. He also gave plenty of informations (about the map and other stuff) before his beta tester period.... and now he's no more a beta tester, his involvment is still high.

He's a true benevolent helper, one of those who help the dev, thus making this game better, and this without battling loudly to get the "absolute indispensable" feature that would differentiate the sim from the total crap it supposed to be if the dev don't add it, according to his ultra-deep knowledgde of what a real simulation should be....

[FuriousMeow]

I'm guessing the feature missing that makes this game unplayable for the Ju87 is the auto-pull out after dropping bombs.

[sallee]

Interestingly enough, Mahlke says that he hated it as it made the altitude at which they would pull out entirely predictable to defending flak and fighters.

[CreepiJim]

Sorry, I don't speak russian, therefore I can not get involved other than finding bugs without proper tools to report and track them to be reproduced. The game was advertised as a realistic simulation without being a study sim, exactly my cup of tea. I entered the early access to help the developers find bugs and give feedback, as this is what the early access was advertised as. To find out there is no bug tracker, change log or any other means of efficiently keep track of current issues and developments was a big dissapointment. The plane I was interested in came later, so I did not play before that time. I expected the dive mechanisms to be present, which they are not. I was expecting drop altimeters and all the bells and whistles that make a dive bomber a Ju-87. After some time the developers spilled the beans and I was dissapointed by the lack of realistic aircraft simulation in that regard.

 

And at no point I said the game was unplayable, FuriousMeow.

 

I guess I was expecting a simulation that does not make you click around your cockpit but still offer a authentic and realistic flight simulation that differentiates the different aircraft. As it is now, there are 4 German aircraft of which most can carry bombs and are equal in their ground attack capabilities with one aircraft at a disadvantage by means of maneuverability, speed and versatility.

 

The russian aircraft are not my cup of tea, nor are the German figher planes, so I am dissapointed mind you, that the only plane I fly is just a poor representation. Not even the G1 variant, which is not historical correct to begin with, can fill my heart with joy due to a bug I seem to be alone with (firing delay).

[=38=Tatarenko]

I haven't flown the Stuka much but apart from the auto pull out are you happy with the rest of it? It seems to work fine as a divebomber. Apart from that single (as yet) unmodelled system in all other respects they appear to have done a really good job with it. But I don't know too much about Stukas so maybe I'm wrong.