Developer blog# 346: Li-2 Paratroopers, Flying Circus Update, Normandy Screenshot Contest

[Avimimus]

6 minutes ago, FuriousMeow said:

The last RoF patch gave the Albies some very generous flight characteristics which I'm pretty sure were retained in the FM brought over for FC, not sure they really need the uprated Mercedes considering.

 

I always wonder about claims regarding WWI flight models. For instance, external bracing wires tend to vibrate in flight - which causes them to produce a much higher drag than their cross-sections suggestion. But the exact wire design, amount of tension on the wire, harmonics of the wire etc. will all impact just how draggy a given wire is... and knowing these things without building several full scale replicas is nearly impossible.

 

I think we have a bit better grasp on the exotic airfoils - but still, considering the complexities of fluid dynamics... throw in the fact that the skins weren't always completely under tension (the Aviatik D.I was purportedly designed to be, what we'd call today, polymorphic in its airfoil - changing shape with differences in airspeed.

 

...so, a lot of 'unknowables' for everyone (aerodynamicists, developers, the rest of us)...

[FuriousMeow]

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Spoiler

 

I always wonder about claims regarding WWI flight models. For instance, external bracing wires tend to vibrate in flight - which causes them to produce a much higher drag than their cross-sections suggestion. But the exact wire design, amount of tension on the wire, harmonics of the wire etc. will all impact just how draggy a given wire is... and knowing these things without building several full scale replicas is nearly impossible.

 

 

I think we have a bit better grasp on the exotic airfoils - but still, considering the complexities of fluid dynamics... throw in the fact that the skins weren't always completely under tension (the Aviatik D.I was purportedly designed to be, what we'd call today, polymorphic in its airfoil - changing shape with differences in airspeed.

 

...so, a lot of 'unknowables' for everyone (aerodynamicists, developers, the rest of us)...

 

 

It was more the sudden acquisition of significantly better turning capabilities the Albies were not known for. I don't think singing wires would impact that particular aerodynamic trait.

 

There were also other FM changes to other aircraft in that final patch that were less data based and more pacifier. Camel became a donkey with that patch. 

Edited July 16, 2023 by FuriousMeow

[LukeFF]

In case anyone missed it: 

 

[Avimimus]

I really like that!  I'm now all excited for it. It is a brilliant plane - a bit higher roll than the N.17 (if slower), and has this light weight feeling (due to it being so much lighter than other fighters).

[DBFlyguy]

Kudos @LuftManu on this informative preview video ?

 

 

 

More of this type of preview in the future for aircraft would be very cool and welcome!

[JG4_Moltke1871]

@LuftManu one more video for the Halberstadt D.II, pleeeaase ?

[LuftManu]

Thanks guys! I had tons of fun learning and recording the video. I am getting slowly into WW1 ? 

It looks and feels awesome!

Glad you guys like it!

Kind regards,

[ST_Catchov]

She's a babe. Can't wait to get my hands on her.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

More of this type of preview in the future for aircraft would be very cool and welcome!

 

That is certainly the plan. I would also like to do more instructional videos when a major new feature is added so that people can become more quickly familiarized with new additions to the game.

[Gambit21]

Great looking update guys.

Nice job on the Noop!

 

 

 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I would also like to do more instructional videos when a major new feature is added so that people can become more quickly familiarized with new additions to the game.

Bring it on.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[LukeFF]

So, anyone notice something new with the Nieuport 11 that is different from the RoF model? ?

[BladeMeister]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So, anyone notice something new with the Nieuport 11 that is different from the RoF model? ?

Yea! The D2 in it's sights at the end of the video.

 

S!Blade<><

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, BladeMeister said:

Yea! The D2 in it's sights at the end of the video.

 

Close! Keep trying. ?

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So, anyone notice something new with the Nieuport 11 that is different from the RoF model? ?

Did it have twin guns in ROF?

[BladeMeister]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Close! Keep trying. ?

The Aldis gunsight sight? I don't remember the 'Bebe' having that. Otherwise I have no clue and stand by my first guess.?

 

S!Blade<><

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Did it have twin guns in ROF?

 

Yes ?

 

50 minutes ago, BladeMeister said:

The Aldis gunsight sight? I don't remember the 'Bebe' having that. Otherwise I have no clue and stand by my first guess.?

 

Getting warmer! ?

[JG4_Moltke1871]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So, anyone notice something new with the Nieuport 11 that is different from the RoF model? ?

I never had ROF so I have to guess:

The pilot have pink underwear? ?

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

I never had ROF so I have to guess:

The pilot have pink underwear? ?

 

Colder! ?

[Rothary]

You aim through the windshield rather than over it

[Trooper117]

13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

So, anyone notice something new with the Nieuport 11 that is different from the RoF model? ?

 

The gun sight ring is mounted on the engine cowling...

[BladeMeister]

6 hours ago, Rothary said:

You aim through the windshield rather than over it

I went back and rewatched the vid and I believe,

Ding Ding Ding!

We have a winner maybe.

Good eye Rothary.

 

S!Blade<><

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, Rothary said:

You aim through the windshield rather than over it

 

7 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

The gun sight ring is mounted on the engine cowling...

 

Haha, yep, that's it. ? 

[BladeMeister]

Congratulations Rothary and Trooper, you each win absolutely nothing, but I will extend a very brief and polite golf clap for each of you. Again good show chaps!

 

S!Blade<><

[jg123410]

Hi @LukeFF

 

I hope this is on topic for this thread - do you happen to know if there are still plans to incorporate the AQMB feature to FC once FCIII comes out?

 

Also, just curious. I notice that when I fly AQMB missions now there are usually soldiers/ground crew around the objects at my home base. That doesn't happen in the regular QMB. Does that have something to do with how the AQMB mission design generator works?

 

Thanks in advance! - jg123410.

[LukeFF]

10 minutes ago, jg123410 said:

I hope this is on topic for this thread - do you happen to know if there are still plans to incorporate the AQMB feature to FC once FCIII comes out?

 

Yes, I believe this is in the plans once the map is considered to be in a finished state.

 

11 minutes ago, jg123410 said:

Also, just curious. I notice that when I fly AQMB missions now there are usually soldiers/ground crew around the objects at my home base. That doesn't happen in the regular QMB. Does that have something to do with how the AQMB mission design generator works?

 

Yes, it has to do with mission template design - a lot of these are modified from files used for career mode.

[ZachariasX]

On 7/15/2023 at 11:13 PM, Avimimus said:

For instance, external bracing wires tend to vibrate in flight

You have seen such? Wing bracing wires are relatively thick and rigged without any slop. I have never seen them vibrate in normal flight and in the Bücker 131 they dont do that at all, even during aerobatics. I can‘t vouch for the wiring on a Blériot if you loop that one, but I can‘t remember seeing any cable on a decently rigged aircraft (even control cables) to oscillate in flight. It  would also introduce a point of failure due to the added stress. If you have examples where they oscillate, can you show it? I am curious.

[DD_Arthur]

On 7/15/2023 at 10:13 PM, Avimimus said:

For instance, external bracing wires tend to vibrate in flight - which causes them to produce a much higher drag than their cross-sections suggestion. 

? 

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You have seen such? Wing bracing wires are relatively thick and rigged without any slop. I have never seen them vibrate in normal flight and in the Bücker 131 they dont do that at all, even during aerobatics. I can‘t vouch for the wiring on a Blériot if you loop that one, but I can‘t remember seeing any cable on a decently rigged aircraft (even control cables) to oscillate in flight. It  would also introduce a point of failure due to the added stress. If you have examples where they oscillate, can you show it? I am curious.

 

ZachariasX - My interpretation had been high frequency vibrations (i.e. humming) rather than something that would be visible to the eye... increasing energy transfer between the air and the wire. However, it has been years since I looked into this, so I might not be a reliable source...

 

This is especially true as my understanding of Russian descriptions of German patents from the early 1930s is... going to be limited (and it isn't like every patent claim turned out to be true. Anyway, here is a quote about Robert Schnell that might have provoked the idea:

 

"Он так же знал, что применение обычных для того времени расчалок в виде тросов с круглым или профильным сечением будет создавать значительное сопротивление и что планируемый выигрыш в плане создаваемого крылом аэродинамического сопротивления будет потерян из-за наличия этих расчалок, которые к тому же при определённых направлениях воздушных потоков имели некоторые колебания, из-за которых аэродинамическое сопротивление резко возрастало. Для этого необходимо было предложить нечто новое и этим новым стали расчалки из тросов с профилем в виде буквы S. Эти тросы по созревшему у Шнелля мнению должны были устранить как повышенное аэродинамическое сопротивление, так и нежелательные колебания расчалок."

 

P.S. Please feel free to correct me if you can speak Russian or German, or know more about engineering of externally braced airplanes or more about fluid dynamics, or has first-hand experience! I might have a mistaken belief in how much 'humming' adds to energy loss... and I'd love to learn more about the effective cross-section/parasitic drag of bracing wires!

 

 

[Comrade_Weng]

I can recommend reading "Fluid - Dynamic Drag" by Dr Hoerner. It has typical drag cases for a wide range of aircraft, and non aircraft components. Resonance and drag in a round cable is induced by the vortex shedding. Round objects are one of the worse shapes you can have from a drag point of view due to lack of conditioning of the wake.

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

My interpretation had been high frequency vibrations (i.e. humming) rather than something that would be visible to the eye... increasing energy transfer between the air and the wire.

 

That might well be. But in the end, one can describe rigged biplanes in terms of drag without going into issues like vibrations, hence I would speculate said effect being not that big. Given the monumental parasitic and induced drag that comes along with given designs. Also, I doubt that there can be too much energy lost by transferring that into vibrations, when you can‘t see or feel that in the airframe. If I invested, say, 5 hp traction power into vibrations, then I don‘t think people woud sit inside the aircraft for too long.

 

I do speak German but not really Russian. But I might look up corresponding German patents. 

 

The only experience I have is aerobatics in a Bücker131 and there, the aircraft feels as rigid as a Cap10. I did think that those wires must kind of vibrate, but in flight they look and feel in flight like when the crate sits on the ground. The bracing consists of profiled steel wires. They definitely learned a couple of things when designing the Bücker.

 

If one used conventional wiring that is rigged in a somewhat elastic way, I would guess that they might be prone to oscillations. But that would be an aircraft I wouldn‘t want to stunt…

[Avimimus]

On 7/19/2023 at 10:15 PM, Comrade_Weng said:

I can recommend reading "Fluid - Dynamic Drag" by Dr Hoerner. It has typical drag cases for a wide range of aircraft, and non aircraft components. Resonance and drag in a round cable is induced by the vortex shedding. Round objects are one of the worse shapes you can have from a drag point of view due to lack of conditioning of the wake.

 

Thank you! This looks like an exceptionally interesting book.

 

 

On 7/20/2023 at 2:23 AM, ZachariasX said:

Also, I doubt that there can be too much energy lost by transferring that into vibrations, when you can‘t see or feel that in the airframe. If I invested, say, 5 hp traction power into vibrations, then I don‘t think people woud sit inside the aircraft for too long.

 

Well, each wire would hum at its own frequency, and those vibrations would only be transmitted further if other parts of the structure had a natural tendency to vibrate at frequencies which were ratios of the original frequency. So there could be a lot of high speed vibrations which basically get absorbed by other vibrations or materials before becoming something a person would notice (and if every wire is vibrating at a different frequency, the vibrations would average out).

 

That said, it occurs to me that these wires are long enough the vibrations would tend to be at very low frequencies... and it is likely that their effects are negligible. So I increasingly suspect that this was misunderstanding on my part, based on reading out of date information in languages I don't grasp... leading to me coming away with an incorrect intuition. Vibrations probably do add to drag - but the effect is probably minimal! You are likely correct overall.

 

Setting aside my misunderstandings, I think it is very true that external bracing wires produce a lot more drag than many of us would expect (based on our intuitions), and the airflow from wires, struts, and wings interacting with each other can produce a lot more drag than one might guess. So, I think the basic underlying point I was making is likely correct: WWI biplanes are aerodynamically complicated, and it is difficult to accurately predict performance without building a full scale example.

 

Thank you all for the replies. It has been very interesting thinking this through (and rereading my sources).

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

WWI biplanes are aerodynamically complicated, and it is difficult to accurately predict performance without building a full scale example.

I should mention Holtzauges book, see here. He made the effort.

 

Other than that, I find your original idea an interesting one despite having some doubts about meaningful impact on the more widely used planes.

[LukeFF]

Perhaps some inspiration for mission/campaign makers: ?

 

 

[IckyATLAS]

That would suit the BOM map. I checked the game map against the original maps of the time and it fits more or less. I have to see if the game quality of this map is as good as the Kuban one but I am afraid not. But this is not enough.

However, I have noticed that the dev team does now new planes (promised ones for WWII nothing new) and campaigns. They are focused on WWI, which map I will not comment to avoid hurting anyone) but I see less and less efforts in improving existing map quality, topography and improving also the objects library, animated objects etc. etc. all things that are an incentive for developing a campaign and a game environment that s more and more realistic. During Jason's time we did see a certain effort in that direction. Han did an effort with its animated soldiers. But since then nothing. We were promised new technologies but this was only a smokescreen it seems.

 

As a scripted campaign developer, If we do not see a future why bother developing a campaign that if it is well made is very, very time consuming and will take a year and more to do. Do not forget this is done for free and in free time. If we see improvements in visual rendering of the existing maps, objects, new features, (I could make a nice list with at least twenty points, some like having more craters when bombing, or having trees burned down in fire, better smoke behavior etc. but it is not worth the effort at this point) all this will be a source of motivation as the campaign quality will also improve over time.

I made one Kuban campaign that I am still perfecting and a new version is due with additional missions that will integrate the LI2 but besides that one with incremental improvements, I have no incentive at the moment to invest in a new project. 

Up to you devs to convince me, and I am not convinced as I see no real roadmap. 

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

That would suit the BOM map. I checked the game map against the original maps of the time and it fits more or less. I have to see if the game quality of this map is as good as the Kuban one but I am afraid not. But this is not enough.

However, I have noticed that the dev team does now new planes (promised ones for WWII nothing new) and campaigns. They are focused on WWI, which map I will not comment to avoid hurting anyone) but I see less and less efforts in improving existing map quality, topography and improving also the objects library, animated objects etc. etc. all things that are an incentive for developing a campaign and a game environment that s more and more realistic. During Jason's time we did see a certain effort in that direction. Han did an effort with its animated soldiers. But since then nothing. We were promised new technologies but this was only a smokescreen it seems.

 

As a scripted campaign developer, If we do not see a future why bother developing a campaign that if it is well made is very, very time consuming and will take a year and more to do. Do not forget this is done for free and in free time. If we see improvements in visual rendering of the existing maps, objects, new features, (I could make a nice list with at least twenty points, some like having more craters when bombing, or having trees burned down in fire, better smoke behavior etc. but it is not worth the effort at this point) all this will be a source of motivation as the campaign quality will also improve over time.

I made one Kuban campaign that I am still perfecting and a new version is due with additional missions that will integrate the LI2 but besides that one with incremental improvements, I have no incentive at the moment to invest in a new project. 

Up to you devs to convince me, and I am not convinced as I see no real roadmap. 

 

No offense intended, but I'm not quite sure how you are drawing some of these conclusions:

 

Quote

I see no real roadmap. 

 

The roadmap for the rest of 2023, as well as the general plans for 2024, was posted not that long ago on the news page. 

 

Quote

However, I have noticed that the dev team does now new planes (promised ones for WWII nothing new) and campaigns. They are focused on WWI

 

Six WWII planes, plus the Waco glider are in the plans for 2020-24. As for WWI, well, yes, that is what happens when you announce a new title in the series - you have to actually focus on the said title for however long it takes. ? Not sure why this should come as a surprise - it's right there in the roadmap for 2023.

 

Quote

I see less and less efforts in improving existing map quality, topography and improving also the objects library, animated objects etc. etc. all things that are an incentive for developing a campaign and a game environment that s more and more realistic. During Jason's time we did see a certain effort in that direction. Han did an effort with its animated soldiers.

 

There is only so much time a developer can devote to improving old maps and features that were built and published years ago. Hopefully, if time allows and the quality is good, you will see some improvements to some of the later maps, but no promises are being made in that area right now.

 

Quote

But since then nothing. We were promised new technologies but this was only a smokescreen it seems.

 

That is patently untrue. ? All players have received what was laid out in the roadmap for each and every project, bar none. Yes, things like Air Marshal and drop tanks were shown before they really should have been, but they were never promised to come with such-and-such an update. 

 

Otherwise, I encourage you to re-read the latest posts from Han about what the team is working on right now. This idea that nothing new is coming and all of this is just smoke and mirrors is not based in reality.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

20 hours ago, LukeFF said:

No offense intended, but I'm not quite sure how you are drawing some of these conclusions:

I agree that some of his conclusions are incorrect, but I can see where he's coming from. With the Devs still not having said anything at all about their new "project" and how it will influence the future of the series, there's little incentive for mission writers to start a new campaign. I agree with Icky's assessment that developing a scripted campaign easily takes a year to do, when working on a purely voluntary basis. Right now, that's a huge time investment if for all we know, the Devs may be developing a completely new game that's incompatible with IL2 and all our hard work will be wasted. Even if the Devs would announce that it's a new series and none of the current missions will be playable in the new "project", that would still be better as at least we'd know what to expect.

 

And while we have indeed seen some new technologies, some of those feel slightly underdeveloped from a mission writer's standpoint. For example, the soldiers would hugely benefit from having German and Soviet variants. Right now, they are basically useless for Tank Crew, which is the part where they would make the greatest impact. Implementing this seems a question of simply re-rigging the already-existing German and Soviet soldier models.

 

In all, it seems that with a little more effort, many of the new technologies could be much more useful to mission writers and would hence lead to a greatly improved user experience. I think that's mainly what Icky is trying to say.

 

On 7/28/2023 at 5:40 PM, LukeFF said:

Perhaps some inspiration for mission/campaign makers: ?

I too don't really have the time to develop a full campaign, but perhaps some of the "usual suspects" would be willing to do a collab where a number of us each creates one or two missions and we share the scenery?

Edited August 11, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Holtzauge]

@ZachariasX & @Avimimus: A bit late to the party here, but concerning the drag of bracing wires & rods, we had a quite interesting discussion on The Aerodrome forum about that.  Totally orthogonal to the subject of the thread title but interesting nonetheless.

 

My take from this was that the vanilla braided wires as used by the Germans contributed quite a lot to the parasitic drag (up to 15%!) while the profiled rods used on the British planes cut it drastically.

 

The discussion begins on page 12 with a post by HoHun and goes on from there. Given your discussion earlier on in this thread I think you may find The Aerodrome discussion interesting as well. 

[Sandmarken]

33 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

And while we have indeed seen some new technologies, some of those feel slightly underdeveloped from a mission writer's standpoint. For example, the soldiers would hugely benefit from having German and Soviet variants. Right now, they are basically useless for Tank Crew, which is the part where they would make the greatest impact. Implementing this seems a question of simply re-rigging the already-existing German and Soviet soldier models.

Agree! And maybe static models for the newer planes! 

[simfan2015]

I personally love the 2023-2024 GB roadmap. 

In fact I never expected any new GB content once I learned about their 'new project', so I was truly surprised about it! 

We have sufficient WWII content in GB as it is (and will be by the end of 2024) . It was not enough FC and TC content and maps that is not yet present in GB. 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by simfan2015