Request, especially with Truesky, to bring back icing (visual effect only)

[Mysticpuma]

I mean as a visual effect it was great and that's all this request is, the Visual effect only. No complex engine issues like engines freezing, I appreciate they are too complex to work on, just the effect on the cockpit when the Visual parameters are met is all. Such a great visual effect. 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Mysticpuma

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

That would be nice.

Pitot heating could be made functional again while at it. If the newer aircraft have the commands prepared for this... The Emils do. 

[Buffo002]

It looks very good, I would just make the fogging of the window more transparent, it's very thick here. Otherwise, great job. 

[FTC_Karaya]

Good idea, I remember that this (icing) was a thing in the release version but was quickly disabled because aircraft engines would insta freeze up, underheat and take damage. Dont think this was every touched again by neither the original devs nor TFS.

 

But tbh I would rather see the negative G and wounded pilot effect be reworked first of all.

The TomatoVision (tm) is an eye sore and completely out of place in a modern sim.

Edited October 31, 2023 by FTC_Karaya

[Bussard_x]

4 hours ago, FTC_Karaya said:

Good idea, I remember that this (icing) was a thing in the release version but was quickly disabled because aircraft engines would insta freeze up, underheat and take damage. Dont think this was every touched again by neither the original devs nor TFS.

 

But tbh I would rather see the negative G and wounded pilot effect be reworked first of all.

The TomatoVision (tm) is an eye sore and completely out of place in a modern sim.

Yes that icing, that is a long time ago. Yes definitely a good idea to breng back the visuals.

[Volant_Eagle]

I had no idea this was ever a thing in this sim. Even if it was only visual it would certainly be nice to see it come back. I don't really have experience with icing effects in other sims but that looked decent. It still could be touched up a bit if they did bring it back. Seemed to me like the frost formed and spread a bit too quickly. I don't know the parameters involved though and I have exactly zero experience flying a non-icing certified aircraft through icing conditions.

 

What I can say is that ice always forms first on the smallest and sharpest surfaces. You'll start to see small thin white line form right on the edges or the exact center facing the relative wind. This white line will then build up and expand millimeter by millimeter. I'm not sure whether or not you'd actually see a thin frost layer forming across the canopy like in the video above. However, if that is what would happen, I'm certain it would start from the edges as shown. The framing of the canopy would definitely build up ice before the actual windows would.

 

At 0:53 you can see cotter pins in the bolts on the canopy. Very small sharp items like that are exactly where ice will form before anywhere else. There's a nut with a cotter pin on the windshield wiper of the plane I currently fly. That is always the first place I'll see any ice forming. Often it's visible there even before the ice detection system senses it. Never seen icing across windows in real life but that's because I've only ever flown through active icing with a heated windscreen. I've been through clouds before without a heated windscreen but not during the potential for icing. I imagine if your windscreen/canopy was unheated you could get a frosting effect similar to the video above.

 

6 hours ago, FTC_Karaya said:

but was quickly disabled because aircraft engines would insta freeze up, underheat and take damage.

Interesting. Did you mean overheat or did they actually underheat back then? The notion of a bit of ice/water overcooling a 26 liter V12 seems a bit preposterous if you ask me. If they do restore the icing mechanics at some point I hope they rework them a lot then. Why I say overheat is because the thin hashed face of a radiator would form ice like crazy. The only problem is the radiator is really hot which might prevent ice formation in the first place. However, if the icing could overcome the heat of the radiator, at least at the very front, then that could block all airflow through the radiator and cook the engine in no time. All kinds of nasty things happen IRL if you fly through icing in a plane not designed for it.

 

13 hours ago, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

Pitot heating could be made functional again while at it.

That would be nice. Of course they'd have to also include mechanics for carburetor icing for that to be worth it. I was wondering why some planes have pitot heat but it seems to do nothing. Did the pitot heat drop the engine rpm back when it used to work? It's supposed to. Running on one mag is also supposed to drop rpm. It would be nice to see that added in as well.

[Buzzsaw]

We will not introduce icing for the visual update or TF 6.0 for the same reason we are not introducing rain/snow for either.

 

It requires a lot of animation work, several stages to moisture running off or accumulating on the screens.

 

Plus it requires code work to implement this through trueSKY and its cloud system... the old clouds will be gone... so we will need to write a new set of code... you can't simply expect plug in the old code with the new trueSKY clouds... it doesn't work that way.

 

The old system was also way overdone.  It included along with the icing on the screens, an assumption all the carburetor equipped aircraft would immediately form ice in their carburetor venturis and stall out... which is not the case in fact.  Simply by flying through a cloud this is not going to happen.  In summer weather as was typical of the BoB, the effects of clouds for pilots flying through them was essentially negligible... unless the cloud was a thunderhead with active weather going on inside... which no pilot in his right mind would enter in any case as they had been warned by their Instructors and Officers this was an entirely foolish and stupid thing to do.

 

Yes of course, we would like to eventually include the effect on the windscreen for thunderheads, or for rain/colder weather and extreme altitudes, although of course, pilots typically didn't fly in rain and heavy overcast/inclement winter weather in the WWII period.  Losses were simply too high.... after takeoff pilots would lose track of where their airfield was immediately, and the cloud base was constantly shifting and dropping down to near ground level... which made landing basically near suicidal.  But all of these types of effects would require elaborating programming... with different types of clouds having different levels of effect.  Also would require adding turbulence inside certain types of clouds... more programming.

 

Yes, at some point in a future release/update package we would like to add a more rationale and accurate version of these effects, along with turbulence.  (no timeline)  We want to add Physics Based Rendering (PBR) graphics package in the future, so perhaps these could be packaged together.

 

---

 

As a related comment:

 

I find it somewhat hilarious we have continuous threads complaining about how the Visual Update is delayed, but at the same time we are told we should add additional effects which would require an enormous amount of work both in 3d and programming and hugely delay its release further.  ?

[Mysticpuma]

There was no timescale offered, it was a request to have it brought back at some point in the future. No-one asked for a delay. 

At least let us offer suggestions? 

[Buzzsaw]

1 minute ago, Mysticpuma said:

There was no timescale offered, it was a request to have it brought back at some point in the future. No-one asked for a delay. 

At least let us offer suggestions? 

Yes, you didn't mention any timescale... which indicated you could want it ASAP... And I gave you my answer why that is not possible right now.

[Buzzsaw]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulonimbus_cloud

 

Paragraph towards the end... "Hazards to Aviation".

 

trueSKY doesn't currently have the modeling to fully replicate active and developing large sized Cumulo Nimbus clouds.

 

(neither does any other computerized weather system in use in any Flight Sim)

 

For us to add just the old cosmetic graphic... with no actual effect, so that its appearance has no relation to actual phenomenon does not make sense.  Either we create an effect which is accurate, with all its parameters, or we don't do it all.

[Mysticpuma]

I'd disagree, it's a visual effect, visual effects are created to make people feel immersed. Sitting in a VR cockpit (at some point) watching the canopy frost over would be very immersive. 

 

trueSKY doesn't currently have the modeling to fully replicate active and developing large sized Cumulo Nimbus clouds.

 

(neither does any other computerized weather system in use in any Flight Sim

 

So then clearly when the effect was in CloD it couldn't be in Clod because it couldn't exist, and yet it was in CloD based on an effect programmed by a set of parameters that activated it in a cloud system that couldn't exist? 

 

So I was asking if a set of variables could trigger the effect, not super analytics of a cloud system that is unable to create a cloud type. 

 

Aircraft at 'x' altitude (where it is - x temp) 

Aircraft descends rapidly to 'x' altitude or lower where it is 'x' temp or lower. 

Aircraft interacts with cloud where it is 'x' value of water vapour. 

Pre-programmed visual effect of ice on canopy triggers if conditions are met. 

 

It's a visual effect triggered by a set of circumstances 

 

Bomb hits ground, bomb explodes, visual effect is triggered after a certain set of values are met.

 

Icing is a visual effect. It doesn't need engines to have complex effects triggered, it doesn't need complex clouds that Truesky can't create (although Clod created the effect when it couldn't create the clouds apparently?), it 'just' needs a set of values to be created to create 'just' a visual effect to be triggered. 

 

I await more criticism for asking for a nice visual effect only to be added back. 

 

Thank you. 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

Reminds me of similar discussions:

On 12/31/2022 at 10:27 PM, Buzzsaw said:

Not the only issue.

 

As mentioned, there were failures of the oxygen systems due to no fault of the pilot.

 

These could and did kill the pilot.

 

If we modeled an accurate oxygen system there would be a random chance for failure.

 

I doubt players would appreciate being in the middle of a campaign and then finding out they have died due to oxygen system failure.

 

----

 

Bottom line:

 

Because of all the factors  I have detailed in my various posts in this thread we do not model oxygen systems in CLIFFS, and will not do so in the future.

[Mysticpuma]

2 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Reminds me of similar discussions:

Sadly it does. Makes a point to ignore the actual request based on a criteria not requested. I await the next disparaging comment. 

[Buzzsaw]

15 hours ago, Mysticpuma said:

I'd disagree, it's a visual effect, visual effects are created to make people feel immersed. Sitting in a VR cockpit (at some point) watching the canopy frost over would be very immersive. 

 

trueSKY doesn't currently have the modeling to fully replicate active and developing large sized Cumulo Nimbus clouds.

 

(neither does any other computerized weather system in use in any Flight Sim

 

So then clearly when the effect was in CloD it couldn't be in Clod because it couldn't exist, and yet it was in CloD based on an effect programmed by a set of parameters that activated it in a cloud system that couldn't exist? 

 

So I was asking if a set of variables could trigger the effect, not super analytics of a cloud system that is unable to create a cloud type. 

 

Aircraft at 'x' altitude (where it is - x temp) 

Aircraft descends rapidly to 'x' altitude or lower where it is 'x' temp or lower. 

Aircraft interacts with cloud where it is 'x' value of water vapour. 

Pre-programmed visual effect of ice on canopy triggers if conditions are met. 

 

It's a visual effect triggered by a set of circumstances 

 

Bomb hits ground, bomb explodes, visual effect is triggered after a certain set of values are met.

 

Icing is a visual effect. It doesn't need engines to have complex effects triggered, it doesn't need complex clouds that Truesky can't create (although Clod created the effect when it couldn't create the clouds apparently?), it 'just' needs a set of values to be created to create 'just' a visual effect to be triggered. 

 

I await more criticism for asking for a nice visual effect only to be added back. 

 

Thank you. 

 

 

Let me be clear:  This effect can't be "added back".  The original clouds won't exist in the Visual Update when we release it... and neither will the code associated with the old Maddox weather and cloud system.  You can't have two sets of clouds and weather systems running simultaneously.  (the Maddox code anyway was an incorrect replication of the way icing works in cloud systems) The only way we can 'add' the icing effect is by writing new code into the newly implemented trueSKY code... which is a big task.  Rain and snow is already included in trueSKY, but not the effects on aircraft canopies or pilot vision and adding icing is another layer.  There is also the fact these old icing effects are in 2k, not 4k... so they don't work with all the 4k work we've done for the Visual Update.  Basically we have to build entirely new graphics for both the icing as well as the rain and snow.

 

So your 'ask' is not quite as simple as you suggest... I realize you are not a programmer or a graphics artist and have no idea of the requirements.

 

As I said, we will consider adding a similar effect, along with the effects of rain and snow on canopies when we put together our next package of graphics updates... which will come after the Visual Update and TF 6.0 are released.  No timeline.

 

At the moment the only planned element in the next graphics package is PBR... (we have built our aircraft cockpits with a graphics program which would allow quick implementation of PBR) what else might be included will be determined when the programmers/3d artists start work and we look at our resources.

 

In the meantime, we are working hard to finish the Visual Update and TF 6.0 and have other plans in process, ...see my additional aircraft posts and map posts in forum section "Team Fusion Notes"... not to mention we will have a big announcement regarding another important aircraft whose 3D modeling is already well underway... and which will be the centerpiece of a 4th new module to closely follow the TF 6.0 release... ahead of TF 7.0.

 

Thanks for your patience

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

I smell P-38 and Torch. 

[No.54_Reddog]

What I don't smell is any sign of the VU coming.

[JS81Knows]

I know there's a lot of unfair criticism thrown at TFS for timescales and whatever, but reading this exchange for the first time just now, it seems the dev response is unnecessarily antagonistic. Even before I got to "As a related comment" I was thinking "Yikes the poor chap must be having a bad day". Shall we all be nice to each other? There's enough stress in the real world!

 

That aside, I'd love to know if the PBR work mentioned can be retrofitted to aircraft already in the sim?! That would be amazing!!!

[BENKOE]

15 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

 

... < I realize you are not a programmer or a graphics artist and have no idea of the requirements. > ...

Wow, that's what I call a seriously solid and polite response. ?

[BENKOE]

17 hours ago, Buzzsaw said:

 

.. < Let me be clear:  This effect can't be "added back".  The original clouds won't exist in the Visual Update when we release it... and neither will the code associated with the old Maddox weather and cloud system.  > ...

 

Let me be clear: Team Fusion still has no clue how the old Maddox weather and cloud system works. ?

 

[Enceladus828]

50 minutes ago, fury1ord said:

Buzzsaw sent me a PM telling me to leave the forums and threatening to ban me for 'entirely negative attitude

Well you did criticize them for posting 3D WIP images on the FFW-Dieppe Steam page. How is that issue? You’re probably the only person in the whole world who thinks that’s an issue.

And I recall reporting another one of your posts which has since been deleted.

 

While I wouldn’t say what you said automatically warrants a ban, you do have a rather strange attitude when it comes to developers posting 3D WIP images.

[Buzzsaw]

4 hours ago, BENKOE said:

 

Let me be clear: Team Fusion still has no clue how the old Maddox weather and cloud system works. ?

 

Actually Team Fusion has a better knowledge of the Maddox weather and cloud system than anyone except Oleg himself... better than Ilya Shevchenko and the team which took over from Oleg when he left development... we are the only people with access to the code... and we've been working with it for 6 years.

 

 

6 hours ago, BENKOE said:

Wow, that's what I call a seriously solid and polite response. ?

I pointed out his post was inaccurate and misinformed as to the facts... which is my responsibility.

 

I answered the question, this thread has run its course.