Brief Room Episode 3: Questions and Answers Session

[Avimimus]

17 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

Have you read the book and seen the results and conclusions? Entirely plausible, and a credible method to assess the performance metrics that matter.

 

I honestly really appreciate the effort that went into that book, and I also appreciate the developers being open to correspond with the author. I think these efforts are worthwhile. I hope we can get more complete research and that the devs will find some time to implement it. I just don't think that they'll ever produce an unambiguous result.

 

17 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

But we do have all the physical dimensions and details and they CAN be modeled in an aeronatical sw model. That model can be correlated against the most trusted real-life data. As the author went to great pains to do. 

 

The reality is that real life aeronautical engineering still involves wind-tunnel work, flying subscale demonstrators, and full scale prototypes for most projects. Computational Fluid dynamics can't reliably do everything, and less computationally intensive forms of aerodynamic modelling are even more limited. The fact is that fluid dynamics is very difficult. I think we're getting to the point where CFD can get us within a few percent of the actual numbers for most cantilever designs... but I'm less convinced about biplanes and externally braced monoplanes... (and the devs are already often within a few precent of the available historical data).

 

I think it is worthwhile, but I also think it is never going to be that clear-cut.

 

...and that isn't even getting into aircraft like the Aviatik D.I, where contemporary reports show changes in the shape of the airfoil at speed due to changes in the tension of the fabric covering!

 

P.S. FYI - I'm not particularly happy about the state of Flying Circus, especially given the lack of a 1916 campaign with appropriate two seaters (which will render some Collector Planes, like the E.III and D.H.2 useless), less content than Rise of Flight, and the fact that it looks like support may be wound down etc. I'm not particularly biased in favour of apologetics at this point in time! ? So this is my unbiased opinion: WWI flight models are hard and fluid dynamics is just as hard. I'm also, honestly, more concerned about the AI.

[RedeyeStorm]

19 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

To be honest, i find it quite shocking they believe there's nothing wrong with current models.

Not what was said. They said that they do not have proper sources to make changes. That is not the same as will not. And that book (no idea which one is being reffered to) lacks a proper mention of the sources used and therefore cannot be used by them. They even called on the author to add them.

[jg123410]

Thanks LukeFF and the entire team.

 

A lot of good stuff in there.

[[DBS]Tx_Tip]

14 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

So...sticking with a single 4K map? Or going with 3...4? DCS is up to 8 and even 9 just for external texture space. 

PBR is all good and well, but you also need real estate to keep up with the competition. 

 

13 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

I think even that was unclear. I got it to be they felt it was not worth it. 

Considering the “competition” as a WWII combat simulator doesn’t make a pimple on BoXs’ butt.
What difference does it make if GBs’ intention is to make everything better with regards to Korea and/or whatever it ends up being?

It’ll then be certainly the best combat simulator for the Korean conflict and possibly whatever it ends up being.

[BraveSirRobin]

4 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

In one hand they said people pay for shiny fast überplanes and bombers was waste of time and effort. 

‘They did not say that.  In fact, they said the opposite of that.  They said that bombers are actually MORE popular than fighters.  The problem is that they are 3 times more expensive to produce, but not 3 times more popular.  

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, stiboo said:

Korea plane set?

at 22 minutes a question on clickable cockpits is answered, and seems to say there will be 10 aircraft in the new project.

 

I'm, assuming they must include the Sabre and Mig15 and we do not know if the B29 will be player flyable, so they will be?..

 

Il10

Yak9

Mig15

 

Sabre

Mustang

Corsair

B29

 

So that leaves 3 more when the game launches.. thoughts on what they will be?!    

 

and I'm sure more will be added after as collectors planes.

 

Most likely

 

NK: 
MiG-15 
Yak-9P
La-11
IL-10
Tu-2

 

UN:
F-51D 
F4U-4
F-80C 
F-84G
F-86E

 

AI B-29

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

‘They did not say that.  In fact, they said the opposite of that.  They said that bombers are actually MORE popular than fighters.  The problem is that they are 3 times more expensive to produce, but not 3 times more popular.  

simple solution for anyone who wonts bombers, just buy 3-4 insted 1 ?

same for ppl asking for more gliders, just buy 10 insted 1 lol

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

To be honest, i find it quite shocking they believe there's nothing wrong with current models.

I don’t believe they’ve ever said that about any of their work.

They’ve been repeatedly open about encouraging people to present hard evidence that things can be changed and improved and many, many times they have acted on this information.

However, this also has to align with what they think can be done or is actually worth doing on a commercial basis.

You might recall several years ago they did what a very vocal part of the RoF community had been demanding and the result was tears of frustration from that very same community.

 

The fact is we’re lucky that RoF was ported into the GBS engine which gave it new life but even that had to be subcontracted to a third party to make it viable.

The idea that there going to be review flight models now for FC seems unlikely in the extreme…..

 

 

Avimimus summary of the evidence available for one hundred plus year old aircraft from the dawn of aviation is spot on btw

[deathmisser]

26 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Most likely

 

NK: 
MiG-15 
Yak-9P
La-11
IL-10
Tu-2

 

UN:
F-51D 
F4U-4
F-80C 
F-84G
F-86E

Imho that will be a tad unfair I don't mind the F-80 or the Sabra but I would swap the 84 with a Firefly or something. 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

The reality is that real life aeronautical engineering still involves wind-tunnel work, flying subscale demonstrators, and full scale prototypes for most projects.

The reality is that you *can* calculate fight performance rather well, without all those things. You just don't use all those tools to get an idea about the performance, you use them mostly to answer different questions. Anytone telling you otherwise is simply gaslighting you. Are you really suggesting engineers today have no idea about the putative preformance of a new design before they do full CFD and wind tunnel experiments? You really think engineers are looking forward to find out about fight performance at the stage of flight tests??

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

‘They did not say that.  In fact, they said the opposite of that.  They said that bombers are actually MORE popular than fighters.  The problem is that they are 3 times more expensive to produce, but not 3 times more popular.  

Thanks to clearing that it made me confused. 

[Badger1_1]

am i the only one disappointed by the lack of clickable cockpits?

[Vishnu]

I’m confused.  If Italy and Malta are too complex to render, why aren’t they using the new  tech to make Korea to build the MTO?

 

Thoughts?

8 minutes ago, Badger1_1 said:

am i the only one disappointed by the lack of clickable cockpits?

I would prefer more planes, like they explained.  

Edited January 20, 2024 by Vishnu

[DD_Arthur]

17 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

I’m confused.  If Italy and Malta are too complex to render, why aren’t they using the new  tech to make Korea to build the MTO?

 

Thoughts?

Where has it been stated that Italy and Malta are to complex to render? 
It would seem unlikely. Presumably they are going to Korea because….they want to?

[Lusekofte]

18 minutes ago, Badger1_1 said:

am i the only one disappointed by the lack of clickable cockpits?

Depends on how complex systems are. If there is a long tedious procedure to get started or choose weapon and arm them click pits got a mission. If it is as it is click pits has no purpose at all. 
In DCS this helps not having to assign hundreds of buttons and remember them. In GB you have no problem with that. 
Number of planes means nothing compared to what they said about improvements 

They are making a more complex engine damage model. They are focused on comms and ai problems. In my opinion nothing matter if those problems is not solved

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, deathmisser said:

Imho that will be a tad unfair I don't mind the F-80 or the Sabra but I would swap the 84 with a Firefly or something. 

Not a good swap considering the huge number of missions flown by the F-84, both as an escort fighter and in the ground attack role. The Firefly might be different than a typical A/C in the scheme of things but I doubt it would be a go to ride for many. If a British plane is desired a Seafury or Seafire would be the better choice. 

Edited January 20, 2024 by Rjel
Spelling

[MajorMagee]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

The reality is that you *can* calculate fight performance rather well, without all those things. You just don't use all those tools to get an idea about the performance, you use them mostly to answer different questions. Anytone telling you otherwise is simply gaslighting you. Are you really suggesting engineers today have no idea about the putative performance of a new design before they do full CFD and wind tunnel experiments? You really think engineers are looking forward to find out about fight performance at the stage of flight tests??

Avimimus is actually correct. He's not saying they have no idea, he's making the point that we do not yet rely only on calculated performance. Physical testing is still actively being used to validate the models, and we use that correlation to refine the models for future use with similar configurations. Unfortunately, each new concept is enough different from what was done before that we often discover new insights into the limitations of the modeling.

 

Efforts to "complete" the Digital Transformation are progressing slowly in the face of the differences between management's wishful thinking, and our human ability to build things as perfectly as the model assumes with real materials and processes. For now, no one is allowed to put a new design into production without physical verification of the previously validated models being completed first.

 

Service To The Line,

On the Line,

On Time!

 

 

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, deathmisser said:

Imho that will be a tad unfair I don't mind the F-80 or the Sabra but I would swap the 84 with a Firefly or something. 

nah F-84 is probably 3rd most important airplane for ground based korea sim, Firefly is trash

28 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Where has it been stated that Italy and Malta are to complex to render? 
It would seem unlikely. Presumably they are going to Korea because….they want to?

in video they say Jason wonted to do it when someone ask, but they are either ignorant or lazy to reaserch this teather as they keep saying its to populated and they cant do rome...  you do not need rome or populated parts, how the heck leningrad is duable by entusiast making map but devs cant be bathered to do sicily and malta and part of tunisia, its clear russian devs dont wont to do it and jason was one planing to do it.

If korea was italian airplanes vs american ones it would not be intereste to them, lets not forghet what dlcs we were getting before jason took over...

53 minutes ago, Badger1_1 said:

am i the only one disappointed by the lack of clickable cockpits?

yes  ?

 

Edited January 20, 2024 by CountZero

[Blitzen]

IMHO: I'll probably spend my money buying "Korea" to support future efforts by the team, but I'll spend my time playing  TF CloD DWT and the ( hopefully finished,) Dieppe later this year, with many new aircraft including a B-17E,( yes, yes, and debugged VR..)At least someone is listening to players desiring some heavies like the Fortress & Lancaster and developing them. I just don't understand the reluctance to at least give us AI Heavies- CloD has had a perfectly good pair ,the Kondor, and Sunderland years ago , and  managed a very nice flyable Wellington with working , man-able front and rear turrets .If they can do it on a shoestring what's the decision not to do so here at Great Battles ? With the debut of Masters of the Air TV series there will certainly be more demand for heavies like the B-17 and B-24 and British counterparts, than ever before...

( Oh yes I failed to mention Combat Pilot  Pacific air war sim and ( fingers crossed,) Microprose B-17 sims due this year as well...)

[Mtnbiker1998]

1 hour ago, Badger1_1 said:

am i the only one disappointed by the lack of clickable cockpits?

Me aswell. I don't like the idea that clickable pits inherently means DCS level study sim thats "too expensive to produce." Look at half the planes in MSFS, they all have clickable pits and have far less complexity than IL-2GB aircraft, CloD has them too. Clickable pits are a QOL upgrade, simple as that, especially for VR users. They really should reconsider their approach there.

 

Being able to click to adjust bomb armament switches, jettison stores, and all those "not-used-often-but-still-used" commands without memorizing a keyboard command/voice attack command, or using a precious hotas switch would greatly improve the sim, as well as up the immersion factor and let people more easily explore the cool unique features that devs have modelled for these aircraft. How many people do you think are out there that have never bothered with the C-47's autopilot, or the Ju-88s homing beacon, or depressed a gunsight for rocket attacks, purely because they don't have the space on their stick and can never remember the keyboard command?

[Vishnu]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

Where has it been stated that Italy and Malta are to complex to render? 
It would seem unlikely. Presumably they are going to Korea because….they want to?

 

If you watched the video, they said Jason wanted to do it, but the Devs felt the populated areas like Rome were too hard to implement.  So, my question is,  I'm sure they could have done it with this "new project" rather than Korea.   

But, alas, for their Russian consumers, there is probably no interest in MTO.  Just speculating, but maybe that's why Jason left.  

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Badger1_1 said:

am i the only one disappointed by the lack of clickable cockpits?

I’m pretty happy that they’re not doing it.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

To be honest, i find it quite shocking they believe there's nothing wrong with current models.

 

That wasn't Han's conclusion - what he is saying is this new book cannot be the sole reason to change the flight models. Our engineers have their own methodology for creating and revising these flight models and if/when there is time they will be looked at. They are well aware of what WWI planes need another look, including those that could do with an engine variant modification. Hang in there. ?

[DD_Arthur]

34 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

If you watched the video, they said Jason wanted to do it, but the Devs felt the populated areas like Rome were too hard to implement.  So, my question is,  I'm sure they could have done it with this "new project" rather than Korea.   

But, alas, for their Russian consumers, there is probably no interest in MTO.  Just speculating, but maybe that's why Jason left.  

So they didn’t actually say anything about it being ‘too complex to render’ as such.

For the dev team, making a commercial product on a budget with a time scale, modelling a large city that never really saw any air combat over it probably is a waste of resources.

As to southern Italy and Malta; I can’t see there being any technical reason for not being able to make it.

Personally, I think the invasion of southern Italy would be a great subject for a WW2 CFS.

It has just about every element you could want; air to air, air to ground and a carrier element.

 

I think they simply haven’t got the inclination to do it. It’s their choice, their commercial decision to gamble with.

[Juri_JS]

16 hours ago, MajorMagee said:

It's sad that they didn't understand the question (@46:05). The current Tank Crew mission building would benefit enormously from having German and Russian AI Infantry Squads implemented exactly as they did for the British and American ones. It's not just about Prillar having something on the beaches of Normandy to shoot at. The Tank players can use them on any map, in every sort of engagement, but we need all sides of the conflict represented.

Infantry is not just useful for Tank Crew. For testing purposes I've added the British/American infantry to my Lions of Kalinin fighter-bomber campaign. It worked very well and brought an interesting new element to ground attack missions. Supporting friendly infantry assaults and attacking advancing enemy infantry is quite fun.

I also did some tests with more complex situations, like infantry advancing behind tanks for cover or spawning infantry squads behind half tracks to simulate dismounting soldiers. It worked very well with what we already have in the game. All we need now are Soviet and German infantry models.

It's almost like the devs did not understand the full potential of the infantry models and mechanisms they've added to the game.

[Vishnu]

2 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

So they didn’t actually say anything about it being ‘too complex to render’ as such.

For the dev team, making a commercial product on a budget with a time scale, modelling a large city that never really saw any air combat over it probably is a waste of resources.

As to southern Italy and Malta; I can’t see there being any technical reason for not being able to make it.

Personally, I think the invasion of southern Italy would be a great subject for a WW2 CFS.

It has just about every element you could want; air to air, air to ground and a carrier element.

 

I think they simply haven’t got the inclination to do it. It’s their choice, their commercial decision to gamble with.

 

BTW, they also did say an outside group is modelling Leningrad, and that it's a "large city", so they obviously just don't want to do MTO.   It's clearly doable by every metric they stated in the video.

 

Meh.   Not my business decision.  I'm just pointing out the discrepancies in their argument.

 

Besides, nothing can be done about it. 

[Noisemaker]

7 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

BTW, they also did say an outside group is modelling Leningrad, and that it's a "large city", so they obviously just don't want to do MTO.   It's clearly doable by every metric they stated in the video.

 

Meh.   Not my business decision.  I'm just pointing out the discrepancies in their argument.

 

Besides, nothing can be done about it. 

A real shame imho.  MTO has everything us fighter and bomber jocks want.  Decent weather, gorgeous scenery, a pretty matched air war in terms of technology and:

[DD_Arthur]

Yep, they’ve certainly screwed the pooch by passing up the opportunity to make:

 

a) Volcanoes 

b) Zeppelins 

c) A combination of both the above.

?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

24 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

...an engine variant modification.

You're probably not allowed to tell us more about this yet, I suppose??

 

Have a nice day.

 

[357th_KW]

I suppose the solution is to get a group of enthusiasts together and start building it grassroots style as is being done with Karelia and Odessa.  I know nothing about how you’d even begin such a process, but surely there must be someone out there who does and is excited about the MTO.  The possibility is definitely there to do a staged development like what the Karelia team is doing - start with Malta and a bit of the Sicilian coast, and then gradually expand out to add in more of Sicily, and eventually Tunis and Messina.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Vishnu said:

BTW, they also did say an outside group is modelling Leningrad, and that it's a "large city", so they obviously just don't want to do MTO.   It's clearly doable by every metric they stated in the video.

 

Meh.   Not my business decision.  I'm just pointing out the discrepancies in their argument.

 

Besides, nothing can be done about it. 

 

[Noisemaker]

22 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

I suppose the solution is to get a group of enthusiasts together and start building it grassroots style as is being done with Karelia and Odessa.  I know nothing about how you’d even begin such a process, but surely there must be someone out there who does and is excited about the MTO.  The possibility is definitely there to do a staged development like what the Karelia team is doing - start with Malta and a bit of the Sicilian coast, and then gradually expand out to add in more of Sicily, and eventually Tunis and Messina.

 

I can only speak for myself, but I'm a flight-simmer, not a programmer.  I'll throw money at something I like, but I don't have time in my life to learn how to code, build maps, etc...  As a sound engineer, I could offer my help with some sound design stuff, but I'm pretty busy in my day to day job, enough so that I barely get a chance to fly.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Glad clickpits are off the table.  I won't spend $50+ per aircraft just to increase my work load for something I do for fun.

Also I think CountZero's plane list is pretty much spot on.  I would add the Skyraider, Tu2, Sea Fury and or Firefly as collectables.

[LukeFF]

22 minutes ago, FlyingShark said:

You're probably not allowed to tell us more about this yet, I suppose??

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Not at this point, no. ? Just preliminary talk at this point.

[Gambit21]

7 hours ago, [DBS]Tx_Tip said:

Considering the “competition” as a WWII combat simulator doesn’t make a pimple on BoXs’ butt.
What difference does it make if GBs’ intention is to make everything better with regards to Korea and/or whatever it ends up being?

It’ll then be certainly the best combat simulator for the Korean conflict and possibly whatever it ends up being.

You lost me

[Rjel]

57 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Glad clickpits are off the table.  I won't spend $50+ per aircraft just to increase my work load for something I do for fun.

Also I think CountZero's plane list is pretty much spot on.  I would add the Skyraider, Tu2, Sea Fury and or Firefly as collectables.

Most definitely a collectible Skyraider would be a great choice. 

[Ribbon]

Very glad to hear carrier deck op tech being in development for future PTO.

Sad to hear player controlable bombers are unlikely to happen, same goes for MP optimization.

 

I'll skip Korea project but i'll be back for PTO party.

Good luck and wish u succes with Korea so PTO can become reality! 

[Lusekofte]

1 minute ago, Ribbon said:

Very glad to hear carrier deck op tech being in development for future PTO.

Sad to hear player controlable bombers are unlikely to happen, same goes for MP optimization.

 

I'll skip Korea project but i'll be back for PTO party.

Good luck and wish u succes with Korea so PTO can become reality! 

I am at the same boat. Main things for me is how improvements work in reality. 

[Holtzauge]

In reference to some of the posts in this thread, I realize some clarifications about the communication connected to the WW1 Aircraft Performance book mentioned in the developer’s video are in order: 

 

After publishing my book, I contacted the developers via PM’s and offered to send them a copy free of charge. They were positive to this, and I therefore sent Viktor Sechnoy a copy already in February 2023. According to Viktor, he then passed it on to their engineers already in April 2023. But since I received no reaction, I again sent a PM in August 2023 but still received no reply in return.

 

It therefore comes as something of a surprise that they now in a public video almost a year later mention my book and that they are missing information, because if they had any questions about the modeling, references and assumptions, all they needed to do was to contact me via the PM thread we had going and in which I offered to help.  But this they never did, so the excuse in the video that they are missing information is pretty lame IMHO.

 

But given that this has now moved from PM’s to the public forum, I will now post more about the modeling, references and historical information used in the book later on when I get the time. However, given what has been posted in this thread I felt it necessary to make short reply already now since it’s always best to nip idle speculation and misinformation in the bud.

[Frequent_Flyer]

18 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'm just happy to hear that the P40 will be getting some much needed love.

Agreed,   also mentioned the P-47 will get another look, 

[MajorMagee]

Volcanoes?

 

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, Blitzen said:

IMHO: I'll probably spend my money buying "Korea" to support future efforts by the team, but I'll spend my time playing  TF CloD DWT and the ( hopefully finished,) Dieppe later this year, with

Yeah me too. But only if there is improvement that matter. So I will not pre buy