A request to the modeling team, on behalf of WWII plane modelers and flight sim lovers.

[musikerz]

Hi, dev team, I've seen ur great work through video and pictures, I am a great fan of WWII fighters, especially BF109 F/G series. I made models of them many times. So far, I've found several pics of the F4 on the web, and I am convinced, that u guys r trying ur best to make the most accurate 109F4 in-game model of all flightsim games. Well done! 

 

However, I've seen many not-so-accurate modeling of 109 in different games. Mostly its because the simplification of the model in order to gain better game performance, this happened in many old flightsims, which is understandable, but I think u guys already solve this problem. The second most problem is the worst, actually, USING THE WRONG TECHNICAL DRAWINGS FOR MODELING(this even happened in some recent flight sims).

 

I certainly hope this is not the case for IL2:BOS, because u guys r more serious about ur product than other game developers. So, in order to let us 109 lovers sleep better at night and play the game without thinking about this possible fault,  can u guys plz kindly show us the technical blueprints u used and the profiles of the actual model NOT in perspective mode? Therefore, even there was something wrong, we can still fix it before the release?

Edited August 2, 2013 by musikerz

[Freycinet]

Not particularly to this posting, but how about we just have some confidence in these guys and stop peeping them over their shoulders and come up with constant requests? - They are on a tight schedule to make this sim come true: do you honestly think they should spend time uploading their background materials so you can have a look at it? Also, it is probably not the time to introduce new major features, new planes, new whatnot, as they are being requested in other threads ... The open beta is just a few months away!

Edited August 2, 2013 by Freycinet

[Foobar]

You both are right in some way. Using wrong reference material was an is still an issue. But changing the basics at this time is a bit too late. Let's be confident.

[Freycinet]

Foobar, you are an artist, and you know that 3D-modelling is always an approximation and involves some artistic talent, rendering complex shapes with limited polys. I think the above screenies show that there are no major FUBARs with the 109 model. I also think that the artistic creation of the 3D-modellers has to be respected.

 

If somebody ends up really incensed about some perceived inaccuracy then he shouldn't buy the sim. But the sim IS the artistic creation of certain people and not a communal project by forum posters and programming team alike. At some point you just have to step back and decide whether you go along with the vision and execution of the developers. Just like a painting you want to acquire: you either buy what the artist did, go along with his artistic creation, or you go elsewhere.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Jason, Loft and the team know what they are doing and long long they have to do it, i dont see anything wrong with asking for pretty much anything as long as its done in a respectful manner, if they think its important enough and they have the time, they will do it.

 

The beta period is exactly what this is for...

 

Its also up to us to understand that if it cant be done right away and may need to wait for a later release, to not get our knickers in a twist about it.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Furbs

[Revvin]

You say you are happy with the screenshots you've seen but then want to see the technical data? I doubt they would make schematics available for others to take and use themselves if they have spent time sourcing this data or paying for it. If wanting to see this data is just to obsess over a potential missing panel line or microscopic access hatch on one plane then no I'd rather see the devs concentrate on more important things like tweaking the game engine, making some more missions.

[zxwings]

In fact I myself also want very much to see "the profiles of BOS' 109 model NOT in perspective mode".

 

Why not think of them as some special Friday Update pictures to be posted?

[leitmotiv]

...

 

However, I've seen many not-so-accurate modeling of 109 in different games. Mostly its because the simplification of the model in order to gain better game performance, this happened in many old flightsims, which is understandable, but I think u guys already solve this problem. The second most problem is the worst, actually, USING THE WRONG TECHNICAL DRAWINGS FOR MODELING(this even happened in some recent flight sims).

 

I certainly hope this is not the case for IL2:BOS, because u guys r more serious about ur product than other game developers. So, in order to let us 109 lovers sleep better at night and play the game without thinking about this possible fault,  can u guys plz kindly show us the technical blueprints u used and the profiles of the actual model NOT in perspective mode? Therefore, even there was something wrong, we can still fix it before the release?

 

 

This is well explaned by AnPetrovich in this forum Physics and aerodynamics... : http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/122-fizika-i-aerodinamika-v-bzs/page-38  (use google chrome translator)

 

They are very open in explanin the way they get correct data from multiple sorces and test it to see what is correct data, and they still spend a loot of time replaying on posts about it also

 

To me it looks pretty damn good and job

[Uufflakke]

 

If somebody ends up really incensed about some perceived inaccuracy then he shouldn't buy the sim. But the sim IS the artistic creation of certain people and not a communal project by forum posters and programming team alike. At some point you just have to step back and decide whether you go along with the vision and execution of the developers. Just like a painting you want to acquire: you either buy what the artist did, go along with his artistic creation, or you go elsewhere.

 

 

I don't agree.

In one of the Dev's Updates was a overheated discussion between members going on about some inaccuracies whether yes or no. On the Bf-109 as far as I can remember. (I'm too lazy to look it up in which of the 26 Updates it was.)

But the poster was right and one of the members of the dev team stated that nothing ain't wrong in mentioning inaccuracies that need to be fixed but please show some images or technical data to prove it.

Instead of just saying things are not well modelled.

 

To assist the team they opened this subforum.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/10-developer-assistance/

 

Isn't that just great that we get the possibility to point out inaccurate elements, post suggestions and sending relevant data?

To me it means that they don't live in an ivory tower and understand the purpose of a forum.

[BraveSirRobin]

I suspect that there is virtually no chance that they're going to post all their source material.  

[Heywooood]

yeah.. why not just hand over the source code while they're at it -

 

seriously - whats next - " we want to be sure of the flight and damage models - can you please post all pertinent information you have collected on those as well thanks" lol

 

sorry if that comes off as rude but honestly - everyone has a different threshold on rivet counting, no one is perfect...the models here and in RoF look pretty damn good with all the bumps and widgets in all the right places

at least to the majority...these guys say they have tech illustrations and test data recently released to them that they used for modeling all aspects - I trust that. They seem to have talent...I trust that they have done all they could to make these models as accurately as possible. That said, are there still limitations in 3D modeling? probably - I don't know Im not such a modeler. But I trust - and from what I have seen these are accurate enough.

 

As others have said - reworking them now is unlikely...and likely unecessary

Edited August 2, 2013 by Heywooood

[Foobar]

At least on RoF web site they are telling their references for each plane (shop -> description page -> references). So I have no doubt that they will tell their references even for the BoS plane models.

 

Just relax. All will be fine.

[StG2_xgitarrist]

This is actually a very important/interesting point by musikerz, because u have to think about it that way.

 

I would say 60% of players buying this game for 50 or 90 $, buy it for basically 1 or 2 planes they wanna fly with (at least the majority of german pilots i am flying with). This pilots will spent 95% of their time in the same aircraft.

 

So thats why it can be very frustrating if the aircraftmodel or flightcharateristics are not done in a proper way.

 

Well, I think autumn will show...

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

as long as its close who cares.. We are in it for that game aspect not the fact that oh my god this is missing, I cant fly this any more please fix.. if it looks and quacks like a 109 , then it must be a 109...

[Revvin]

The arguments over perceived bias to one side or another or how <insert plane here> is over modelled amd anyone who flies it is a stats whore will rage whether 1C/777 Studios post their sources or not as some virtual pilots will always find a reason why document x is flawed or how some flight testing document was flawed because they used a different fuel mix or the test pilot had an extra sausage on his breakfast before flying so he was too heavy etc etc. I'm sure 1C/777 Studios are prepared for this so showing technical documents would be a futile exercise. Maybe we could just trust 1C/777 Studios to deliver the best product they can and review our own flying deficiencies as why we got shot down and not blame it on some silly notion that there is a hidden agenda in the design of the virtual aircraft we will be flying

[smink1701]

The developers seem to be very passionate about what they are doing and equally methodic in their approach.  Unless there is something blatantly wrong and you can back up your claim with proof, i say let them do their job and then support or not with your wallets.  I did and am looking forward to receiving my premium edition!

[APIKalimba]

At what point will FM,DM and models of each airplane will receive the " approved " stamp ? And by whom ?

Even if it was technically feasible to achieve perfection in all aspects, who would know for sure ?

Is there a single person alive here that every rivet counter hardcore simmer could trust enough so it would put an end

to all these interminable discussions ?

IMHO, it will never end...So personally I let the people express their opinions and I am pretty sure that BOS will be a great sim.....

[Crow]

Man oh man, how many forum pages have already been used to have FM/DM debates? Hundreds? Thousands?

Some very veteran flight simmers have already presented excellent points on this before. I wish I could simply find the threads by memory. Suffice to say, this isn't a discussion worth having right now. We don't have any ability to assess the models and even when we do there is no guarantee that 1CGS has any interest in random internet opinions on the matter. There are a variety of methods that can be used to build a flight model. I don't envy the dev who has to make that choice.

 

They've already said they are going for historical accuracy, not balance. Cries of "XYZ plane is overpowered" will fall on deaf developer ears. It will be up to mission makers to come up with balanced maps for us to play on (which was pretty much always the case anyway).

Edited August 4, 2013 by Crow

[Bearcat]

The developers seem to be very passionate about what they are doing and equally methodic in their approach.  Unless there is something blatantly wrong and you can back up your claim with proof, i say let them do their job and then support or not with your wallets.  I did and am looking forward to receiving my premium edition!

 

 

At what point will FM,DM and models of each airplane will receive the " approved " stamp ? And by whom ?

Even if it was technically feasible to achieve perfection in all aspects, who would know for sure ?

Is there a single person alive here that every rivet counter hardcore simmer could trust enough so it would put an end

to all these interminable discussions ?

IMHO, it will never end...So personally I let the people express their opinions and I am pretty sure that BOS will be a great sim.....

 

 

Man oh man, how many forum pages have already been used to have FM/DM debates? Hundreds? Thousands?

 

Some very veteran flight simmers have already presented excellent points on this before. I wish I could simply find the threads by memory. Suffice to say, this isn't a discussion worth having right now. We don't have any ability to assess the models and even when we do there is no guarantee that 1CGS has any interest in random internet opinions on the matter. There are a variety of methods that can be used to build a flight model. I don't envy the dev who has to make that choice.

 

They've already said they are going for historical accuracy, not balance. Cries of "XYZ plane is overpowered" will fall on deaf developer ears. It will be up to mission makers to come up with balanced maps for us to play on (which was pretty much always the case anyway).

 

 

All of the above ... with even more emphasis on the highlighted parts ..

[musikerz]

Well, thx, guys, for participating such a hot discuss, and thank bearcat for the comment.

 

I knew, its not easy to disclose company assets for public assessment. However, I'd like some1 (preferably one of the modelers)from 777 to point out which one is closest to the tech drawings been used, i guess this is easier, right?  

 

Thx in advance, if any comments would be made! Sincerely hope this is not 2 much to ask!

 

#1

 

#2

 

#3

Edited August 8, 2013 by musikerz

[gavagai]

They've already said they are going for historical accuracy, not balance. Cries of "XYZ plane is overpowered" will fall on deaf developer ears. It will be up to mission makers to come up with balanced maps for us to play on (which was pretty much always the case anyway).

 

In RoF at least one aircraft is unofficially banned from multiplayer on most of the community hosted servers.

 

Some of you are throwing the kitchen sink at the OP's question.  Yeah, he sounds a little paranoid, but all he wanted to see were technical drawings.  This wasn't supposed to be a FM debate or a chance to post atta boys for the developers.

Edited August 8, 2013 by gavagai

[BlitzPig_EL]

In RoF at least one aircraft is unofficially banned from multiplayer on most of the community hosted servers.

 

 

 

What aircraft would that be?   It's been some time since I've flown RoF, but I don't recall any "banned" aircraft.

[BraveSirRobin]

There aren't any.  He's in the middle of a FM whining jihad.

[Original_Uwe]

What aircraft would that be? It's been some time since I've flown RoF, but I don't recall any "banned" aircraft.

If I recall the brisfit is frowned upon.

At least it was last time I played online, long time ago.

[BraveSirRobin]

Syndicate does not have the Falcon III version of the Bristol in any missions.  Somehow that morphed into "at least one aircraft is unofficially banned from multiplayer on most of the community hosted servers".