PDA

View Full Version : Team Fusion 5.0



BenQuinn
Feb-14-2015, 05:05
So this is more or less on the cards?
How can this fantastic game be made any better?

Incog
Feb-14-2015, 11:14
with more messerschmitts

ATAG_Colander
Feb-14-2015, 11:16
How can this fantastic game be made any better?

Some think is not good enough.

Mysticpuma
Feb-14-2015, 11:26
Fortunately Team Fusion and it's knowledgeable vacationers ^ know better :)

sw1ive
Feb-14-2015, 16:45
TF 5.00 Xm Xm Xm that's a very good idea... well I am waiting for...(date and link)...

ATAG_Lewis
Feb-14-2015, 22:05
I don't understand how anyone can deem this sim 'Not good enough'....It now ticks all the boxes for me...Its potential was recognised immediately by some of us and were prepared to give it the chance that it needed to become what it is today...I can't thank that little bunch of boffins enough who also recognised the potential and who had the know how, time and ultimate commitment to move it to the level it is today...for without them we would probably still be flying IL2 1946 or not at all...~S~

♣_Spiritus_♣
Feb-14-2015, 22:28
This game is the best there is for WWII combat flight sims "as is" but the potential of it is uncharted, the things that were thought of and attempted are unheard of. I still think CloD is in its infancy.

Thats whats so special about it, the original blueprints and Oleg's dream, this community and the kindness and helpfulness of it, and TF's contributions and additions that allow it all to gel and grow.

Awesome stuff.

:whacky4:

Tvrdi
Feb-15-2015, 02:27
This game is the best there is for WWII combat flight sims "as is" but the potential of it is uncharted, the things that were thought of and attempted are unheard of. I still think CloD is in its infancy.

Thats whats so special about it, the original blueprints and Oleg's dream, this community and the kindness and helpfulness of it, and TF's contributions and additions that allow it all to gel and grow.

Awesome stuff.

:whacky4:

I absolutely and unconditionally agree

5./JG26_Peete
Feb-15-2015, 07:26
Hello guys of tf.
I first went in a pit of the hurri and spifire a few weeks ago. It was feulcock on radiator open en go. . But when I saw a film over the p51 b. With a merlin engine in it. There were much more things to do en set when a merlin is started. The blower to auto for instance.. the carb heating of .. etc.. were are those switches or am I wrong here? I am glad with wat we hafe no hurry guys .. but perfection is what we going for right ?

6./JG26_Warjunkie
Feb-15-2015, 09:46
I don't understand how anyone can deem this sim 'Not good enough'....It now ticks all the boxes for me...Its potential was recognised immediately by some of us and were prepared to give it the chance that it needed to become what it is today...I can't thank that little bunch of boffins enough who also recognised the potential and who had the know how, time and ultimate commitment to move it to the level it is today...for without them we would probably still be flying IL2 1946 or not at all...~S~
:thumbsup:

ivo
Feb-15-2015, 10:19
I don't understand how anyone can deem this sim 'Not good enough'....It now ticks all the boxes for me...Its potential was recognised immediately by some of us and were prepared to give it the chance that it needed to become what it is today...I can't thank that little bunch of boffins enough who also recognised the potential and who had the know how, time and ultimate commitment to move it to the level it is today...for without them we would probably still be flying IL2 1946 or not at all...~S~

+100

BenQuinn
Feb-15-2015, 16:07
I don't understand how anyone can deem this sim 'Not good enough'....It now ticks all the boxes for me...Its potential was recognised immediately by some of us and were prepared to give it the chance that it needed to become what it is today...I can't thank that little bunch of boffins enough who also recognised the potential and who had the know how, time and ultimate commitment to move it to the level it is today...for without them we would probably still be flying IL2 1946 or not at all...~S~

Amen, it's the best I've seen!

Markie
Feb-15-2015, 17:10
I used to play Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Battlefield etc. I have limited time and although these are very good games I only spend time on this one now. From Vanilla Version to Cassata Royale we have come a long way. The beauty of it - excuse the pun is "The skies the limit." I wish for more too. I wish we had weather like in REX (Real Environment Extreme) however the weather we have is still very good. I hope the ones wanting this and wanting that to the point of perfection are the greatest contributors. I know things are happening and when it seems slow for things to emerge it means they will be great enhancements. There was an advertisement in our country years ago for a cheese company. A few men sit in a waiting room to be interviewed to become a cheesemaker. Nothing seems to happen for hours. Slowly they leave one by one until only two left, a young man and an old man. Anyhow the old man is the owner/hirer and he shakes the young man's hand to congratulate him on getting the job. The slogan being "Good things take time." The other well known slogan is "It won't happen overnight but it will happen."

5./JG11_Rain
Feb-15-2015, 17:11
This game is the best there is for WWII combat flight sims "as is" but the potential of it is uncharted, the things that were thought of and attempted are unheard of. I still think CloD is in its infancy.

Thats whats so special about it, the original blueprints and Oleg's dream, this community and the kindness and helpfulness of it, and TF's contributions and additions that allow it all to gel and grow.

Awesome stuff.

:whacky4:

I agree with you. The moment I've seen Cliffs of Dover when they revealed it I knew it had massive potential, still have it without a doubt.

Does Team Fusion have the tools and is it possible to do anything the original Oleg's team were doing, and maybe even more?
I know that creating a whole new cockpit can take 6 months time, but why is that? Is it the research about cockpits, finding real data about them, or is it pure programming/software effort that takes so long? Can you go into detail about the last question?

Thank you,
5./JG11_Rain

ATAG_Colander
Feb-15-2015, 17:18
I know that creating a whole new cockpit can take 6 months time, but why is that? Is it the research about cockpits, finding real data about them, or is it pure programming/software effort that takes so long? Can you go into detail about the last question?


All of the above plus more.
Everything takes time. The research, the 3D modeling ,the textures, the instruments, the coding, the tests, the "fix what was found wrong in the tests".
Today's games are not as cheap to produce as years ago for a reason.

Now add to that, what has been said before, TF has a real life with real jobs and little spare time.

♣_Spiritus_♣
Feb-15-2015, 17:55
^

Colander said it best.

Mysticpuma
Feb-16-2015, 02:38
Okay, imagine TF is a candle. The wax of our candle is made up of enthusiasm.and passion and that is the fuel we use. The candle is big :)

Sadly the wick is small.and thin and represents the time we have to work on it in our 'real' lives.

The candle.does burn...but slowly.......but as I said...it's a big candle.....so hopefully it will burn for many years to.come :)

Cheers, MP

KansasCS
Feb-16-2015, 06:03
What Programs do you use for 3D modeling?

ATAG_Lolsav
Feb-16-2015, 06:07
Ive read one its "Blender"

5./JG26_Peete
Feb-16-2015, 11:27
How many guys are in TF. ? 1. ? 2? 3? I have no ideer. ..

5./JG11_Rain
Feb-16-2015, 14:10
Thank you for your time and your answer.

I have last question concerning new planes for Cliffs of Dover. I have been thinking about this for some time.

There are plenty of indenpendent 3D modellers out there, and they sell their work of art.
For example this one: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-fighter-aircraft-model/354126
Now, don't mind it is an A8, its not suited for BoB era I know, I picked it just for an example.
This model have 368,306 polygons and 254,149 vertices, and it is animated. The artist used Lightwave 6.0 & 9.2, can that model be exported to Cliffs of Dover?
To make it compatible for Cliffs of Dover what software the 3D models must be created in, Blender (only?)? How many polygons, lines, details a 3D model must have to be on Cliffs of Dover standard?
Making something like a donation for new planes, we could volunterily buy a new plane, even a cockpit if we can find one, and export it to Cliffs with all the permissions of the Creator ofcourse. I'm sure there is plenty of us who would do this.

Please feel free to go into detail when you answer if you can,
Thank you...


All kinds of impressive work can be found, and this is only from 10 minutes on google:
Bf-109: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/bf-109-german-fighter-3d-model/855887
Lancaster: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/s-obj/872465#
https://www.cgstud.io/3d-model/short-stirling-mk-1-bomber-27671
Tiger tank: https://www.cgstud.io/3d-model/tiger-1-tank-42414

InvaderZim
Feb-16-2015, 15:21
Rain, I wondered that too. I have 3D modeling experience in Solidworks and some in GMax. In Gmax I would routinely import models in from turbosquid and modify them for use in msf. Is Blender the only cost effective/time/integration option as of right now?

♣_Spiritus_♣
Feb-16-2015, 15:50
Aircraft are insanely complicated in CloD. All or most of the systems are modeled inside the aircraft which most models out there lack. Plus theres a bunch of other issues like poly counts, licenses, etc etc. Often really nice models would take more time to modify for use in CloD then it would to just make your own.

Blender is a free program that some of us use, other platforms are fine like 3ds MAx. Theres probably a couple other but I can't recall them right now.... Blender and 3ds Max are the main things people use I think.

InvaderZim
Feb-17-2015, 16:51
THX, Spiritus. Been interested in your Blender class but I just don't know where the time would come from right now to engage. Please keep up the good work and thanks again.

-Z

♣_Spiritus_♣
Feb-17-2015, 18:35
Well if you ever do I can get on TS and show you some stuff with it.

:salute:

Every time I see your avatar I think Pinkie and the Brain.

Salmo
Feb-18-2015, 01:34
Thank you for your time and your answer.

I have last question concerning new planes for Cliffs of Dover. I have been thinking about this for some time.

There are plenty of indenpendent 3D modellers out there, and they sell their work of art.
For example this one: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d-fighter-aircraft-model/354126
Now, don't mind it is an A8, its not suited for BoB era I know, I picked it just for an example.
This model have 368,306 polygons and 254,149 vertices, and it is animated. The artist used Lightwave 6.0 & 9.2, can that model be exported to Cliffs of Dover?
To make it compatible for Cliffs of Dover what software the 3D models must be created in, Blender (only?)? How many polygons, lines, details a 3D model must have to be on Cliffs of Dover standard?
Making something like a donation for new planes, we could volunterily buy a new plane, even a cockpit if we can find one, and export it to Cliffs with all the permissions of the Creator ofcourse. I'm sure there is plenty of us who would do this.

Please feel free to go into detail when you answer if you can,
Thank you...


All kinds of impressive work can be found, and this is only from 10 minutes on google:
Bf-109: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/bf-109-german-fighter-3d-model/855887
Lancaster: http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/s-obj/872465#
https://www.cgstud.io/3d-model/short-stirling-mk-1-bomber-27671
Tiger tank: https://www.cgstud.io/3d-model/tiger-1-tank-42414

Thankyou for your thoughts Rain. I'll answer a few of yours & others questions:

What modeling software is used to make models for COD? - 3DMax or Blender. Other software that can export to obj file format.

Purchasing 3D models - It sounds like a good idea at first, until you realise that you can't just import a pre-made model as-is into the game. There would be much work needed to tweek the various parts of the model to get them to a stage that is compatible with the game. This would take a great deal of a TF members time to do. Added to that, any particualr model may not be ideally suited to the new theatre, so taking a TF persons time away from current new aircraft work to work on a donated model might be counter-productive.

Permission of author to use their model - This is a problematic area. A model author may allow their model to be purchased & used for other works, but may object to their model being used by TF since technically speaking TF does not have the rights to the game.

7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER
Feb-18-2015, 17:46
I don't understand how anyone can deem this sim 'Not good enough'....It now ticks all the boxes for me...Its potential was recognised immediately by some of us and were prepared to give it the chance that it needed to become what it is today...I can't thank that little bunch of boffins enough who also recognised the potential and who had the know how, time and ultimate commitment to move it to the level it is today...for without them we would probably still be flying IL2 1946 or not at all...~S~



8.1 users complain.

I have been working on my buddy to come back. There needs to be a big fat warning on this game that if you have an old Win 7 disk its time for dual boot.

BenQuinn
Feb-25-2015, 00:41
I don't understand how anyone can deem this sim 'Not good enough'....It now ticks all the boxes for me...Its potential was recognised immediately by some of us and were prepared to give it the chance that it needed to become what it is today...I can't thank that little bunch of boffins enough who also recognised the potential and who had the know how, time and ultimate commitment to move it to the level it is today...for without them we would probably still be flying IL2 1946 or not at all...~S~
+100%

KansasCS
Feb-25-2015, 03:32
I wish I would be adept in 3Ds Max or Blender so that I could contribute.
I know this is a stupid question, but how is the learning curve with those programs?

buster_dee
Feb-25-2015, 07:01
What I would love to see is cooperation with A2A Simulations, where their people could be taught how to augment their models to get them close to Cliffs requirements, sell the add-on compatibility "package" similar to how they do their Accusim module, then have TF integrate the "pre-prepped" models. Cliffs would broaden A2A exposure, the aircraft would tap a large community, and flyers would have Cliffs for the itch and FSX for the R and R. The P-40 would be a good start.

I know, as soon as money changes hands--even if not to TF--folks will understandably get nervous.

Osprey
Feb-25-2015, 07:11
8.1 users complain.

I have been working on my buddy to come back. There needs to be a big fat warning on this game that if you have an old Win 7 disk its time for dual boot.

http://www.aircombatgroup.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3658

ATAG_Lolsav
Feb-25-2015, 07:19
http://www.aircombatgroup.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3658

I dont get it Osprey. You post a link to your forum that has a thread that will redirect to this forum again. Uh? Why not post to the specific thread on this forum since its a redirect. Oh, wait, i get it, nevermind. :D

9./JG52 Ziegler
Feb-25-2015, 07:24
I know, as soon as money changes hands--even if not to TF--folks will understandably get nervous.

There in lies the problem.

Osprey
Feb-25-2015, 11:12
I dont get it Osprey. You post a link to your forum that has a thread that will redirect to this forum again. Uh? Why not post to the specific thread on this forum since its a redirect. Oh, wait, i get it, nevermind. :D

I was being lazy, I already had that link open on my browser. I see what you are implying but no, he's in a squadron already, so I think I get what you say you got but you got the wrong end of the stick there chum :salute:

Continu0
Feb-25-2015, 15:32
I wish I would be adept in 3Ds Max or Blender so that I could contribute.
I know this is a stupid question, but how is the learning curve with those programs?

Ask Spiritus Mortem. He started with Blender for Team Fusion and now is a Member...!

Salmo
Feb-25-2015, 20:51
I wish I would be adept in 3Ds Max or Blender so that I could contribute.
I know this is a stupid question, but how is the learning curve with those programs?

Blender is free, the learning curve is steep but people with virtually no previously 3D experence seem to be able to produce reasonable models. You could try contacting 69th_Spiritus_Mortem (US-S SM) for advice.

[edit] - Ha! Continu0 beat me to it :)

♣_Spiritus_♣
Feb-25-2015, 21:14
PM sent, feel free to ask questions when you get stuck although that link I sent should give you a plethora of info.

:thumbsup:

spartan18a
Apr-19-2015, 09:32
I have a question about future improvements in the CLOD.
Are the damage models going to be change? I mean, what is more realistic the ones in IL2 1946 or in the CLOD?
I don't want to create a hot debate but what was the real one? Is the IL2 real or Hollywood style? Is the CLOD real or lame?
Thanks

Mysticpuma
Apr-19-2015, 10:35
I have a question about future improvements in the CLOD.
Are the damage models going to be change? I mean, what is more realistic the ones in IL2 1946 or in the CLOD?
I don't want to create a hot debate but what was the real one? Is the IL2 real or Hollywood style? Is the CLOD real or lame?
Thanks

"I don't want to create a hot debate" but throw out a loaded question and use words like Hollywood and lame?

Whatever!

MP

spartan18a
Apr-19-2015, 10:45
Don't get offended. English is not my first language. I went to both extremes just to make my point and because I'm just confused with the difference in both models. I try to be honest but not offensive at all. Many people think that and it's a fact.
I've been watching gun camara footage, as surely you have too, and ... Well, which is more accurate to real life?
You're a genius and what Team Fusion is doing with CLOD is just undescriptable. But many people wonder about the damage models. What is your opinion about it?
We all seek the max reality in a sim. You guys are creating the best sim ever, no doubt about that. So I just raise the question to help you reach perfection.
I hope I have expressed myself better in second language. The message is always stronger in a L1 that in an L2. So that is why my words sound stronger for you than your non-native speaker. I swear no bad intention in my words!!! But don't wanna talk about linguistics now. lol

ATAG_Colander
Apr-19-2015, 10:45
I have a question about future improvements in the CLOD.
Are the damage models going to be change? I mean, what is more realistic the ones in IL2 1946 or in the CLOD?
I don't want to create a hot debate but what was the real one? Is the IL2 real or Hollywood style? Is the CLOD real or lame?
Thanks

Hola Spartan,
CLOD damage model is a lot better than old IL2.
One thing to take into consideration are the bullets available on the current period of the war. Latter on the war, with heavier guns, you will see more Hollywood style damages.

spartan18a
Apr-19-2015, 10:56
Hola Spartan,
CLOD damage model is a lot better than old IL2.
One thing to take into consideration are the bullets available on the current period of the war. Latter on the war, with heavier guns, you will see more Hollywood style damages.
Ok, that sounds reasonable. I thought 20mm cannons would be more devastating but I didn't take into account the guns & bullets and their evolution during the war. Good point.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-19-2015, 12:17
You raise a good topic, Spartan. There are some excellent threads/posts in this forum that describe the complexities of the Clod damage modelling in great detail, which I can't find at the moment. :doh:

I will hunt them down, merge them into one thread, and "sticky" them to make it easier to find. I was amazed at how much work went into the aircraft systems modelled, the individual bullet's penetrative and destructive powers modelled based on type and kinetic energy on impact, coupled to the various elements of aircraft construction and flammability (wood, metal, fabric, etc). Utterly mind boggling that not only such parameters can be programmed into a £10 game, but that home PC's can handle it!

:stunned:

spartan18a
Apr-19-2015, 12:25
You raise a good topic, Spartan. There are some excellent threads/posts in this forum that describe the complexities of the Clod damage modelling in great detail, which I can't find at the moment. :doh:

I will hunt them down, merge them into one thread, and "sticky" them to make it easier to find. I was amazed at how much work went into the aircraft systems modelled, the individual bullet's penetrative and destructive powers modelled based on type and kinetic energy on impact, coupled to the various elements of aircraft construction and flammability (wood, metal, fabric, etc). Utterly mind boggling that not only such parameters can be programmed into a £10 game, but that home PC's can handle it!

:stunned:
Sounds really interesting. I would love to read about it if you find it.
My squad recently moved from the old IL2 to CLOD and we have many pilots arguing about the damage models. It would be great if I had some data to argue that back.
I must confess that I opinion is divided on this topic and that the transition is very VERY hard.
Right now we are in a HRcodwar and we are all learning to to compete with the CLOD sim.
Another issue we have is the planes spinning or rotating in take off and landings. What are we doing wrong? For example, I was landing the other day and the plane had touched down and was rolling bleeding speed, suddenly with a slight touch in the wheel brakes, the plane skidded and the right wing touched the ground. Fortunately, no systems were damage. It's sad to have these issues in the middle of a competition [emoji13]
Thanks to all from other virtual flying fans overseas [emoji13]

ATAG_Lolsav
Apr-19-2015, 12:32
Another issue we have is the planes spinning or rotating in take off and landings. Whatbare we doing wrong?

Adjustments takes time, your not doing anything wrong. In time it will be almost intuitive, to counter the torque on take off. Evry pilot has its own technique, but there is one common to all: Take off into wind direction to avoid spinning :D; Use the rudder wisely to counter torque, not to increase more instability of the plane (its a very thin line); practice... you might be il2 veterans but in CLOD they are rookies. Planes are diffrent (althought same principles of flying applies) and FM is diffrent. And its a new game engine, more complex and for that same reason, more fun to learn. Not wanting to be disrespectfull but when veterans come to CLOD they have to eat "humble pie" before they can put their experience into the game. And that process is part of the fun! S!

spartan18a
Apr-19-2015, 14:22
Adjustments takes time, your not doing anything wrong. In time it will be almost intuitive, to counter the torque on take off. Evry pilot has its own technique, but there is one common to all: Take off into wind direction to avoid spinning :D; Use the rudder wisely to counter torque, not to increase more instability of the plane (its a very thin line); practice... you might be il2 veterans but in CLOD they are rookies. Planes are diffrent (althought same principles of flying applies) and FM is diffrent. And its a new game engine, more complex and for that same reason, more fun to learn. Not wanting to be disrespectfull but when veterans come to CLOD they have to eat "humble pie" before they can put their experience into the game. And that process is part of the fun! S!
Thanks Lolsav, one thing. Do we have to counter the torque effects also in the landings?
Thanks

spartan18a
Apr-19-2015, 14:24
Another thing I was wondering about. When you spawn in the cockpit you don't know where you are in relation to the airfield. This not realistic, so my idea is: what about having a way to show where you are? Maybe an airport mini map which shows where you have spawned. I don't know if this is too crazy but I always so disoriented at spawning. In real life you would have driven or walked to your crate and have a situational awareness.
What do you guys think?

ATAG_Lolsav
Apr-19-2015, 14:59
Thanks Lolsav, one thing. Do we have to counter the torque effects also in the landings?

If throtle is back, no, but you still have to take into account the wind. Its tricky, thats for sure.


Another thing I was wondering about. When you spawn in the cockpit you don't know where you are in relation to the airfield. This not realistic, so my idea is: what about having a way to show where you are? Maybe an airport mini map which shows where you have spawned. I don't know if this is too crazy but I always so disoriented at spawning. In real life you would have driven or walked to your crate and have a situational awareness.
What do you guys think?

You have the cockpit instruments.. pointing to where your nose is. No mini-map... full real server. Look for the runway (yellow boards always point to the best take off position on the runway). Also, due to a bug we hope to be squashed in the future, when you spawn the plane will turn itself into the wind. Thats why it spins a bit.

♣_Spiritus_♣
Apr-19-2015, 15:08
You have to counter torque and wind as long as you are spawned in your aircraft, wind all the time if its present and torque all the time if your engine is on and any throttle is applied.

CloD's damage model is the most detailed there is. You may not get an aircraft to blow up into a thousand pieces like we see in 46 (Did it happen in RL? Yes but way overdone IMO as far as how often). Watch some Karaya videos in regards to the 20mm, I think they are potent as does many a red pilot, especially Blenny pilots.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16621

See post 3.

There are other threads out there discussing possibilities of exploding fuel, ordnance and O2 bottles which will mimic what I think you are saying.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16670

See post 3 as well.

As far as SA on airfields... you will actually learn the airfields rather quickly and it will be like driving in real life, you'll know where to go. There are great maps from Tom here plus a lot of goodies:

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12895

You can use those and zoom in and see the layout of the airfields runways and with that you should be able to make a judgement call.

I love 46 but CloD is miles above it in every category except content.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-19-2015, 16:55
Nothing in a simulation is going to be able to completely replicate the variables of real life damage.

However, you can model a lot of elements in CLIFFS OF DOVER... all the major effects of kinetic and explosive damage.

Right now it is at a level which is higher than most of the simulations out there. (not sure about DCS as I have not seen the engine files)

We could take the level of complexity much further, basically CLIFFS OF DOVER's damage modeling can be as complex as we want to make it.

However that can become a bit obsessive and counterproductive, for example, there is a question of how much time and effort would be required to create an aircraft where every single major electrical component, and all the wiring for that component has a damage system. Right now for example the various gauges in the cockpit can be damaged by being directly impacted, but the game does not model the wiring for these or damage which might be caused by the severing of a connection.

There are things which I would like to see introduced for TF 5.0, which at the moment are not modeled... those being Oxygen bottles exploding when penetrated, and ammunition exploding or igniting when penetrated. We also want to see the game be a little more systematic and consistent in how existing damage systems are modeled... there are various bugs and idiosyncrasies with some planes. We will move forward as time and resources allow.

In any case, even as it stands now, DM in CoD is much better than IL-2 1946.

By the way, you can get an aircraft to blow up and disintegrate in CoD, enough rounds of inciendary/explosive 20mm into a fuel tank will cause a large explosion.

Quinte
Apr-20-2015, 06:12
Since we're talking about the damage model, I've had two questions on my mind for a while, for you engine gurus.

1- Can battle damage affect the resistance of the plane to non-battle damage? i.e, if my wing is heavily damaged, is it more likely to rip in a low G turn, or even at high speed?

2- Is the DM actually, to your knowledge, handled differently in SP and online? In my offline warm-up rounds, I tend to flame Spitfires quite regularly. It doesn't seem to happen that regularly online, but I can't tell if it's just placebo or not.

Salmo
Apr-20-2015, 07:43
Since we're talking about the damage model, I've had two questions on my mind for a while, for you engine gurus. 1- Can battle damage affect the resistance of the plane to non-battle damage? i.e, if my wing is heavily damaged, is it more likely to rip in a low G turn, or even at high speed?
Yes.


2- Is the DM actually, to your knowledge, handled differently in SP and online? In my offline warm-up rounds, I tend to flame Spitfires quite regularly. It doesn't seem to happen that regularly online, but I can't tell if it's just placebo or not.
In theory there should be no difference between SP & MP. Experience has shown, however, that there are some aspects of the game which play completely differently offline & online. So I wouln't be surprised if what you describe is really happening & may be a legacy bug.

spartan18a
Apr-20-2015, 11:59
OK. I also have another question. This time is about the wind. When you spawn and do NOT start the engine the plane moves in a rotation mode. Is that so in real life? Could the wind move the planes in such a way?
Thanks. I'm really learning in this thread [emoji7]

=AFJ=Oracle
Apr-20-2015, 12:13
Yes. from personal experience with light aircraft, such as the J-3 Cub, PA-18 Super Cub and B75N Stearman, if they are equipped with free-castoring tailwheels will happily weathervane into the wind and worse.

Free-castoring tail wheels that could be locked into place was common in that time and it was proper procedure to put the chocks in and lock the tail wheel when parked.

The ones I fly have clutched tail wheel assemblies that will "break away" and become free-castoring if they are torqued beyond a certain point. When that happens, relatively gentle gusts will weathervane you unless you have enough speed or propwash for the rudder to be effective.

On heavier fighters I understand that this was still a factor because the rudder and side surface area were proportionally larger and they caught the wind just as well.

IMHO, I think the FM leans on the side of forgiving in the area of ground handling. It would probably discourage too many new players if it were made tougher.

Davis0079
Apr-20-2015, 16:59
Speaking of propwash and windveining, these are the things you need to think of when taking off and landing. And why you spin while on the ground.

When I land my 109, as soon as I'm wheels down I lightly get on the brakes, then progressively get on them harder (while pulling back on the stick). This can send you into a spin. Matter of fact, I'll say it like this. It will send you into a spin. The best way to counteract this is to increase your throttle just a bit after touchdown. Once the propwash is back on the rudder, you will regain rudder authority. You can still brake all the way to a stop, but you can also taxi without worrying about spinning.

Same when I start up. As I get taxing fast, I dont cut throttle, I use the brakes to maintain my speed instead. The wind from the prop gives you the rudder authority needed for safe taxi (no spin). When you cut throttle you lose the ability to steer with the rudder while on the ground.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-20-2015, 17:08
IMHO, I think the FM leans on the side of forgiving in the area of ground handling. It would probably discourage too many new players if it were made tougher.

Yes, and the mission builders could also increase the amount of wind, which would make the buffeting and turbulence inflight much more noticeable, not to mention the on ground handling less than desirable. ;)

varrattu
Apr-21-2015, 02:12
Taildragger rule number 1: Always keep the stick back while taxiing.
The stick should never be held forward of the neutral position when taxiing, it should be all the way back. The only possible exception to this rule is if there is a strong tail wind.

:salute: ~V~

PS: trimming rudder fully back while taxiing helps a lot.

5./JG26_Peete
Apr-21-2015, 03:10
In clod the wind is a bit hard on the ground! We had that discussion. They made it hard else the clouds did not move in the sky. Very hard wind makes planes spin ... so there you go. In real war most deadly crashes happend with the 109 on the ground. A lot of rooki pilots crasht in to a hanger or something. It was a mean machine in those days... take a hurricane if you want easy handling.. she is a dream.. also on the ground..

Gromit
Apr-21-2015, 05:09
Sounds really interesting. I would love to read about it if you find it.
My squad recently moved from the old IL2 to CLOD and we have many pilots arguing about the damage models. It would be great if I had some data to argue that back.
I must confess that I opinion is divided on this topic and that the transition is very VERY hard.
Right now we are in a HRcodwar and we are all learning to to compete with the CLOD sim.
Another issue we have is the planes spinning or rotating in take off and landings. What are we doing wrong? For example, I was landing the other day and the plane had touched down and was rolling bleeding speed, suddenly with a slight touch in the wheel brakes, the plane skidded and the right wing touched the ground. Fortunately, no systems were damage. It's sad to have these issues in the middle of a competition [emoji13]
Thanks to all from other virtual flying fans overseas [emoji13]

The damage model on old IL2 was totally over the top, with aircraft disintegrating with short bursts, wings and tails disappearing everywhere, it was unrealistic to the extreme, spend a couple of hours reviewing online gun camera film and you see very few aircraft lose wings or disintegrate, practically none explode, did it happen , yes , but very rarely, gamers tend to grossly overestimate the damage a 20mm cannon round can do!

Consider the fact aircraft limped home after sustaining 37mm or 40mm hits, they didn't all get blown to pieces, it really really matters where the damage is sustained, a single .303/7.9mm can bring down any liquid cooled fighter if it hits the wrong place!

spartan18a
Apr-21-2015, 05:33
Thanks to all for the excellent replies. It helps a lot to understand the complexity and beauty of this sim. [emoji13]

Gromit
Apr-21-2015, 08:55
If anyone's interested here's some pretty clear film showing fighter kills, lots of venting 109's!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLxI6kW7bFU




190's and 109's , Hurri's and Spits getting hit on this, note no disintegrating aircraft!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqJwHdMDK0

Bewolf
Apr-21-2015, 10:30
The damage model on old IL2 was totally over the top, with aircraft disintegrating with short bursts, wings and tails disappearing everywhere, it was unrealistic to the extreme, spend a couple of hours reviewing online gun camera film and you see very few aircraft lose wings or disintegrate, practically none explode, did it happen , yes , but very rarely, gamers tend to grossly overestimate the damage a 20mm cannon round can do!

Consider the fact aircraft limped home after sustaining 37mm or 40mm hits, they didn't all get blown to pieces, it really really matters where the damage is sustained, a single .303/7.9mm can bring down any liquid cooled fighter if it hits the wrong place!

Interesting enough. Funny tidbit, though..if you fire the 20mm in CloD against german aircraft, another 109 for example, they are devastating, taking of wings in no time. Try the same against Spits and Blennies...weeeell. Something off here, but I think TF is looking into it anyways.

=AFJ=Oracle
Apr-21-2015, 10:50
Knocking wings off Spits happens all the time with the 20mm. I'd say around a third of the time half a wing comes off sending them completely out of control. This reminds me about the interesting behavior where Spits can remain airborne despite losing a third of their wing or the section beyond the machine guns.

Taking off a Spitfire wing has only happened when I take high deflection shots where I see the entire wing planform. I have never taken a wing off from the rear aspect. Stabilizers yes, wings no.

On another note, I also learned that a rudder and vertical stabilizer is optional on the Spitfire IIa. I made a pass on a lone 109 and shot him up. I was forced to dive to avoid him when he pulled up hard. He either nosed over at the last second or I didn't clear him in my dive because I noticed my plane had a lot of adverse yaw when I pulled up and to the right. When I looked back I saw the 109 had bailed and I could not see the vertical stabilizer. I decided to play on because control wasn't bad and I was at 27K.

Thankfully, the next 3 109 also didn't know I was there as I bounced them and leaked their radiators, despite having a little trouble with aim. Not sure if the airplane should handle that well without that part of the tail. I should have taken a picture after I landed.

Bewolf
Apr-21-2015, 11:29
Taking off a Spitfire wing has only happened when I take high deflection shots where I see the entire wing planform. I have never taken a wing off from the rear aspect. Stabilizers yes, wings no.


Can confirm. But that's exactly what I mean. You will have no problem taking off a 109s wing from the rear. Compared to that the odd capability of the Spit to stay in the fight despite huge structural and/or internal damage (you mentioned the wing issue) is rather discomforting, but manageable, could be that it was like that in real life as well.

Just fly at AX Dogfight for a bit, where you encounter both Spits and 109s on the opposite side, to get quite a clear pciture of that.

Gromit
Apr-21-2015, 14:00
aircraft may well have suffered structural failure, there are anecdotes from pilots of this happening, also of aircraft exploding but the instance seems to be extremely rare, about a year ago an few of us trawled through just about every gun camera film we could find looking for such evidence, it was frankly a tiny percentage and nearly all of the ones we did find were FW190's suggesting it was primarily aircraft related!

There are good images on the vids above of hurricanes and spits taking multiple 20mm hits, Bf109's taking multiple hits, yet we see no evidence of structural failures, lots of venting, a couple of external fuel tanks flaring, bits and what looks like fabric coming off yet no instant destruction we regularly saw on the old IL2, in fact it's actually quite close to what we see in game right now.

I have seen the 109 wing issues myself when struck by other 109's, it seems to have the same failure rate of the Hurricane, yet the Spit seems more robust, which is bizarre as if you rated the aircraft in order of structural integrity from lightest to heaviest you would end up with 109-Spit-Hurricane , it's obviously a matter of tweeking the DM to get to the bottom of this, but in reality none of the aircraft should be losing wings with the regularity we currently see.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-21-2015, 16:01
As Gromit says, instant structural failure in aircraft hit by gunfire... even 20mm was relatively rare.

Most aircraft went down for the following reasons:

- Pilot hit by gunfire

- Fuel tanks or engine compartment set on fire (fuel tank explosions did cause structural failures)

- Controls disabled

The vanilla game made instant structural failure from gunfire very common, we tuned that back, but didn't go far enough. It is still far too easy to shoot down aircraft, the number which a player can down with the relatively small ammo loads of 1940 aircraft is considerably out of line with the historical results. We will be reducing the ability of weapons to cause instant structural failure in TF 5.0... no more wings coming off Blenheims with a few 20mm rounds... unless a fuel tank explodes.

We will also be adding to the complexity of the damage effects, so the secondary effect of fire, ie. explosions, weakening of the structures, etc. are more pronounced. Also as mentioned, adding factors like explosions of oxygen bottles, ammunition containers, bombs, etc.

Knocking the wings off large bombers will be very difficult unless as a result of cumulative damage, fire and secondary explosions of fuel. As in the real situation, killing pilots is the fastest way to down a large aircraft... this is one of the major reasons the Luftwaffe specialized in headon attacks on 4 engined types.

Those on the Blue side who complain about the loss of their 20mm wing instant amputation should also remember there will be 20mm on the Allied side too... if the damage systems stayed the same as they are now, wings would be coming off 109's and German bombers very quickly. ;)

=AFJ=Oracle
Apr-21-2015, 16:25
Gromit,

I recall reading that the Hurricane was a very tough airplane that could take a pounding much better than the stressed skin airframe of the Spitfire. It would make sense to me that welded tube frame would be tougher as the surface area of critical structure in a Hurricane is far smaller than essentially the entire airplane as in the Spitfire.

It's one of the reasons why the Hurricanes could be patched and put back into service so quickly while it was generally easier to scavenge Spitfires with damaged airframes for parts.

Bewolf
Apr-21-2015, 17:44
Those on the Blue side who complain about the loss of their 20mm wing instant amputation should also remember there will be 20mm on the Allied side too... if the damage systems stayed the same as they are now, wings would be coming off 109's and German bombers very quickly. ;)

That is what I said. If Spitfires fly along merryly while 109s will be instakilled, things will be a bit odd =)
Did you consider that most people flying CloD these days have more expirience and skill then any original WW2 pilot could ever dream of? Should be taken into account when assessing damage results..

Quinte
Apr-21-2015, 17:46
It is still far too easy to shoot down aircraft, the number which a player can down with the relatively small ammo loads of 1940 aircraft is considerably out of line with the historical results.

While I definitely agree with about everything you said there, I think that we need to consider the fact that we pretty much all shoot like WW2 aces. Not surprising, since we get a lot more "combat experience" than they did. I mean, there are people here that shoot down as many aircrafts in a month than Hartmann did in his entire war.
That's a bias that combat flight sims will always have to deal with. (of course there are other factors too, and one of them is that shooting under G-load is just a matter of estimating lead, while for them, it was first and foremost about being able to fight the G-load, then estimate the lead)

istruba
Apr-21-2015, 19:39
The vanilla game made instant structural failure from gunfire very common, we tuned that back, but didn't go far enough. It is still far too easy to shoot down aircraft, the number which a player can down with the relatively small ammo loads of 1940 aircraft is considerably out of line with the historical results. We will be reducing the ability of weapons to cause instant structural failure in TF 5.0...

:woohoo: WOHOOOOOOO.... TF5.0, the age of tankfires and hurritanks will begin.

ATAG_Colander
Apr-21-2015, 19:40
the age of tankfires will begin.

Or not, depends on your aim :D

I know mine will not make much fires :)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-22-2015, 04:04
Did you consider that most people flying CloD these days have more expirience and skill then any original WW2 pilot could ever dream of? Should be taken into account when assessing damage results..

Actually before you start patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on your skills you should consider the reality.

First of all, while CoD probably has the most detailed and accurate weapons systems of any sim out there, it is still a long way from the reality.

For example, the issue of wingflex... when under load, wings flex.... and therefore all the careful gun syncronization in the world means very little when wing mount guns are considered... the wing flex throws off the hit point considerably. There is no wingflex modeled in CoD. If players had to deal with that, they'd be hitting a lot less aircraft.

I could quote another 5 examples where in real life it would be more difficult to get hits... think about that before appointing yourself as superior to Hans Joachim Marseille or his like.

Continu0
Apr-22-2015, 05:45
Actually before you start patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on your skills you should consider the reality.



I don`t think that this was Bewolfs intention... But don`t you think that there are many Cliffs-Pilots that have seen way more air-to-air engagements in Cliffs than a RL-Pilot could see in the actual war?

I think that Bewolf wanted to point out that even tough reality might be more complex than the game, it might be a factor that we as virtual pilots can get much more training in what we do than RL-pilots had on what they did...

Bewolf
Apr-22-2015, 07:25
Actually before you start patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on your skills you should consider the reality.

woah, where did that come from?



First of all, while CoD probably has the most detailed and accurate weapons systems of any sim out there, it is still a long way from the reality.

For example, the issue of wingflex... when under load, wings flex.... and therefore all the careful gun syncronization in the world means very little when wing mount guns are considered... the wing flex throws off the hit point considerably. There is no wingflex modeled in CoD. If players had to deal with that, they'd be hitting a lot less aircraft.

I could quote another 5 examples where in real life it would be more difficult to get hits... think about that before appointing yourself as superior to Hans Joachim Marseille or his like.

Buzzsaw, no idea where this passive agressive behaviour comes from...let me point out that I have the utmost respect for what you guys do. That respect is in no way diminished by different opinions we may have in regards to topics like this or some other one. This respect includes you especially. And again a big thank you for what you do here. If I put out critique, I am aware this critique is on a very high level already.

I merely wanted to add that CloD pilots have several years of virtual simming under their belts and yes, indeed, a lot of people have come to be as accurate as a Marseilles (I am not there yet). And I am pretty sure if, for example, wing flex would be added, a couple years down the line the results on the servers would be the same again, ppl adapt and improve after all.

Vlerkies
Apr-22-2015, 07:53
This from Conflict of Eagles.
1675516754

The Decisive Duel
16753

edit: btw, Kent's crate was a Spitfire MkIIB fitted with 20mm's (Spitfire P8189). The same plane (flown by another pilot the following day) was involved in a midair, both pilots ok.

JG4_sKylon
Apr-22-2015, 08:01
Actually before you start patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on your skills you should consider the reality.

First of all, while CoD probably has the most detailed and accurate weapons systems of any sim out there, it is still a long way from the reality.

For example, the issue of wingflex... when under load, wings flex.... and therefore all the careful gun syncronization in the world means very little when wing mount guns are considered... the wing flex throws off the hit point considerably. There is no wingflex modeled in CoD. If players had to deal with that, they'd be hitting a lot less aircraft.

I could quote another 5 examples where in real life it would be more difficult to get hits... think about that before appointing yourself as superior to Hans Joachim Marseille or his like.

You are strengthening Bewolfs point. Virtual pilots in Cliffs have more combat hours and experience than the average combat pilot of that time. Therefore, the virtual pilots have a lot more training in shooting.
Adding your point that wing flex is not modeled which makes shooting and hitting more easy for virtual pilots, it is no wonder that we see weapon damage in game that we seldomly see in historical gun cam videos.

I don´t say you´re wrong with your statement that the damage model / weapons damage do not reflect real life values. I just say that real life guncam videos are not necessarily an argument to prove that shooting wings/tails off is totally wrong.

Personally, i am wondering about your harsh comment to Bewolfs post.

Gromit
Apr-22-2015, 10:33
You are strengthening Bewolfs point. Virtual pilots in Cliffs have more combat hours and experience than the average combat pilot of that time. Therefore, the virtual pilots have a lot more training in shooting.
Adding your point that wing flex is not modeled which makes shooting and hitting more easy for virtual pilots, it is no wonder that we see weapon damage in game that we seldomly see in historical gun cam videos.

I don´t say you´re wrong with your statement that the damage model / weapons damage do not reflect real life values. I just say that real life guncam videos are not necessarily an argument to prove that shooting wings/tails off is totally wrong.

Personally, i am wondering about your harsh comment to Bewolfs post.

I have to agree with Buzz and take exception to " Virtual pilots in Cliffs have more combat hours and experience than the average combat pilot of that time" we have more game time, we have zero combat experience, we cannot compare what we do here to what real pilots did in wartime, anyone who has any time on military weapons knows it's rather easy to shoot and fly in this game compared to reality, and whilst we like to think we are flying, we are not, we are just playing a game , it's impossible to translate that into comparable experience of real pilots!

Gromit
Apr-22-2015, 10:52
Gromit,

I recall reading that the Hurricane was a very tough airplane that could take a pounding much better than the stressed skin airframe of the Spitfire. It would make sense to me that welded tube frame would be tougher as the surface area of critical structure in a Hurricane is far smaller than essentially the entire airplane as in the Spitfire.

It's one of the reasons why the Hurricanes could be patched and put back into service so quickly while it was generally easier to scavenge Spitfires with damaged airframes for parts.

If you take a detailed look at the construction of a spaceframe airframe like the Hurricane one of the first things you notice is just how much "space" there is in it's design, lots of gaps between stressed members and alternate load paths, Hurricanes often returned to base with multiple holes through the fuselage where cannon shells had simply holed the fabric and wood filler and passed on through without exploding!

The wings however are a bit more crowded so the chances of hitting something more critical is multiplied.

This doesn't mean the aircraft is bullet proof but the chances of cutting enough tubes to cause a structural failure is going to be tiny, unless you literally saturate the target with hits, but neither your plane or theirs are stable long enough to allow that!

It's not impossible but the likelihood is remote, as you can clearly see in the gun camera films, the aircraft may not have disintegrated but it certainly wasn't going much further and was definatly out of the fight, game players like spectacular graphics, but reality is very different.

Bewolf
Apr-22-2015, 10:57
I have to agree with Buzz and take exception to " Virtual pilots in Cliffs have more combat hours and experience than the average combat pilot of that time" we have more game time, we have zero combat experience, we cannot compare what we do here to what real pilots did in wartime, anyone who has any time on military weapons knows it's rather easy to shoot and fly in this game compared to reality, and whilst we like to think we are flying, we are not, we are just playing a game , it's impossible to translate that into comparable experience of real pilots!

Disagreed. In many ways it is easier in reality. We have a very limited FoV in games, we completly lack "butt feeling" of how aircraft behave, we are relying on pixels and zoom functions just to come close what the real eye is capable of and most important of all, real depth perception. Not to talk about Joysticks with only the fraction of the precsision and feedback of a real stick. What we do have is the ability to get shot down and learn from the expirience, unlike real pilots, who often just died.

If you take a more close to real life example, take car racing simulations. As someone who has driven the Nurburgring both in real life and in simulators, it is much, much easier to do it in real life, as you have a ton load more info getting into your system, unlike the simulation, where everything is a bit smoother (streets bumps in particular) but you completly lack any input but the visual one.

ATAG_Colander
Apr-22-2015, 11:05
In a game, you don't have to worry about dying or even getting wounded.

Quinte
Apr-22-2015, 11:15
I have to agree with Buzz and take exception to " Virtual pilots in Cliffs have more combat hours and experience than the average combat pilot of that time" we have more game time, we have zero combat experience, we cannot compare what we do here to what real pilots did in wartime, anyone who has any time on military weapons knows it's rather easy to shoot and fly in this game compared to reality, and whilst we like to think we are flying, we are not, we are just playing a game , it's impossible to translate that into comparable experience of real pilots!

From my point of view, this has nothing to do with how realistic/how difficult it is when compared to the actual WWII pilots and planes. In terms of "combat experience" (and that's why I used the quotation marks in my first post above), we do have more than the pilots back then, relatively to the environment we evolve in. But that's secondary.

The fact is, we're collectively a lot more accurate than the actual pilots were back then, whatever the reasons: experience, simplifications of the simulations, and so on. As such, while thriving for as much realism as possible is obviously commendable, we can't expect to find the same results today, online, as they were back then, regarding the ammo expenditure necessary to take down a given aircraft.
For example, I believe (source to be found, can't remember) I read the LW estimated an average accuracy of about 2% for their fighter pilots. What was average then, would today, in CLOD, pass for an appalling failure.
On the same note, HJ Marseille is believed to have fired about 60 rounds per aircraft destroyed during a particularly good engagement, which usually serves as an example of how accurate he was. That's in an F4, with the nose-mounted guns. Yet that's a daily occurence on the ATAG server, with wing-mounted guns.

Edit: even then, Marseille was an extraordinary case. Most aces were nowhere near that kind of accurate. I remember Clostermann saying how snapshots were nothing but a waste of time and ammo, and how he couldn't shoot at anything past 10 degrees of deflection. Granted, he was not, and did not pretend to be, the best shot around, but he was still one of those very successful fighter pilots. Most of us with a bit of flight sim experience have better results (again, whatever the causes), and most of the guncam you can find is likely to be from pilots who weren't even that good at shooting.

Gromit
Apr-22-2015, 12:05
Disagreed. In many ways it is easier in reality. We have a very limited FoV in games, we completly lack "butt feeling" of how aircraft behave, we are relying on pixels and zoom functions just to come close what the real eye is capable of and most important of all, real depth perception. Not to talk about Joysticks with only the fraction of the precsision and feedback of a real stick. What we do have is the ability to get shot down and learn from the expirience, unlike real pilots, who often just died.

If you take a more close to real life example, take car racing simulations. As someone who has driven the Nurburgring both in real life and in simulators, it is much, much easier to do it in real life, as you have a ton load more info getting into your system, unlike the simulation, where everything is a bit smoother (streets bumps in particular) but you completly lack any input but the visual one.

Easier in real life?, sorry that's grossly incorrect!

I raced single seat race cars for over ten years in an old Vauxhall Lotus, I also mess about with F1 simulator games and such, there is no comparison, games do not move like real race cars, you don't feel weight transfer or G forces or the feel through the steering, you don't have changes in wind direction or grip levels through the lap due to track conditions, damp patches, tyre temp, graining, brake pads or tyres overheating or being too cold, the list is endless!

Race car simulators are nothing like racing a real car, I have never flown a powered aircraft but I did fly gliders when I was in the Army, and even from that limited experience I know the aircraft we play in this game do not behave like real aircraft, they are way too stable for starters, and without that feel through the seat, your not getting remotely close to reality!

Bewolf
Apr-22-2015, 12:11
Easier in real life?, sorry that's grossly incorrect!

I raced single seat race cars for over ten years in an old Vauxhall Lotus, I also mess about with F1 simulator games and such, there is no comparison, games do not move like real race cars, you don't feel weight transfer or G forces or the feel through the steering, you don't have changes in wind direction or grip levels through the lap due to track conditions, damp patches, tyre temp, graining, brake pads or tyres overheating or being too cold, the list is endless!


Race car simulators are nothing like racing a real car, I have never flown a powered aircraft but I did fly gliders when I was in the Army, and even from that limited experience I know the aircraft we play in this game do not behave like real aircraft, they are way too stable for starters, and without that feel through the seat, your not getting remotely close to reality!

Errr......that is pretty much what I said. Yes, machines do behave more complex in real life. But you also gets tons load more of feedback from these machines compared to sims. All in all, that makes it "easier". I had no problem lapping the Ring in a real car, within 20 minutes at the very first attempt. In a simulator, same car (BMW M3) it took me around 10 attempts to do the same without getting in some kind of crash or spin, simply because there was no feeling of G Forces, weight, grip, depth perception, the list goes on and on. Due to that the reaction times for adjustments and your abiility to propperly "judge" the current state of your machine are a lot more difficult on the PC then in real life. If that comes harder to you in real life, then, sorry to say that and no disrespect ment, something is seriously off in your approach.

ATAG_Colander
Apr-22-2015, 12:20
My thoughts are that both sides are right...

Game:
We have to remember how bad we where when we first started playing. I couldn't hit a thing but I was very good at receiving bullets (Hence my nickname as I was always full of holes).
Time passed by, playing time accumulated, and now we can actually shoot down planes and survive.

Real Life:
Rookie pilots couldn't hit a thing and many didn't last enough time to get good at it. Those who did, got better each day.


In other words...
If on the game you could be taken out of rotation and if dead was dead, we wouldn't have many aces playing.
If in the war they wouldn't die, had unlimited planes and flew for years, there would be tons of super-aces around (and amazing dogfight stories!).

ATAG_Lolsav
Apr-22-2015, 12:23
Colander, for math area guy, that was a very well put philosophical perspective. Theres a somewhat Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes) approach there.

ATAG_Colander
Apr-22-2015, 12:32
Colander, for math area guy, that was a very well put philosophical perspective. Theres a somewhat Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes) approach there.

More like Parmenides :)

ATAG_Lolsav
Apr-22-2015, 12:42
More like Parmenides :)

You might be right again. From wikipedia:


Under the Way of Opinion, Parmenides set out a contrasting but more conventional view of the world, thereby becoming an early exponent of the duality of appearance and reality. For him and his pupils, the phenomena of movement and change are simply appearances of a changeless, eternal reality

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-22-2015, 12:52
This from Conflict of Eagles.
1675516754

The Decisive Duel
16753

edit: btw, Kent's crate was a Spitfire MkIIB fitted with 20mm's (Spitfire P8189). The same plane (flown by another pilot the following day) was involved in a midair, both pilots ok.

The first example I can't comment on... the second example is a clear case of the fuel tanks igniting to cause an explosion and the loss of the wing.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-22-2015, 12:53
You are on permanent ignore. For many reasons.


woah, where did that come from?



Buzzsaw, no idea where this passive agressive behaviour comes from...let me point out that I have the utmost respect for what you guys do. That respect is in no way diminished by different opinions we may have in regards to topics like this or some other one. This respect includes you especially. And again a big thank you for what you do here. If I put out critique, I am aware this critique is on a very high level already.

I merely wanted to add that CloD pilots have several years of virtual simming under their belts and yes, indeed, a lot of people have come to be as accurate as a Marseilles (I am not there yet). And I am pretty sure if, for example, wing flex would be added, a couple years down the line the results on the servers would be the same again, ppl adapt and improve after all.

Bewolf
Apr-22-2015, 13:00
*scratches head* to each their own, I suppose.

Gromit
Apr-22-2015, 13:31
Errr......that is pretty much what I said. Yes, machines do behave more complex in real life. But you also gets tons load more of feedback from these machines compared to sims. All in all, that makes it "easier". I had no problem lapping the Ring in a real car, within 20 minutes at the very first attempt. In a simulator, same car (BMW M3) it took me around 10 attempts to do the same without getting in some kind of crash or spin, simply because there was no feeling of G Forces, weight, grip, depth perception, the list goes on and on. Due to that the reaction times for adjustments and your abiility to propperly "judge" the current state of your machine are a lot more difficult on the PC then in real life. If that comes harder to you in real life, then, sorry to say that and no disrespect ment, something is seriously off in your approach.

Your missing the point, the reason you don't have the feedback in a game is because it does not exist, its absent, and it's absence means you have just removed 75% of what real driving is, it's the feedback that allows a driver to actually drive a real car , or a pilot fly a real plane, none of it exists in a game, games are just for fun and very simple to operate compared to reality, in a game you drive like an arse and if you crash it matters not, in reality pushing a car to it's limits takes consummate skill and understanding, paying 30 Euros and driving round the ring in your road car is not comparable!

You cannot compare messing about on a game to reality, if you could F1 teams would not spend millions on advanced simulators to try and get close to reality!

Bewolf
Apr-22-2015, 13:38
Your missing the point, the reason you don't have the feedback in a game is because it does not exist, its absent, and it's absence means you have just removed 75% of what real driving is, it's the feedback that allows a driver to actually drive a real car , or a pilot fly a real plane, none of it exists in a game, games are just for fun and very simple to operate compared to reality, in a game you drive like an arse and if you crash it matters not, in reality pushing a car to it's limits takes consummate skill and understanding, paying 30 Euros and driving round the ring in your road car is not comparable!

You cannot compare messing about on a game to reality, if you could F1 teams would not spend millions on advanced simulators to try and get close to reality!

I am seriously confused, somehow you constantly confirm my points but represent them as counterpoints...:wf:

Gromit
Apr-22-2015, 13:45
I am seriously confused, somehow you constantly confirm my points but represent them as counterpoints...:wf:

what I am trying to explain to you is that games remove 95% of the skill required to drive a race car, games are very easy to play, or do you really think my 8 year old son could lap Spa in a 2014 Williams?

By the way he just did a 1.53.2 in Eddie Ervines Ferrari!

Bewolf
Apr-22-2015, 14:11
what I am trying to explain to you is that games remove 95% of the skill required to drive a race car, games are very easy to play, or do you really think my 8 year old son could lap Spa in a 2014 Williams?

By the way he just did a 1.53.2 in Eddie Ervines Ferrari!

If you teach him to actually drive a car and he stops being afraid to actually push the limits..then yes, I do think your 8 year old son would be very able to do that. Case in point youth cart racing. You do not remove the skills, you just have to develop "different" skills. Actually the younger you are, the quicker you learn.

But I guess we just have to agree to disagree here.

Gromit
Apr-22-2015, 14:22
He's doing it now in the Ferrari on the game, and he can't even drive!

which pretty much says it all!

ATAG_Colander
Apr-22-2015, 14:24
Erm...
The first time I drove a car, I had never done before and I was able to drive.

ATAG_Lolsav
Apr-22-2015, 14:28
Rats, nobody took my philosophy hint and evryone went on regular human care of small things. "i can do it, no you cant, yes i can, no you cant" thesis is very appealing :devilish:

Gromit
Apr-22-2015, 14:36
Erm...
The first time I drove a car, I had never done before and I was able to drive.

Yes but you weren't 8 driving an F1 Ferrari around Spa Franco champs lapping as fast as the real F1 teams!!
Because apparently games are harder than real life, yet I'm pretty sure that's balderdash!

ATAG_Colander
Apr-22-2015, 14:38
balderdash!

A new word for my english vocabulary. Had to google it :D

Sounds like a cell phone game where a bald person has to run on a map :)

Bewolf
Apr-22-2015, 14:47
He's doing it now in the Ferrari on the game, and he can't even drive!

which pretty much says it all!

Haha, kudos to your son!
But, then get him an intro into real car driving and bring him to a go-kart track to train a bit. Then we can assess his abilities there ;)

Vlerkies
Apr-22-2015, 14:49
The first example I can't comment on... the second example is a clear case of the fuel tanks igniting to cause an explosion and the loss of the wing.

Don't mention the fuel fires/explosion s deaths argghhhhh :D you know I will have a coronary :)

,,
,,
,,
can't resist :goofy apologies in advance but a little excerpt from Galland who was shot to pieces and had a fuel tank fire, I wager he took longer to do all this than 3 - 4 seconds we get before we a charcoal. Obviously if it goes boom thats a different story but the general consensus seems to be they did not just explode to much.
1676116762

Anyway, I just fly around and have fun, easy to criticise I suppose, but do truly appreciate the effort everyone makes with the sim. He lit up a Spit too ;) RIP PO E Brown
:salute:

=AFJ=Oracle
Apr-22-2015, 16:37
Flying an airplane is demanding both physically and mentally. Little mistakes that go unnoticed can compound and get you hurt or killed. Flying an airplane when your aren't at 100% is never a good idea, but these young men had to do it every day.

Flying in a warzone must increase the strain on each person tenfold, as now they must fly a complex machine and keep looking around for the enemy that might kill them in a storm of hot lead.

In real life these pilots had to fly multiple times per day, keep drilling and training, attend briefings and debriefings and find time to get rest somewhere in between all that. Once they got up in the air, they had to remain sharp for a couple of hours.

You also must consider how little training these men had when they were sent up in a fighter for the first time. I think I had more hours under my belt (30 hours) when I soloed vs when one of these guys were probably taking up a fighter for the first time! I can't imagine how well one can fly with such limited experience. I know a retired Air Force pilot who trained in the 50's and has shared stories about how about 66% of the new pilots in his class washed out or died during training. They were flying in T-6's with less than 10 hours total flying experience!!!

A very high proportion of aircraft losses on both sides were due to landings. I recall reading that the 109 lost more to landings than combat. Believe me when I day that landings in the sim are way too easy. The wind is never that steady. :D

Aerobatics are also very physically demanding. I would say that in the longest session I flew, I pulled 3Gs for a combined total of around 2-3 minutes in a 40 minute flight and felt like a did a decent workout once I was back on the ground. The physical demands combined with keeping mental focus takes a lot out of you. This reminds me that the stick forces on these WWII aircraft were very high. I think pulling forces of 40-50 pounds were common and the 109 certainly has a multitude of pilot reports saying that the rudder forces were excessive to remain coordinated outside of cruise. That has to take a serious toll on one's operating efficiency over a prolonged period of time.

The first time I did a snap roll I froze on the controls. I had done snap rolls for years in sims and I had all my book knowledge on all sorts of maneuvers along with recovery techniques from botched maneuvers. My instructor and I even briefed on each maneuver on the ground and before each on in the air. It still didn't prep me for the physical experience of seeing the sky and ground rotate around in a blur as all the G's unloaded spontaneously. As the airplane stopped the roll and settled nose low and into an incipient spin I knew I was experiencing time dilation because I was taking it all in very slowly almost like I was an observer instead of the pilot. Just as I started to take action, I heard my instructor's voice come back into focus as he counted the third rotation of the spin. I timidly applied anti-spin input and nothing happened. He gave me a jab with his elbow and that snapped me out of the state I was in and I recovered the plane. Who knows what would have happened had I been alone in that cockpit? Maybe I would have rode it down to the ground as a "passenger" like so many before me? It's hard to comprehend until you experience it, because I surely was not expecting what happened!

Nope, the sim is nowhere near as hard as in life, but it is just as fun and you can definitely learn a lot from it with the current technology limitations.

I never thought about wing flex before... In these fighters with two strong spars and short wingspans I would expect the wings to be extremely rigid and exhibit very little flex. Yes, even half a degree will throw aim off a bit, but I would not expect the wings to twist very much if at all when under load. The guns, if I recall correctly, did not take well to being fired under high G anyway as they may fail to cycle so I wonder how often this was a factor.

varrattu
Apr-23-2015, 06:28
Flying an airplane is demanding both physically and mentally. Little mistakes that go unnoticed can compound and get you hurt or killed. Flying an airplane when your aren't at 100% is never a good idea, but these young men had to do it every day ... ...

Nope, the sim is nowhere near as hard as in life, but it is just as fun and you can definitely learn a lot from it with the current technology limitations.


@ ==AFJ=Oracle >> :thumbsup:

@ admins: I "liked" AND "disliked" that post. Please delete my "dislike"

:salute:~V~

=AFJ=Oracle
Apr-23-2015, 10:03
Varrattu,

There is only one way we can now settle this insult. :devilish: :-P

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-23-2015, 11:04
Will the 109E get its fusalage armor plate in TF 5.0?

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-23-2015, 14:38
Will the 109E get its fusalage armor plate in TF 5.0?

Yes. Did you not see the update?

jester_
Apr-23-2015, 16:59
A very high proportion of aircraft losses on both sides were due to landings. I recall reading that the 109 lost more to landings than combat. Believe me when I day that landings in the sim are way too easy. The wind is never that steady. :D

Shut up Oracle, I already crash on 80% of my landings as it stands right now! :P


what I am trying to explain to you is that games remove 95% of the skill required to drive a race car, games are very easy to play, or do you really think my 8 year old son could lap Spa in a 2014 Williams?

By the way he just did a 1.53.2 in Eddie Ervines Ferrari!

I think arguing over flying in real life being harder/easier than flying in a sim is pointless. They both require different skills in my opinion. I think it's safe to say you could easily argue some aspects of sims are harder than real life and some aspects of real life piloting are harder than sims.

All I want is consistency. Whether it's with real life or the sim cycle, I just want it to be consistent. Super stoked for TF5.0!

IIJG27Rich
Apr-23-2015, 22:02
I don't understand how anyone can deem this sim 'Not good enough'....It now ticks all the boxes for me...Its potential was recognised immediately by some of us and were prepared to give it the chance that it needed to become what it is today...I can't thank that little bunch of boffins enough who also recognised the potential and who had the know how, time and ultimate commitment to move it to the level it is today...for without them we would probably still be flying IL2 1946 or not at all...~S~
I love it too. Bring on the new theater :recon:

306_Oem
May-03-2015, 06:22
Hello,

I'd like ask you if it's possible to ask You Team Fusion to add ingame RAF squadron markings in the next patch 5.0. I don't know if it's possible, but i think it is, and its not that much of a trouble on RAF side, just two letters. (as for example our No. 306 Polish Fighter Squadron "Toruński" had "UZ" by the side of the plane.)

here's one (https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTEnyov5kHv-9kh88-MgtH-aXdJXpgrBubn7JyiD1WA-hM45poERw)

I'd like to know how do You feel about it. If it's possible to add it to some kind of wish list, or not and so on. I guess some more squadrons (reffering to historical ones) would enjoy such minor thing, that would make it a hell alot more immersive and fun. :)

Regards,
306_Oem

LARRY69
May-04-2015, 17:25
For the correct Spitfire Version (Vb) please ask TF.;)

http://i1364.photobucket.com/albums/r739/larry691/a4dbbece-01a0-471d-bc1a-792d3c5caea7_zpsmaxmk4yf.jpg~original

SlowerBanterSir
May-05-2015, 11:31
I'd like ask you if it's possible to ask You Team Fusion to add ingame RAF squadron markings in the next patch 5.0.

Perhaps I misread your post, but I believe this is already possible in the game. Lots of RAF players, myself included, pick specific squadron markings that show up on the multiplayer server.

When you pick a plane type and it takes you to the screen with a 3D model of the plane you've selected, there's a dropdown list of squadrons on the right. When you pick a squadron, the unit's letters show up on your aircraft (for example, when flying Spit Mk. IIs, I like to simulate No. 152 "Hyderabad" Squadron, so I select its name and the letters "UM" appear on the fuselage). Another bar lets you select the plane's individual letter (in my case, I type "J" and I'm left with the Spitfire "UM-J"). You can also type a specific serial number on the tail if you want to get extra-historical.

Other markings (like the little Polish checker insignia) aren't available unless you get a custom skin, and those aren't visible to other players. But the squadron letters definitely are. :thumbsup:

306_Oem
May-06-2015, 05:53
When you pick a plane type and it takes you to the screen with a 3D model of the plane you've selected, there's a dropdown list of squadrons on the right. When you pick a squadron, the unit's letters show up on your aircraft (for example, when flying Spit Mk. IIs, I like to simulate No. 152 "Hyderabad" Squadron, so I select its name and the letters "UM" appear on the fuselage). Another bar lets you select the plane's individual letter (in my case, I type "J" and I'm left with the Spitfire "UM-J"). You can also type a specific serial number on the tail if you want to get extra-historical.:

The point is that there is no 306 squadron "UZ" on the list, and You cannot set unit's letters Yourself. It was formed before BoB, but became operational just a little after. And I was asking about adding squadrons to this list, as I think it should be just about editing some text file.

leaderai
May-07-2015, 16:50
When the patch?
When will bring to mind orders AI and a full editor?
Make sluchshe it and then pravte any effects, maps and models.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
May-07-2015, 17:34
The point is that there is no 306 squadron "UZ" on the list, and You cannot set unit's letters Yourself. It was formed before BoB, but became operational just a little after. And I was asking about adding squadrons to this list, as I think it should be just about editing some text file.

We will add more Squadrons when TF 5.0 comes out.

Right now the game is designed with the Squadrons which were active during the BoB.

K9Katt
May-07-2015, 21:10
Some will always find something/anything to complain about - anyone who fails to appreciate the time - effort - and skill that come from TF would make the village idiot absolutely brilliant:thumbsup:

ATAG_Colander
May-07-2015, 21:31
Is not easy to appreciate unless tried by one's self :)

ATAG_Endless
May-08-2015, 00:37
Can confirm. But that's exactly what I mean. You will have no problem taking off a 109s wing from the rear. Compared to that the odd capability of the Spit to stay in the fight despite huge structural and/or internal damage (you mentioned the wing issue) is rather discomforting, but manageable, could be that it was like that in real life as well.

Just fly at AX Dogfight for a bit, where you encounter both Spits and 109s on the opposite side, to get quite a clear pciture of that.

17133

ATAG_Endless
May-08-2015, 01:30
If you teach him to actually drive a car and he stops being afraid to actually push the limits..then yes, I do think your 8 year old son would be very able to do that. Case in point youth cart racing. You do not remove the skills, you just have to develop "different" skills. Actually the younger you are, the quicker you learn.

But I guess we just have to agree to disagree here.

I have to Agree with Bewolf I absolutely think that if you are good at simulators you can transition into the real life equivalent quite easily
and here is the proof here is a guy who raced simulators and got the opportunity to race cars in real life

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/meet-the-gran-turismo-player-now-driving-race-cars-for-real/1100-6419397/

306_Oem
May-09-2015, 18:16
Some will always find something/anything to complain about - anyone who fails to appreciate the time - effort - and skill that come from TF would make the village idiot absolutely brilliant:thumbsup:

What? You mean that I did not appreciate their work? Before TF came out this game was unplayable. I was just pilotely asking about something. Didn't demand anything, just wanting to know TF opinion about this( In second post I have responsed to SlowerBanterSir, who as he said - misread my post/did not my understand it).

So, if You really want to write a post about anything, better reconsider it twice. Or just read with comprehension.

ATAG_Colander
May-09-2015, 19:35
So, if You really want to write a post about anything, better reconsider it twice. Or just read with comprehension.

I would recommend this same advice. If you look closely, you might notice his post was not addressed at you. :salute:

Teapot
May-11-2015, 05:01
I don't understand how anyone can deem this sim 'Not good enough'....It now ticks all the boxes for me...Its potential was recognised immediately by some of us and were prepared to give it the chance that it needed to become what it is today...I can't thank that little bunch of boffins enough who also recognised the potential and who had the know how, time and ultimate commitment to move it to the level it is today...for without them we would probably still be flying IL2 1946 or not at all...~S~

lol .. different folks different strokes I guess. Don't get me wrong, I love what Team Fusion has done to this sim but being a flight sim fanatic I always *want* more :).

My perfect sim would be Clod with Team Fusion with DCS level study sim aircraft; so I guess I'm saying that as it is currently it doesn't tick all the boxes for me ... but it's pretty good.

Catseye
May-11-2015, 11:09
lol .. different folks different strokes I guess. Don't get me wrong, I love what Team Fusion has done to this sim but being a flight sim fanatic I always *want* more :).

My perfect sim would be Clod with Team Fusion with DCS level study sim aircraft; so I guess I'm saying that as it is currently it doesn't tick all the boxes for me ... but it's pretty good.

+1