BoS Update Jan 25, 2013

[ATAG_Snapper]

Very Loft-y indeed:

http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=8196

Well, looks like the FM's are all figured out. This sounds too good to be true!!! :thumbsup:

10) How does the complexity of the FM compares to Clod and what sources will be used for the performance data? Factory numbers or test flight data? Or can it be calculated?

Flight model will be much more accurate and harder. We'll use all possible sources of data. We already have a lot of experience in previous projects. The integrated approach allows us to avoid mistakes. For example, after the completion of the aircraft and the calculation of its characteristics, we have clear data to begin to comparisons with the sources. Sometimes situations occurred when we thought that the sources had an error and after checking out the different sources we received confirmation that in the records included mistakes and sometimes blunders. We will try to make the FMs as good as possible, but I'm confident that no matter what we do, disputes over the FM will be your favorite entertainment on the forum.

:)

[HolyGrail]

Hmmm , yeah , whatever :)

[ATAG_Bliss]

Then you look at the ROF forums and years going by without FM corrections. Yeah right lol.

[Borsch]

Sacrilege! :)

AFM for Su25 in LockOn:FC was founded by their dev, RoF's plane characteristics may not be accurate (but what data on WW1 is accurate), but the aerodynamics and physics in general are the best in the genre by far (together with DCS stuff, although even it misses some things that RoF FM has).

Graphics- yes and no, Object limit -definite yes, bad full mission editor -definite yes, but FM/physics? RoF guys rule, simple as :thumbsup:

[ATAG_Bliss]

There is no comparison. Jason has brainwashed you. Looking at what parameters clod measures in comparison to ROF in the FM it's not even close. ROF uses (no joke) about 30%of the FM calculations of clod. There is so much aeronautical engineering and calculations in clods FM. It's no different in the DM either. The structural failures in ROF are all based on number of bullets hit for certain things to happen all with huge hit boxes. One example is a pilot kill in ROF takes 4 bullets to the head. Wing hits do x amount of damage with the x number of (last bullet needed in the DM count doing 99% of the damage - aka wing failure - aka magic number of bullets instead of specific failure zone of bullets hit). Basically, the DM is .01% damage + .01% damage etc all up to a certain amount of bullets where that final bullet (number needed) is 99%.

Whay they have done is made a very believable atmosphere (feeling of flight) and a nice features to make you see wings tear off. But code to code ROF isn't even in the same planet on FM or DM calculations. But clods ground physics sucks ass in comparison.

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

well he is right in the fact that people will always debate the FMs, Il2 is how old and modded over and over and the debates rage on.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

One example is a pilot kill in ROF takes 4 bullets to the head.

That should do it! I always say you've got to give the player pilot the benefit of the doubt! My problem is getting them to stay still long enough to hit the actual plane, let alone the pilots head! ;)

I liked the video they posted, but someone over there mentioned that the planes discussed weren't present at that stage, and half the discussion in the thread was about the various performance of the two planes???

I got two questions answered, one was


14) In regards to 3D modeling guidelines for BoS development, what will be the maximum poly count for optimized aircraft models used in the sim? How does this compare with titles like RoF and CloD?

More than RoF and more than CloD. Optimization does not mean a decrease. It means redistribution of load, as well as the need to even think about the little things.

It is encouraging that they are talking about a high polycount models, but I guess the big question is what will the redistribution of load" entail? Will the 3D aircraft models and terrain/ground objects be balanced (similar quality). What will be the trade offs???

[vranac]

I liked the video they posted, but someone over there mentioned that the planes discussed weren't present at that stage, and half the discussion in the thread was about the various performance of the two planes???

It is encouraging that they are talking about a high polycount models, but I guess the big question is what will the redistribution of load" entail? Will the 3D aircraft models and terrain/ground objects be balanced (similar quality). What will be the trade offs???

Interview with pilot is very interesting, especially details about flying under 6-7 G and MiG-3 advantages with sensitive (light) stick handling.
Shame that G overload in the loop isn't modeled right in our sims, as one old ex-military pilot told me in loop or half loop you got much more G load then in tight turn.

Most of us virtual pilots don't understand that max speed isn't the most important thing in combat, maneuverability and combat speed is important thing.
The combat speed of Yaks,P-39 and La-5 was similar with 109s and FW-190 and that is why the Russian pilots from WW2 was saying they had good planes.
Even I-16 later versions could fight against Me-109E.

This is interesting read:


A.S. Just the same, the evaluations of the P-40 series seriously diverge. Is all of this because of the differences in Soviet and Allied tactics?

N.G. Not at all. Tactics has nothing to do with it. The primary difference in evaluating the combat capabilities of the P-40 arises from the fact that we and the Allies exploited the aircraft in a completely different manner. They were required to use the aircraft in accordance with written instructions [technical manuals I.G.]. Any violation of those guidelines was a no-no.
In our case, as I have already mentioned, the primary rule was to get everything out of an aircraft that it was capable of and a bit more. How much is everything the documentation for an aircraft does not say. Often even the designer of an aircraft himself did not have even a clue. It would only be revealed in combat.
By the way, everything I have said also applies to the Airacobra. If we had flown it in those regimes that the Americans outlined in the aircraft specifications, they would have shot us down immediately. This fighter was a dud in its native [by-design] regimes. But we conducted normal combat in our regimes, be it with the Messer or with the Foka. But in some cases we flew 34 such aerial battles and it was done. Replace the engine.


A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you constantly say that the basic Soviet fighters, the Yak and the Lavochkin, were equal to the German fighters in speed, although reference books contradict this. According to reference data, German aircraft always have superiority in speed. How do you explain this difference between reference data and practical data?

N.G. Reference data is obtained under ideal conditions, in ideal aircraft. Tactical and technical characteristics are always lower under actual use conditions.

A.S. Yes, but we also determine the tactical and technical characteristics of our aircraft in ideal conditions. So lets attempt to approach this phenomenon from another perspective. What kind of actual speed (by instrument) did German fighters attain in aerial combat?

N.G. The Bf-109Efrom 450 to 500 kmh [270300 mph]. The Bf-109F: 500550 kmh [300330 mph]. The Bf-109G was equal to the F in speed or perhaps just a bit faster. The superiority of the G over the F was in armament, not speed.
The FW-190 reached speeds of 470550 kmh [280330 mph]. All of these aircraft approached speeds 30 kph greater in a dive.
You know, we didnt pay particular attention to our instruments during an aerial engagement. It was obvious without looking that your own aircraft was lagging behind in speed or it wasnt. Therefore I can affirm that the Airacobra, Yak, and La [Lavochkin] were not surpassed by the German fighters in speed.

A.S. What can I say? Can we agree that the speeds you have indicated to me are somewhat lower than those listed in reference works?

N.G. What have we been talking about? You must understand that you have been making the same mistake as do all people who have no connection with combat aviation. You are confusing two concepts: maximum speed and combat speed. Maximum speed is attained under ideal conditions: horizontal flight, strict maintenance of altitude, calculated engine revolutions, and so on.
Combat speed is a range of maximum possible speeds that an aircraft can develop for the conduct of active maneuver aerial battle, and at which all forms of maneuver attendant to that battle can be executed.
When I speak to you about speed, I have in mind namely the combat speed at which I conducted battle. To me maximum speed is neither here nor there.

A.S. What if you had to chase someone down? Dont you need maximum speed then?

N.G. Well, I caught up to them, and then what? If you get going too fast, at some point in time you will have to scrub some off or you will outrun your target. Firing accurately on a target at high speed is problematical. More precisely, if I am fortunate enough to hit the target, how many hits are sufficientthat is the question. So first I catch the target, then I slow down, fire, hit the throttle, and accelerate again. The capability of an engine to drive an airplane forward and brake it in the shortest space of time is called responsiveness.
Many consider that if an aircraft has a high maximum speed, then its combat speed will also be high, and this is not always so. It happens that during the comparison of two types of fighters, one of them may have a higher maximum speed and the other a higher combat speed. Such factors as responsiveness of the engine and thrust-to-weight ratio have substantial influence on the combat speed. These are the same factors that provide for maximum acceleration.
One need not look far to find an example of this. We had the fighter LaGG-3. I flew it myself. Well, in 1941 this aircraft had greater top speed than the Yak-1. It had several indisputable advantages over the Yak in addition to its higher speed. The LaGG was more durable and harder to set on fire. Why? It was made from delta wood [delta-drevesina]. In addition, the LaGG was more powerfully armed. But you know what? Ask any pilot who fought in the war, Of the two fighters, the Yak and the LaGG, which would you prefer? He would most certainly respond the Yak. Why? Because the Yak was a very dynamic aircraft with high responsiveness and the LaGG was a slug, a boat anchor. The LaGG was somewhat heavier than the Yak, which meant it was more inert. The maximum speed of the LaGG was higher because the aircraft was aerodynamically very clean. If you poured on the coal it would sweatmightily. [Think steam locomotiveGolodnikov is of that generationJG.] If it lost speed, it was very difficult to regain it. In order not to lose speed in combat, one needed a deft touch. I had to construct my attack, combat maneuver, or dive in such a manner as to preserve my speed. And one more thingthe LaGG required decent effort on the stick for control.
The Yak had only two advantages over the LaGG, but they were significant!outstanding responsiveness and ease of control. The Yak could regain speed that it had lost very easilyfull throttle and that was sufficient. One did not have to dive; the Yak picked up speed even when the nose was up. In addition to everything else, the Yak was considerably easier to control than the LaGG. On the one hand it was stable but on the other it reacted instantly to the slightest pressure on the stick.
I only flew the LaGG-3; I never fought in it. But now, from the perspective of my combat experience, I can say that the LaGG-3 was a fair fighter. It was fully equal to the P-40 in its tactical and technical characteristics, but could contend on an equal footing with a Messer only in the hands of an experienced pilot, who really knew how to exploit its engine and was tactically skilled. An inexperienced or insufficiently trained pilot (we had many of these early in the war) in a LaGG could not in any way stand up against a Messer. He simply did not know how to take advantage of his aircrafts strong points. A Yak offered such a pilot a significantly greater chance of survival. At the same time an experienced pilot in a Yak felt himself significantly more confident and gave little thought to any speed he might lose during the engagement.
Here is another example. Between the I-16 type-28 and the Bf-109E, the Messer had a higher top speed and the combat speeds of these two aircraft were practically equal. If one compares the type-28 with the Hurricane, the Hurricane had higher maximum speed but the I-16 higher combat speed. The Hurricane was a very sluggish fighter.
You can try, but it is a difficult and thankless task to compare the combat qualities of aircraft using reference book data. There are simply too many nuances to consider.


http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

And for detailed 3D models of course they will have them, they will import them from BoM. They will save on DM,number of ground units and objects, cockpits, terrain( winter map only), effects... IMO.

[Borsch]

There is no comparison. Jason has brainwashed you. Looking at what parameters clod measures in comparison to ROF in the FM it's not even close. ROF uses (no joke) about 30%of the FM calculations of clod. There is so much aeronautical engineering and calculations in clods FM. It's no different in the DM either. The structural failures in ROF are all based on number of bullets hit for certain things to happen all with huge hit boxes. One example is a pilot kill in ROF takes 4 bullets to the head. Wing hits do x amount of damage with the x number of (last bullet needed in the DM count doing 99% of the damage - aka wing failure - aka magic number of bullets instead of specific failure zone of bullets hit). Basically, the DM is .01% damage + .01% damage etc all up to a certain amount of bullets where that final bullet (number needed) is 99%.

Whay they have done is made a very believable atmosphere (feeling of flight) and a nice features to make you see wings tear off. But code to code ROF isn't even in the same planet on FM or DM calculations. But clods ground physics sucks ass in comparison.

No-no, nothing to do with Jason! I flew Su25 in LO:FC and the proof was in the pudding. Only later I learnt that it was called AFM and that it's used in DCS and RoF. So its Eagle Dynamics that brainwashed me :)
But seriously, I have never met a person that said that CloD FM is on par (never mind better) with DCS: P51 for example. Like for like with RoF, CLoD's TigerMoth doesnt even have propwash, so there is absolutely no contest.

Ground handling is so good in rof not because it was scripted separately, but because the physics of propwash, p-factor, torque, gyro etc all interplay so nicely.

As for RoF being 30% of CloD's FM - ROF was never cracked and no one has access to its FM files, so even if you have 100% knowledge of CLOD FM, you have no way of making comparisons. But heres comments to some of ROF Airscrew (just airscrew) code -just a flavour):


Copy (and translation) of an Petrovich's post from Suhkoi:

equations plan (this is just the airscrew class as well):

Especially for the portal Sukhoi.Ru
For the first time on the screen!
A little comment from the class CAirscrew in RoF:
(Oops. .. almost blurted out ... so all of the most secret is missing, but then I talk too much ... (c))

/ / Bank of the design characteristics of the propeller
/ / Pointer to the Bank of ADH element of the blade propeller
/ / Number of propeller blades, [2 ... 8]
/ / Structural radius of the hub (butt blade) Propeller (> = 0), [m]
/ / Structural radius of the propeller (> naveRadius), [m]
/ / Radius of the blade a damaged propeller, [naveRadius ... radius], [m]
/ / Construction area of ​​frontal projection of the propeller blades (> 0) [m]
/ / Nominal geometric pitch propeller [m]
/ / Structural inertia propeller (> 0) [kg * m ^ 2]
/ / Initialize the propeller
/ / Access method to a pointer to the gearbox model
/ / Model propeller damage
/ / Methods to access the parameters of the propeller
/ / Simulation of the propeller
/ / Initialize the direction of rotation of the propeller
/ / Simulation of the aerodynamics of propeller
/ / Pointer to the model of the landscape
/ / Pointer to the model of the atmosphere
/ / Contact propeller blade model
/ / Pointer to the model of propulsion
/ / Pointer to the model propeller wake in the atmosphere
/ / Period simulation of propeller aerodynamics, [s]
/ / The index argument graphical animation propeller in an array of arguments, graphical animation of the object, turn the propeller of rendering
/ / Mark the direction of rotation of the propeller, [bezrazm.] [-1 - Counterclockwise (left) on the flight, one - clockwise (right) on the flight]
/ / The actual radius of the propeller (with injuries): [naveRadius ... radius], [m]
/ / The actual moment of inertia of the propeller (with injuries) (> = 0), [kg * m ^ 2]
/ / Angle of rotation of the propeller [0 ... 2 * Pi), [rad] (measured to the right (clockwise) on the flight)
/ / Engine speed propeller, [r / min] (+ right (clockwise) on the flight)
/ / Model time elapsed since the last simulation of the aerodynamics of propeller, [s]
/ / The amount of force the contact module of propeller blades with the underlying surface, [H]
/ / Vector fully aerodynamic forces acting on the propeller to the propeller axis FCS, [H]
/ / Vector fully aerodynamic moment acting on the propeller to the propeller axis CCK from the center of the propeller, [N * m]
/ / Factor into account the effect on the object (structural component) of the full vectors of aerodynamic force and moment of the propeller, [bezrazm] [0 - counted only in the direction of the axis OX SSC propeller (symmetric reaction IV) ... 1 - is taken into account in full]
/ / Factor into account the effect on the object (structural component), the gyroscopic moment of the propeller, [bezrazm] [0 - off ... 1 - is taken into account in full]
/ / Vector full gyroscopic moment acting on the propeller to the propeller axis CCK from the center of the propeller, [N * m]
/ / The projection of the vector of absolute angular acceleration of the object (the structural element) on the axis of the propeller, [rad / s ^ 2]
/ / Axial inductive air flow to the propeller, [m / s]
/ / Peripheral inductive air flow to the propeller radius, [m / s]
/ / Correction factor induced velocity of air flow to the propeller axis to the current airspeed flight propeller [bezrazm.] (> = 0)
/ / Coefficient of flow swirling in the wake of a propeller, [bezrazm] [0 - not included ... 1 - curled in full]
/ / Axial moment of external force applied to the propeller, [N * m] (+ right (clockwise) on the flight)
/ / Reaction torque propeller shaft screw [Nm] (+ right (clockwise) on the flight)
/ / Peripheral inductive air flow rate at a radius of the propeller on the mode of V = 0
/ / Axial inductive air flow to the propeller on the mode of V = 0
/ / Calculate the correction factor induced velocity of air flow to the propeller axis to the current airspeed flight propeller
/ / Number of elements that are divided into the propeller blade in the calculation of aerodynamic forces and moments, (> 0!)
/ / Local air density [kg / m³]
/ / Local speed of sound [m / s]
/ / The local angle of attack aerodynamic element of the blade propeller (in the center of the square element) [rad]
/ / The local angle of inclination of the aerodynamic element of the blade propeller (in the center of the square element) [rad]
/ / The local dynamic pressure flow element of the aerodynamic blade propeller (in the center of the square element) [N / m]
/ / Local Mach number flow around an aerodynamic element of the blade propeller (in the center of the square element) [bezrazm.]
/ / Open an aerodynamic element of the blade propeller [m]
/ / Radius of the center area of ​​the aerodynamic element of the blade propeller [m]
/ / Calculate the installation angle of the aerodynamic element of the blade propeller on a mission radius
/ / Vector of absolute linear velocity of the center of the propeller, expressed in the axes of the FCS of the object (the structural component) [m / s]
/ / The account of the local wind speed, air density and sound speed
/ / Vector of the local wind speed at the center of the propeller, expressed in the axes of the FCS of the object (the structural component) [m / s]
/ / True airspeed vector center of the propeller, expressed in the axes of the FCS of the object (the structural component) [m / s]
/ / Aerodynamic calculation element of the blade propeller
/ / Time the propeller jet (on the gearbox output shaft)
/ / Vector of angular acceleration of the object (the structural element) in the SSC propeller
/ / Vector of gyroscopic moment of the propeller to the propeller SSC
/ / Simulation propeller contact with the underlying surface
/ / Angle propeller speed, [rad / s]
/ / Vector of absolute linear velocity of the center of the propeller, expressed in the axes of the FCS of the object (the structural component) [m / s]
/ / ...

(Original: http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.p ... ost1484018)

As for the four bullets to kill a pilot- maybe headshot isnt modelled, I cant really comment.

There was a good discussion on SImHq about FMs in different sims, some very good posts were made by MogamiMusashi, very good read: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3373573/2

[ATAG_Bliss]

I'm glad you mentioned this. ROF parameters were often discussed on the private beta forums. Clod does the same with the prop AND a whole lot more with it than ROF.




public Motor.PropellorDeviceTypes v3_prop_governor_type;
public double v3_prop_governor_output_c;
public double v3_prop_governor_output_factor;
public double v3_prop_governor_output_factor_wep;
public Garbage.PropellorVisualTypes v3_prop_visual_type;
public double v3_prop_reductor;
public Innards.TransmissionDesigns v3_prop_driver_type;
public int v3_prop_blades_count;
public double v3_prop_r;
public double v3_prop_i;
public double v3_prop_s;
public double v3_prop_mass;
public double v3_prop_phi_min;
public double v3_prop_phi_max;
public double v3_prop_change_velocity;
public double v3_prop_polar_lineCyCoeff;
public double v3_prop_polar_AOAMinCx_Shift;
public double v3_prop_polar_Cy0_0;
public double v3_prop_polar_AOACritH_0;
public double v3_prop_polar_AOACritL_0;
public double v3_prop_polar_CyCritH_0;
public double v3_prop_polar_CyCritL_0;
public double v3_prop_polar_CxMin_0;
public double v3_prop_polar_parabCxCoeff_0;
public double v3_prop_polar_Cy0_1;
public double v3_prop_polar_AOACritH_1;
public double v3_prop_polar_AOACritL_1;
public double v3_prop_polar_CyCritH_1;
public double v3_prop_polar_CyCritL_1;
public double v3_prop_polar_CxMin_1;
public double v3_prop_polar_parabCxCoeff_1;
public double v3_prop_polar_parabAngle;
public double v3_prop_polar_declineCoeff;
public double v3_prop_polar_maxDistAng;

#region Constructor & Initializer
public Motor ( FlightModelMain fm, FlightModel.Properties input, int numberInList ) {
FM = fm;
number = numberInList;
property = FM.prop.engines[number];

//enginePos.set(ref property.pos);
//propPos.set(ref property.proppos);
//engineVector.set(ref property.vector);

v3_cylinders_operable = property.v3_cylinders_count;
v3_oil_reserve = property.v3_oil_mass;
v3_water_reserve = property.v3_water_mass;
v3_prop_blades_operable = property.v3_prop_blades_count;
v3_prop_blades_not_intact = false;
v3_t_propellor_hub = property.v3_oil_t_nominal;

v3_airradiator_flapposition = property.v3_cylheadradiator_mindrag_control;
v3_oilradiator_flapposition = property.v3_oilradiator_mindrag_control;
v3_waterradiator_flapposition = property.v3_waterradiator_mindrag_control;

if(property.v3_supercharger_type==V3SuperchargerTy pes.TwoStageAutomatic) {
controlCompressor = 1;
}

if(property.v3_prop_governor_type==PropellorDevice Types.VariablePitch && property.v3_prop_governor_output_factor>0.0d) {
ControlProp = 0.0d;
}
if(property.v3_prop_governor_type==PropellorDevice Types.WM_Komandgerat && property.v3_prop_governor_output_factor>0.0d) {
ControlProp = 0.0d;
}

Prop.fm = (FlightModel)fm;
Prop.lineCyCoeff = property.v3_prop_polar_lineCyCoeff;
Prop.AOAMinCx_Shift = property.v3_prop_polar_AOAMinCx_Shift;
Prop.Cy0_0 = property.v3_prop_polar_Cy0_0;
Prop.AOACritH_0 = property.v3_prop_polar_AOACritH_0;
Prop.AOACritL_0 = property.v3_prop_polar_AOACritL_0;
Prop.CyCritH_0 = property.v3_prop_polar_CyCritH_0;
Prop.CyCritL_0 = property.v3_prop_polar_CyCritL_0;
Prop.CxMin_0 = property.v3_prop_polar_CxMin_0;
Prop.parabCxCoeff_0 = property.v3_prop_polar_parabCxCoeff_0;
Prop.Cy0_1 = property.v3_prop_polar_Cy0_1;
Prop.AOACritH_1 = property.v3_prop_polar_AOACritH_1;
Prop.AOACritL_1 = property.v3_prop_polar_AOACritL_1;
Prop.CyCritH_1 = property.v3_prop_polar_CyCritH_1;
Prop.CyCritL_1 = property.v3_prop_polar_CyCritL_1;
Prop.CxMin_1 = property.v3_prop_polar_CxMin_1;
Prop.parabCxCoeff_1 = property.v3_prop_polar_parabCxCoeff_1;
Prop.declineCoeff = property.v3_prop_polar_declineCoeff;
Prop.maxDistAng = property.v3_prop_polar_maxDistAng;
Prop.parabAngle = property.v3_prop_polar_parabAngle;
Prop.setFlaps(0.0d);

private double v3_w;
private double v3_rpm;
private double v3_aw;
private double v3_shaft_n;
private double v3_shaft_power;
private double v3_total_power;
private double v3_blower_drain_n;
private double v3_parasite_CxS;
private double v3_parasite_drag;
private double v3_reactive_thrust;
private double v3_oil_pressure;
private double v3_damage_buffered_trigger;
private double v3_t_ambience;
private double v3_p_intake;
private double v3_t_intake;
private double v3_p_blower;
private double v3_t_blower;
private double v3_p_manifold;
private double v3_t_manifold;
private double v3_p_diffuser;
private double v3_t_diffuser;
private double v3_t_exhaust;
private int v3_cylindercounter_prev = 0;
private double v3_cylindercounter_cur = 0.0d;
private int v3_cylinders_operable;
private double v3_detonation_factor;
private double v3_ignited_factor;
private int v3_headerblow_counter;
private int v3_backfire_counter;
private double v3_wear;
private int v3_individuality;
private double v3_wear_velocity_multiplier;
private double v3_prop_phi;
private double v3_prop_phiw;
private double v3_prop_aoa;
private double v3_prop_target_phi;
private double v3_prop_icing;
private int v3_prop_blades_operable;
private bool v3_prop_blades_not_intact;
public bool PropellorDamaged

//

If you ported a WWII plane into ROF it would fly like a WWI plane in their engine. Sims are designed around the planes that fly in them. Again, I suggest you read the FM section over on the ROF forums. There are so many faulty flight models it's not even funny. And I'm talking something as simple as level TAS.

But getting into an argument about it is pointless. The FM piece (ROF's greatest asset) is the shining bit in it. The whole limited game engine without being able to build scenarios, the mission editor, the DM etc., simply puts me off of it.

[Borsch]

But getting into an argument about it is pointless. The FM piece (ROF's greatest asset) is the shining bit in it. The whole limited game engine without being able to build scenarios, the mission editor, the DM etc., simply puts me off of it.

Clod has to do more as it has Prop pitch which WW1 birds didnt have. But RoF's AFM is present in DCS and is the shining bit there as well. Completely agree about RoFs limitations with missions editor, object limit etc. (Not DM- its much more integrated into FM, which is really cool). But anyway, dont mean to argue as like you say its pointless.

I did think recently about OM's (or whoever was in charge for the past few years) failings and I kinda thought that not snagging An.Petrovich (the AFM inventor) from ED and letting unknown little company take him was a big mistake. RoF would be absolutely nowhere without him, and CLoD would be absolutely supreme... But then again competition is good, and we are still waiting for Luthier to announce his next project. And of course we have you guys :)

[thee_oddball]

@borsch , nevermind the FM/DM crap they have already said this will not be a sim
Procedural training device it will not be, it will be a game simulator but I would still buy it if it was not for there greedy counter productive buisness model (pay per plane) and I
know i am not the only one...i was online with 21 guys on TS3 this week and posed the question to them , what i got back was ..no way, not me, bullshit, yeah right!, are you kidding!?, and so on..one guy was $250 in Iracing and said he would NEVER do that again.
ROF is 3 years old...most games that are 3+ years old are in the $9.95/19.95 bin....and yet he is STILL trying to sell ROF a piece at a time....there is a giy who posted in here and said he is $366 dollors into ROF :stunned::stunned:....$366 for 2D tree's and anemic online community...REALLY?!?!?

BoS will be based on the DN engine for better or worse, it will not be as feature rich as CloD..but there will be peole who buy it and enjoy it...but i guarantee you it will not have the longevity or the dedicated following that the original IL2 had...IL2 was ahead of its time and when Bos is released it will already be dated.
I really wish they (1C) would have chosen BIS for the contination of the IL2 franchise....just imagine them using the ARMA3 engine for IL2 :):):)

http://www.arma3.com/surveilance/video-feed/



1) One nice addition for IL-2 1946 made by Daidalus Team is radio navigation with beacons/AM stations, we can expect this in BoS?



No. But it's an interesting idea. Let's talk about this in the future. We'll try to make a step forward in the development of radio communications in comparison with the original "IL-2", to make them more meaningful and add a connection to ground units.

Translation: we will sell you this as a addon later

2) How do you plan on balancing the game. I'm sure you and the Devs have had a lot of discussions about this. Didnt the Germans have quite an advantage in aircraft back then? Thanks.

There will be no forced balance. We build aircraft as they were. Of course, in popular games, built on passion or F2P model, balance is needed. But we're working in a different genre, the value of this genre is just the lack of balance. Will the German planes have an advantage or not we'll know only after we'll create them . And with such precision and detail which will be recreated for the first time, so I expect surprises.

We build aircraft as they were outstanding!...you have hired peasant labor todo the modeling with a political officer to hawk over them while they work, complete with inconsistency and quality issue's!

German planes have an advantage or not we'll know only after we'll create them, your kidding right? .

The Soviet war effort in the first phase of the Eastern front war was severely hampered by a shortage of modern aircraft. The Soviet fighter force was equipped with large numbers of obsolete aircraft, such as the I-15 biplane and the I-16. In 1941, the MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Yak-1 were just starting to roll off the production lines, but were far inferior in all-round performance to the Messerschmitt Bf 109 or later, the Fw 190.
The Luftwaffe retained air superiority into early November 42 and Soviet daytime aerial resistance was nonexistent.


3) Will be this sim of yours just another joystick twister or you actually want to show to the rest of the world how different Soviet - German war was.

You're just part of the battle. You will control one plane or a group that performs a specific task, which was performed daily on the Eastern Front. The player will be just one of person who involved, not like Bruce Willis who saves the world alone. You take on the lead role for yourself, but on the scale of the operation you are extra.

Imagine a huge movie, which involved thousands of actors, each playing a role. We put the film on pause and suggest you choose the role of one of them in one of the missions of this battle. This is how I see it. But, of course, it will largely remain a game, interesting and exciting, but just outside the cockpit window - you will see a war.

this is good news!!!! the engine will support thousands of objects!!..../sarcasm

4) Will BoS have Sli/Crossfire support? From a recent poll at 1C forums there were about 30% of the members who use multi card setups.

Yes.

pointless question

5) The Channel map has been released and looks fantastic. But I read it won't be compatible with IL2. Why not?

Thanks for such a review of our work. In this new project we change many of the modules which are responsible for virtually all aspects of the simulation because we want to make a really modern and quality product. Some technologies are not compatible directly. If it's time to create a "Battle of Britain" in the new series, we'll transfer the most important thing - the experience that we received.

Translation: blah blah blah we want you to buy it again.

6) I would like to know if admins would be able to limit the amount of fuel, types and quantities of weapons available and types and quantities of certain types of aircraft.

I think yes. We have not yet made this. And it may not be that easy as we and you would like but we'll definitely look forward to. Multiplayer is an area in which we would like to leave space for creativity community. We know and see that there is a very interesting scenario played out and you need freedom of action for these scenarios. We'll try to keep it. Unfortunately, I can not yet give details.

Translation: this will be a $19.95 add-on

7) What's the plan for pilot's field of view changing? Will it be continuous like in RoF or there will be the stone aged Il2's three steps settings?

This will be made as in ROF. You can move your head slowly and smoothly.

nice cherry picked question to answer

8) Will Battle of Stalingrad include "dumb" static objects (trucks, tanks, aircraft,...) that can be used to form potential targets for bombers and such without taking up as much resources as would a bunch of AI enhanced objects like we have in RoF?

Yes, we want to create scenery that has minimal impact on performance but can make a scene saturated. I understand what you're asking. We'll surely try. I don't know just how many 3D objects and textures we have time to create in this period. But we'll continue to make this after the release.

Translation: not much will be changed with the core of the DN engine.

9) Will there be ground lighting at night in BoS?

Only what was acceptable during the WWII. I think that even in Paris turned off the lights at the Moulin Rouge.

Translation: noting more than what the DN engine already supports.

10) How does the complexity of the FM compares to Clod and what sources will be used for the performance data? Factory numbers or test flight data? Or can it be calculated?

Flight model will be much more accurate and harder. We'll use all possible sources of data. We already have a lot of experience in previous projects. The integrated approach allows us to avoid mistakes. For example, after the completion of the aircraft and the calculation of its characteristics, we have clear data to begin to comparisons with the sources. Sometimes situations occurred when we thought that the sources had an error and after checking out the different sources we received confirmation that in the records included mistakes and sometimes blunders. We will try to make the FMs as good as possible, but I'm confident that no matter what we do, disputes over the FM will be your favorite entertainment on the forum.

Clear data? Did you not just you you were expecting surprise's?, so basically this is a disclaimer...

11) How important is it for you to get close to the historical plane performance values such as level speed, rate of climb, turning rate?

We create the aircraft as accurately as possible with our resources. And as we have stated before historical believe it or not can be a subjective term as many factors affect performance and tests.

no worries...they have clear data...../sarcasm

12) Is there a plan or did you spare a thought about something like this:
"Not only can BoS include modules developed internally by 1CGS, but it can also include those by certified third party developers." thx for answer

This may be possible and both Jason and I we have sort of done this before in ROF. But it's very much dependent from the quality of which we can be produced by these teams. There are many pretenders out there. We can even offer good talent a legitimate income with us if their product will interest the audience, but nothing comes to mind of yet. This is not our initial concern, first we need to make the release product.

translation: we are really not interested in sharing profit.

13) Over the last few iterations of the IL-2 Series they have been including a 'Black Death' track to show of the highlights of the sim and show game engine under a bit of stress. (It also gave the Devs a chance to show off their flying prowess!) Is there any chance of having one included in BoS at release?

I'll remember this offer, thank you. Single benchmark for all it is very comfortable, I understand that.

Translation: we are not going to give you the tools to criticize us with.

14) In regards to 3D modeling guidelines for BoS development, what will be the maximum poly count for optimized aircraft models used in the sim? How does this compare with titles like RoF and CloD?

More than RoF and more than CloD. Optimization does not mean a decrease. It means redistribution of load, as well as the need to even think about the little things.

It is also not too wise to use more PC than necessary and use twenty textures, where it was sufficient to use three (http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/168-developer-diary/#entry1694).....sounds like less to me

15) But what way or how will the BoS be better that original IL2 (including mod) other than graphical and special effects? as it is stated that "Would like to return to the original IL-2 [1946] idea. (LOFT)"

I don't know. "IL-2" with all the additions and modifications was a great product. It drew attention for more than 10 years. If ever we can approach the same result I'll be very proud. But BoS is not ten years old and we still don't have many talented assistants. So we're at the beginning. Of course, much will be done initially and it will be brighter, better, more detailed than the original "IL-2", as we have more technical capabilities. However, we have a long way to go to achieve the same amount and in some places the quality.

When I said "would like to return to the original "IL-2", I didn't mean graphics or physics, I mean only the perception of the players. We would like to make a project that would be difficult and realistic from the inside, but clean and easy on the outside, which you would want to go back and play over and over. Here is an analogy, my homeland is able to make things such as the AK-47 assault rifle J Its worse than many advanced weapons systems with a heap of options like Jasons AR-15, but it has one distinct advantage - reliability. I would call it "friendly" submachine gun for the user. We want new IL-2 series to be the reliable and user friendly sim for WWII pilots that delivers much fun.

translation: we will release a base engine and sell you the "quality" in bits and pieces down the line.

[il_corleone]

@borsch , nevermind the FM/DM crap they have already said this will not be a sim but I would still buy it if it was not for there greedy counter productive buisness model (pay per plane) and I
know i am not the only one...i was online with 21 guys on TS3 this week and posed the question to them , what i got back was ..no way, not me, bullshit, yeah right!, are you kidding!?, and so on..one guy was $250 in Iracing and said he would NEVER do that again.
ROF is 3 years old...most games that are 3+ years old are in the $9.95/19.95 bin....and yet he is STILL trying to sell ROF a piece at a time....there is a giy who posted in here and said he is $366 dollors into ROF :stunned::stunned:....$366 for 2D tree's and anemic online community...REALLY?!?!?

BoS will be based on the DN engine for better or worse, it will not be as feature rich as CloD..but there will be peole who buy it and enjoy it...but i guarantee you it will not have the longevity or the dedicated following that the original IL2 had...IL2 was ahead of its time and when Bos is released it will already be dated.
I really wish they (1C) would have chosen BIS for the contination of the IL2 franchise....just imagine them using the ARMA3 engine for IL2 :):):)

http://www.arma3.com/surveilance/video-feed/



1) One nice addition for IL-2 1946 made by Daidalus Team is radio navigation with beacons/AM stations, we can expect this in BoS?



No. But it's an interesting idea. Let's talk about this in the future. We'll try to make a step forward in the development of radio communications in comparison with the original "IL-2", to make them more meaningful and add a connection to ground units.

Translation: we will sell you this as a addon later

2) How do you plan on balancing the game. I'm sure you and the Devs have had a lot of discussions about this. Didnt the Germans have quite an advantage in aircraft back then? Thanks.

There will be no forced balance. We build aircraft as they were. Of course, in popular games, built on passion or F2P model, balance is needed. But we're working in a different genre, the value of this genre is just the lack of balance. Will the German planes have an advantage or not we'll know only after we'll create them . And with such precision and detail which will be recreated for the first time, so I expect surprises.

We build aircraft as they were outstanding!...you have hired peasant labor todo the modeling with a political officer to hawk over them while they work, complete with inconsistency and quality issue's!

German planes have an advantage or not we'll know only after we'll create them, your kidding right? .

The Soviet war effort in the first phase of the Eastern front war was severely hampered by a shortage of modern aircraft. The Soviet fighter force was equipped with large numbers of obsolete aircraft, such as the I-15 biplane and the I-16. In 1941, the MiG-3, LaGG-3 and Yak-1 were just starting to roll off the production lines, but were far inferior in all-round performance to the Messerschmitt Bf 109 or later, the Fw 190.
The Luftwaffe retained air superiority into early November 42 and Soviet daytime aerial resistance was nonexistent.


3) Will be this sim of yours just another joystick twister or you actually want to show to the rest of the world how different Soviet - German war was.

You're just part of the battle. You will control one plane or a group that performs a specific task, which was performed daily on the Eastern Front. The player will be just one of person who involved, not like Bruce Willis who saves the world alone. You take on the lead role for yourself, but on the scale of the operation you are extra.

Imagine a huge movie, which involved thousands of actors, each playing a role. We put the film on pause and suggest you choose the role of one of them in one of the missions of this battle. This is how I see it. But, of course, it will largely remain a game, interesting and exciting, but just outside the cockpit window - you will see a war.

this is good news!!!! the engine will support thousands of objects!!..../sarcasm

4) Will BoS have Sli/Crossfire support? From a recent poll at 1C forums there were about 30% of the members who use multi card setups.

Yes.

pointless question

5) The Channel map has been released and looks fantastic. But I read it won't be compatible with IL2. Why not?

Thanks for such a review of our work. In this new project we change many of the modules which are responsible for virtually all aspects of the simulation because we want to make a really modern and quality product. Some technologies are not compatible directly. If it's time to create a "Battle of Britain" in the new series, we'll transfer the most important thing - the experience that we received.

Translation: blah blah blah we want you to buy it again.

6) I would like to know if admins would be able to limit the amount of fuel, types and quantities of weapons available and types and quantities of certain types of aircraft.

I think yes. We have not yet made this. And it may not be that easy as we and you would like but we'll definitely look forward to. Multiplayer is an area in which we would like to leave space for creativity community. We know and see that there is a very interesting scenario played out and you need freedom of action for these scenarios. We'll try to keep it. Unfortunately, I can not yet give details.

Translation: this will be a $19.95 add-on

7) What's the plan for pilot's field of view changing? Will it be continuous like in RoF or there will be the stone aged Il2's three steps settings?

This will be made as in ROF. You can move your head slowly and smoothly.

nice cherry picked question to answer

8) Will Battle of Stalingrad include "dumb" static objects (trucks, tanks, aircraft,...) that can be used to form potential targets for bombers and such without taking up as much resources as would a bunch of AI enhanced objects like we have in RoF?

Yes, we want to create scenery that has minimal impact on performance but can make a scene saturated. I understand what you're asking. We'll surely try. I don't know just how many 3D objects and textures we have time to create in this period. But we'll continue to make this after the release.

Translation: not much will be changed with the core of the DN engine.

9) Will there be ground lighting at night in BoS?

Only what was acceptable during the WWII. I think that even in Paris turned off the lights at the Moulin Rouge.

Translation: noting more than what the DN engine already supports.

10) How does the complexity of the FM compares to Clod and what sources will be used for the performance data? Factory numbers or test flight data? Or can it be calculated?

Flight model will be much more accurate and harder. We'll use all possible sources of data. We already have a lot of experience in previous projects. The integrated approach allows us to avoid mistakes. For example, after the completion of the aircraft and the calculation of its characteristics, we have clear data to begin to comparisons with the sources. Sometimes situations occurred when we thought that the sources had an error and after checking out the different sources we received confirmation that in the records included mistakes and sometimes blunders. We will try to make the FMs as good as possible, but I'm confident that no matter what we do, disputes over the FM will be your favorite entertainment on the forum.

Clear data? Did you not just you you were expecting surprise's?, so basically this is a disclaimer...

11) How important is it for you to get close to the historical plane performance values such as level speed, rate of climb, turning rate?

We create the aircraft as accurately as possible with our resources. And as we have stated before historical believe it or not can be a subjective term as many factors affect performance and tests.

no worries...they have clear data...../sarcasm

12) Is there a plan or did you spare a thought about something like this:
"Not only can BoS include modules developed internally by 1CGS, but it can also include those by certified third party developers." thx for answer

This may be possible and both Jason and I we have sort of done this before in ROF. But it's very much dependent from the quality of which we can be produced by these teams. There are many pretenders out there. We can even offer good talent a legitimate income with us if their product will interest the audience, but nothing comes to mind of yet. This is not our initial concern, first we need to make the release product.

translation: we are really not interested in sharing profit.

13) Over the last few iterations of the IL-2 Series they have been including a 'Black Death' track to show of the highlights of the sim and show game engine under a bit of stress. (It also gave the Devs a chance to show off their flying prowess!) Is there any chance of having one included in BoS at release?

I'll remember this offer, thank you. Single benchmark for all it is very comfortable, I understand that.

Translation: we are not going to give you the tools to criticize us with.

14) In regards to 3D modeling guidelines for BoS development, what will be the maximum poly count for optimized aircraft models used in the sim? How does this compare with titles like RoF and CloD?

More than RoF and more than CloD. Optimization does not mean a decrease. It means redistribution of load, as well as the need to even think about the little things.

It is also not too wise to use more PC than necessary and use twenty textures, where it was sufficient to use three (http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/168-developer-diary/#entry1694).....sounds like less to me

15) But what way or how will the BoS be better that original IL2 (including mod) other than graphical and special effects? as it is stated that "Would like to return to the original IL-2 [1946] idea. (LOFT)"

I don't know. "IL-2" with all the additions and modifications was a great product. It drew attention for more than 10 years. If ever we can approach the same result I'll be very proud. But BoS is not ten years old and we still don't have many talented assistants. So we're at the beginning. Of course, much will be done initially and it will be brighter, better, more detailed than the original "IL-2", as we have more technical capabilities. However, we have a long way to go to achieve the same amount and in some places the quality.

When I said "would like to return to the original "IL-2", I didn't mean graphics or physics, I mean only the perception of the players. We would like to make a project that would be difficult and realistic from the inside, but clean and easy on the outside, which you would want to go back and play over and over. Here is an analogy, my homeland is able to make things such as the AK-47 assault rifle J Its worse than many advanced weapons systems with a heap of options like Jasons AR-15, but it has one distinct advantage - reliability. I would call it "friendly" submachine gun for the user. We want new IL-2 series to be the reliable and user friendly sim for WWII pilots that delivers much fun.

translation: we will release a base engine and sell you the "quality" in bits and pieces down the line.

you NAILED it man :)

[thee_oddball]

you NAILED it man :)

do you think jason will give a job as miniser propaganda for BoS? :D

[il_corleone]

do you think jason will give a job as miniser propaganda for BoS? :D

You can always tell him that question, other thing is that he answer you clearly, or something, of course he can put a video of a propaganda interview like in their updates! :thumbsup:

[thee_oddball]

You can always tell him that question, other thing is that he answer you clearly, or something, of course he can put a video of a propaganda interview like in their updates! :thumbsup:

thats not propaganda...thats the MIG 3 from in the game :stunned: very real looking if you ask me :thumbsup:

[il_corleone]

thats not propaganda...thats the MIG 3 from in the game :stunned: very real looking if you ask me :thumbsup:

So... its that pilot modeled in the game too huh? , i have rumors that guy is the main character from the russian campaign! you can shave him before fligths, go whit russian ladies after battles, and pay some beers for the slowy and bad maneovrability i16 to be the prey whit you shoting at the germans! :thumbsup: i know, i have too much free time

[Borsch]

There was a very similar (identical style) "translation" to OM's QandA back in the day. He was also blamed from making CLoD (Strom of War) into arcade shoot-em-up. It was great entertainment :) In russian though: http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=60123&page=8&p=1346610&viewfull=1#post1346610

[vranac]

Borsch, I suppose you like RoF.I don't doubt that BoS will have good FM.I didn't tried RoF but my friend, very good pilot and RL pilot likes it.
But in RoF and I'm pretty shure in BoS also you will have just simple dogfight with good FM, worse(simplified) DM comparing with CloD, simplified CEM,
outdated graphics even now (don't think it will be much better than RoF) not to mention that in 2014 gtx8xx and ATI 9xxx graphic cards will be available.

The most important thing for me is that making online war wan't be possibile, Loft said we will think about that if lots of you will buy (preorder) BoS.
That is big step backwards in any way.

The main problem with CloD was with hardware,people was unwilling to upgrade PC's even if Oleg and Ilya said many times that new sim
will be very hardware demanding.

[Borsch]

Borsch, I suppose you like RoF.I don't doubt that BoS will have good FM.I didn't tried RoF but my friend, very good pilot and RL pilot likes it.
But in RoF and I'm pretty shure in BoS also you will have just simple dogfight with good FM, worse(simplified) DM comparing with CloD, simplified CEM,
outdated graphics even now (don't think it will be much better than RoF) not to mention that in 2014 gtx8xx and ATI 9xxx graphic cards will be available.

The most important thing for me is that making online war wan't be possibile, Loft said we will think about that if lots of you will buy (preorder) BoS.
That is big step backwards in any way.

The main problem with CloD was with hardware,people was unwilling to upgrade PC's even if Oleg and Ilya said many times that new sim
will be very hardware demanding.

I do like RoF, but it was made with lots of compromises that I hope will be alleviated (I do not have very high expectations about that though) in BoS. I like CloD as well and always, but always supported MG while they were still at it. CloD also has compromises - and in different areas to RoF. I have utmost respect for OM and Loft for creating breakthroughs- OM's breakthroughs were undoubtedly bigger (although mostly in il2:1946 series).
I will decide on whether to preorder BoS after watching more devs updates, but AFM is almost irresistible to me - so providing they dont mess it up, I will buy it almost regardless. New project by Ilya Luthier was also heavily hinted at by his dev Psy6 (who is apparently already working on it) - so look forward to that as well, although Luthier will have to prove more to me to get my vote now. Last but not least, ATAG team Fusion can potentially solve some game breaking things in CLoD which would be great too :thumbsup: