PDA

View Full Version : Team Fusion WiP upcoming patch v4.3 - Into the heart of the Flak



Mysticpuma
Mar-12-2014, 03:42
Team Fusion have not only been making the Flak act more like Flak, so now it actually tracks the target and also is more deadly. Also we have been improving the Flak visual effects to save processor cycles and therefore make it more frames-per-second friendly.

This video contains footage of the new audio and visual effects. Everything you see will be available to use in the upcoming patch, now designated v4.3

Cheers, MP


https://vimeo.com/88809767

https://vimeo.com/88809767

Mattias
Mar-12-2014, 03:50
Thanks MP!

Those poor 109s...:(

Wulf
Mar-12-2014, 04:01
Very impressive. The flak appears dangerous and believable. Great work.

The gun sounds on the 109; a triumph! Can't wait.

Thanks Team...

hnbdgr
Mar-12-2014, 04:29
+1 on the sound fx, it gives out a hair-raising awesome sound!

I can't wait to see working flak, no more vulching! (Or not as much:))

Skoshi_Tiger
Mar-12-2014, 04:48
Looking forward to seeing it in action.

Now we just need Beaufighters to take on some flack suppression missions! to help support the Bombers! :)

EG14_Marcast
Mar-12-2014, 05:52
Absolutely wonderful effects....but as a bomber pilot I can't miss to be concerned about the future of ground attacks. This game is getting more and more exciting!

Kling
Mar-12-2014, 05:55
great video MP!

Roblex
Mar-12-2014, 06:02
Awesome but did they have to keep killing the pilots? I was hoping to see one of the new bail sequences :-)

Is the ack going to be a bit more accurate at altitude as well? We don't want bombers being regularly sniped at 10,000ft but currently the ack seems very random. From a defenders PoV all we know is that there may be something around this altitude within a mile of the airfield but little idea of which direction. It would be nice if we could see some sort of progression as it tried to zero in on the target though maybe what has actually been modelled is based on shooting at a formation and just trying to make a dangerous 'screen'. We would not want to see all the ack concentrating on just one bomber out of an AI formation of 9 (unless the random inaccuracy makes that work for the formation anyway?)

JG4_sKylon
Mar-12-2014, 06:07
Please use Spit or Hurri as target in the next Video :(

DUI
Mar-12-2014, 06:18
Please use Spit or Hurri as target in the next Video :(

+1 :)

Not only the flak also the gunners of the bombers did quite some aimed shots. Attacking such a well-protected airfield at low altitude seems to be a suicide mission.

Well done, the visuals and sound effects are amazing! Can't wait to jump into one of those flak guns myself. Most preferrably placed on a ship being part of a convoy that is just under attack by some poor Blenheims...

Btw: nice new intro sequence.

Skoshi_Tiger
Mar-12-2014, 06:44
Can mission designers set the skill levels for AA batteries?

Cheers!

J-HAT
Mar-12-2014, 06:55
Nooo I've always had bad luck with the flak (also from my own side), now I won't get even near any flak area nymore :)

It looks deadly! The black explosions concentrated around your plane, just like those footages from ships shooting at attacking bombers.

Archie
Mar-12-2014, 07:04
Brilliant!

Kling
Mar-12-2014, 07:11
Just be aware guys, this is eight 40mm flak guns shooting at you. Most airfields on the ATAGserver have far less than eight flak guns! The video is just to show you what it could look like if you run into many guns ;)

LcSummers
Mar-12-2014, 07:17
You guys are crazy....GOOD:)

Thats one of the best vids. Nice sounds and effects.

Well done:thumbsup:

dburne
Mar-12-2014, 07:25
Wow, looks amazing thank you!!

Tvrdi
Mar-12-2014, 07:26
Oh, Can I take all of this in one week? :)

310_cibule
Mar-12-2014, 07:48
It looks fantastic. Thx for keeping us informed.

keeno
Mar-12-2014, 08:18
Holy Sh*t!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that looks and sounds absolutely incredible! the balloon strike, it's new; right?

happy Fridays just got happier.

amazing.

GERMANWOLF
Mar-12-2014, 08:24
great job
wait for me in their tails!

danperin
Mar-12-2014, 08:54
Great video as always MP! :salute:

No.401_Wolverine
Mar-12-2014, 10:09
Looks very good indeed.

Seemed like the damage being dealt was from the bomber gunners though? Except perhaps that wing shot near the end.

Nice to see a vid where the Luftwaffe gets some for a change! ;)

Eagerly anticipating the patch.

Catseye
Mar-12-2014, 13:12
Looks very good indeed.

Seemed like the damage being dealt was from the bomber gunners though? Except perhaps that wing shot near the end.

Nice to see a vid where the Luftwaffe gets some for a change! ;)

Eagerly anticipating the patch.

I'm unclear as to why that wing-tip came off. I reviewed it in stop motion and did not see any hits just before separation (unless they happened before and weakened the wing) - it separated in a straight line as though stress fractured. The aileron on that side did show some prior damage. Just curious if there are any further damage model adjustments on the 109 wing.

Kling
Mar-12-2014, 13:23
I'm unclear as to why that wing-tip came off. I reviewed it in stop motion and did not see any hits just before separation (unless they happened before and weakened the wing) - it separated in a straight line as though stress fractured. The aileron on that side did show some prior damage. Just curious if there are any further damage model adjustments on the 109 wing.

The 109 has some of the weakest wings in the game so if any tweaking was to be done it would not be to make the 109 wing more fragile ;)

ATAG_Colander
Mar-12-2014, 13:50
Is the ack going to be a bit more accurate at altitude as well?

Flak is more accurate at height too. Gone are the days where the flak exploded at 1k feet when the bombers where at 10k.
This doesn't mean that every single flak will hit a plane though.

heinkill
Mar-12-2014, 14:03
Its a great vid, but kind of worrying too. Hope my concern is misplaced...

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3923698/Re_Team_Fusion_A_couple_of_new#Post3923698

H

ATAG_Colander
Mar-12-2014, 14:12
Its a great vid, but kind of worrying too. Hope my concern is misplaced...

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3923698/Re_Team_Fusion_A_couple_of_new#Post3923698

H

I saw your post and it is.
Flak was not made a super weapon. Basically what was done was fixing aiming and shrapnel bugs.
For example, I made a test mission with 10 bombers flying straight and level at 5Km over a corridor of flak guns for about 10 minutes. It took about 10 re-runs of the mission for a bomber to be seriously damaged but, they will get more hits from shrapnel (you will even see some of the crew getting killed).

The trick is not to fly straight and level which will reduce drastically the chances of getting hit.

Now, low on the deck is a different story. Bullets don't take seconds to get to target so your chances of getting hit are a higher but still, guns don't turn in a microsecond so as long as you are not flying straight and/or in the imaginary line gun<----->plane, they will have a harder time aiming.


Oh, and about the bomber gunners. The fix was the removal of the 5m/s limit.

Roblex
Mar-12-2014, 14:13
In the closeup of the first victim from 0:57 onwards there appears to be something dripping from the engine. Is that a side effect of the fire animation or is it fuel/glycol leaking due to the damage?

DUI
Mar-12-2014, 14:20
Hope my concern is misplaced..

I share your general concerns about flak and gunner accuracy.

The fighter pilot in me does not want to get shot down every time I am diving on a bomber with full speed and performing immediate evasive manouvers. On the other side, as a bomber pilot I hope the days are gone when a single enemy fighter was able to make himself comfortable in my six without having to fear getting shot down by my gunners (or the other gunners in the formation).

With flak it is also quite tricky: while flying on high-altitude I would not like to fear getting shot down by flak all the time. But I would like to get my heart beat up while strafing a well-protected airfield.

I think it is all about finding the right balance (speed, height, manouvering, etc. of the aircraft mixed with a reasonable coincidence-factor). I am quite sure that TF 4.3 will be far away from perfectly realistic conditions. But I have high confidence that it is a big improvement compared to the situation so far. We will see soon...

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Mar-12-2014, 15:09
-There are no changes to weaken the 109's.

-Everyone should understand there are eight 40mm Bofors firing in this video... normally a British airfield in 1940 would have a single battery of four Bofors.

-It's up to mission builders to specify how much flak they want... in the pre-4.3 missions, builders would place as many as 16 or 32 Bofors protecting a field... now they only need to place 4, and they will have a more dangerous defense... better for frame rates, better realism.

-Realistically, aircraft could not simply loiter over enemy fields the way players were able to do in Vanilla, TF 3.0/3.01/4.0. Now there are more historical and demanding factors players need to consider.

-Bombing, even dive bombing, or glide bombing, typically happened at much higher heights than what we have seen in the game up to this point. Real Pilots would drop their bombs from 750 meters, 2000 ft. A Stuka would begin its dive at 3000 meters, release the bomb at 1000 meters, and pull out by 750 meters.

-It's up to mission builders to set the victory conditions and targets such that they can be hit by bombers... less pinpoint taking out of individual vehicles, and more area targets.

heinkill
Mar-12-2014, 15:14
Nooo I've always had bad luck with the flak (also from my own side), now I won't get even near any flak area nymore :)

It looks deadly! The black explosions concentrated around your plane, just like those footages from ships shooting at attacking bombers.

I suspect you are thinking of footage shot in the later 40s esp in the Pacific and Atlantic?

1940s the technology was more primitive.. as in

http://youtu.be/Jhy61itYYhQ

Glad to hear I am a worry wart for no reason!! I am somewhat of a 'flak tragic'.

heinkill
Mar-12-2014, 15:33
oops double post

heinkill
Mar-12-2014, 15:42
These are the sources I follow when placing AAA at target sites. Have to admit I am lazy concerning exact placement vs historical placement on the airfield, but quite conscientious about number and type of guns.

Any mission builder wanting to map the exact locations and numbers of AAA sites in summer 1940, the BDG website is a wealth of collective data. You will see there was a huge variation in the number and type of guns at each site, eg Tangmere had 6 Bofors, Manston 4, Northolt only 3...Hawkinge had 7 x 3" HAA guns, while Tangmere had only 4.

Great precision is therefore possible for mission builders.

eg HAA sites

http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=29613&hilit=stickman+haa

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/vadenstick/1940%20Guns/HAA-done-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/vadenstick/1940%20Guns/Numbers-Airfields-1.jpg

Light AA (40mm) sites

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/vadenstick/1940%20Guns/LightAAA_April_done.jpg

AAA data

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/vadenstick/1940%20Guns/BoB-guns-Data.jpg

The resident AAA obsessive compulsive is Stickman, who had mapped, literally the exact location, type and number of every AAA battery in England in summer 1940. What he don't know, can't be known.

Here is one example, Havering AAA site, archive photo and Stickman's placements:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/vadenstick/1940%20Guns/Swingate-template.jpg

He has done this sort of thing for every known/recorded emplacement in England, on the BOBII map. So if you have that sim, one of the quickest ways to check exactly what AAA was in place in a particular location is to go to the BOBII map and look!

I've never tried to replicate his attention to detail in my CoD campaigns - not sure it would be regarded as healthy!

Now that TF has fine tuned the accuracy of the flak itself, it will be much more interesting to pay attention to replicating historical numbers and types of guns at target locations in missions in CoD!

priller26
Mar-12-2014, 16:07
Nice, but I saw a lot of stuttering and frame drop in the playback, does that have to do with the video capture or the game play itself? Just curious.

Ohms
Mar-12-2014, 16:16
Looks great. Smooth as silk for me on both my PC and iPad.

trademe900
Mar-12-2014, 16:22
Nice, but I saw a lot of stuttering and frame drop in the playback, does that have to do with the video capture or the game play itself? Just curious.

Stutters? I don't buy it. That was smooth as butter and my game runs horrendously compared to that video.

J-HAT
Mar-12-2014, 16:41
I suspect you are thinking of footage shot in the later 40s esp in the Pacific and Atlantic?

1940s the technology was more primitive.. as in

http://youtu.be/Jhy61itYYhQ

Glad to hear I am a worry wart for no reason!! I am somewhat of a 'flak tragic'.

Yeah, exactly. Mainly kamikaze being fended off in 1945.

Wow, great info on those placements. Amazing.

priller26
Mar-12-2014, 16:49
Looks great. Smooth as silk for me on both my PC and iPad.


Runs very smooth and fine once I downloaded the file from the source, just did not stream well from the embedded video or the vimeo player, strange, but must be server issue on their end.

hnbdgr
Mar-12-2014, 17:22
I envision the following:

Any hostile circling around the airfield say under 2000m for more then 60 seconds should start feeling the heat. Flak should be dangerous and potentially deadly for a single fighter at lower altitude.

On the other hand, a spaced formation of 12+ bombers flying at 6000m will have a decent chance of taking some damage but probably no critical hits, bar the occasional engine.

The german name for flak is Flugabwehrkanone and one of the meanings of the word abwher is deflection. Flak is supposed to put pressure on the enemy, deflect them - make their job as difficult as possible and cause damage in the process.

III./ZG76_Keller
Mar-12-2014, 17:33
Not only the flak also the gunners of the bombers did quite some aimed shots.

The golden days of attacking bombers by climbing on their six are over, gotta stay fast and attack from the sides.

Osprey
Mar-12-2014, 18:27
@heinkill Are you going to include the Thames estuary forts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunsell_Forts


Here's a head start.
8115

Catseye
Mar-12-2014, 21:06
The 109 has some of the weakest wings in the game so if any tweaking was to be done it would not be to make the 109 wing more fragile ;)

Hi Kling,
Not implying that any weakening of the 109 wing was in place.
I was working on the damage model in 4.0 and fully aware of what can be done to affect the damage model of the wing. My question is purely curiosity as to why the wing tip came off. I need to back up the vid to see if there was any flak damage or wondering if adjustments I made in 4.0 regarding struts in that area are detrimental to normal flying.

I can't get inside the cockpit so I don't know the airspeed or possible G's being pulled.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

ATAG_Colander
Mar-12-2014, 21:31
Hi Kling,
Not implying that any weakening of the 109 wing was in place.
I was working on the damage model in 4.0 and fully aware of what can be done to affect the damage model of the wing. My question is purely curiosity as to why the wing tip came off. I need to back up the vid to see if there was any flak damage or wondering if adjustments I made in 4.0 regarding struts in that area are detrimental to normal flying.

I can't get inside the cockpit so I don't know the airspeed or possible G's being pulled.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

I think it was shot but the wing/plane covered the bullet so it wasn't visible.

Wulf
Mar-12-2014, 22:15
Its a great vid, but kind of worrying too. Hope my concern is misplaced...

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3923698/Re_Team_Fusion_A_couple_of_new#Post3923698

H


There are of course all types of flak defenses. There is predicted flak and flak barrages and light trainable flak. All of these will have varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon the manner of their use. So I think quoting generalized statistics about the effectiveness of 'Flak' is invariably misleading. I do agree that there is a tendency in CFSs to use AA weapons in a less than an historic fashion, for example, Flak 18s being used like trainable Flak 38s etc. presumably to make the best use of the available graphical resources of the game. However, that aside, and as others have noted, only a fool would orbit heavily defended targets like airfields or ships and expect to survive. And as for your comment about the lamentable ineffectiveness of Flak defenses circa 1940, I strongly suspect that the poor hapless saps ordered to destroy the bridges over the Albert Canal and the Maas, in their dreadful Fairey Battles, would have a somewhat different view.

TWC_SLAG
Mar-12-2014, 23:17
The new Readme references "Tom's airfield diagrams". Where would they be found?

Thanks,

badfinger

Mysticpuma
Mar-12-2014, 23:17
Hi Kling,
Not implying that any weakening of the 109 wing was in place.
I was working on the damage model in 4.0 and fully aware of what can be done to affect the damage model of the wing. My question is purely curiosity as to why the wing tip came off. I need to back up the vid to see if there was any flak damage or wondering if adjustments I made in 4.0 regarding struts in that area are detrimental to normal flying.

I can't get inside the cockpit so I don't know the airspeed or possible G's being pulled.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

Yes, the wing split after a direct hit from flak shrapnel. If you watch the footage again, you can see what looks like a puff of dust as the hit takes place almost as the wing splits.

I was flying the aircraft at the time....it was a definite hit :)

VO101_Tom
Mar-13-2014, 00:12
The new Readme references "Tom's airfield diagrams". Where would they be found?
Thanks,
badfinger


Hi.

I have created a collection which contain the layout cards of all 121 Airfields of Clod. The "cards" looks like this: Dieppe (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/SoWC/AFB2/BOF_AFB_CLOD_2_FR_37_LFAB_Dieppe.jpg). The collection contain a big map too (8000x7000 pixel) which can be printing in A1 size, and can be use for navigation (This is quite different than the ingame map, it is welded from three different original ww2 map). Same as this jpg, but much bigger: AFBs_of_CloD_2_Overview_map_ct.jpg (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/Clodtools/AFBs_of_CloD_2_Overview_map_ct.jpg)

Here is the details (on the old 1C-Clod forum): http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=35074

And here is the download page: http://www.pcpilot.hu/CloD-airbase-maps (http://www.pcpilot.hu/dokumentumtar/il-2-sturmovik/cliffs-of-dover/2928-repuloter-terkepek-airbase-maps.html)
(the "high res" files should download only if you want to print them out (300 dpi). The smaller resolution files is intended to PC use.

No601_Swallow
Mar-13-2014, 04:10
The resident AAA obsessive compulsive is Stickman, who had mapped, literally the exact location, type and number of every AAA battery in England in summer 1940. What he don't know, can't be known.
...He has done this sort of thing for every known/recorded emplacement in England, on the BOBII map. So if you have that sim, one of the quickest ways to check exactly what AAA was in place in a particular location is to go to the BOBII map and look!


Stickman's work looks astonishing! :salute:

Heinkill, thanks for pointing out this resource! Standing on the shoulders of giants, etc... :D

Roblex
Mar-13-2014, 04:30
Hi Kling,
Not implying that any weakening of the 109 wing was in place.
I was working on the damage model in 4.0 and fully aware of what can be done to affect the damage model of the wing. My question is purely curiosity as to why the wing tip came off. I need to back up the vid to see if there was any flak damage or wondering if adjustments I made in 4.0 regarding struts in that area are detrimental to normal flying.

I can't get inside the cockpit so I don't know the airspeed or possible G's being pulled.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

We had this in IL2 as well. I have a lovely track of us all going out on a mission in mosquitos at about 10,000ft and a passing over a single 88 that we had no realised was there. The first flack burst went off next to the flight leader but apparently did no harm. He immediately said 'We better move further out to sea' but when he put it into a 45 degree bank the wing just snapped in half. There was no second flak burst near him.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Todays target was the Dam at XXXXXX. Kapt, Bogus & myself in Mosquito VIs were to take down the Dam while Kristorf & Charlie ran as backup and to help take out any serious flack problems. Escort was Tempests but soon after launch some of these managed to get seperated from the main group though we were still adequately protected as Choctaw & Locust were on deadly form with each taking 4 kills over the next 40 minutes!

5 minutes down the coast we megt with out first set-back when a small town that had not been considered a problem opened up on Kapt with 88s and scored a near miss before he had a chance to weave.

http://wildroad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DamBust/KaptNearMiss.jpg

Kapt immediately pulled a sharp turn to throw them off but the first burst had obviously done some serious damage because as soon as he put some stress on the wing it snapped sending Kapt spiralling down unable to bail.


http://wildroad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DamBust/KaptWingDeath.jpg


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding how lethal AAA should be, it was an accepted wisdom in WW2 that you *never* made a second low level pass on an airfield or similarly defended target. I have an autobiography of a Corsair carrier pilot in the far East who mentions a gung-ho 'big movie star' deciding to believe his own movie hype and go back for a second pass and getting killed but I have never worked out who that might have been. I suppose if he had just become big in 1943 and never returned from the war he might not be that well known any more.

Ideally it would be good if AAA had a 'wake-up' timer so we could just about get away with a single pass but then it stays alert for 20 minutes afterwards. Not sure if that should be a 15-20 second delay before opening up or whether it should be based on proximity ie they only wake up when you pass the airfield boundary then try to nail you as you egress. The timer would work with both high & low ack as a 20 second delay after being spotted makes little difference when at 10,000ft but can be life & death at 100ft.

Osprey
Mar-13-2014, 06:22
Pearl Harbour is an example of not being too greedy. The defence got stronger after the first and second attacks and the third was considered folly so not attempted.

There is a 'sleep' timer on the AA properties (IIRC, certainly in 1946 FMB). It will not fire until that time has elapsed but then it is permanently awoken. I haven't bothered to try it in COD though.

LcSummers
Mar-13-2014, 08:08
Hi Tom,

köszi a szép munkát, igen jó térképek.

Üdv




Hi.

I have created a collection which contain the layout cards of all 121 Airfields of Clod. The "cards" looks like this: Dieppe (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/SoWC/AFB2/BOF_AFB_CLOD_2_FR_37_LFAB_Dieppe.jpg). The collection contain a big map too (8000x7000 pixel) which can be printing in A1 size, and can be use for navigation (This is quite different than the ingame map, it is welded from three different original ww2 map). Same as this jpg, but much bigger: AFBs_of_CloD_2_Overview_map_ct.jpg (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/Clodtools/AFBs_of_CloD_2_Overview_map_ct.jpg)

Here is the details (on the old 1C-Clod forum): http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=35074

And here is the download page: http://www.pcpilot.hu/CloD-airbase-maps (http://www.pcpilot.hu/dokumentumtar/il-2-sturmovik/cliffs-of-dover/2928-repuloter-terkepek-airbase-maps.html)
(the "high res" files should download only if you want to print them out (300 dpi). The smaller resolution files is intended to PC use.

heinkill
Mar-13-2014, 08:48
Hi Kling,
Not implying that any weakening of the 109 wing was in place.
I was working on the damage model in 4.0 and fully aware of what can be done to affect the damage model of the wing. My question is purely curiosity as to why the wing tip came off. I need to back up the vid to see if there was any flak damage or wondering if adjustments I made in 4.0 regarding struts in that area are detrimental to normal flying.

I can't get inside the cockpit so I don't know the airspeed or possible G's being pulled.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

Cats

I had the same happen in one of my replays and when I went back and watched the track from every angle I could not for the life of me work out what had caused it because there was no nearby flak burst and as far as I could see the 109 had not taken structural damage leading up to the loss of wing tip. Of course, it could have received non visible damage. My theory was structural overload, but it wasnt that steep a pullout.

Then when I cycled around the airfield I saw a parked (landed) Blenheim had been firing at the 109 when it happened and it was actually a near invisible .303 round that had hit the wing at that moment.

H

heinkill
Mar-13-2014, 08:51
There are of course all types of flak defenses. There is predicted flak and flak barrages and light trainable flak. All of these will have varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon the manner of their use. So I think quoting generalized statistics about the effectiveness of 'Flak' is invariably misleading. I do agree that there is a tendency in CFSs to use AA weapons in a less than an historic fashion, for example, Flak 18s being used like trainable Flak 38s etc. presumably to make the best use of the available graphical resources of the game. However, that aside, and as others have noted, only a fool would orbit heavily defended targets like airfields or ships and expect to survive. And as for your comment about the lamentable ineffectiveness of Flak defenses circa 1940, I strongly suspect that the poor hapless saps ordered to destroy the bridges over the Albert Canal and the Maas, in their dreadful Fairey Battles, would have a somewhat different view.

Slow moving target on predictable ingress-egress, not comparable to fast moving 109, I would contend. If it had been a Defiant in that video, attacking a bridge, I would not be so concerned at the result.

Mysticpuma
Mar-13-2014, 10:02
Just so I can clear this up a little. The video is designed to show new effects work so it doesn't mean that what you see is exactly how it happened, or what you see happened straight away.

At the opening of the video, the 109 gets a hit to the engine and starts venting and then catches fire.

Now flak was firing but also I had 7 stationary Wellington bombers waiting for take-off. The 109 is being fired at simultaneously by multiple bomber gunners as-well as Flak...this is not a good situation!

Also, as a video, it needs to show the effects, so I had 4x 109 Fighters making multiple slow passes over the airfield to make sure the Flak effects were generated. Off the top of my head it took approx. 5 minutes to shoot down all four, and remember that as one was shot down, that left three to take the concentrated flak and bomber gunners fire. If you watch the point where the 109 bellies in, you can see how much fire the bomber gunners lay down on it. Bombers are not an easy target any more.

Finally watch the long shot where the 109's are tracked by the camera rolling into the dive. The Flak is visible, but notice it is behind the track of the flight. So fast moving attacks are most likely to be more effective than a slow crawl over the airfield.

Cheers, MP

No.401_Wolverine
Mar-13-2014, 10:13
A bit anxious about these increased AI gunner skills. ACE gunners are already basically bullet firemen who hose down anything that approaches them. Just what exactly has been done to the gunners? Has the AI been made more nuanced or just simply made more accurate? We could do with a better 'curve' of skill from the Rookie to the Ace, but the Ace guys in no way need any improvement. They were not easy targets to begin with. Most missions I've seen and made can't make use of the Ace gunner skills because they're way too devastating.

So...if possible maybe a more detailed explanation of the AI changes to bomber gunners instead of just saying bombers aren't easy targets anymore? Though, if the patch is going to be out tomorrow, I suppose I can just wait and see for myself.

ATAG_Colander
Mar-13-2014, 10:26
So...if possible maybe a more detailed explanation of the AI changes to bomber gunners instead of just saying bombers aren't easy targets anymore? Though, if the patch is going to be out tomorrow, I suppose I can just wait and see for myself.

Removed the 5m/s limit.

Mysticpuma
Mar-13-2014, 10:30
Which means that when the Bombers are avoiding you, during their manoeuvres before, the Ai gunners just weren't firing or coping. This is now changed and they are likely to take you on when they make defensive manoeuvres.

Cheers, MP

9./JG52 Ziegler
Mar-13-2014, 11:01
The sounds upgrade are really amazing. :thumbsup:

Vlerkies
Mar-13-2014, 12:31
Which means that when the Bombers are avoiding you, during their manoeuvres before, the Ai gunners just weren't firing or coping. This is now changed and they are likely to take you on when they make defensive manoeuvres.

Cheers, MP

Thanks for the explanation on that one.
All round this patch seems almost to good to be true.

Super job TF.

Katdog5
Mar-13-2014, 14:40
oh my...thats more like it

this is incredible work...whew wow

Chivas
Mar-13-2014, 14:59
Hi.

I have created a collection which contain the layout cards of all 121 Airfields of Clod. The "cards" looks like this: Dieppe (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/SoWC/AFB2/BOF_AFB_CLOD_2_FR_37_LFAB_Dieppe.jpg). The collection contain a big map too (8000x7000 pixel) which can be printing in A1 size, and can be use for navigation (This is quite different than the ingame map, it is welded from three different original ww2 map). Same as this jpg, but much bigger: AFBs_of_CloD_2_Overview_map_ct.jpg (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/Clodtools/AFBs_of_CloD_2_Overview_map_ct.jpg)

Here is the details (on the old 1C-Clod forum): http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=35074

And here is the download page: http://www.pcpilot.hu/CloD-airbase-maps (http://www.pcpilot.hu/dokumentumtar/il-2-sturmovik/cliffs-of-dover/2928-repuloter-terkepek-airbase-maps.html)
(the "high res" files should download only if you want to print them out (300 dpi). The smaller resolution files is intended to PC use.

I remember when COD was first being discussed I'd mentioned that they should use those RAF maps to build the terrain. Those maps were easily accessible, and would have been perfect, but I doubt they were ever used. The terrain would have looked much better, and been much easier to navigate had they used them.

trademe900
Mar-13-2014, 15:47
double

trademe900
Mar-13-2014, 15:48
A bit anxious about these increased AI gunner skills. ACE gunners are already basically bullet firemen who hose down anything that approaches them. Just what exactly has been done to the gunners? Has the AI been made more nuanced or just simply made more accurate? We could do with a better 'curve' of skill from the Rookie to the Ace, but the Ace guys in no way need any improvement. They were not easy targets to begin with. Most missions I've seen and made can't make use of the Ace gunner skills because they're way too devastating.

So...if possible maybe a more detailed explanation of the AI changes to bomber gunners instead of just saying bombers aren't easy targets anymore? Though, if the patch is going to be out tomorrow, I suppose I can just wait and see for myself.

If you only fly RAF, I can see it might be hard to imagine. They are anything but trained snipers. If you fly Blenheim or other bombers, you will see why it is a unanimous agreement that the gunners are totally inept and wacked. First of all, they can not shoot while the plane is ascending or descending a mere 5m a second! This is a huge disability, especially for human gunners. Secondly, although they might get some crazy fluke shots on a plane boom and zooming, what's ironic is that 'ace' gunners have not a hope of hitting a plane hovering directly on the 6 of the bomber 10 meters away like a sitting duck.

With all due respect, I can not remember the last time I even considered the threat of return fire from a bomber or Stuka/110

TWC_SLAG
Mar-13-2014, 20:20
Hi.

I have created a collection which contain the layout cards of all 121 Airfields of Clod. The "cards" looks like this: Dieppe (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/SoWC/AFB2/BOF_AFB_CLOD_2_FR_37_LFAB_Dieppe.jpg). The collection contain a big map too (8000x7000 pixel) which can be printing in A1 size, and can be use for navigation (This is quite different than the ingame map, it is welded from three different original ww2 map). Same as this jpg, but much bigger: AFBs_of_CloD_2_Overview_map_ct.jpg (http://www.pumaszallas.hu/Private/VO101_Tom/Clodtools/AFBs_of_CloD_2_Overview_map_ct.jpg)

Here is the details (on the old 1C-Clod forum): http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=35074

And here is the download page: http://www.pcpilot.hu/CloD-airbase-maps (http://www.pcpilot.hu/dokumentumtar/il-2-sturmovik/cliffs-of-dover/2928-repuloter-terkepek-airbase-maps.html)
(the "high res" files should download only if you want to print them out (300 dpi). The smaller resolution files is intended to PC use.

Tom,

I found this very helpful. I printed out several.

Thanks,

badfinger

Broodwich
Mar-13-2014, 20:42
Ideally it would be good if AAA had a 'wake-up' timer so we could just about get away with a single pass but then it stays alert for 20 minutes afterwards. Not sure if that should be a 15-20 second delay before opening up or whether it should be based on proximity ie they only wake up when you pass the airfield boundary then try to nail you as you egress. The timer would work with both high & low ack as a 20 second delay after being spotted makes little difference when at 10,000ft but can be life & death at 100ft.

The guns go back to an "idle" position after they stop detecting something in their bubble of fire, so if the guns are slow rotating, it will take a second or two to get a bead on you. The problem is that ai automatically knows where everything is, even if it couldnt physically see it (ie on the other side of a cloud/hill) so you can never surprise it.

Bomber pilots tend to forget they are basically an airborne radar and gunners are hugely useful even if they dont always blow everything up. They are too slow now but I'm worried about the removing speed limit thing, as they already have perfect accuracy, there will be no way to avoid them.

No.401_Wolverine
Mar-14-2014, 01:06
Which means that when the Bombers are avoiding you, during their manoeuvres before, the Ai gunners just weren't firing or coping. This is now changed and they are likely to take you on when they make defensive manoeuvres.

Cheers, MP

This is exactly the info I was looking for. Awesome. Yes, that is good news. S!

VO101_Tom
Mar-14-2014, 01:16
I remember when COD was first being discussed I'd mentioned that they should use those RAF maps to build the terrain. Those maps were easily accessible, and would have been perfect, but I doubt they were ever used. The terrain would have looked much better, and been much easier to navigate had they used them.

Hi.
I think that these old maps is far less detailed than any modern digital map. If would I want to build a new map, I would start with modern digital maps too. Of course, need a lot of research to find out what changed exactly, but I think the accuracy of the modern maps is invaluable. Even if the Towns changed a lot, the old town centers can be found very accurately. The landmarks, railroads, rivers, hills and mountains, coast lines mostly remained the same. The elevation data also mostly the same. Not to mention the vegetations, the large forrest or the fields also not likely hopped away :D So despite the fact that we can find several errors on it, I think the current clod map is very nice work.

VO101_Tom
Mar-14-2014, 01:18
Tom,
I found this very helpful. I printed out several.
Thanks,
badfinger

I hope it will be useful in practice.
:salute:

Roblex
Mar-14-2014, 04:46
Hi.
I think that these old maps is far less detailed than any modern digital map. If would I want to build a new map, I would start with modern digital maps too. Of course, need a lot of research to find out what changed exactly, but I think the accuracy of the modern maps is invaluable. Even if the Towns changed a lot, the old town centers can be found very accurately. The landmarks, railroads, rivers, hills and mountains, coast lines mostly remained the same. The elevation data also mostly the same. Not to mention the vegetations, the large forrest or the fields also not likely hopped away :D So despite the fact that we can find several errors on it, I think the current clod map is very nice work.

Sadly, in Kent at least, it is not true that the large forests are the same 70 years later. Most have shrunk considerably to allow houses to be built as houses bring in more money than trees. As for the airfields...about 2/3 of Rochester Airfield is now housing and industrial buildings, Maidstone Airfield is all housing now (though that only happened about 20 years ago), Bekesbourne (Canterbury) is a new village (the mess buildings etc are now houses and the rest is fields). Eastchurch is a prison. Gravesend Airfield on the other hand is half housing & sports centre but the other half is wooded and part of a nature reserve.

Perhaps using modern maps is the reason that Chatham Naval Dockyard, a major LW target that only vanished 30 years ago (but still has the basins), does not appear on the map at all while the tiny commercial dock at Rochester does :D

Luftwaffe photo of Chatham Dockyard.
8140

Mysticpuma
Mar-14-2014, 08:19
Sadly, in Kent at least, it is not true that the large forests are the same 70 years later. Most have shrunk considerably to allow houses to be built as houses bring in more money than trees. As for the airfields...about 2/3 of Rochester Airfield is now housing and industrial buildings, Maidstone Airfield is all housing now (though that only happened about 20 years ago), Bekesbourne (Canterbury) is a new village (the mess buildings etc are now houses and the rest is fields). Eastchurch is a prison. Gravesend Airfield on the other hand is half housing & sports centre but the other half is wooded and part of a nature reserve.

Perhaps using modern maps is the reason that Chatham Naval Dockyard, a major LW target that only vanished 30 years ago (but still has the basins), does not appear on the map at all while the tiny commercial dock at Rochester does :D

Luftwaffe photo of Chatham Dockyard.
8140


Well that gives us something to play around with for the future updates ;)

heinkill
Mar-14-2014, 08:57
With all due respect, I can not remember the last time I even considered the threat of return fire from a bomber or Stuka/110

'A' bomber, no. But in single player, formations are lethal. The bomber you are sat behind might be 'blind', but those lateral to it will slice you up.

Try a solo slashing attack (high to low front or rear quarter or low to high) on a formation of BR20s or Ju88s set to veteran. You will take crippling fire every time. Even novice is way too accurate. The only way to make effective attacks on large bomber formations in single player is to go in with your whole squadron so the AI has multiple targets to track and might leave you alone. But you will lose several AI wingmen.

Roblex
Mar-14-2014, 10:01
Well that gives us something to play around with for the future updates ;)

Well have these as well then :-)

A site about the dockyard
http://www.godfreydykes.info/CHATHAM%20DOCKYARD.htm

X marks the three flack towers
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii34/batgirlphotos/CCF27082007_00000Small.jpg

http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/lw/chatham22a-kl.jpg

Key to the ships seen
http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/lw/22a-chatham.htm

And while you are at it, Here is a shot of Rochester and the A in the bottom corner links with the A on the following picture to show where The Shorts Factory was. There is an used space just nearby so we could add a factory fairly close to its real position (sometime in the far future of course :D)

http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz138/Robinhj/IL2/rochester_marked.jpg

http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz138/Robinhj/IL2/Shortscopy.jpg

1lokos
Mar-14-2014, 14:47
This 1947 document say that during BoB (10 July - 30 September) British AAA shoot down 296 aircraft and damage more 74 (page 5 - item 41).
That is around 15% of Luftwaffe losses during the battle.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/38149.pdf

Sokol1

Uwe
Mar-14-2014, 16:29
That's a bit hard to believe

No.401_Wolverine
Mar-15-2014, 00:15
'A' bomber, no. But in single player, formations are lethal. The bomber you are sat behind might be 'blind', but those lateral to it will slice you up.

Try a solo slashing attack (high to low front or rear quarter or low to high) on a formation of BR20s or Ju88s set to veteran. You will take crippling fire every time. Even novice is way too accurate. The only way to make effective attacks on large bomber formations in single player is to go in with your whole squadron so the AI has multiple targets to track and might leave you alone. But you will lose several AI wingmen.

Yes, this is exactly my experience. Unless a large bomber group is set to average or rookie, a fighter group will get seriously damaged making attacks. Especially those aircraft like the Heinkels and their effective side-gunners. It's discouraging to have a flight of 12 Spitfires making fast attacks on a formation, diving from 3+ angels above the formation, passing straight through and away, and then come out with several aircraft already having suffered catastrophic failures due to gunner fire.

Add to that the ai tendency to focus everything they've got on the first contact to come into range rather than making a proper threat assessment or pairing off against equal numbers and single player or mixed ai/multiplay missions are still suffering.

I'd love to see the AI get some real love..

Mysticpuma
Mar-15-2014, 03:52
The Ai is expected to have a complete revision for v5.0. :)

Got to save some treats for further patches :)

Mattias
Mar-15-2014, 04:30
This 1947 document say that during BoB (10 July - 30 September) British AAA shoot down 296 aircraft and damage more 74 (page 5 - item 41).
That is around 15% of Luftwaffe losses during the battle.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/38149.pdf

Sokol1

:salute:

Thank you for this! I read this number ages ago but failed to find any documents supporting it :thumbsup:

Cheers/m

Roblex
Mar-15-2014, 04:56
Oddly, I have never had the problems people have with bombers. I will admit that He111s are harder to kill without taking damage but I will still happily take on 9 JU88s or Do17s or BM20s on my own and 90% of the time get between one & three fatally damaged before I RTB out of ammo. With He11s I will get at least one and leave another streaming before RTB and may have to glide the last bit but it is very rare to be killed by bombers. Add to this that I am lazy and attack from the six with 200yd convergence and it is even stranger that people complain of whole squadrons being shot down in slashing attacks. My method is to pick on one of the outer rearmost bombers and just attack his outermost engine then when he drops out of formation move away and come back for the next and do the same. I still maintain that dead 6 is safer than slashing (but never go low 6!) and when I practiced head-on attacks offline against three JU88s on 'average' they PK'd me instantly! From dead 6 those same three JU88s on 'average' were easy meat as I tested several different ammo loadouts on them (result = 'Use mostly DW'). I flew perhaps 12 sorties and did not die once though I did take engine damage a few times and barely make it back to base. I also got a cracked screen twice so I admit I was lucky not to be PK'd.

Apparently I will have to change all that after Monday :-)

TWC_Fatal_Error
Mar-15-2014, 11:58
have a question here are the flak batteries indestructible? and if not how long do they stay down?
rendering all flak on a field useless was a tactic. To have the said field rendered out of commission like cratering it beyond repair for a 4 hour period or the map time anyway is a solid tactic accomplished via Jagdbomber or in English terms the JABO mission.

No.401_Wolverine
Mar-15-2014, 12:04
The Ai is expected to have a complete revision for v5.0. :)

Got to save some treats for further patches :)

Fantastic news. Can't wait to hear about it the changes being made.

DUI
Mar-15-2014, 13:15
have a question here are the flak batteries indestructible? and if not how long do they stay down?

I am very sure that a once destroyed flak will stay down for the rest of the mission. It is already handled this way in the current missions.

Joker
Mar-15-2014, 15:02
Many thanks to all in Team Fusion who contributed to this and for all the hard work and effort for this patch update.

The video, staged to present the changes clearly, is great. The sounds of that 109 damaged, spluttering and struggling is amazing. I can only imagine how the red sides damaged birds will sound.

The flak looks very threatening and come Monday, we will all learn just how much. Previously, I have been hit by flak... who hasn't .... but it's never really been a concern.

Roll on Monday

1lokos
Mar-15-2014, 15:39
Oddly, I have never had the problems people have with bombers.

Some people say from Singleplayer point of view. Play the QM Aerial Battle - Dover and attack the Ju-88 formation to "feel" what trained gunners can do. :devilish:

Sokol1

Salmo
Mar-15-2014, 20:46
have a question here are the flak batteries indestructible? and if not how long do they stay down?
rendering all flak on a field useless was a tactic. To have the said field rendered out of commission like cratering it beyond repair for a 4 hour period or the map time anyway is a solid tactic accomplished via Jagdbomber or in English terms the JABO mission.

For most missions, destroyed flak will stay destroyed. In the Operation Home Plate mission, new AA will spawn at frequently atacked bases from time to time.

trademe900
Mar-15-2014, 21:13
For most missions, destroyed flak will stay destroyed. In the Operation Home Plate mission, new AA will spawn at frequently atacked bases from time to time.

My hero Salmo. Your Homeplate is the favourite map for many pilots and astonishing details like this always continue to amaze me and make for great immersion.

heinkill
Mar-16-2014, 03:51
This 1947 document say that during BoB (10 July - 30 September) British AAA shoot down 296 aircraft and damage more 74 (page 5 - item 41).
That is around 15% of Luftwaffe losses during the battle.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/38149.pdf

Sokol1

I think it is plausable. Remember on the two heaviest days of the battle, according OKL, Germany recorded 6-10 aircraft lost to flak. This 296 number gives an average of 3 per day.

With hundreds of sorties per day, it would mean on most missions, the Luftwaffe lost zero aircraft to flak.

More machines were lost to takeoff and landing accidents than to flak!

H

No601_Swallow
Mar-16-2014, 10:34
And while you are at it, Here is a shot of Rochester and the A in the bottom corner links with the A on the following picture to show where The Shorts Factory was. There is an used space just nearby so we could add a factory fairly close to its real position (sometime in the far future of course :D)

http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz138/Robinhj/IL2/Shortscopy.jpg

Hi Roblex! Great info about Chatham and Rochester. I'll add them to my Grrr-CloD-map list (along with Ramsgate "Airport", Middle Wallop "nothing" and, of course, St Paul's Ghost-edral).

But I'm in danger of getting confused about Shorts and Rochester. Were there two factories? The Seaplane factory and the Sterling factory actually at the airfield?
8276

Anyway, perhaps with TF 5.0, the map itself will be unlocked for modding? (Then we can kidnap CannonUK, and set him to work...)

[Edit: I take the "Ramsgate Airport" slander back. It always does to do a 10 second internet check...]

Roblex
Mar-16-2014, 14:02
Hi Roblex! Great info about Chatham and Rochester. I'll add them to my Grrr-CloD-map list (along with Ramsgate "Airport", Middle Wallop "nothing" and, of course, St Paul's Ghost-edral).

But I'm in danger of getting confused about Shorts and Rochester. Were there two factories? The Seaplane factory and the Sterling factory actually at the airfield?
8276

Anyway, perhaps with TF 5.0, the map itself will be unlocked for modding? (Then we can kidnap CannonUK, and set him to work...)

[Edit: I take the "Ramsgate Airport" slander back. It always does to do a 10 second internet check...]

Shorts built the Sterlings at their factory at Rochester Aerodrome, the one we have on our map (your picture is a little later and shows the GEC-Marconi factory which might be on the same spot) The flying boats were built down by the river in a separate factory that was partially underground in the adjacent hillside.

No601_Swallow
Mar-17-2014, 04:37
Thanks for the info Roblex. Yes, those two tower blocks in my picture don't quite scream "1940", do they? Mind you, the picture does look, to the untrained eye, as if the factory has incorporated a couple of hangars, so I wonder how much of the "frontage" of the factory had changed from its Shorts days.