Bombers, twin-engined and multi-crewed aircraft: Issues and suggestions.

[Blackdog_kt]

After posting about this topic in the recent update thread and getting positive feedback from various members, i decided to continue the relevant discussion here.

This thread aims to serves a few specific purposes:

1) To discuss all these issues in a single thread, without derailing other threads.

2) To collect and consolidate information from multiple sources and players who are willing to test things out. For example, i know quite a bit about the Blenheim because i researched it a lot, and thanks to a group of other players we got 1c's ear and they improved it quite a bit in the recent test patch. However, i don't know much about the Br.20 and most people i know don't either. Maybe someone else does and this thread will encourage them to come in and contribute their knowledge.

3) To ensure a bit more exposure for issues relating to bombers and multi-engine/multi-crew aicraft without having to "compete" for forum space with other more popular fixes, like FMs of fighters and graphical improvements.

There are two reasons for bringing this up at this point in time. The sim's performance optimization is nearing completion and the fighter FMs are getting looked at. This means that what mostly bothers a lot of players is nearing a complete status, so we can move on to other areas that need attention.
Also, now that there is a bit of scripting background and the community's mission builders have some experience under their belts, having the ability to properly operate bombers will help create much more immersive and challenging scenarios, both offline and online.
For example, think of a script that tracks fuel levels in your airfield's fuel dump. If the main fuel dump is standing, you can spawn in 100 octane versions of Spits and Hurricanes, but if the enemy bombs them you are restricted by the script to use the 87 octane versions.

As you can see, having properly modeled bombers will add a lot in terms of tactical and even strategic planning, while also bringing all the other features together in a way that creates real incentives for the players to fly in an objective-based manner.



The way this thread will work is simple. I will start with a list of known issues in the next post. From that point on, anyone can come in and post their findings. Once every few days and depending on the amount of free time i've got, i'll be coming in and appending all the information supplied into the list of issues.
For this to happen though i need your cooperation. This will take quite a bit of time to keep updated, so i need the following posts to be easy to understand and to the point.

What i mean is, please keep off-topic talk to a minimum, flaming/trolling to zero (i can't stress this enough, this is a collaborative testing effort and disruptions will result in offending posts disappearing) and use a specific posting format. In other words, let's play engineer and fix our bombers ;)


Reports should have the following format:

Type: Suggestion, bug report (when something is implemented but doesn't work correctly or at all) or modeling error (can apply to 3d modeling, aircraft systems modeling, reversed control animations, wrong labels, etc). In some cases the boundaries between bug report and modeling error can be hard to judge, so it's ok to include both in this field.


Aircraft: State the aircraft type that the report applies to. Can contain more than one aircraft types, eg "all luftwaffe twin engined bombers" or better yet "Ju88 and He111" which explicitly states the types involved.


Description: Clearly describe the bug/issue, modeling error or suggestion.

In case of bugs and modeling errors, provide some reference (eg, aircraft manual, website, etc) if at all possible. If you don't have any sources to quote it's ok, just say why you think there's a problem. Eg, "i heard it from another user on the forums", "i saw it on a manual but can't find the link now" or "it seems reasonable to me that..." are acceptable.
It's not possible for many of us to have all the technical manuals and i don't want to limit the amount of reports by forcing users to reference sources. Better report something and have someone chip in with more information so that we can all decide if it's a bug/error or not, than not reporting it at all.

In the case of a suggestion, start by stating your reasons for thinking that it would make a useful addition to the sim.


Tested: Possible answers are Yes, No, N/A. If yes, describe the steps you took to replicate the problem. In case of a suggestion, this field should be N/A.


Workarounds: If there is a way to circumvent a bug, or get the kind of functionality that your suggestion aims to achieve, state so here and clearly describe the steps you take to achieve it. Otherwise, state "not tested" or "none found".
This lets other players know if you tested for workarounds or not, before deciding that nothing can be done on their end and waiting for a patch. It also lets users get to flying in case there is a workaround.


Additional Information: If you have anything to include that doesn't apply to the above fields, you need to add some clarification or you want to ask other users for their input, do so here. For example, after reporting a bug you could fill this field in with more verbose information, eg "i haven't tested this in the latest beta patch, but someone told me that this and this changed, is this correct?".



Finally, if you want to add a bit of information to a preceding report or answer another user's question you don't have to post using the above format, as long as you quote his original report in your post so that we all know what you are referring to.

So, let's get testing and thank you all for your participation :cool:


P.S.
Report template, so that you can copy-paste it into your posts and fill it in.


Type:


Aircraft:


Description:


Tested:


Workarounds:


Additional Information:

[Blackdog_kt]

Type: Bug report


Aircraft: He-111, Ju-88


Description: Flight ceiling is wrong. In reality the Ju-88 could fly higher than the He-111, while in the sim it's the other way around.


Tested: Yes. He-111 can easily climb to 6km and above while loaded (full bomb load, 50% fuel). Ju-88 struggles to get to 5km with 50% fuel and full bomb load, especially during the part of the climb before the transition to the high supercharger gear occurs. It can keep climbing after the gear change occurs, but at a highly diminished rate.


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: I haven't done specific testing on this issue, just flown quite a few sorties on ATAG and observed my findings. Other pilots on ATAG did better tests and comparisons, some without bomb loads, so please chip in with more data if you have it.





Type: Bug report/modeling error


Aircraft: He-111


Description: Inability to achieve specified power settings, achievable RPM is too low for the given manifold pressure.


Tested: Yes. Easiest way to observe it is to spawn on the ground and start a take-off roll. The RPM nevers get to the values stated in the manuals, even when using full fine pitch and full throttle. The power settings compared against the in-game He-111 are those stated in Flea's checklists.


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: None.





Type: Bug report/modeling error


Aircraft: He-111P


Description: Compass and gyrocompass are reversed and show current heading + 180 degrees. Hovering the mouse cursor over them displays a tooltip with the correct heading readout, but the graphic representation of the instruments in the 3D cockpit is reversed.


Tested: Yes, in a previous version. If anyone has tested in the latest alpha patch + hotfix, please provide more informatin


Workarounds: Use the mouse cursor to get the proper readings through the pop-up tooltips.


Additional Information: This bug makes it confusing to use the course autopilot, since you constantly have to keep track of the conversion between current and displayed heading.





Type: Bug report/modeling error


Aircraft: Ju-88


Description: Prop pitch system is ambiguous in its use. The real Ju-88 had variable pitch propellers like the 109s and 110s, but it also featured an automatic mode that modulated pitch to maintain a specific RPM.


Tested: Yes. It seems as if the in-game 88 has constant speed propellers, instead of automated variable pitch propellers.


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: I'm not exactly familiar with the nature of the real system. For example i don't know if the automation only kept the RPM at cruise setting, or it was also capable of maintaing any kind of RPM. If the second is true, it would be very similar to a constant speed propeller system in operation, so maybe the sim is correct in how it's modeling it. I remember one of the ATAG guys had a Ju-88 manual, so i'm expecting further information on this.




Type: Bug report


Aircraft: Ju-88


Description: The gyrocompass is inoperative. It is possible to set the current heading, but the gyrocompass doesn't move when the aircraft turns. Essentially, it remains stuck at whatever setting it has when the plane spawns, or whatever setting he pilot sets it to. This makes it impossible to use the course autopilot in the Ju-88 and in consequence, one cannot level bomb unless the plane is multi-crewed by human players online.


Tested: Yes.


Workarounds: It could be possible to align the desired heading with the stationary gyrocompass and manipulate them in unison to achieve some form of autopilot control, but the delay that is (realistically) built into the autopilot actions makes it very cumbersome to use, to the point of impossibility.


Additional Information: None




Type: Bug report


Aircraft: He-111, Ju-88


Description: The Lofte bombsights are bugged in terms of calculating the proper release point and tracking the target. Up until the recent alpha patch + hotfix, the bombsight treated speed as km/h when calculating tracking (how fast the sight moves when automation is engaged), but when calculating the release point it treated the user inputs as mph. Nakedquirrel yesterday told me that now the sight calculations have changed, but are wrong again.


Tested: Yes, but not with the latest alpha patch + hotfix.


Workarounds: Up until before the alpha patch + hotfix, the player could either track correctly and release at the wrong time, or convert his speed to mph and use that value. When converting to mph however, the sight would track incorrectly but calculate a correct release point for whatever is under the crosshairs. In other words, when converting km/h to mph the bombs fell where the crosshairs was pointing, but the crosshairds didn't remaing steady on the target. So, the player had to disable automation, recenter it and re-enable automation all through the bomb run. If the player could re-center the sights on targets using this method, then it was possible to hit the target. Another method involved using km/h, but instead of converting to mph (dividing speed in km/h by 1.6) the player could eliminate the error by multiplying his altitude by 1.6. The problem in this case is that at some point, the player reaches the end of the altitude scale on the bombsight.

I don't know what exactly happens in the current alpha + hotfix version.


Additional Information: I need more clarification on what currently happens with the Lofte bombsights. If you have conducted tests of your own, please quote this part of the list and reply below in the main body of the thread.





Type: Bug report/modeling error


Aircraft: He-111, Ju-88, Blenheim Mk.IV, possibly Br.20


Description: In many cases, players report better accuracy when they input IAS in their bombsights rather than TAS. This could either be an error in modeling the
bombsights, an error in bomb balistics, or an undocumented feature: automatic calculation of the ground speed by the bomb sight. The speed needed is in fact GS (ground
speed) and not TAS, but in the previous IL2 series we used TAS because we didn't have a lot of weather effects. Then, if we engaged automation and the target drifted we
could fine-tune the speed we input into the sight to keep the sight steady on the target and we had the correct GS. In CoD it might be harder to do once the dynamic weather
gets implemented and as far as i know, we don't have functional wind drift meters modeled in the in-game bombers. So, maybe the simulator takes care of the IAS to GS
conversion automatically? Otherwise it's probably a bug/modeling error.


Tested: Not myself, but others have done so. Please quote this part and reply if you have testing evidence, so that i can include your username and evidence here.


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: None.





Type: Suggestion


Aircraft: All aircraft with a turret


Description: Implementing a new command to switch control of turrets between AI and player, similar to how it was in the previous IL2 series. This would give the players the choice of manning individual guns if they wish, but also be able to give gun control back to the AI when they want to focus on flying. Currently, once a

turret is occupied by the player, the AI revokes control and doesn't regain it when the player moves back to the pilot's seat. It also seems that being a gunner qualifies

as being in charge of all the defensive guns, which would mean that once you take control of a turret the AI would stop controlling all of the turrets on the aircraft. This is suggested by the way some of the scripting commands work and the fact that you see up to two different roles next to your name if you enable the netstats window: it is

either "pilot, bomabrdier" or "pilot, gunner", but never all three of them or "gunner1, gunner2".


Tested: Yes, but it is sometimes difficult to judge the exact results. If you've got extra data, by all means provide some.


Workarounds: In aircraft with bombardiers, it might be possible to give back turret control to AI. This seems to be tied in with the above limitation in the game engine of having up to two roles per human player. So, if you switch back to bombardier and then pilot, your gunner role is "revoked" because you keep the roles corresponding to the last two positions you occupied (your current one and the one before that). What remains unclear is whether the AI takes back control of "unoccupied" cockpit positions or not. Even if it works like that, it's still not viable for aircraft with only two crew positions, like the Bf-110 and the Stuka.


Additional Information: None.





Type: Modeling error


Aircraft: Bf-110


Description: Missing ammunition loadout. The 110Cs were equipped with MG-FF/M cannons, capable of firing the HE M-shells. These already exist in the sim because the Bf-109E-4 carries them, so it would be trivial to also add them for the Bf-110Cs.


Tested: Not personally. Quote this part and reply if you have additional data i can add here.


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: References and/or testing results needed. If anyone has extracted in-game files that specify loadouts, it will be possible to confirm beyond all doubt if the in-game 110s can fire M-shells or not.





Type: Modeling error


Aircraft: Bf-110


Description: Missing variants equipped with DB601N engines. According to data presented by other forum users, half or more of the Bf110 fleet during the battle of Britain was equipped with DB601N engines and higher octane fuel, making them some of the fastest aircraft in the theater. Currently the variants are missing. If they were indeed so numerous, it would be a proper addition to have the N-powered variants in the sim.


Tested: Not myself, other report that the in-game 110s don't conform to N standard.


Workarounds: N/A.


Additional Information: Anyone with relevant documentation on the issue is welcome to provide information, WITHOUT however turning this into an 80-page FM debate like the RAF 100 octane threads.





Type: Bug report


Aircraft: Br.20


Description: In a previous version the mouse controls for the top turret were reversed.


Tested: Yes, but in a previous version


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: If anyone can test it with the latest alpha patch + hotfix and get back to me, it woud be great. Please quote this part and reply with your
findings.





Type: Bug report


Aircraft: Br.20


Description: Switching positions while starting the engines online sometimes results in the AI copilot taking control of the aircraft.


Tested: Yes (Stealth_Eagle)


Workarounds: Not tried personally. Perhaps using the default ctrl+c keybinding to take back control will work.


Additional Information: None.





Type: Bug report


Aircraft: Br.20


Description: Looking into the bombsight will occasionally cause the sim to freeze up


Tested: Yes (Stealth_Eagle).


Workarounds:


Additional Information:





Type: Modeling error


Aircraft: He-111, possibly Br.20


Description: The bomsight altitude adjustment is labelled wrong. User inputs increase/decrease the bombsight altitude in 10 meter increments, but the blue labels in

the information window to the right of the screen show only 100 meter increments (so the labels only change every 10 "ticks").


Tested: Yes, in the He-111. For the Br.20, a similar issue was reported by Stealth_Eagle


Workarounds: It is possible to manually count the 10m intervals in each hundred of meters: Once the label changes you are in a new hudredth of the scale, then every
extra "tick" of the switch adds/subtracts 10 meters to/from that value.


Additional Information: Need more information from Stealth_Eagle to confirm that this is the nature of what he reported to me.





Type: Suggestion


Aircraft: Br.20


Description: More fuzing options for Italian bombs, specifically low level and/or delayed fuzes. This would enable skip bombing ships with the Br.20


Tested: N/A


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: Information is needed on whether such fuzes actually existed for the bombs used by the Br.20





Type: Suggestion


Aircraft: Blenheim Mk.IV and Br.20 primarily, can be useful for all bombers however.


Description: Addition of a new AI control mode, called "bombardier guidance" that simulates the pilot being guided through the bomb run by the bombardier. This would enable bombers without an autopilot to maintain a degree of accuracy without havng to multi-crew them (making them more useful both online and offline), plus it would also make things simpler even for bombers equipped with autopilots (only the He-111s and the Ju-88 come equipped with one in the sim) by skipping the need to configure the autopilot.

The drawback for not using the autopilot would be reduced accuracy due to the nature of the "bombardier guidance" mode. The purpose of this mode is to bridge the gap between the unrealistic and artificial level stabilizer we had in the previous IL2 series and the lack of control options for the bombers without autopilots we have in CoD, without compromising too much realism for functionality and vice versa.

The way to model this would be to use the existing keybindings used for commanding turns via the autopilots ("set course left/right"), but they would have a different function when "bombardier guidance" mode would be enabled (we also would need a new keybinding to toggle this mode on/off). Once bombardier guidance is enabled and regardless of whether the aircraft we are flying has an autopilot, control of the aircraft is passed to the AI (or better, to an "invisible" wings level autopilot so that it won't mess with our engine settings). From that point on, using the "set course left/right" keys results in the player commanding the pilot to turn the aircraft.

One to three taps of the key in the same direction would result in gentle turns that are made wings level with rudder only. Four or more taps of the key would result in more aggressive, banking turns. The difference with using the autopilot is that with bombardier guidance enabled, the aircraft would NOT level off on its own: we are not commanding a course change, but an attitude change/deflection of control surfaces. To level off, the player would have to tap the key corresponding to a course change in the opposite direction from the currently executed turn.

For example. I'm flying a blenheim, roughly line up the target from the pilot's seat, hop to the bombardier's seat and toggle bombardier guidance to on. The aircraft levels off but i still have control off my engines. I look through the bombsight and see that the target is off to the left about 15 degrees. I press my "set course left" key 4-5 times to command the pilot to start a banking turn to the left. A little bit before lining up (in order to account for the delay in leveling off), i tap my "set course right" key ONCE to command the pilot to level off. I look at the target again and see i overshot it, now it's about 3 degress to the right. I only need a gentle turn with no bank, so i tap my "set course right" key no more than 3 times, to command the pilot to turn with the wings level using only the rudder. As the target is about to come onto the center line of my view, i tap my "set course left" key ONCE to "reset" and command the pilot to level off. Now i'm lined up with the target and i can concentrate on bombing, while the pilot keeps the aircraft level.

This would not only help everyone bomb with more accuracy, but also simulate the running commentary give to pilots by their bombardiers ("left, left, steady, right" etc) while on the bomb run and still keep things somewhat realistic.

Tested: N/A


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: None.





Type: Suggestion


Aircraft: All bombers


Description: Addition of full 6-DOF view controls for the bombardier cockpits (working both with head tracking or mouse/joystick hat controls, just like it works for pilot cockpits). Currently the view is not only locked when selecting bombsight view (as it should), but it is also limited in the amount of axes available and also the amount of "travel" for available axes, even when we are not looking down the sights. This presents various problems or deprives the player of useful abilities.

For example, having full 6-DOF view control would enable the bombardier of a He-111 to check how open the radiators are on the engines and inform the pilot, since there are no in-cockpit indicators that show this.

In the case of the Blenheim Mk.IV and Br.20 that use simpler bombsights without scopes, it would also allow the bombardier to look under the framing of the nose and be able to line up the target with more accuracy from a greater distance. Currently, especially in the Blenheim, going higher than 5000 - 6000 feet is prohibitive, because the nose framing obscures so much of the ground at high altitudes that the target "appears" under the transparent part of the nose a split second before it is time to drop bombs.

This makes lining up the target almost impossible from altitudes above 4000 feet.


Tested: Yes, on the Blenheim by various players.


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: None.





Type: Bug report


Aircraft: Br.20


Description: Only magnetic compass is working


Tested: Yes, but in a previous version (JG53Frankyboy)


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: None





Type: Suggestion


Aircraft: All bombers


Description: Currently, players flying bombers have to do the workload of at least two people: pilot and navigator, in certain situations bombardier, gunners, spotters and flight engineer as well. In reality, multi-crew bombers enjoyed the team work of the whole crew. This a proposal for a new feature, simulating the working environment inside the bomber by adding certain commands for the crew.

For example:
- Bombardier: turning on/off the running commentary function, which automatically activates within 10km from the target (visual range). Bombardier will constantly tell the skipper to steer left or right, or keep height and airspeed when these two vary too much. Also bombardier will confirm the effect of impacts.
- Navigator: commands to inform pilot of 1. current position, 2. direction to the next waypoint, 3. time to the next waypoint, 4. maximal flying time left
- Gunner: commands to scan the sky or the ground. Also commands to track the movement of the closest contact (like: fighter, unidentified, 6 o'clock, closing). All commands should be able to be given to individual gunner.
All information should not be always correct. For example, gunner can lose contact of enemy fighter hiding under the fuselage, or navigator can make wrong calculations.


Tested: N/A


Workarounds:

Additional Information: Modders already did this in IL-2 (suggestion submitted by rga)

Blackdog's additional input - For the bombardier to guide us to target, we would need a way to mark the target waypoint. Perhaps we could use the in-game map tools to place a waypoint on target and set its type to "target", then the AI bombardier could calculate his directions based on that point?

[Blackdog_kt]

Reserved for list of issues and suggestions - part 2

[Blackdog_kt]

Reserved for list of issues and suggestions - part 3

[SlipBall]

Reserved parts 1-3:confused:...I hope it dos'nt go on that far

[Blackdog_kt]

It depends on how much text we need to describe each issue. There's a limit of 10000 characters per post, if some bugs need a lengthy post to describe what happens it might be easy to reach the limit of one post.

So i reserved 3 posts at the top of the thread just to be on the safe side, instead of having to start another list in another page. Just to keep things tidy and readable ;)

[Kodoss]

For a bug compilation of the Bf 110 follow the link below:

"Bf 110 C bug-fest" (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32251)

[CaptainDoggles]

For the Ju 88 and the BR20 I would talk to MajorBorris who I think is still part of the ATAG squad.

[Blackdog_kt]

Kodoss - Thanks for the feedback, i'll try to compile them into the list in the next couple of days.

Doggles - I've also posted links to this thread on the ATAG and simHQ forums. Let's see if we can gather up some more help.

Everyone else - Shameless bump. I can sticky my own thread if i want to, but it's lacking in taste/manners a bit i think :-P
So just tell everyone you know that flies bombers about this thread and let's get to identifying everything that needs fixing. If we do get enough interest, i'll sticky and maybe move it to a more appropriate section.

Thanks for your help everyone.

[Kodoss]

Type: Modeling error

Aircraft: Bf-110

Description: Missing variants equipped with DB601N engines. According to data presented by other forum users, half or more of the Bf110 fleet during the battle of Britain was equipped with DB601N engines and higher octane fuel, making them some of the fastest aircraft in the theater. Currently the variants are missing. If they were indeed so numerous, it would be a proper addition to have the N-powered variants in the sim.

Tested: Not myself, other report that the in-game 110s don't conform to N standard.

Workarounds: N/A.

Additional Information: Anyone with relevant documentation on the issue is welcome to provide information, WITHOUT however turning this into an 80-page FM debate like the RAF 100 octane threads.

Regarding 100 OCT fuel in the Book "Messerschmitt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410" from Mankau/Petrick is some interresting text about this.
Looks like 4 groups of Bf 110 and one group of Bf 109 had DB 601N engines.

I will try to translate the according text and post it in the Bf 110 Bug fest (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32251) threat.
With that I hope to keep your threat as clean as possible. :rolleyes:

[JG53Frankyboy]

Type: Bug report


Aircraft: Br.20


Description: Only magnetic compas is working


Tested: Yes, but in a previous version


Workarounds: N/A

[Blackdog_kt]

Regarding 100 OCT fuel in the Book "Messerschmitt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410" from Mankau/Petrick is some interresting text about this.
Looks like 4 groups of Bf 110 and one group of Bf 109 had DB 601N engines.

I will try to translate the according text and post it in the Bf 110 Bug fest (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32251) threat.
With that I hope to keep your threat as clean as possible. :rolleyes:

Thanks a lot for your research. ;)

[rga]

Type: Suggestion


Aircraft: every bombers


Description: currently, players flying bomber have to do the workload of at least two people: pilot and navigator, in certain situations bombadier, gunners, spotters and flight engineer as well. IRL, multi-crew bombers enjoyed the team work of the whole crew.


Tested: N/A


Workarounds: Simulating the working environment inside the bomber by adding certain commands for the crew. For example:
- Bombadier: turning on/off the running commentary function, which automatically activates within 10km from the target (visual range). Bombardier will constantly tell the skipper to steer left or right, or keep height and airspeed when these two vary too much. Also bombadier will comfirm the effect of impacts.
- Navigator: commands to inform pilot of 1. current position, 2. direction to the next waypoint, 3. time to the next waypoint, 4. maximal flying time left
- Gunner: commands to scan the sky or the ground. Also commands to track the movement of the closest contact (like: fighter, unidentified, 6 o'clock, closing). All commands should be able to be given to individual gunner.

All information should not be always correct. For example, gunner can lose contact of enemy fighter hiding under the fuselage, or navigator can make wrong calculations.

Additional Information: Modders already did this in IL-2

[Blackdog_kt]

rga: Great idea, i just added it to the list.

Kodoss: i haven't forgotten about your 110 research, i'm just running a bit low on time at the moment to format and add them all. The reason i need some more time is because i want to sit down and do all of the 110 reports together, so that they appear in sequence in the list.

Keep the feedback coming everyone ;)

[JG4_Bendwick]

all this thinks are realy nessesary.thx Blackdog for post.
i hope they see this . S!

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Great thread Blackdog and as you said with the FM's and major performance issues aside it's time to bring these twins to the front of the line for "maintenance"

Br. 20 information is hard to come by and I have yet to find the engine limits or flight procedures from the internet. We need a flight manual ;)

More to come...

[ATAG_Dutch]

Type: Flight/Engine modelling


Aircraft: Blenheim


Description: New Blenheim model is extremely slow to accelerate on the ground and in the air, even with minimal fuel load. Aileron response is far more sluggish than previous model, whilst rudder/elevator response and rudder/elevator trim response is extremely sensitive. This adds to the control issues when bombing from altitude, needing quite violent stick control for ailerons but extremely delicate rudder/elevator control. This is not easy from the bomb-aimer's chair when looking through the sight.
General stability of the model is far worse than previously. Once trimmed, the old model was very steady where the new model needs constant stick/trim and rudder/trim input.


Tested: Yes, my own offline bombing practice mission conducted in both patched and unpatched game from 5000ft. Full Biggin Hill runway required for take-off with 50% fuel and 20% flap with patched game. Approximately 2/3 that for unpatched game with 50% fuel and no flaps. This is without emergency boost engaged in both cases.


Workarounds: Ensure fine pitch and weak mixture setting. Weak mixture setting gives a few more revs for taxi and take-off. Increasing aileron control sensitivity whilst reducing elevator/rudder sensitivity helps with control, however this then needs to be changed for each individual a/c.


Additional Information: I have seperate rudder pedals and have minimised rudder/trim sensitivity since the patch, but rudder/trim control still seems highly sensitive in all RAF FMs in the patched game. Not so pre-patch.

[JG53Frankyboy]

do the bombbaydoors of the Ju88 still open/close automaticly and dont do that in the Blenheim?
just in case because i dont bother these betas/alphas......

[Kodoss]

Great thread Blackdog and as you said with the FM's and major performance issues aside it's time to bring these twins to the front of the line for "maintenance"

Br. 20 information is hard to come by and I have yet to find the engine limits or flight procedures from the internet. We need a flight manual ;)

More to come...

Maybe Sternjaeger II can help. If I remember correctly he wrote somewhere that he has some manuals for italian A/C.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Ju88: fix forward MG15
would be a nice feature

the front gunner was able to fix his MG15 and gave so the pilot the firing control, aiming through his Revi. Most CoD Ju88 pilots might have this gun removed for better visibility, but anyway..........

btw, not touched the game since months, but if i remember correctly , the instrument panel lightning of the right side (engine instruments) is some kind of lacking/missing.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Ju88, fuel storrage.

espacially this plane needs loadoutoptions for fueltanks in its bombbays! without these additional tanks it had a laughable range. Sure , load such a tank in the bay, you cant load SC50s in it anymore ;)

Ju 88 Tanks
outer wings2x425=850l
inner wings 2x415=830l
=1680l

front bombbay 1220l (!)
rear bombbay 680l

Total: * *3580l = only wingbombs possible


the similar issue have the Do17s (most times one of its two bombbays was loaded with a fueltank, reducing the bombload to 500kg), but as it is not flyable........

[ATAG_Doc]

Type: bug report


Aircraft: He111


Description: When another pilots the A/C and a second uses the sight - any adjustments to the site causes pauses for the pilot ONLY for about 5-10 seconds for each adjustment.

Up/Down/Left/Right/Alt - anything. I adjusted sight from its default alt to 3000m and this caused a very long freeze for the pilot he was eventually disconnected and I was able to switch from bombardier to pilots spot and take over the A/C.


Tested: I can reproduce this problem anytime.


Workarounds: Unknown


Additional Information: None

[ATAG_Doc]

Type: Bug report


Aircraft: Any A/C with gunner station


Description: Guns do not work when other A/C and lined up for shooting - the guns don't work no matter what you do the bandit sits there and shoots you. You cannot shoot back.


Tested: Yes, happens all the time getting old.


Workarounds: None


Additional Information: None

[JG53Frankyboy]

older post about the Ju88s propellerpitch

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=388109&postcount=24

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Type:Bug/performance... critical to game play

Aircraft:All Bombers.


Description: Intermitent gunner operation/player controled gunners fire in 1 shot burst while holding fire button down and other times the gun will fire in rapid fire but thats rare. This mostly happens when enemy fighters on 6.

Tested: Online, every time a spit gets on my six.


Workarounds:None.

Additional Information: Frame rates decrease when enemy fighters close in on the 6 as well.

[ATAG_Doc]

lol sorry Blackdog. Delete one of these post.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

older post about the Ju88s propellerpitch

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=388109&postcount=24

Check the pilot's notes out if you have not allready Frankyboy, good stuff!

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?1112-Ju-88-Pilot-s-Note-s

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

lol sorry Blackdog. Delete one of these post.

Keep them both! lol

Might be the No. 1 issue that affects gameplay

[JG53Frankyboy]

so MG has the choice between a manual and CSP....... :D
but the ingame cockpit looks like a manual propeller equipted Ju88A-1 IMO.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Type:Historical Immersion


Aircraft:Ju88


Description: Pitot heater light and autpilot light are mixed up on the cockpit panel.


Tested:Online


Workarounds:The cursor highlights the ingame function in cockpit


Additional Information: Does not effect gameplay, just immersion.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Type: Feature

Aircraft:Ju88


Description: Pitot tube/heater/Icing conditions not modeled.


Tested:Online


Workarounds: Pretend it works and turn pitot heat on when icing condition expected.


Additional Information: Need confirmation


*Edit per Robtek ; )

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Type:Missing Feature


Aircraft:Ju88


Description:Have not seen or been able to actuate the emergency gear up or down.


Tested:Online


Workarounds: Belly landing


Additional Information: Can anyone confirm?

[robtek]

Type: Feature

Aircraft:Ju88


Description: High alttitude does not effect cockpit instruments/Pitot tube.


Tested:Online


Workarounds: Pretend it works and turn pitot heat on when exterior temp drops to 0.

Additional Information:

Pitot heat is usually NOT needed at high altitude, except when flying through clouds in icing conditions.
At 0°C the humidity is usually too low for ice to build up.
Pitot heat IS needed when the cold airframe descends into warmer, more humid air, as with carb. heat. Afaik

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Type:Missing Feature


Aircraft:Ju88


Description:Fuel dumping switch is not a in game feature.


Tested:Online


Workarounds:


Additional Information: Emergency engine management is half the fun.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Hey Robtek,

0 degrees was for the wing heat, oops.

Is that to say that the conditions online would never have icing?

Or is icing just not modeled.

I have flown through alot of clouds and no pitot tube icing yet.

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Top 3 things that need to be fixed on the bombers ASAP are.


1) Autopilot/Nav instruments

2) Bombardier calculations

3) Gunners (Br20 top gun too)

As the sim matures I would love to see it be as accurate as possible and add more engine/aircraft management but the three items above effect game play considerably and must be fixed ASAP:!:

Warning: lots of info below...


Critical for COD: Making the multiplayer mission editor work for dynamic scenarios, the guys making missions need to be able to link supply lines to objectives (cars, boats, trains, on roads, rivers, or rail to airfields, factories, rail yards, etc) without the mission going fubar.

Objective's like airfields/factories/rail yards, Ports, cities etc need to be destructible, "Manston Airfield has been Destroyed!" (That’s what bombers were made for..) and repairable from cars , trains, ships, etc.

These objectives need to produce planes, ammo, fuel, pilots etc and be vital to the war effort.

Also, a scoring system that gives points to bombers for destroying objects like static buildings or planes, fuel dumps, trains, etc is critical! and must be on the net stats!



Net Stats Scoring system:


Fighters:

100 points for a kill and landing safely in friendly territory.

10 points for a kill and not landing in friendly teratory.


Bombers:

100 points for large ground targets (factories should require multiple bombs) and landing in friendly territory.

10 points for large ground targets and not landing in friendly territory.

25-10 points for small targets, static planes/vehicles/artillery.

2.5-1 points for small targets, and not landing in friendly territory.


GOAL:

Creating a scenario where the virtual pilots are rewarded for teamwork and realistic goals (returning safely to base with massive damage to the enemies war effort)

Missions that are layered with strategy and require coordination from determined squads will do wonders for Cliffs of Dover!

*Blackdog, sorry if this post is off format but I hope the devs see it

[robtek]

Hey Robtek,

0 degrees was for the wing heat, oops.

Is that to say that the conditions online would never have icing?

Or is icing just not modeled.

I have flown through alot of clouds and no pitot tube icing yet.

At least carb.-icing is simulated, afaik.

And of course window-icing in clouds :D


Type: Performance

Aircraft: Ju88, HE111

Description: All those planes don't reach the speeds fully loaded as in the documents here http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=44&L=1

Tested:Online


Workarounds: none

Additional Information: none

[csThor]

Scoring system:


Fighters:

100 points for a kill and landing safely in friendly territory.

10 points for a kill and not landing in friendly teratory.


Bombers:

100 points for large ground targets (factories should require multiple bombs) and landing in friendly territory.

10 points for large ground targets and not landing in friendly territory.

25-10 points for small targets, static planes/vehicles/artillery.

2.5-1 points for small targets, and not landing in friendly territory.


GOAL:

Creating a scenario where the virtual pilots are rewarded for teamwork and realistic goals (returning safely to base with massive damage to the enemies war effort)

Missions that are layered with strategy and require coordination from determined squads will do wonders for Cliffs of Dover!

[B]*Blackdog, sorry if this post is off format but I hope the devs see it

Disagree in parts here. First:

Normal Landing on friendly airfield = 100% of the points achieved.
Forced Landing in friendly territory = 75% of the points achieved.
Bail-out over friendly territory = 25% of the points achieved.

KIA, MIA, POW = Zero, nada, niente ... no points. What for? That pilot doesn't need them anymore (and disconnects count towards MIA so that those lazy SOBs who disconnect just to avoid having to fly back and land get a penalty).

As for the point values I am no fan of such large point values for an object. I very much prefer something I had seen with the Squad Select Series on Warbirds a while back.

1.) Fighter / Fighter-bomber = 1 point
2.) Tactical Bomber / Ground-Attack Aircraft = 2 points
3.) Recon / Transport = 2 points
4.) Heavy Bomber = 3 points (not applicable, yet)
5.) Soft-Skinned Vehicles = 0.25 points
6.) Artillery / AT-Guns = 0.25 points
7.) Tanks = 0.5 points
8.) warship = 5 points
9.) cargo ship = 3 points
10.) small ship = 1 point

As for area targets I am not really sure how to value those. Maybe a certain point value for hitting within a certain radius? No idea ...

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Disagree in parts here. First:

Normal Landing on friendly airfield = 100% of the points achieved.
Forced Landing in friendly territory = 75% of the points achieved.
Bail-out over friendly territory = 25% of the points achieved.

KIA, MIA, POW = Zero, nada, niente ... no points. What for? That pilot doesn't need them anymore (and disconnects count towards MIA so that those lazy SOBs who disconnect just to avoid having to fly back and land get a penalty).

As for the point values I am no fan of such large point values for an object. I very much prefer something I had seen with the Squad Select Series on Warbirds a while back.

1.) Fighter / Fighter-bomber = 1 point
2.) Tactical Bomber / Ground-Attack Aircraft = 2 points
3.) Recon / Transport = 2 points
4.) Heavy Bomber = 3 points (not applicable, yet)
5.) Soft-Skinned Vehicles = 0.25 points
6.) Artillery / AT-Guns = 0.25 points
7.) Tanks = 0.5 points
8.) warship = 5 points
9.) cargo ship = 3 points
10.) small ship = 1 point

As for area targets I am not really sure how to value those. Maybe a certain point value for hitting within a certain radius? No idea ...


+1

Thats just the kind of input I wanted:)

I like that even better:cool:

8 points for a battle ship?

Those would make great Net Stats!

[Bewolf]

Disagree in parts here. First:

Normal Landing on friendly airfield = 100% of the points achieved.
Forced Landing in friendly territory = 75% of the points achieved.
Bail-out over friendly territory = 25% of the points achieved.

KIA, MIA, POW = Zero, nada, niente ... no points. What for? That pilot doesn't need them anymore (and disconnects count towards MIA so that those lazy SOBs who disconnect just to avoid having to fly back and land get a penalty).

As for the point values I am no fan of such large point values for an object. I very much prefer something I had seen with the Squad Select Series on Warbirds a while back.

1.) Fighter / Fighter-bomber = 1 point
2.) Tactical Bomber / Ground-Attack Aircraft = 2 points
3.) Recon / Transport = 2 points
4.) Heavy Bomber = 3 points (not applicable, yet)
5.) Soft-Skinned Vehicles = 0.25 points
6.) Artillery / AT-Guns = 0.25 points
7.) Tanks = 0.5 points
8.) warship = 5 points
9.) cargo ship = 3 points
10.) small ship = 1 point

As for area targets I am not really sure how to value those. Maybe a certain point value for hitting within a certain radius? No idea ...

+2
I'd even go so far to decrease the points for aircraft and/or increase the points for ground targets. Ground targets is what air warfare is all about, fighters are merely there to ensure/prevent that.

[robtek]

Beowulf,

that is really too hard on the typical fighterpilots ego, after all they are the majority on the usual servers, taking themselves much too much important. :D :D :D

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

To bad fighters cant recieve points for successful escort :-P

[csThor]

+2
I'd even go so far to decrease the points for aircraft and/or increase the points for ground targets. Ground targets is what air warfare is all about, fighters are merely there to ensure/prevent that.

I'm not a fan of that, either, simply because individual ground targets are not a criteria to evaluate the performance of a medium bomber. Theirs were are targets such as railway stations, critical supply roads and all those things which the military calls "lines of communication". IMO anyone who flies a bomber, Stuka or dedicated ground-attack aircraft (but not fighter-bombers) should get a point value per survived mission, maybe 0.1 points so that 10 survived missions equate one aerial victory over a single-engined fighter.

The problem with area targets in general is that they'd need to have a function so that damaging or destroying them would have a direct impact on certain aspects of gameplay. But for that a full-blown supply system would have to be programmed and that is a beast to do right. :-?

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Type:Bug


Aircraft:Ju88


Description:Low FPS when in cockpit.


Tested:Online


Workarounds:Lower graphics settings helps a little.


Additional Information: When panning the view in cockpit of a Ju88 while the engines are running, severe fps hit when looking at the engine especialy when parked.

[Redroach]

Can we all agree that things like scoring or "destructible airfields" (lol?) are currently at the other end of the universe?
I hope this thread rouses itself back up regarding bomber bugs...

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

Can we all agree that things like scoring or "destructible airfields" (lol?) are currently at the other end of the universe?
I hope this thread rouses itself back up regarding bomber bugs...

Though I am of the opinion that CoD online mission editors have been neglected to some degree and that missions that are exciting and immersive have as much importance to the success of CoD/Bombers as anything, Im sure Blackdog will edit this thread and push the bugs to the top and related banter to the bottom.

Thank you Redroach for your honesty but I must ask, are you doing anything to help the bombers on this side of the universe?

[Redroach]

I wrote/inquired about numerous bugs, bomber and non-bomber, over a year ago. Still pending, though.

[Stealth_Eagle]

I did some more test flights for you Blackdog. The BR. 20 bug is solvable by returning to the pilot and toggling the brake since the AI engages it while it's trying to take off. Some new glitches that I found while flying: the BR 20's instruments go to low resolution if you crash land and survive which is just an annoyance factor rather than a true bug, the Ju 87 when crash landed as well, has double examples of certain things, and finally the Ju 88's gunners have glitched trigger fingers where it won't shoot at once and there is no reload animation for it.
Sorry for not putting it into proper form but I didn't have much time to write this up in order to do such since I have to get things prepared for a service project that I am going off to for a week.

Eagle

[Blackdog_kt]

As long as the tangent discussions

1) stay relevant to the use of bombers in the sim and
2) don't outnumber the bug reporting posts( if they do, then there is enough interest to have their own thread)

i'm fine with it.

I just haven't had the time to edit everything into the list yet, i hope i'll be able to do it during the weekend. Keep up the good work everyone :cool:

[Freycinet]

I flew the 109E-4 on ATAG tonight and noticed that the auto prop pitch didn't work properly. I had to put it in manual for take-off and only engage auto when up high and at speed and then it worked ok. Also, the arming panel for the bombs seemed to not work any longer: no switch to toggle with mouse.

Before the patch there was no problem with either auto pitch or bomb arming in the E-4.

Do anyone have the same issues? - Sorry if this has already been mentioned.

[JG53Frankyboy]

you read the topic title ?

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

I did some more test flights for you Blackdog. The BR. 20 bug is solvable by returning to the pilot and toggling the brake since the AI engages it while it's trying to take off. Some new glitches that I found while flying: the BR 20's instruments go to low resolution if you crash land and survive which is just an annoyance factor rather than a true bug, the Ju 87 when crash landed as well, has double examples of certain things, and finally the Ju 88's gunners have glitched trigger fingers where it won't shoot at once and there is no reload animation for it.
Sorry for not putting it into proper form but I didn't have much time to write this up in order to do such since I have to get things prepared for a service project that I am going off to for a week.

Eagle

Try switching positions when in flight, dives like crazy to the mud sometimes:evil:

[Kongo-Otto]

Type: Suggestion


Aircraft: Br.20


Description: More fuzing options for Italian bombs, specifically low level and/or delayed fuzes. This would enable skip bombing ships with the Br.20


Tested: N/A


Workarounds: N/A


Additional Information: Information is needed on whether such fuzes actually existed for the bombs used by the Br.20


I think this can be usefull for you:
Italian Bombs and Fuzes by Col. A.D. Merriman Royal Engineers (http://www.scribd.com/doc/33186713/Italian-Bombs-and-Fuzes-UK-1948)

[ATAG_Doc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKpKXbzBKFQ


UPDATE

This may not be a problem that everyone has it seems only one person has this happen to them. It still does after a fresh install of CoD and C++ Runtime.

=============Start of pilot POV error=============

The last portion of the Server Error received:

================================================

=================================================
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.aXpUCkfgpc f(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.Rk8UCcwhHw d(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH , Boolean )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.UjvUCQj2O4 1(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.netInput(H Bt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at DZ3MkDLyqkoSRbIWKZ1.nF8oorLxQacHLoC8WtL.X86TzObcaG 2(Object )
at nDeOCZY7V2odj1TpXSs.n4ql3MYmM3KHLiwqlLZ.hV0jC0empy (Object )
=================================================

=================================================
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.aXpUCkfgpc f(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.Rk8UCcwhHw d(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH , Boolean )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.UjvUCQj2O4 1(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.netInput(H Bt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at DZ3MkDLyqkoSRbIWKZ1.nF8oorLxQacHLoC8WtL.X86TzObcaG 2(Object )
at nDeOCZY7V2odj1TpXSs.n4ql3MYmM3KHLiwqlLZ.hV0jC0empy (Object )
=================================================

=================================================
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.aXpUCkfgpc f(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.Rk8UCcwhHw d(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH , Boolean )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.UjvUCQj2O4 1(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.netInput(H Bt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at DZ3MkDLyqkoSRbIWKZ1.nF8oorLxQacHLoC8WtL.X86TzObcaG 2(Object )
at nDeOCZY7V2odj1TpXSs.n4ql3MYmM3KHLiwqlLZ.hV0jC0empy (Object )
=================================================

=================================================
System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.aXpUCkfgpc f(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.Rk8UCcwhHw d(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH , Boolean )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.UjvUCQj2O4 1(HBt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at BZSyaNxgjfZp08OCvcJ.9g95pmxnwb28fiJPfj5.netInput(H Bt28AfLi2G20GlEytH )
at DZ3MkDLyqkoSRbIWKZ1.nF8oorLxQacHLoC8WtL.X86TzObcaG 2(Object )
at nDeOCZY7V2odj1TpXSs.n4ql3MYmM3KHLiwqlLZ.hV0jC0empy (Object )
=================================================

[Blackdog_kt]

Great job Doc. I remember you were discussing this on TS today, great to have a video report of it.

Once the update threads quiet down a bit and i can take a break from moderating and testing the patch, i will update this thread and possibly sticky it.

If anyone has a video of the beta patch bombsight bug to post, it would also be very helpful to post here.

Again, sorry for not keeping tabs on this thread as much as i'd like to, i'll try to tidy things up in the following days.

Keep up the good work everyone ;)