Friday Official Update, July 20, 2012

[BlackSix]

Hello gentlemen!

We’re virtually done with the move and are back to work. The new iteration of the patch is due next week! Sorry, couldn’t push it out today.
We fixed the problem with the trees and are now dealing with the last major issue, hit decals on aircraft. However we were still unable to pinpoint the launcher crashes. People are crashing less, or maybe sending us fewer crash logs, but we haven’t gotten any magic logs that happen to have crashed at the exact precise moment we needed to diagnose the problem. Say tuned!

We did have a small flood at the new office today, here’s a picture as a small bonus. We figured it was the many tears of the users that finally got to our office. Also, some latest pictures from the Eastern Front.

Have a great weekend!

[BlackSix]

+

[SG1_Lud]

Good news! Thanks B6

[ATAG_Septic]

Looking good!

Thanks for the update.

Septic.

[Pitti]

Thank you for this Update. :)

[ATAG_Doc]

Good! I can't wait.

[il_corleone]

I Hope none of the pcs have damages, good work on the trees, are plans to realease a hotfix soon? this bug its very VERY anoying

[Continu0]

Question B6: Could you also solve the Hurricane-Startup problem? This is a issue not to underestimate because it makes many missions unplayable as AI-Hurricane doesn´t start.

Desastersoft-Addons for example are unplayable...

[il_corleone]

Question B6: Could you also solve the Hurricane-Startup problem? This is a issue not to underestimate because it makes many missions unplayable as AI-Hurricane doesn´t start.

Desastersoft-Addons for example are unplayable...

+1 and the trees please

[BlackSix]

Question B6: Could you also solve the Hurricane-Startup problem? This is a issue not to underestimate because it makes many missions unplayable as AI-Hurricane doesn´t start.

Desastersoft-Addons for example are unplayable...

We fixed this problem.

[Pato Salvaje]

Well!! at least a little bit of life there!

Good news B6! can´t wait to see this new patch.

[Continu0]

Great to hear, thank you a lot! That means I will be playing as soon as a hotfix is out:)

[PotNoodles]

Blacksix - the Launcher exe crash for me is right after I exit the single player game with the Esc key. Can you tell me if this is the bug you are looking for?

[NSU]

you fix the He111 AI problem too?

[Marmusman]

Thanks for the update!

My favorite photo.....all that water and a couple small paper towels!!

[Warhound]

Hmm that basement you guys moved into sure looks modern...never knew your parents were that rich. ;):-P

[il_corleone]

hey b6 i have a little question, are the guys going to make some changes in the Sounds? (engines,weps ,etc) ?

[flyingblind]

Hooray! The sky has stopped falling down. Thanks B6

[Richie]

I can see the impeller in the supercharger scoop of that F4 :)

[NSU]

I like the eastern front ground textures
but you will fix the horizont water problem in the next sequel?

[drewpee]

Thanks B6

[Taff in Exile]

We fixed this problem.

YAY:grin: Great work guys..many thanks B6

Thats for the hurri start up fix :)

[pstyle]

super stuff, cheers for the update!

It really IS Friday after all.

[SiThSpAwN]

You should have went with it was the sweat off your programmers working on a patch instead of tears :)

Anyways, thanks for the update, cant wait for the next patch!

[Bokononist]

Blacksix - the Launcher exe crash for me is right after I exit the single player game with the Esc key. Can you tell me if this is the bug you are looking for?

That's exactly what happens to me. Hope its an easy fix.
Good news about the trees and the non starting Hurricanes.

[smink1701]

Thanks B6 for the update. Good to hear from you. Were you able to fix the vibrating shadows?

[yobnaf]

http://smileyshack.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/sbiting_100-1081.gif

[kestrel79]

Thanks for the update.

Can you discuss more on the "fixed problem with the trees" for the next patch? Are they not such a fps drain now?

[JG52Krupi]

Oh wow that Frederick looks amazing, it retract my previous statement!

Can you release the template and give it to Cpt.Farrel ;)

[csThor]

I'd rather they hire Cpt Farrel for all german plane textures. ;)

[JG52Krupi]

I'd rather they hire Cpt Farrel for all german plane textures. ;)

Agreed :D... in fact all skins ;)

Why did he have to go and have a kid, the little monster best not keep him from his beauty sleep :mrgreen:

[Wolf_Rider]

erm B6, are they sure about the colour (yellow) of the trees in the screenshots you've posted up?

[JG52Krupi]

erm B6, are they sure about the colour (yellow) of the trees in the screenshots you've posted up?

Well its clearly going to be an autumn map ;)

http://www.getintravel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/forest-of-colorful-autumn-trees-with-lake-and-dramatic-sky-in-algonquin-provincial-park-ontario-canada-1600x1066.jpg

and then the winter one as well...

[smink1701]

Thanks B6 for the update. Good to hear from you. Were you able to fix the vibrating shadows?

[MadTommy]

Working on the last problem and the patch next week... hmm sounds rather familiar. ;)

Lets hope it is true this time.

Good to see some humour in your update.. much needed.

[pstyle]

erm B6, are they sure about the colour (yellow) of the trees in the screenshots you've posted up?

A quick google search for "images Russia autumn" will allay your fears.

[kendo65]

Personally, I think it looks better than CoD already. The terrain styling seems to lend itself to recreating Russian Steppe better than the green fields of England.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

We’re virtually done with the move and are back to work. The new iteration of the patch is due next week! Sorry, couldn’t push it out today.
Next week would be more than fine! Keep up the good work! And keep your head above water! ;)

[Scavenger]

this is Staligrad

http://goo.gl/maps/9Tv2

You can see a river arm near distant plane

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=156864&d=1342791675

[Robo.]

I'd rather they hire Cpt Farrel for all german plane textures. ;)

+1

Cpt.Farrel for default 109s. Hire him please! The mottling on this Friedrich is not the best I would say.

http://www.cptfarrels.com/COD/Bf109E-4/JG2/Bf109E-4_Wick_JG2_28Sept_1940s.jpg

[Allia29]

i like Bf109F

Thanks B6 :)

[Flanker35M]

S!

Thanks for update. Regarding crashlogs..even I get sometimes Launcher.exe crashes it does not generate a crashlog at all :( I sent some I managed to get, but most of times ccpcrash folder is empty.

[senseispcc]

.Shall the problem of the double markings in the trak record be corrected? And the idle throttle problem of the Spitfire MKI?

[jamesdietz]

Many thanks for the update & the screenshots!
Would like to check out the FM of those Il-2...they appear to be pretty nimble!
Also lots of good atmospheric smoke-I only hope by the time BoM comes out the dismal FPS I get flying through smoke or dust ( esp on takeoff...) is fixed.Actually getting better FPS in CloD is still one of my fondest ( perhaps the wrong choice of words...)issues.

[6BL Bird-Dog]

Black Six Thanks for the update on what is happening !

[Stirwenn]

Hum... wait and see...

[Sutts]

Great to hear from you B6. So glad things are still moving along. Looking forward to the next patch.

I would like to hear whether the distant water bug will be addressed in the sequel - the one where a stream seems to expand to the size of a small lake when viewed at a distance.

Cheers

PS. Please keep posting the sequel shots - many of us appreciate them

[Attila]

FRIEDRICH !!!! :grin::grin::grin:

[bolox]

The new iteration of the patch is due next week

so probably not a good idea to release my latest campaign after the weekend then:-P

the only question i'll ask, is this a beta patch? or 'official' release?

[fruitbat]

We did have a small flood at the new office today, here’s a picture as a small bonus. We figured it was the many tears of the users that finally got to our office.


Funniest thing I've read here for days!

Thanks for the Update.

[Ace Cheese]

Is that river transparency I see? :)

[Bounder!]

Thanks for the update Blacksix, great to hear the trees and the problems with the hurricane startup online are being fixed. Could you confirm if problems with FMs are still being examined and worked on?

Thanks

[phoenix1963]

I see the blinds are carefully shut in the office picture.
Is this a way of hiding the location from the moaners on this forum, so they can't storm the building?
56RAF_phoenix

[Robert]

Thanks for the update!

My favorite photo.....all that water and a couple small paper towels!!


I thought the same thing - especially after remembering some of the wild assertions that were kiddingly made in one of the "What to Expect in the Friday Update" topics posted yesterday. Someone mentioend a flood. LOL



Thanks B6! Nice images. Thanks to the crew for their efforts.

[Dano]

What about the significant fps drop on some systems? Has that been fixed or even acknowledged?

[simast]

Next friday we will get a patch that will fix two issues that were introduced with the latest beta patch? That's 1 month of dev time.. a bit slow.. But then I guess any kind of progress is good, right?

[BRIGGBOY]

Ffantastic news that the patch is almost finished

[Walrus1]

OK Ilya/B6, glad you checked in and my gloomy suspicions are unfounded.

The screenshots are beautiful.

[MIRGERVIN]

Will it be the offical patch next week through steam??

[TomcatViP]

Hello B6 and dev's Teams,

Sry to bother you with that but it seems that the IL2 pilots on the screenshot did not read his pilot's notes. You might want to correct this before the VVS get infected by the Texan's way of flying an airplane :rolleyes:

Wasn't the IL2 limited to 60deg bank angle ?

~S

[addman]

Thank you for the update B6. Also, that image of the water with the paper towels is very symbolic, the water being a broken game and the paper towels being the patches that tries to fix the game, very funny indeed.

P.S Landscape looks good.

[JG52Krupi]

Still we see no AA :( (Il2 is very jaggy)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=10336&d=1342791585

[SiThSpAwN]

Still we see no AA :( (Il2 is very jaggy)



Well on the plus side we can see they arent withholding anything from us, the patch we have is what they are using internally, in the same thought though... I have seen worse... the skins look pretty good...

[catito14]

Great news BlackSix!! Thanks for the update!!
Keep it up with the hard work!!
Regards

[=vit_unit=]

Thanks for the up-to-date information, nice pictures!

[E.F.Hartmann]

Hello B6,

Is it possible to have the screen of the BF-109F cockpit near future.

[il_corleone]

Hello B6,

Is it possible to have the screen of the BF-109F cockpit near future.

+1

Could be cool to have some Screens from the cockpit of the Friederich Plus the patch if everything goes well

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Why should it be limited to a certain bank angle as long as relative positive g is applied?

[_YoYo_]

We figured it was the many tears of the users ...[/FONT][/B]

Yes, it was....
Thx B6 for this news, will follow next patch.

[U505]

Hello B6,

Is it possible to have the screen of the BF-109F cockpit near future.

+1

[klem]

thanks for the update blacksix, great to hear the trees and the problems with the hurricane startup online are being fixed. could you confirm if problems with fms are still being examined and worked on?
thanks

+100

[zakkandrachoff]

this is Staligrad

http://goo.gl/maps/9Tv2

You can see a river arm near distant plane

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=156864&d=1342791675

i gess before that this is BATTLE OF STALINGRAD 1942. but , where are the IAR80?

and will be nice to see some good skins in that Friedrich
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/231/pics/2_107_b1.jpg
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/231/pics/2_9.jpg
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/231/pics/2_58.jpg
http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/231/pics/2_14.jpg
:cool:

[von Pilsner]

We did have a small flood at the new office today, here’s a picture as a small bonus. We figured it was the many tears of the users that finally got to our office. Also, some latest pictures from the Eastern Front.

Have a great weekend!

Good to see you still have your sense of humor!!! :D

Thanks (as always) for the update!

[335th_GRAthos]

We figured it was the many tears of the users that finally got to our office
:D :D :D

Not sure about that, had it been the case, it would have had tsunami strength... ;)
:D :D :D

Thanks for the update, looking forward to the Bf109-F


Nice week end!

~S~

[Redroach]

Wow, I feel I was actually happier BEFORE that "official update" came out! :D

[kakkola]

One thing i care about......performance!!!!!!!!

[Trumper]

Well, we've had these updates before and people have been disappointed so lets see the proof in the pudding,screenshots are ok to look at BUT gameplay/performance will be the real marker.

[CaptainDoggles]

Oooh, that 109F looks so sexy.

Not sure I could stay faithful if there was a Yak-1b in the game, though.

[priller26]

Thanks for the update.keeping my fingers crossed for the best outcome.

[philip.ed]

Well, we've had these updates before and people have been disappointed so lets see the proof in the pudding,screenshots are ok to look at BUT gameplay/performance will be the real marker.

Quoted for truth.

[carguy_]

Wowee!Those are some sexy skins!

[MegOhm]

Nice Screens....Thnx

Yah Launcher error everytime I exit......... but does not affect the game....just annoying...I mean no kidding if I exit........ laucher is not worrking...I don't need to know that.

[Kittle]

Wow, that F model 109 is sexy to the max! Can't wait to get my mits on her! ;) LoL, as it is I just made the jump from IL2'46 to CloD today! So with any luck I will be ready to fly and rust free when moscow is the new objective!

[tk471138]

Love Hit decal, and love the joke at the end....Good Job B6

[Hippy Druid]

Nice screenies.
Thanks for the update.

It's really vodka isn't it? Such a waste! ;) I hope you're going to wring out those rags!

[desastersoft]

Good Morning B6!

Just an easy Question: Is in the upcomming Patch SLI and Quad SLI still working as "Performance Break"?

For Explanation: I am Using 3 Systems. The Big one is i7 - 6 Core @ 6x4GHZ, 12 GB Tripple Channel DDR3 RAM, and 2x GF 590 GTX with together 6 GB Video DDR 5 RAM.

The second Main System is i7 - 4x3,5 GB, 16 GB DDR3 RAM Quad Channel with a GF 580 AMP Version GTX with 3GB DDR 5 RAM.

The effect is, the System Nr. 1 is with 90 AC in Combat at 25-35 FPS on High End Settings.

The much smaller System, Nr. 2 is with exact same Settings and same Mission at 50-120 FPS!

Oleg wrote me at beginning of CloD, before he was gone, that this belongs to the not implemented SLI and Quad SLI support.

Is this crazy feature still in? Or did you solve the Problem?

Cheers
Thomas/Chief of Desastersoft

[LcSummers]

Thanks B6 for the update

I like the autum environment, great pix. Now lets have those nasty bugs ironed out!!!

Great weekend

[Blackdog_kt]

First of all, thanks for the update.

Second, i have a question.

Is the team aware of the issues with bombsights? I had started a thread some time ago to collect all data with bugs and suggestions for bomber aircraft. The reason is that being able to fly bombers and hit targets, we can have missions to fly (both offline and online) that are much closer to battle of Britain.

This will make everybody happy, the bomber pilots who can finally hit targets and the fighter pilots who will have bombers to protect and intercept. With the advances being made in mission design (for example Wolf's channel command mission on the ATAG server and the campaign on the ACG server that both use C# scripts) as well as the new C# methods you gave us for setting area targets in the missions, i think it is the time to say that we really need the bombers fixed.

There were a lot of issues with higher priority and there are still many others, but at this time a few small fixes in the twin engined aircraft will help a lot with playability while you guys work on the rest.

bugged bombers that cannot aim their bombs = players don't fly bombers = no battle of Britain :grin:

There are various bugs and suggestions about bombers, but the most important one right now is to fix the bombsights. If we can hit targets we can wait to get the rest of them corrected.

The Blenheim sight is fine, but the Lofte sight on the Ju88 and He111 either needs debugging or someone to explain to us how to use it, because whatever we try either the bombs miss, or the sight doesn't track correctly when automation is engaged. I don't know about the Br.20 because i haven't tested it a lot.

Here is the link to that thread with all the bomber bugs and suggestions:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32592

Blacksix, if you could please show it to Luthier and tell us what he thinks about it, we would really appreciate it. Fixing the Lofte is probably just a few arithmetic changes in the code (maybe just like the Hurricane 100 oct start-up fix that you did) and since we have an extra week, maybe we'll get lucky and get it debugged before the next patch. Then we will be flying some group sorties on ATAG and make some nice videos to show you all how to carpet bomb ;)

But please, show the twin-engined birds some love just like you did with the Blenheim a few patches ago (it was almost unflyable, now it works well for the most part). I know fighters are more popular, but if there are no bombers the fighters don't have too much to shoot. Thanks :grin:

[Richie]

+1

Could be cool to have some Screens from the cockpit of the Friederich Plus the patch if everything goes well

Pretty much the same as an E4 I would think

[Scavenger]

Wasn't the IL2 limited to 60deg bank angle ?
[/B]
~S

Only when there are no 109s.

[CID_]

We did have a small flood at the new office today, here’s a picture as a small bonus. We figured it was the many tears of the users that finally got to our office. Also, some latest pictures from the Eastern Front.

[B]Have a great weekend!

Do not worry about flooding. When the humidity lift the laminate flooring ... you will have a new place to hide.

[jojimbo]

awesome B6, any news on windows 8 launcher fixes?

[Toni74]

Do not worry about flooding. When the humidity lift the laminate flooring ... you will have a new place to hide.

Why don't you hide into the cave you've come from?

[Aer9o]

Why don't you hide into the cave you've come from?

still ...its a good joke...i think! Personally i am so tierd of all the promises...however looking forward for the new patch and hope there will be no other buggs with it!!!

[CID_]

Why don't you hide into the cave you've come from?

Dear Toni74;
Do not interpret my words any intention of insulting B6. I simply followed the line of humor (maybe bittersweet when you consider the current situation).
Your words indicate an attempt to see enemies where none exist. If there were enemies in this forum with the intention of insulting, believe me, they left long ago. Users who read this forum today (hurt, angry, hopeful, etc ...) are not enemies.

[Aer9o]

Dear Toni74;
Do not interpret my words any intention of insulting B6. I simply followed the line of humor (maybe bittersweet when you consider the current situation).
Your words indicate an attempt to see enemies where none exist. If there were enemies in this forum with the intention of insulting, believe me, they left long ago. Users who read this forum today (hurt, angry, hopeful, etc ...) are not enemies.

I agree...at least we can have a laugh!

[Osprey]

Could you confirm if problems with FMs are still being examined and worked on?

Thanks

6 pages before this important question is asked.

The RAF flight models that were supposed to be patched are very inaccurate, especially for the Hurricane and should be fixed.

[aus3620]

First of all, thanks for the update.

Second, i have a question.

Is the team aware of the issues with bombsights? I had started a thread some time ago to collect all data with bugs and suggestions for bomber aircraft. The reason is that being able to fly bombers and hit targets, we can have missions to fly (both offline and online) that are much closer to battle of Britain.

This will make everybody happy, the bomber pilots who can finally hit targets and the fighter pilots who will have bombers to protect and intercept. With the advances being made in mission design (for example Wolf's channel command mission on the ATAG server and the campaign on the ACG server that both use C# scripts) as well as the new C# methods you gave us for setting area targets in the missions, i think it is the time to say that we really need the bombers fixed.

There were a lot of issues with higher priority and there are still many others, but at this time a few small fixes in the twin engined aircraft will help a lot with playability while you guys work on the rest.

bugged bombers that cannot aim their bombs = players don't fly bombers = no battle of Britain :grin:

There are various bugs and suggestions about bombers, but the most important one right now is to fix the bombsights. If we can hit targets we can wait to get the rest of them corrected.

The Blenheim sight is fine, but the Lofte sight on the Ju88 and He111 either needs debugging or someone to explain to us how to use it, because whatever we try either the bombs miss, or the sight doesn't track correctly when automation is engaged. I don't know about the Br.20 because i haven't tested it a lot.

Here is the link to that thread with all the bomber bugs and suggestions:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32592

Blacksix, if you could please show it to Luthier and tell us what he thinks about it, we would really appreciate it. Fixing the Lofte is probably just a few arithmetic changes in the code (maybe just like the Hurricane 100 oct start-up fix that you did) and since we have an extra week, maybe we'll get lucky and get it debugged before the next patch. Then we will be flying some group sorties on ATAG and make some nice videos to show you all how to carpet bomb ;)

But please, show the twin-engined birds some love just like you did with the Blenheim a few patches ago (it was almost unflyable, now it works well for the most part). I know fighters are more popular, but if there are no bombers the fighters don't have too much to shoot. Thanks :grin:

+1

[Osprey]

A correction for Blackdog, ACG (Air Combat Group) runs historical missions with AI bombers and is not objective based (you can fly bombers though). The campaign server is the JG27 one, "Storm of War Campaigns".

[McFeckit]

bugged bombers that cannot aim their bombs = players don't fly bombers = no battle of Britain

That's the hammer on the nail's head right there! :roll:

[GF_Mastiff]

I see my tears and then some in there some where..

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=10328&d=1342791415

[flyingblind]

I hope the wet floor wasn't BlackSix's reaction when Luthier said he had to do another Friday update and all they had still was a few more screenies. :-D

[zakkandrachoff]

Good Morning B6!

Just an easy Question: Is in the upcomming Patch SLI and Quad SLI still working as "Performance Break"?

For Explanation: I am Using 3 Systems. The Big one is i7 - 6 Core @ 6x4GHZ, 12 GB Tripple Channel DDR3 RAM, and 2x GF 590 GTX with together 6 GB Video DDR 5 RAM.

The second Main System is i7 - 4x3,5 GB, 16 GB DDR3 RAM Quad Channel with a GF 580 AMP Version GTX with 3GB DDR 5 RAM.

The effect is, the System Nr. 1 is with 90 AC in Combat at 25-35 FPS on High End Settings.

The much smaller System, Nr. 2 is with exact same Settings and same Mission at 50-120 FPS!

Oleg wrote me at beginning of CloD, before he was gone, that this belongs to the not implemented SLI and Quad SLI support.

Is this crazy feature still in? Or did you solve the Problem?

Cheers
Thomas/Chief of Desastersoft
http://i567.photobucket.com/albums/ss118/SmokinWeed420_bucket/OMFG.jpg

[Tavingon]

I enjoyed the damn floor picture, the bf109f looks nice.

[Kranak]

Thank you Mr. B6. Manning AA guns, tanks and other items will be a hoot. Sorry about your teams flooding problem. Looks like an AC condensation drain wasn't working.

[Blackdog_kt]

A correction for Blackdog, ACG (Air Combat Group) runs historical missions with AI bombers and is not objective based (you can fly bombers though). The campaign server is the JG27 one, "Storm of War Campaigns".

Thanks for the correction ;)

That's the hammer on the nail's head right there! :roll:

Well, i'm glad more people see it this way.

Currently, the easiest way to make multiplayer interesting is to make it possible to drop bombs on targets.

Imagine you are flying and see a group of 10 human controlled bombers. One team will escort them and the other will intercept them. It's a magnet for getting dogfights and in servers where there are specified targets, it will make things so much more interesting because of the need to fly CAP for the defenders, or the need to come around from an unexpected angle for the attackers.

So, let's say we make a decision to fly out to sea, then attack the target from the North to surprise the defenders and just exit south to friendly airbases back to France. Now we have to coordinate with the escorts and time their departures because they won't have enough fuel to go with us the whole way. They will have to sweep the target 5-10 minutes earlier and then escort us home. So, now we also need to navigate and have an idea of our ETAs. Similarly, the defenders will have to choose between patrolling in force and relying on radar vectors, or spreading their fighter cover thinner to cover more area.

So, suddenly we have a handful of added tactical considerations that make our gameplay more interesting. Suddenly, the map is not just empty space but useful space.

We have the pilots. Not many, but there is a core of people who set aside a great deal of time, learning by themselves, testing how things work and coming up with workarounds for things that didn't work. After all their experience, if a few things get corrected it will be easy and worth the time to pass this knowledge on to others.

We have the servers. We have the mission designers and the people who can make use of scripts.

The one thing we don't have is the ability to carpet bomb an airfield from 7km of altitude and that's why we don't see epic fights. I know i'm not going to spend an hour climbing up there and getting to a target in formation, if i can't blow things up, just so the other pilots on the server have something to shoot at :-P

[TomcatViP]

Why should it be limited to a certain bank angle as long as relative positive g is applied?

If I am right it's a design limitation to keep pilot away from entering a dangerous flight regime. It does not certainly means that the plane will break apart at 65° bank but prevent pilots from entering a situation where coupled effects (let say gust, slip angle, etc...) could prevent you from regaining ctrl or damage the structure.

Some big airplanes even today are limited to 45 or even 30 deg.

You should read the Fana de l'aviation from this month. There is a flight test of the recently restored IL2. I am sure that there is even a more detailed text somewhere in the Russian literature and devs have read it alrdy. I also guess that what we see on the pictures is the result of the old buggy AI with their rate of roll, the one that will makes shy even an F16 pilot (Fort Worth is in Texas).

~S!

PS: I hope you're still around to read this ;)

[E.F.Hartmann]

Hello,
Quick question to the dev team and B6: will you solve the problem of mirror on the Spitfire and Hurricane in the patch has come.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Blackdog, Good points. However, it appears performance related issues, ie. the sim pausing when a group( as few as four ) EA are encountered. Dramatic framerate reduction when hits are obtained causing debris particals, vapor, smoke and/or fire to trail from an EA. Sometimes followed by CTD . Even if the bomb sight calulations are rectified it appears the performance issues most encounter would reduce the immerssion factor to an unacceptable level. I find it disconcerting no mention from the developers regarding performance increases.I was under the impression the " new graphics engine " was being implemented for this express purpose. I am cautiously optimistic the " trees" will be fixed.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thanks for the update Blacksix, great to hear the trees and the problems with the hurricane startup online are being fixed. Could you confirm if problems with FMs are still being examined and worked on?

Thanks

+1

Now that the office move is completed and the floors are mopped -- which is good to hear -- could you please advise what fixes have been applied to the currently incorrect flight modelling of the Spitfires (all marks), Hurricanes (all marks), Bf 109's, and ME 110's?

[Blackdog_kt]

Blackdog, Good points. However, it appears performance related issues, ie. the sim pausing when a group( as few as four ) EA are encountered. Dramatic framerate reduction when hits are obtained causing debris particals, vapor, smoke and/or fire to trail from an EA. Sometimes followed by CTD . Even if the bomb sight calulations are rectified it appears the performance issues most encounter would reduce the immerssion factor to an unacceptable level. I find it disconcerting no mention from the developers regarding performance increases.I was under the impression the " new graphics engine " was being implemented for this express purpose. I am cautiously optimistic the " trees" will be fixed.

Well, the reason i'm advocating these changes is that most probably it's a purely numerical calculation issue in the bombsight code (Edit: at least that's how it seems from testing done by various pilots, there is definitely a mix-up between imperial and metric units in how the sight treats your inputs regarding tracking the target and calculating the release point).

It's probably at the same level as the non-starting Hurricane that they fixed. For example, they might have made it possible to start with a colder engine or raised the starting oil temperature, both of which is just changing the value of a variable. That's less than one line of code.

And since i'm simplifying things a bit to make a point and i haven't actually seen the code, let's just up this a little and say it's 100-200 , or even 1000 lines of code. To put this into perspective, i'm a beginner programmer and i can routinely crank out 300 lines of working Java code in the span of a two hour lab session at uni. In these two hours i have to read the problem/assignment, understand it, analyse it, decide on a modeling solution (what classes i need and so on), implement it and check for errors.

Fixing the bombsights is probably an evening's work for the developer team at most, and that's probably the guys who are not even involved with the graphics rewrite.
Small things like that would not tie up the graphics programmers, not to mention that it's probably the field of the AI/systems programmer to do this and not the job of the graphics guys, so it wouldn't really delay the performance fixes.

As an example, the Ju88 gyrocompass was not working ever since the release of the sim and got fixed in the previous beta. All this time however, there was a similar compass on the He-111 that worked fine and the code could have been copy-pasted all along.

I'm not disrespecting anyone's flying preferences here because i fly most of the aircraft in the sim, but this example clearly shows that trivially easy to fix issues with big impact on gameplay are neglected, because most people try to prove/disprove rights and wrongs in the FMs of their favorite/opposing fighters and more or less "steal the spotlights" in every single patch.

If it's not 100 octane it's the lack of DeWilde ammo, the grass being too green, the lack of MG-FF/M in the 110s, etc, etc. Well, these are all important issues to fix but also more time consuming (or at least equally time consuming) to giving players the ability to aim some bombs. And even if all of these things are corrected, there is still no battle of Britain without bombers. It wasn't a mid-channel scrap, it was a bombing campaign.

Just take a look at the FM/DM section and you'll see what i mean :-P

[Allons!]

As far as i can see theres a pair of pedals. This indicates the devs are flying either CoD or probably IL-2 classic. 1st proof that the devs are testing themselves and so i have no doubt where the tears are coming from.. :) Allons!

[Frequent_Flyer]

Well, the reason i'm advocating these changes is that most probably it's a purely numerical calculation issue in the bombsight code (Edit: at least that's how it seems from testing done by various pilots, there is definitely a mix-up between imperial and metric units in how the sight treats your inputs regarding tracking the target and calculating the release point).

It's probably at the same level as the non-starting Hurricane that they fixed. For example, they might have made it possible to start with a colder engine or raised the starting oil temperature, both of which is just changing the value of a variable. That's less than one line of code.

And since i'm simplifying things a bit to make a point and i haven't actually seen the code, let's just up this a little and say it's 100-200 , or even 1000 lines of code. To put this into perspective, i'm a beginner programmer and i can routinely crank out 300 lines of working Java code in the span of a two hour lab session at uni. In these two hours i have to read the problem/assignment, understand it, analyse it, decide on a modeling solution (what classes i need and so on), implement it and check for errors.

Fixing the bombsights is probably an evening's work for the developer team at most, and that's probably the guys who are not even involved with the graphics rewrite.
Small things like that would not tie up the graphics programmers, not to mention that it's probably the field of the AI/systems programmer to do this and not the job of the graphics guys, so it wouldn't really delay the performance fixes.

As an example, the Ju88 gyrocompass was not working ever since the release of the sim and got fixed in the previous beta. All this time however, there was a similar compass on the He-111 that worked fine and the code could have been copy-pasted all along.

I'm not disrespecting anyone's flying preferences here because i fly most of the aircraft in the sim, but this example clearly shows that trivially easy to fix issues with big impact on gameplay are neglected, because most people try to prove/disprove rights and wrongs in the FMs of their favorite/opposing fighters and more or less "steal the spotlights" in every single patch.

If it's not 100 octane it's the lack of DeWilde ammo, the grass being too green, the lack of MG-FF/M in the 110s, etc, etc. Well, these are all important issues to fix but also more time consuming (or at least equally time consuming) to giving players the ability to aim some bombs. And even if all of these things are corrected, there is still no battle of Britain without bombers. It wasn't a mid-channel scrap, it was a bombing campaign.

Just take a look at the FM/DM section and you'll see what i mean :-P

I completly agree, it can hardly be called the Battle of Britian without a competant Luftwaffe BG. If it were as simple to fix as you beleive, it makes you wonder why it has not been addressed. The FM's will be an eternal debate.

[planespotter]

If you look this with business eyes it is obvious why not fixed. Most resources are to the new game and nearly nothing to the old. Why is easy. The sales curve for CoD is established (flat...declining?), and nothing the devs do now for that will change it. There is no such thing as a 'relaunch' of a game and not much money in trying to win back unhappy customers. Better use your staff and money to make a new game to grow sales. So be happy for any work on any patch at all.

[Blackdog_kt]

It might not be that simple to actually code. It is however simple to determine how it should work and this means that at least the design stage would be very fast: "ok, i need an algorithm that takes variable A for speed and variable B for altitude and follows these two formulas:" enter a bit of trigonometry/vector math here to calculate the bombsight's angular velocity when tracking a target and the release point for the bombs. Their Lofte bombsights in Il2:1946 work like a charm, so it's not that they don't know how to do it.

In other words, compared to other issues (especially FMs) there is a smaller amount of effort needed to determine what is the right way to model it and previous experience on the matter. I think the developers are just so swamped by other issues that people pay more attention to, that they haven't had the chance to take a good look into it.

A similar thing was happening with the Blenheim, until a few guys from ATAG and me took it upon ourselves to document everything that was wrong with it, assisted only by another forum member (who i shall not name) who sent me a copy of the pilot's notes (and that's why i can't name him, because it was still copyrighted material after all these years:-P ).
The developers took note of it and now the aircraft is flyable and most of its issues have been corrected.

So i thought that if i start drumming up some support again, we could gradually get the rest of the bombers in a usable state and go have epic fights :grin:

[tk471138]

If you look this with business eyes it is obvious why not fixed. Most resources are to the new game and nearly nothing to the old. Why is easy. The sales curve for CoD is established (flat...declining?), and nothing the devs do now for that will change it. There is no such thing as a 'relaunch' of a game and not much money in trying to win back unhappy customers. Better use your staff and money to make a new game to grow sales. So be happy for any work on any patch at all.

....hopefully the devs know that if cod is not fixed, then the new game will be boycotted by many....

your logic is flawed....the devs are the ones who should be happy we still support them and many of us will still buy the new game under the condition that cod is fixed BEFORE that happens....they are the ones who should be considered "lucky" when the game breaking bugs are gone and the game meets reasonable expectations, since the future series relies on this one fact....

personally them meeting expectations is a WIN WIN, for both users and the company, and this is both my hope and my belief that it will come...

[Blackdog_kt]

Both of what you guys say is true to an extent.

They have to release a new sim to get a cash injection and keep the series going, so they need to develop that and their time is spent there.

On the other hand, they do know that fixing CoD to what most would consider an acceptable standard will give them a chance for better sales in the sequel and maybe some new sales for CoD itself.

Finally, there is an overlap between both sims, the current and the future one. Since they will use the same engine, the work being done now for performance and optimization is work that will benefit both sims.

Also, quite a few of the aircraft we fly in BoB will be utilized in the sequel as well, so it pays to fix any bugs in the way their systems are modeled. I've though long and hard about these issues i'm discussing and that's why i didn't spam the boards about them early on (most of what is bugged with bombers has been this way since release), there really were bigger fish to fry at that time to keep the series alive and the community going.

Now however i think is the right time to advocate these fixes, because we've gotten to a point where more people can fly and more people can make use of what the sim models.

This bombsight bug is a case of a certain amount of work with a huge payback: all of the LW bombers during the war used that thing, so spending a couple of evenings to correct it will pay off for CoD, for the sequel and for any other sim that comes afterwards in the series and happens to feature a LW bomber. Not to mention that the Lofte operates on a very similar principle to the Norden bombsight (it was actually based on it by data provided by spies), so this also covers the potential inclusion of US bombers at a later date.

The same can be said for the RAF sight we have in the Blenheim (used in all RAF bombers up until 1942 and in several of them later on), but that one is mostly correct in its function.

[tintifaxl]

Not to mention that the Lofte operates on a very similar principle to the Norden bombsight

Not to nitpick, but it is a Lotfe, not Lofte bombsight. Lotfernrohr in German.

[camber]

If it's not 100 octane it's the lack of DeWilde ammo, the grass being too green, the lack of MG-FF/M in the 110s, etc, etc. Well, these are all important issues to fix but also more time consuming (or at least equally time consuming) to giving players the ability to aim some bombs. And even if all of these things are corrected, there is still no battle of Britain without bombers. It wasn't a mid-channel scrap, it was a bombing campaign.

Just take a look at the FM/DM section and you'll see what i mean :-P

Damnit Blackdog, I am one of those guys arguing in the FM threads. Just remember, the grass is always greener in the other patch ;)

It is so weird that totally simple things are never fixed (such as the bombsight). Another example: the mirrors have never worked, why not disable them via patch so you don't have to manually switch them off every sortie, until such time as they are fixed?

It is only speculation, but I suspect the main problem is inadequately documented code left by programmers who have left 1C. Code can be quickly generated and modified by an individual, but modifying other's code can be a nightmare. Changes that 1C makes always seems to have a lot of unintended consequences, as is compatible with this situation.

camber

P.S we really do need the MG-FFM firing 100 octane DeWilde ammo, as long as the tracers are the correct color. How DARE YOU request a functional bombsight :)

[BlackSix]

I'll get some your questions in this thread and give them to Ilya today or tomorrow.

[Blackdog_kt]

Thanks a lot Blacksix, that's wonderful.

I will probably have a more detailed report for the bombsight bugs in a few hours.

I have been discussing this a lot with some of the bomber pilots who fly on the ATAG server and one of them (Aus3620) has helped me a lot by running all the tests and making videos of the results.

We have found out that the Luftwaffe bombsights in the He-111 and Ju-88 track targets correctly. The player simply has to input his altitude and speed (i'm just waiting for a confirmation on if that speed is IAS or TAS).

What is wrong is the calculations for releasing the bombs. Even if you calibrate the sight correctly, the bombs always impact before the target.

To score hits the player has to convert IAS to TAS from the imperial table in the manual instead of the metric one. For example, if you are flying at 300km/h and 3000meters, you have to go to the imperial chart and input the number for 300mph and 3000feet (but just the number as it is, you don't convert it from mph to km/h).

Also, the altimeters seem to be under-reporting a bit and the way to account for this is to convert meters to yards. I don't know if this is simply a case of calibrating the altimeters, because when we spawn they are set at 1000mbar by default.

However, most people have found that with default weather this gives inaccurate altimeter readings. For example, one of the coastal RAF airfields has an elevation of 72ft but when you spawn there, the altimeter reads about 300ft.

If Ilya Shevchenko wants more information about this, i'll be glad to describe the issue to him in more detail via PM or email.
Thank you and thanks to all the players who helped me with this and took part in the exchange of knowledge and testing. We have learned a lot of technical details along the way and if we can help you fix the bombsights in time for the next patch, it will be great for all sim pilots.

Expect a more detailed report later in the day in a separate thread (i will post here a link to it).

[csThor]

It's not a mixup of metric and imperial units, it's simply that the "Rücktriftwinkel" calculation was forgotten to model. IIRC somebody posted a part of the bombsight manual here. It should appear if you use the german term in the search mask.

[Blackdog_kt]

It's not a mixup of metric and imperial units, it's simply that the "Rücktriftwinkel" calculation was forgotten to model. IIRC somebody posted a part of the bombsight manual here. It should appear if you use the german term in the search mask.

Thanks for the tip. According to the search results, this is equivalent to the trail or terminal velocity setting.

As luck would have it, i've been recently reading about bombsights and wikipedia has some great articles about the British CSBS (the one we have on the Blenheim) and the Norden. The Lofte is very similar to the Norden in how it operates.

It never occurred to me that this setting is missing, because i thought it was handled automatically by the simulator.

Some things in our aircraft do get handled automatically. For example, leveling the bombsight or managing the hydraulic pump in the Blenheim, you don't have to do it because the sim does it for you, but it is modeled (just try to raise the Blenheim turret when you are on the ground, even if the engines are on...it's not possible because the hydraulic pump is set to power the gear and flaps). So i thought that the trail setting is automatic as well (it certainly is in the Blenheim).

So, let's see what this setting is. Bombs drop in more or less parabolic trajectories. They start roughly parallel to the aircraft (unless you're weird and your name is He-111, then they drop ass-first because the bay is vertical :-P ) and progressively nose down while they fly due to air resistance and gravity (negative forward acceleration due to friction and positive downward acceleration due to gravity)

Each bomb type has its own trajectory, depending on aerodynamics of the casing and its weight/density.

Since bombs accelerate and nose down during their flight, it's easy to see that a bomb released at higher initial speed (the speed of the carrier aircraft) and lower altitudes will be more parallel to the ground upon impact, than one released at lower speed and/or higher altitude (the forward speed is easily countered by air resistance during its flight and it settles in a dive).

So, the higher you go the more chance of the bomb settling in an attitude where it has a lot of vertical and very little forward motion. And yes, if unaccounted for it will impact short.
Please behold technical schematic no.1, also known as "my awesome MSPaint skills, let me show you them" :-P

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=10365&stc=1&d=1343043669

What they did was calculate trajectories for the bomb types used by each bomber and added a function to the sights, so that bombardiers could select the correct one depending on their bombload (so probably mixed bombloads means mixed results because the bombs have different trajectories, while maybe the sight can only handle one preset at a time).

In some bombsights it was called trail (i don't know in what values they measured it), in some later RAF sights they would input the bomb's terminal velocity and now i learned that in the Lofte it was called Rücktriftwinkel and it compensated wind resistance through the drop.

What amazes me is how our friend Heinz realized this is missing, since there is no clear way to test for it. Eg, we would have to make our own bombing practice range in the FMB with objects at preset distances, to see that they impact short by specific distances each time.

For information on the matter:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29453&highlight=R%C3%BCcktriftwinkel&page=5

I'm starting to think that this explanation is the most possible one. It would certainly explain why we need to do all kinds of weird unit conversions when bombing from high altitude, while people who bomb from low altitude say the sight works fine for them.


Finally, two more questions (now that Blacksix is taking notes :-P ):

1) What's up with the R22 autopilot mode? It's supposed to hold the plane level with the horizon during the bomb run, but it seems that the engines don't have enough power to keep it from losing altitude at that angle of attack.
Certainly the 111 has trouble achieving its rated power settings, or the instruments read incorrect values (eg, full fine pitch at take-off and it barely goes up to 2100RPM).

2) Why do the bombs explode backwards (the last one to impact explodes first)?

Thanks everyone for your help and i'm hoping we see a fix for these issues in the next patch :grin:

[Damixu]

...
Also, the altimeters seem to be under-reporting a bit and the way to account for this is to convert meters to yards. I don't know if this is simply a case of calibrating the altimeters, because when we spawn they are set at 1000mbar by default.

However, most people have found that with default weather this gives inaccurate altimeter readings. For example, one of the coastal RAF airfields has an elevation of 72ft but when you spawn there, the altimeter reads about 300ft.
..

The most logical way of modeling atmospheric conditions is to model standard atmospheric conditions which is 1013 mbar/hPa at sea level and I assume 1C has done it in this sim.

In order to get correct altitude the pilot should dial in correct atmospheric pressure to altitmeter. If you keep default 1000 mbar setting you get 13 mbar error which is 13 x 27 ft (8m) near seal level = 251 feet/104 meters. The error will increase when flying altitude increases. (1 hPa difference = Alt 2,5 km = 11 m, 5,5 km = 16m, 10 km = 26 m) Naturally you also must take in account the ground level at airfield and add it to the altimeter.

Just my 2 cents if this might be some cause of problems you have discovered...

[Wolf_Rider]

In some bombsights it was called trail (i don't know in what values they measured it), in some later RAF sights they would input the bomb's terminal velocity and now i learned that in the Lofte it was called Rücktriftwinkel and it compensated wind resistance through the drop.

What amazes me is how our friend Heinz realized this is missing, since there is no clear way to test for it. Eg, we would have to make our own bombing practice range in the FMB with objects at preset distances, to see that they impact short by specific distances each time.






Determine the weight of the falling object. The easiest way to do this is usually to measure this quantity directly. You can also estimate weight if you know the construction materials and dimensions.

2
Calculate the frontal area of the falling object. The frontal area is the apparent area facing in the direction of falling. You can determine this area by measuring the outline of the object from that orientation. For example, if the falling object were a cone, the tip of the cone would point straight downward, and the frontal area would appear to be a circle equal to the area of the circular base of the cone.

3
Determine the drag coefficient of the falling object. You can usually avoid having to calculate the drag coefficient yourself by looking up an approximate value in a reference book or on the Internet. If you need a highly precise value, you should consult with an engineer.

4
Determine the gas density of the medium through which the object will be falling. If the medium is the air, then you should know that air density decreases with altitude, which means that the object's terminal velocity will decrease as it gets closer to the ground (where the gas is denser and pushes back harder, providing stronger braking power). Thus you can calculate terminal velocity at any one altitude using simple mathematics, but to calculate the change in the terminal velocity over a long-distance fall, you will require the use of calculus or empirical approximations. Air density also changes with the weather; there is no uniform density value for a given altitude. To get the most accurate measurements of air density, you will need to multiply average air density values by local weather condition offsets. Atmospheric information is available in the United States from the National Weather Service, a service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

5
Calculate terminal velocity at a given altitude with this equation: Terminal V = sqrt ((2 x (Object Weight)) / ((Frontal Area) x (Drag Coeff.) x (Gas Density))).

In plain English, the terminal velocity of the object is equal to the square root of the quotient of twice the object's weight over the product of the object's frontal area, its drag coefficient, and the gas density of the medium through which the object is falling.



Read more: How to Calculate Terminal Velocity | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_6134922_calculate-terminal-velocity.html#ixzz21SPSlnUQ

[Kwiatek]

I'll get some your questions in this thread and give them to Ilya today or tomorrow.

Black Six plz ask about FM&performacne both British and German planes.

Beacuse actually situation is very bad.

RAF fighters both Spitfire and Hurricanes had wrong power engine settings, had wrong performance - way too slow - at emergency +12 lbs power rating they could reach speed RL planes had at only + 6 lbs power rating. Also British planes can't used power ratings from manual - or if used engine broke after very short time.

Other hand 109 is still too slow at slow speed - ab. 20 kph, slats open too late ( at too low speed and or too high angle of attack), had strange stall characterisctic ( should be more gentle) and had too sensivity rudder.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Black Six plz ask about FM&performacne both British and German planes.

Beacuse actually situation is very bad.

RAF fighters both Spitfire and Hurricanes had wrong power engine settings, had wrong performance - way too slow - at emergency +12 lbs power rating they could reach speed RL planes had at only + 6 lbs power rating. Also British planes can't used power ratings from manual - or if used engine broke after very short time.

Other hand 109 is still too slow at slow speed - ab. 20 kph, slats open too late ( at too low speed and or too high angle of attack), had strange stall characterisctic ( should be more gentle) and had too sensivity rudder.

Dont forget the roll rates ;)

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by BlackSix (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=447605)<br />
I'll get some your questions in this thread and give them to Ilya today or tomorrow.<br />
<br />
Black Six plz ask about FM&performacne both British and German planes. <br />
<br />
Beacuse actually situation is very bad.<br />
<br />
RAF fighters both Spitfire and Hurricanes had wrong power engine settings, had wrong performance - way too slow - at emergency +12 lbs power rating they could reach speed RL planes had at only + 6 lbs power rating. Also British planes can't used power ratings from manual - or if used engine broke after very short time.<br />
<br />
Other hand 109 is still too slow at slow speed - ab. 20 kph, slats open too late ( at too low speed and or too high angle of attack), had strange stall characterisctic ( should be more gentle) and had too sensivity rudder.

And service ceilings and way off as well.

Sent from my SCH-R910 using Tapatalk 2

[ATAG_Snapper]

Dont forget the roll rates ;)

Nor you! LOL

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/232

[MegOhm]

Blackdog....Your and ATAGs efforts are much appreciated...I look forward to engaging the bomber formations!!!!

<S>

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, that's the plan more or less: if we have an incentive to go up there in force it will be better gameplay for everyone ;)

A few days ago i was dive bombing in a Ju88 and had a human gunner. I was dodging a Spit all the way home as best as i could and the player manning the guns was doing a very good job, so we managed to reach home base with only light damage.

The only serious damage what that the hydraulic pump got shot off, so we couldn't extend gear and flaps. I had to side-slip it in to control speed by drag and executed a belly landing.

One of the best sorties i ever had, my gunner was going "wow, look at that" on the chat as he watched the string of bombs explode during the pull up, all sorts of fun, immersive things, and then it hit me. I was excited just getting a mission with the kind of outcome many bombers had in the real battle.

Just imagine how much better it's going to be and how hectic, if we have 5-10 player controlled bombers level bombing from altitude, 110s for top cover trying to BnZ the RAF, Hurricanes trying to force the 110s to TnB, 109s trying to cover the 110s and Spits trying to tie up the 109s. Or spawning in Manston and taking off as the bombs go off around you, aimed by real people who will see you taxing through their scope and try to get you, instead of AI bombers that hit a predetermined spot. It's going to be madness i tell you :-P

[MD_Marx]

Determine the weight of the falling object. The easiest way to do this is usually to measure this quantity directly. You can also estimate weight if you know the construction materials and dimensions.

2
Calculate the frontal area of the falling object. The frontal area is the apparent area facing in the direction of falling. You can determine this area by measuring the outline of the object from that orientation. For example, if the falling object were a cone, the tip of the cone would point straight downward, and the frontal area would appear to be a circle equal to the area of the circular base of the cone.

3
Determine the drag coefficient of the falling object. You can usually avoid having to calculate the drag coefficient yourself by looking up an approximate value in a reference book or on the Internet. If you need a highly precise value, you should consult with an engineer.

4
Determine the gas density of the medium through which the object will be falling. If the medium is the air, then you should know that air density decreases with altitude, which means that the object's terminal velocity will decrease as it gets closer to the ground (where the gas is denser and pushes back harder, providing stronger braking power). Thus you can calculate terminal velocity at any one altitude using simple mathematics, but to calculate the change in the terminal velocity over a long-distance fall, you will require the use of calculus or empirical approximations. Air density also changes with the weather; there is no uniform density value for a given altitude. To get the most accurate measurements of air density, you will need to multiply average air density values by local weather condition offsets. Atmospheric information is available in the United States from the National Weather Service, a service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

5
Calculate terminal velocity at a given altitude with this equation: Terminal V = sqrt ((2 x (Object Weight)) / ((Frontal Area) x (Drag Coeff.) x (Gas Density))).

In plain English, the terminal velocity of the object is equal to the square root of the quotient of twice the object's weight over the product of the object's frontal area, its drag coefficient, and the gas density of the medium through which the object is falling.



Read more: How to Calculate Terminal Velocity | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_6134922_calculate-terminal-velocity.html#ixzz21SPSlnUQ

Thanks for this very interesting item - I haven't looked at the article yet, but you might need to consider a few more variables before identifying a value for Cd for the bomb.

1. Bombing altitude. If you are bombing below the height needed to attain terminal velocity, the bomb won't attain it, and the Cd value will need to be computed from a theoretical velocity.

2. The Cd of falling objects will generally increase to a point where the object has shock waves generated from it at near-sonic bomb velocities. As the bomb goes sonic/trans-sonic the Cd will probably drop slightly.

3. The Germans did an awful lot of aerodynamic research during the war, and I would be surprised if the likes of Schlichting et al did not provide a pretty comprehensive Cd-Velocity envelope for specific bombs, or a more generic CD-velocity profile for use in general calculations?

4. My own interest in this has been from determining the theoretical 'effective' range of WW2 aircraft cannon/mg, in which the highest velocity (and drag) is established at the muzzle and thereafter decays through sub-sonic drag. For my calculations, I found a very interesting article on the net by a team of Indian researchers who managed to investigate and tabulate the trans & sub-sonic CD values of a fired test cannon shell. I appreciate that the bomb is probably more aerodynamic than the shell, but the CD - Velocity characteristic will be similar.

5. Air density - or static pressure - is generally a function of altitiude but of course changes due to atmospheric conditions. If my memory serves, air density can be calculated from P/RT where P is the pressure at altitude (which will vary as the bomb descends), the gas constant R for air and the absolute temperature. No-one can predict precise values from the (discomfort) of a bomb-sight, but these values should be reasonably accurate.

Hopefully I can now take off my annorak, as it's getting rather warm in the UK ;-)

Marx

[TomcatViP]

As the bomb goes sonic/trans-sonic the Cd will probably drop slightly.

[...]

my annorak, as it's getting rather warm in the UK ;-)

Marx

Wait wait... transonic drag is much higher than subsonic. This why it is called the Mach wall.

[Wolf_Rider]

Thanks for this very interesting item - I haven't looked at the article yet, but you might need to consider a few more variables before identifying a value for Cd for the bomb.

1. Bombing altitude. If you are bombing below the height needed to attain terminal velocity, the bomb won't attain it, and the Cd value will need to be computed from a theoretical velocity.




Though I didn't write that up, it does suggest that the calculations required are not a simple feat

and I guess that's why (the yanks, at least, in the later stages and the PTO) went back to iron sight "guestimating" , dive and skip bombing for low level raids?

[He111]

Yeah, that's me, flying on a wing .. ready to stall. :grin:


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=10330&d=1342791429

.

[jf1981]

Hi

Do we have a new patch in this week so .... ?

[Tinytacohead]

Hello gentlemen!

We’re virtually done with the move and are back to work. The new iteration of the patch is due next week! Sorry, couldn’t push it out today...

^^ posted July 20th, 2012.
So it's been a week, did a unicorn come down & deliver this magical patch while I was in the kitchen making a samich or somethin?