What is wrong with this picture?
 

This is for Oleg and Team to decide what to do with it.
(SoW is still leaps and bounds ahead of other sims I have seen, well done!)

It's not nitpicking, its making a game/simulation good enough to last decades, not just years, and be THE standard for flight sim!
(I really do not like Mickysoft Flight Sim / CFM)

In last weeks update this image was posted:
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/4...17sowerror.jpg

This is the errors:
1. The oil cooler scoop, the red circle in above picture, is attached to the engine mount, not the airframe. See the cross section below. I have other images to confirm this mounting.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3...rossection.png

2. Propellers missing. Do17 use aluminum made VDM propellers.

3. Engine burning. Yes, a lot will argue about it, but there is simply no fuel for it to burn!
It WILL smoke like a pot house.

4. Missing control surfaces as "damage" (big gripe). I have looked at hundreds of war damaged aircraft, and it is extremely rare to ever seen a completely detached control surface. Most of time the surface will be in tatters or burned away, but part of is still holding on by the hinge!
(It is a simple, expedient way in games to show damage, but with the technology we have now, it should be eradicated).

5. It is hard to tell in the screen-shot, but I believe the bomb bay doors are mis-modeled (yeah, this one means nothing to an AI plane, but will when its player controlled!).


I know this is not high priority, but serious gamers do want the details done right. :)

to start off, I like the way you post the errors.

About the doors being mis-modelled, I dont think that's true, I think actually what we are seeing here is an aspect of the damage model, hence why only 1 door seems to be loose, pretty neat detail I say!

It's not the damage state, but the doors themselves.
With out a really close shot of the doors, it is difficult to see if they are incorrect, and show why.

I found a picture ( may not be the best one) where I think the bomb bay consists of 2 separate bomb storages, and both have 2 doors, behind each other.

Correct me if you see different, also, I dont know if this is to be found on all Do17's.

http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/s...n/07173ae8.jpg

PS: I'm looking for an old Do-17 scale model I once build.

Lolz, incorrect damage model or not that is still +1 kill for the RAF +D I will hopefully add to that kill count at some point...muwhahahaha.

You are correct, they are split doors, fore/aft.
They are also not hinged on edge, but retract into the bay partly.

In your photo, the froward bay probably has a fuel tank, thus only the aft is open.

BTW, Great find!

I can't really offer any insightful comments on the topic at hand, but i want to say one thing.

This is the appropriate way to post requests and point out errors for future correction. Be polite, don't troll and have some references handy to back up your claims. Well done Frantishek, i think you should be in the beta testing team ;)

...



http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Triebwerk.jpg




http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Triebwerk1.jpg




http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Triebwerk2.jpg





http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Kühler.jpg









http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Klappen.jpg






http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Klappen1.jpg




...

In the last picture you posted, it seems like there is just 1 big bomb door, strange, maybe there were different versions of Do/17 doors.

I think this needs further investigation.

There are 2 doors in that pic.. It's just that you can't really see them coz of the quality.

Where the 2 brackets are (just above the guy on the lefts head) is where the join is.

Easier to see here..

http://web.wt.net/~kikuko/Do17depot/...ivot-noted.jpg

Yes I think I see it on the other picture as well now, thanks for that better detailed picture, anyway is oleg really wrong this time?

SUPER JOB!

Thanks for posting all those diagrams!
That's a lot of time finding, copying, and posting!

!S

W00t!

Someone found my web site. :)


Hey, Winny, I take back my past posting. I read some of your other posting, you are a pretty good fella. :D

:) I read it all.. very interesting!

Thanks. I just try to be balanced and fair. When you get a room full of guys they are gonna 'lock horns'.. Ce la vie! I also like playing devis advocate because I'm basically grumpy.

From Fooblog:
better Details of the 3D Model
http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/do-17z_wip_03.jpg
Early Wip:
http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/do17z_2p.jpg

@foo'bar: Hoffe es geht in Ordnung wenn ich das so direkt verlinke, war zu faul den Orginalpost hier im Forum zu suchen ;)

Bigger version.

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...Z_WIP_03-1.jpg

From (all screenshots - full size):

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/






---

More like how much Oleg and 1C had RIGHT!

We are only pointing mostly minor errors that will make a great game, excellent!

Well we still don't know, I hope they can be opened separately, and as you or someone else mentioned before, maybe fit an extra fuel tank in 1 of 'em

That Do-17 is a cool looking aircraft I hope it becomes flyable. I like how the wings flow into the fuselage like that.

Do-17
 

1. Cooller Intake. First of all the damage of engine motoframe could be in the points of gondola, then yes.. intake will go out withthe engine... but if damage is in points where the engine the intake will be on the place... on the frame. We model second variant of damage. Or would be better to say it may happens or not...

2. Doors. Looking on the schemes and photos it is clear that in this case they must be open simultaniosly. For the separate, when just one part open - the levers of the doors, that are not used should be removed. In air is imposible to open at first the first then second part of doors. Could be only fully open or half (in last case if removed levers on the ground)

3. Alluminium is also firing, not only fuel. And german alluminium alloys in some case was firing not worse then wooden surfaces (depending of conditions). The most dangerous alloy used in the cockpits. Light, but firing very well.

That sums up everything! :grin:

The alloys in the Aluminum were extremely flammable and some planes went down simply from the fires themselves spreading so fast.


OLEG-- One question that I believe you haven't been asked yet, and I do not believe you will answer... - Lets say I am playing SOW and I fly my plane straight into the ground and crash- will the physics of the crash and explosion be a similar damage model as IL2- or is it better/different?

Thanks and I hope the new office is going well!

-Omphalos

Better and different

They used magnesium alloys in the cockpit? http://cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c025.gif

Well wouldn't ya know, This Oleg fella actually knows what's going on. Who'd a thunk it?

Not true!

I think Oleg was thinking of the He-70:
He-70 Wiki
It is MAGNESIUM, which is NOT Aluminum.
I have seen plenty of pictures of burned remains of aircraft, but the wing tips and tails do not suffer burn damage.
Only where fuel, oil, and other combustible material exist is the aluminum melted.

Standard aircraft design, even at that time, was to eliminate any combustible structure and skin in the engine area. Common safety practice.

Wright had the problem that the engines for the b29 (R-3350) should deliver 1hp/ibs.
To reach that goal they used magnesium in the engine housing.
The result were that a engine fire usually burned through the main spar of the wing,
with predictable results.

S!

Japanese used the T-7178 aluminum that was light, but burned easier than normal aircraft aluminum. No source indicates Bf109 being any more suspectible to fire than any other plane of that era.

Using pure Mg is nuts.
But even MgAl alloys burn well, just takes a little more to ignite them.

You are right but Oleg is talking about something else I am sure--- He wouldn't make an entire German airforce in the game lit up like roman candles. would he? lol

given the fact his German planes(and bombs) are far superior to allied equipment?


Nooooooo... :rolleyes:;)

An exception becuase of the ill-conceived action to achieve a design goal (1hp per 1 Lb of engine weight, pressuring to cut corners)

My father was in the army in WW2 (Signals) and witnessed German planes burning very quickly but wasn't sure why. Then one day (after D-Day landings) he found some German a/c wreckage to use for materials and set about heating it up to bend it only to find that it went up in a white hot flame in his hands! Luckily he wasn't injured but he then understood why some parts of some planes burned very quickly. He has confirmed to me it was magnesium and was probably used simply because there was more of it available. (or weight saving as said above)

Fave plane porked?