Little Comment on Sound

[III/JG53_Don]

Hey Guys
First of all: the new Sound engine is awesome! Never thought to hear something like this in a il2 stock game and I was wrong fortunately.
Sure it is a huuuge improvement compared to the old ones but as it is still being called "beta", let's think about what needs some finetuning.
What do you think about the new Sound in detail?

My main wishes for sound expanding/finetuning are:

1. Bombers are way too quiet for its power/dimension. Especially compared to the great sounds of a 109. Switching External Views from a 109 or Spit to any two-engine aircraft there is a big lack of volume. The 109 is very loud and sounds powerfull whereas the power of a He-111/Ju-88/Blenheim/Wellington engine is barely noticeable. The drone of a Bomber (outside and inside the aircraft) should be almost overwelming ^^ I want to fall off my chair when a group of bombers approach or when I sit in one of them with two engines left and right my ears.

2. The Spitfire engine needs some finetuning imho. Right now it doesnt have this "Whoaa a Spitfire" effect if you know what I mean

3. Some sounds for pushing the atmosphere like bird-singing when your canopy is open, the rushing sea etc.

4. More sounds when using the cockpit instruments like the nice "clicks" when you switch your magnetos on etc. Some are still silent.

Especially the bomber sounds are the main letdown with the wonderfull new engine. They have to be loud and must not disappear near a single tiny 109

P.S.: I miss the nice dialects of the german speakers in Il2 1946

[Winger]

the 20mm guns of the 109 should produce some more bass in my opinion. Sounded better post new soundsystem in my opinon.
Also the 7.92 mm of the 109 sound kind of "strange". Dunno how to say it. Just a little strange...

Winger

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by Winger

the 20mm guns of the 109 should produce some more bass in my opinion. Sounded better post new soundsystem in my opinon.
Also the 7.92 mm of the 109 sound kind of "strange". Dunno how to say it. Just a little strange...

Winger

Hmmm see i think the 7.92mm sounds ok...

Are these the same guns that they used on the ground? the so called 'devils paintbrush'? MG42

If they are then they sound pretty dam life like, if not then il shut up as i have no idea what im talking about

[fireflyerz]

Rubbish boy.

[JG3_Hartmann]

Well, they´re not the same weapon. But, its the same caliber, and I think they sound really good. They sound like what they are...small and "uneffective".

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Are these the same guns that they used on the ground? the so called 'devils paintbrush'? MG42

Actually the MG17 based on the Swiss Solothurn MG2-200 which was a German Development and built in Switzerland. The MG2-200 was the development basis for the future Development of the MG 17 and the MG 34.
The MG 42 was a complete new development only to use the same standard German 8x57IS round from those days.

[Kongo-Otto]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

The MG42 wasn't based of the MG34? I never knew that! My lesson of the day!

It was developed to get rid of the Flaws from the MG 34 and it was way easier to manufacture then the MG 34.
The misconception that the MG 42 was a Development from the MG 34 results that ther has been a development called MG 34/41 which was only produced in limited numbers, this weapon was beaten in trials from the
MG 39/41 which later became the MG 42.
The MG 42 was THE Machinegun to face the needs of the Eastern front, it was reliable in dust and even the coldest winters.
Nevertheless the German Industry was never able to fully phase out the MG 34.

From Wiki:
In order to address these issues, a contest was held for a true MG 34 replacement. Three companies were asked to submit designs: Metall und Lackierwarenfabrik Johannes Großfuß AG of Döbeln, Rheinmetall-Borsig of Sömmerda, and Stübgen of Erfurt.[3] Of the number of proposals submitted, Großfuß AG's proved to be the best design, by far, employing a unique recoil-operated roller locking mechanism whereas the two competing designs used a gas-actuated system.[3] Interestingly, the company had no prior experience in weapons manufacture, specializing in pressed and stamped steel parts (the company's staple product was sheet metal lanterns).[3] Ernst Grunow, one of the leading design engineers with Großfuß, knew nothing about machine guns when he was given the task of being involved with the project, but he specialized in the technology of mass production. Grunow would attend an army machine gunner's course in order to familiarize himself with the utility and characteristics of such a weapon, also seeking input from soldiers. He then recycled an existing Mauser-developed operating system and incorporated features from his experiences with army machine gunners and lessons learned during the early stages of the war.[3] The new design required considerably less tooling and was much simpler to build—it took 75 man hours to complete the new gun as opposed to 150 man hours for the MG 34 (a 50% reduction), and cost 250 RM as opposed to 327 RM (a 24% reduction). The MG 42 was made out of stamped metal, making it much easier to produce than other machine guns.

[JG53Frankyboy]

the sounds have improved to the retail version, no doubt.
fortunatly luthier said about the actual soundstatus:
"4. Sound. The sound in the v15950 is considered a beta. We will continue to improve existing sound, and to add new ones to the aircraft and to the world around them."
because yes, the quality of the sound is a lot different in different planes. as mentioned the bombers a very bad.

[JimmyBlonde]

Originally Posted by III/JG53_Don

I want to fall off my chair when a group of bombers approach or when I sit in one of them with two engines left and right my ears.

Haha, as if the epilepsy filter controversy wasn't enough. Imagine how 1C's lawyers are going to react when the have to cover "falling off chair" insurance.

(I agree totally by the way, bombers should be LOUD!)

[mazex]

Originally Posted by III/JG53_Don

1. Bombers are way too quiet for its power/dimension. Especially compared to the great sounds of a 109. Switching External Views from a 109 or Spit to any two-engine aircraft there is a big lack of volume. The 109 is very loud and sounds powerfull whereas the power of a He-111/Ju-88/Blenheim/Wellington engine is barely noticeable. The drone of a Bomber (outside and inside the aircraft) should be almost overwelming ^^ I want to fall off my chair when a group of bombers approach or when I sit in one of them with two engines left and right my ears.

Even though I generally agree, didn't the bombers really have a bit weaker and less aggressively tuned engines than the fighters, even though they had two of them which will cause more sound and resonance? If you have two fans in your PC-chassis of the same type, the sound is really not that much louder than one?

When you are at an airshow the fighters are rather loud but the twin engine aircraft are a bit softer IMO at least? That's maybe cause we often hear late war fighters that are more in the ~2000hp monster supercharger class compared to 2 x ~1000 hp bombers. In 1940 they where not that different so...

Still - I agree that the bombers lack the "fat" sound one really expects in CoD, especially as some of the fighters like the 109 are so awesome now!