Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

OK lets distinguish between two things ...

a) game balancing where modifications are made to red and blue side so they have roughly equal chances of success

b) game balancing where inherent biases in the game engine are countered by adjusting data. For example if the game-engine/damage-model used means heavy machine guns are too effective when compared to real life, then adjust the figures for those guns so overall they behave more realistically.


I had the impression that in IL2 a) does NOT occur but b) does. This means unless you know the reasons for the adjustments viewing the raw data in the cracked code can give a false impression of game bias.

It also means that in terms of user created aircraft just plugging in the correct raw data does NOT guarantee an aircraft that performs correctly compared to the historical original.

Hear, hear! This point is too often left out (other issues aside)

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

@ WTE_Galway

First of all you are preoccupied by saying that "the users only copy FM data to create a new one".
Which is wrong. In the beggining, 2 years ago it was the truth, but now, it is not. Them more the people dig in the "code", the most accurate FMs they produce and it applies to every aspect of game.

And you take for granted that game's data in every aspect is "correct", or "balanced", etc...
While you can only "speculate" these things, i can talk with absolute values.

A VERY small sample from the bombs

Compare the FAB500 and SC500 Iron Bombs:


__________________Fab1000___________SC1000
Effective Radius___500 m ___________168 m
Weight of HE_______555 kg___________630 kg
Weight of Bomb___1000 kg__________1090 kg




And now lets see the 1 ton iron bombs, the last example:

FAB1000

And compare it with the German 1 ton SC1000


__________________Fab1000___________SC1000
Effective Radius___500 m ___________168 m
Weight of HE_______555 kg___________630 kg
Weight of Bomb___1000 kg__________1090 kg




Now this does explain some issues in the game, doesn't it ? A lot of people had the "feeling" of being inneffective when they bombed targets, but they did not have the solid data to argue or support their "feeling". If they had this i would say they would have an argument, wouldn't they?
And we are talking for bombs having the Same KGs, they belong to the same "family" (iron bombs) and used for the same general purpose.
So the data are absolute. The numbers are absolute.

There are litterally dozens of things like this. So if someone put more appropriate data would this be a bad biased "hack"? And if so, then what can be said about the game's data?

And believe me if i start with the air cannons and Mgs.....

Cheers

P.S.
And because someone here talked about Pylon weights;

ALL the following Pylons have ZERO Weight on plane:
PylonRO_82_1
PylonRO_82_3
PylonPE8_FAB100
PylonPE8_FAB250
PylonMG15120Internal


The 4 of them are Russian Bomb and Rocket Pylons and the other is the German MG151/20 Internal cannon firing through the wing root.

The Dual pylon of MG151/20 (PylonMG15120x2) weights 450 kilos.

And all there rest weight 150 kilos y default.


The TD Changed in 4.09m the rest pylons weight that instead of 150kg they weight 15 kg.


Judge for yourself. That practically means that it is adviasable to take Rockets on Russian fighters because there is no penalty for added drag, since it is 0.

And weight here mainly means Drag!

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

An something else:
Everybody complains about the "sniper gunners". Well, there is a parameter that defines the "angle error" of the 'bullet", for each weapon.
This is the "Dispersion" of each gun. The Sniper value is the ZERO dispersion, and the more we increase it, the less accurate this weapon is,
and thus the gunner.

Lets see the Berezin B-20 20mm Soviet cannon when mounts a defensive installation in a bomber:


maxDeltaAngle = 0.0F;

It means that despite it is mounted in a flexible defensive installation its dispersion value is "0", meaning that chances are you get a bullet in your head in no-time.

Lets check the German MG151/20 when mounted in a defensive installation:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.25F;

It has a considerable dispersion value so you won't get a bullet in your head so easily. But still this value is somehow high
compared with the value that the same weapon has when mounted in a plane.

And last lets check the MG131 when it mounts a defensive position:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.35F;

Again, you are fee to judge

[MicroWave]

Fascinating.
Which planes use this MGunB20t installation?

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Well, this Berzin 20mm is not used But the SvVAK 20mm IS, and it also has 0 dispersion value:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.0F;

It is used by PE-8 Heavy Bomber.

Sorry that i confused these 2 20mm Soviet sniper cannons. Now you know that a 20mm Cannon is as accurate as a sniper gun.
And BTW, don't you find "fascinating" the bomb data?
could you clarify this for us please?

Thank you for your time,

[jermin]

Very nice posts, Hades!

Though I'm not a fan of mods because there are too many cheating mod users online. (In fact, I have not played IL2 for months because of this.) But I'm standing on your side this time. Thank you for providing us the facts that prove our 'feeling' was right. I'll wait and see whether BoB will still have such intentionally unbalanced FMs before I make a purchase.

[MicroWave]

You didn't confuse anything. Your agenda was clear from the start.
One plane out of cca 300 hundred has a wrong gun with maxDeltaAngle bug, so what? It happens to be a Russian bomber. Just as easily it could have been one of the Luftwaffe bombers.

What is exactly wrong with the bomb data? Do you have any historical evidence or historical tests which prove otherwise? If indeed it is a bug, how big it must have been when nobody made a simple ingame test for 10 years? Do you expect developers to jump every time when someone says that there might be something wrong?

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

What i wrote above is known. An the TD guys know them.
I really hope that all these will be fixed one day.

Cheers

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by MicroWave

You didn't confuse anything. Your agenda was clear from the start.

Do you REALLY want to start over this?
Come on,
And you confirmed that i was right about the 20mm sniper-gun. Thank you for this.

And about the bombs:
So it is Perfectly OK Bombs of the SAME "family", having the SAME weight to have 3+ times greater effective radius?

There are data, yes. So you say that you haven't found any? And again, what makes you think that a bomb of the same weight using the same technology can have >3 times more the effective radius?

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

An something else:
Everybody complains about the "sniper gunners". Well, there is a parameter that defines the "angle error" of the 'bullet", for each weapon.
This is the "Dispersion" of each gun. The Sniper value is the ZERO dispersion, and the more we increase it, the less accurate this weapon is,
and thus the gunner.

Lets see the Berezin B-20 20mm Soviet cannon when mounts a defensive installation in a bomber:


maxDeltaAngle = 0.0F;

It means that despite it is mounted in a flexible defensive installation its dispersion value is "0", meaning that chances are you get a bullet in your head in no-time.

Lets check the German MG151/20 when mounted in a defensive installation:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.25F;

It has a considerable dispersion value so you won't get a bullet in your head so easily. But still this value is somehow high
compared with the value that the same weapon has when mounted in a plane.

And last lets check the MG131 when it mounts a defensive position:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.24F;

Again, you are fee to judge

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Do you REALLY want to start over this?
Come on,
And you confirmed that i was right about the 20mm sniper-gun. Thank you for this.

And about the bombs:
So it is Perfectly OK Bombs of the SAME "family", having the SAME weight to have 3+ times greater effective radius?

There are data, yes. So you say that you haven't found any? And again, what makes you think that a bomb of the same weight using the same technology can have >3 times more the effective radius?

Start? No. I'll let the readers be be the judge of your posts.

You were right about something? I wouldn't go that far. Maybe in your political views you lean to the right.

I was perfectly clear about the bombs effectiveness. Without historical evidence and/or documents, the numbers stay the same as they are. There is no other option.

Anything else?