Friday 2010-11-19 Dev. update and Discussion

[Blakduk]

These screenshots just keep getting better- the one of the Defiant being tailed by two 109's is extraordinary. Without too much effort that could be used by a movie studio- the lighting, atmospheric distortions, horizon etc look fantastic. The only obvious giveaway is the lack of antialiasing.
Oleg, this is looking like a masterpiece- the motion blur on the propellor is nearly perfect. I think i recall a previous statement that the virtual shutter-speed could be adjusted to get just the effect that the artist wanted.
I cant wait to see the damage modelling in action- the fragments raised at the wingtip look very realistic. I wonder are they pre-rendered or will each damage effect be unique/different?

[Daniël]

[QUOTE=kendo65;199695]I assumed they were 110s, but on a closer look? Flying in vics and the plan of the trailing edge of the wings is more Hampden-like (or maybe just a trick of perspective).

QUOTE]

It's a BR.20 Not a Bf110 or a Hampden.

[kendo65]

[QUOTE=Daniël;199705]

Originally Posted by kendo65

I assumed they were 110s, but on a closer look? Flying in vics and the plan of the trailing edge of the wings is more Hampden-like (or maybe just a trick of perspective).

QUOTE]

It's a BR.20 Not a Bf110 or a Hampden.

Forgot about the Italians. Oh well, there goes another conspiracy theory...

[Sutts]

A quick question Oleg please....

It's my understanding that .303 ammo would at best make lots of small holes in an airframe and hopefully some of those holes would be in vital equipment and fuel and oil lines which could be ignited by the incendiary rounds. I also remember you saying that in SoW rifle caliber ammo will make a small hole exactly where it hits while cannon shells will produce more visible damage such as the large holes and torn skin we see in the He 111 shot.

What I'm wondering is what produced the damage we see in that shot of the heavily damaged He 111? There is a .303 equipped Spitfire behind it but the damage is not consistent with those guns.

Was it flak perhaps or another cannon armed Spitfire nearby?


Thanks!

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Please don't start Philip. This is a ludicrous question that will waste Oleg's time when he answers and you strike up a conversation. What do you want to know? If the relationship between the gunner arm length and harness release is realistically modelled, and their personality included in an algorithm to work out when they decide to try it so that we have an historically accurate chance of a rear gunner bailing out?

As Heywoood said, the problem was in getting out of the turret! Many couldn't fit through the tight opening (if they were lucky to get it open) and in most cases it just wouldn't open. The parasuit helped them to fit through, but that was only given that they were able to open the damned thing!
Consequently, many parasuits were given out to other members of bomber-command because they were in surplus (a shame they aren't in surplus today! )

Sorry, I can see the misunderstanding.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sutts

A quick question Oleg please....

It's my understanding that .303 ammo would at best make lots of small holes in an airframe and hopefully some of those holes would be in vital equipment and fuel and oil lines which could be ignited by the incendiary rounds. I also remember you saying that in SoW rifle caliber ammo will make a small hole exactly where it hits while cannon shells will produce more visible damage such as the large holes and torn skin we see in the He 111 shot.

What I'm wondering is what produced the damage we see in that shot of the heavily damaged He 111? There is a .303 equipped Spitfire behind it but the damage is not consistent with those guns.

Was it flak perhaps or another cannon armed Spitfire nearby?


Thanks!

There was only one squadron operating cannon armed 1b's during the battle, and these usually jammed, to the extent that 19 squadron demanded their .303's back.
Eight .303's toed in to converge at a point at 200 yards have more effect than people tend to give them credit for.

Hi Oleg, thanks for the update, i have a question though regarding pic number 5 of the third set, the shot up heinkel shows some wonderful damge features on the tail and on the fuselage, but on the wings it looks like some big ink splodges, is this just a detail setting or is it still WIP. Thank you.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

There was only one squadron operating cannon armed 1b's during the battle, and these usually jammed, to the extent that 19 squadron demanded their .303's back.
Eight .303's toed in to converge at a point at 200 yards have more effect than people tend to give them credit for.

I guess 8 rapidly firing guns might be able to put a lot of lead in one area. I can see panels popping off under such a barrage. What I can't see is large holes appearing in the skin which to me is more consistent with an explosive charge exploding on contact or beneath the skin.

The few photos I've seen of German aircraft downed during the BoB show lots of small holes and tears in the skin. The holes often look larger due to the flaking paint around the entry hole. Skin may lift due to rivets popping but I haven't seen big holes caused by .303s yet.

Would be nice to see some real life damage shots posted here if anyone has any please.

Cheers

[Daniël]

Originally Posted by Sutts

I guess 8 rapidly firing guns might be able to put a lot of lead in one area. I can see panels popping off under such a barrage. What I can't see is large holes appearing in the skin which to me is more consistent with an explosive charge exploding on contact or beneath the skin.

The few photos I've seen of German aircraft downed during the BoB show lots of small holes and tears in the skin. The holes often look larger due to the flaking paint around the entry hole. Skin may lift due to rivets popping but I haven't seen big holes caused by .303s yet.

Would be nice to see some real life damage shots posted here if anyone has any please.

Cheers

In one of the privious Friday updates there were some nice pictures of damage to planes posted by Xilon X, but I don't know which Friday update.

[tityus]

I failed to post before and this reply wil be at the 20th page. I hope you still reading Oleg...

I may have failed to read, but I saw only what apparently is a toggle for the undercarriage. To have separate UP and DOWN commands for the Undercarriage instead of using the same key, would be very beneficial for the simpit builders out there.

Please, consider it...

Bolelas: Can anyone tell me if the game will have the possibillity of adding on/of switches instead of having only the momentary switches like the ones on the keyboard?

Where's the problem, use a flip switch, up and down each give the same signal, just like in IL2.

The only thing you should make sure is, that the switch is in down position before you lift off - can't go wrong.

On the ground, one would have to flip switches to match the condition of the aircraft spawn in game - otherwise you would have reversed states. This can be an issue if a mission have planes attached do another, in-flight, or for an airstart mission. However, this suggestion is a practical low cost approach that shouldn't be discarded. It's very cost-effective, for its compromise.

Blackdog: An instantaneous switch would just send the command "gear up", but having a two-way switch that stays in place would trasmit "gear up...gear up...gear up..." all the time
Although, i think that you can get around this limitation by using certain kinds of circuit design for your custom controller.

Blackdog is right. There are some boards out there that act the way a simpit needs: they send one pulse of a user programmed key when the switch is flipped and another when it is flipped back. By sending a key instead of having it "pressed" all the time, it avoids "shrinking" of the keyboard or matrix conflicts... and depending on the project, it won't drain excessive current.

té mais
tityus