Friday 2010-11-19 Dev. update and Discussion

[Feathered_IV]

Fantastic update. Tells us all kinds of stuff.

That pic of the distant aircraft leaving contrails... Twin engines, narrow fuselage, broad wings with pointed tips and straight, twin tail. Are those Hampdens?

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by AdMan

Will there be an option to map different keys for different planes?

Are the key mappings universal for all planes? It would be much easier if you can choose the desired aircraft to map keys for, also when you select a certain aircraft the controls that don't pertain to that plane can disappear or at least be grayed out so it would be easier to identify the features of that plane without having to have a pilot manual or be an expert on that plane

small features like this just make sense and make the game more streamlined and user-friendly

Good suggestion here, as long as i wouldn't have to map everything from scratch for every single aircraft. Maybe having a universal, base file or the ability to copy control schemes between planes would help with that, so that we wouldn't have to map universal controls like gear and flaps every time.

For example, i set everything up in the base control scheme, then select a hurricane and see i'm missing some controls, but not all of them (since the basic ones are covered in the base control scheme). I then go into the options screen and start a hurricane specific control scheme. The interface "reads" the information from the base file and transfers the universal control assignments, then i only define the missing controls that are specific to this aircraft and save it as "hurricane".

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Good suggestion here, as long as i wouldn't have to map everything from scratch for every single aircraft. Maybe having a universal, base file or the ability to copy control schemes between planes would help with that, so that we wouldn't have to map universal controls like gear and flaps every time.

For example, i set everything up in the base control scheme, then select a hurricane and see i'm missing some controls, but not all of them (since the basic ones are covered in the base control scheme). I then go into the options screen and start a hurricane specific control scheme. The interface "reads" the information from the base file and transfers the universal control assignments, then i only define the missing controls that are specific to this aircraft and save it as "hurricane".

exactly you have your "defaults" that you set once, then you can go into each plane and customize

as an example, if you're a Nvidia user it would be like your graphic settings in the Nvidia control panel, you set your default settings but then you can select the games you have installed on your computer (games=planes in this analogy), for each option you can choose "use default" or set a customization.

unfortunately this idea will probably go unnoticed and mapping keys will continue to be a monumental task, one of my biggest gripes with PC gaming.

PLEASE READ OLEG, IF YOU NEED TRANSLATION ASK LUTHIER

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

Fantastic update. Tells us all kinds of stuff.

That pic of the distant aircraft leaving contrails... Twin engines, narrow fuselage, broad wings with pointed tips and straight, twin tail. Are those Hampdens?

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).

I don't know.

Surely they wouldn't spring a surprise like that at this stage?

I'm not usually one to fall into the wilder 'speculation' that can come up here.

A moment's weakness

[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!

[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.

[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