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

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

The German iron bombs also had the sharpnel "effect":
The following are from the SC German bombs:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...7/P5200004.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...7/P5200005.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...7/P5200006.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...7/P5200007.jpg

Then this proves my point perfectly and shows that German SCs were NOT pre-fragmented from inside the body to produce thousands of small fragments that cover larger areas and can cause damage way beyond the ranges of the blast effect. You pics shows huge chunks of the body and not fragments. Sure they would kill, but they don't cover any big are and wont fly as far small ones.

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by Viikate

Do we really need be here on standby hitting F5 constantly in case Hades has posted something demanding for answers? I already answered to Hades that he is wrong about the maxDeltaAngle causing the sniper effect, but he refused to acccept this.

I did not refuse anything. I also stated 2 Different things that:
A) The ShVAK 20 mm cannot has ZERO dispersion value when it mounts Defensive Flexible Installations, and this is WRONG! It makes this weapon to behave like a Sniper gun! What did you Not understand?

B) I also stated that the "angle error" also plays Significant role in the Sniper effect, and i told you to Change this to a large value and you won't get EVER hit by a Defensive Gunner even if he is an "ACE:. What, again, you did not understand?
I stated this because many guns have too small dispersion values, they are even more accurate than they are when the fire from Fixed positions like wings or propelor-hubs.
Can you deny this also? I can write data for this in no time

Originally Posted by Viikate

Not my problem if Hades cannot analyse the code enough to find the real problem. Using same logic as Hades, I could equally say that if I set the ammo count to zero, the problem is fixed. So "the ammo count ALSO plays significant role in this aspect."

If i understand correctly, i have said something like this to Justify the NEED to CHANGE the WRONG sniper-values for Flecible Defensive Cannon Installations. I hope i am clear.

Originally Posted by Viikate

Wrong cockpits? Did I miss something?

Overheating issues maybe? Wrong indications from instruments maybe?

Originally Posted by Viikate

For 4.09 TD proposed to MG that 15kg might be more better value for a generic pylon weight and it would solve the overweight problem of planes with lots of small pylons (8 rockets for example). Not that this was very relevant fix, since we planned already back then to set all individual pylon weights.

Do you really think that there is actual data that states that generic weight for all pylons is 15kg. It's simple approximation based of the fact that most of the pylons are simple rocket rails or small wing bomb racks.

So you Confirm that you do "approximations" already, not backed-up by any Real Data. But when i talked about "approximations" based on game's data for Same weight, family, caliber, for weapons and/or bombs you got Screamed about "Reliable data".
Thank you Viikate for confirming that you also do approximations, be that good or bad. When you do it, its good, but IF someone else do it, then "it/he is bad".

Originally Posted by Viikate

Well would you change something like the MK 108 power value just because someone states that:

"While historically 4 shots were needed to down a B-17.
In game you need around 10."

There are numerus Pilot reports from WWII and documantaries stating this.
Yest you deny this. Perhaps we should just do an "approximation".
Maybe you are right.

Originally Posted by Viikate

So the problem is with the MK 108 and not with the B-17 DM? If we would just blindly change the MK 108, it could have very dramatic effect when shooting small fighters.

We are being testing all the game's guns for a long time, close to year and came up that "if" you put real life data then you need around 1-2 30mm hits from close range to shot down a fighter. It complies Perfectly with WWII war reports, pilots accounts and documentaries.

Originally Posted by Viikate

BTW Emil. Are you 100% sure that the power variable in MK 108 round is the full weight of explosive content.

It is. You say it is not the HE content? Interesting. Then, what is it then?
OR you are saying that other values play importand role in this, which is of course true.

Originally Posted by Viikate

When you view the decompiled code, you only see the final value of 42 grams. In the original source code the final value comes from formula or several values, just like the caliber (which has nothing to do with actual caliber).

True, it is what i wrote just above. That "many values are responsible for weapon's destructiveness".
So, where are the news about this?

Originally Posted by Viikate

So far this thread has provided ZERO real credible reference about any bomb blast radius. No real credible hard data, no change.

Please, could you just show me CREDIBLE data that makes the 2001 data for the Bombs to be False while to justify the current data as correct? Please?

Originally Posted by Viikate

TD gets huge amount of e-mails from people asking to change this and that. Most of them are asking us to change something that would have really big effects in game without ANY real references. Just like this thread lately.

I have talked for Very Specific Things and Very Specific game data.
I doubt that you had any kind of request like this.

Originally Posted by Viikate

Mods have a luxury of begin uninstallable (plus there are also many mods that restore the original FM or original weapon parameters). Any change in the patch is something that is permanent for the players who don't use mods. So we don't change something very lightly just because some guy comes here to say that he has decompiled the source code and knows that wrong variable X is causing problem Y.

~4 times bigger the blast for certain bombs and almost twise the destruction of certain guns, Zero weight Pylons, Never Overheating Issues, etc are something "very light"?

Ok, i understand now your logic.
Keep up the good work.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by Viikate

Wrong cockpits? Did I miss something?

Late war instruments put into early war planes(found for German side, haven´t checked for any other planes)

F

or 4.09 TD proposed to MG that 15kg might be more better value for a generic pylon weight and it would solve the overweight problem of planes with lots of small pylons (8 rockets for example). Not that this was very relevant fix, since we planned already back then to set all individual pylon weights.

Here you use an estimated value that seems credible.
With the FABs you don´t

Do you really think that there is actual data that states that generic weight for all pylons is 15kg. It's simple approximation based of the fact that most of the pylons are simple rocket rails or small wing bomb racks.

I bet it would be hard to find in any book or the internet, I guess.
But one could do an active search and send emails to Flugwerk in Germany and others.

Well would you change something like the MK 108 power value just because someone states that:

"While historically 4 shots were needed to down a B-17.
In game you need around 10."

The weapon was developed as a private venture by the company in 1940 and was submitted to the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM—Reich Aviation Ministry) in response to a 1942 requirement for a heavy aircraft weapon for use against the Allied bombers appearing en masse in German skies by then. Testing verified that the autocannon was well-suited to this role, requiring on average just four hits with high-explosive ammunition to bring down a heavy bomber such as a B-17 Flying Fortress or B-24 Liberator and a single hit to down a fighter. In comparison, the otherwise excellent 20 mm MG 151/20 required an average of 25 hits to down a B-17.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon

So the problem is with the MK 108 and not with the B-17 DM? If we would just blindly change the MK 108, it could have very dramatic effect when shooting small fighters.

BTW Emil. Are you 100% sure that the power variable in MK 108 round is the full weight of explosive content. When you view the decompiled code, you only see the final value of 42 grams. In the original source code the final value comes from formula or several values, just like the caliber (which has nothing to do with actual caliber).

I don´t really care a lot what is coded how.
What do care about is the outcome.
Il2 is supposed to be a simulation (I hoped it was), so let´s simulate that a B-17 can be downed with Mk108 4-5 bullet-hits average or 25 MG151/20mm bullet-hits.
I trust in your abilities and your tools.

So far this thread has provided ZERO real credible reference about any bomb blast radius. No real credible hard data, no change. TD gets huge amount of e-mails from people asking to change this and that. Most of them are asking us to change something that would have really big effects in game without ANY real references. Just like this thread lately.

It has proven that the FAB values were changed during the game developement without an referencing.

Mods have a luxury of begin uninstallable (plus there are also many mods that restore the original FM or original weapon parameters). Any change in the patch is something that is permanent for the players who don't use mods. So we don't change something very lightly just because some guy comes here to say that he has decompiled the source code and knows that wrong variable X is causing problem Y.

I don´t expect you to jump on every train passing by.
But I would expect at least some consideration and valid points.

[MicroWave]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

So do you call me a "liar" now?
At first you said that things like the Sniper ShVAKs 20mm gunner in Pe8 is "not a big problem" and you did not deny the meaning of the "delta angle" error. So, if does not indicate the Accuracy (dispersion) of the gun, please enlighten us, oh wise one, please. We are 'imbeciles" so we rely on your wisdom. Please, what does the "angle error" mean?

I'm not at liberty to discuss internal game mechanics with you. Just let me remind you of your posts recently:
1) B20 is used on Russian bombers and it is the cause of Sniper gunner accuracy. You failed to mention there are a number of Luftwaffe guns with the same entry.
When proved to be false, you continue
2) AHA, but there is another Russian gun which is used on one plane.
I performed ingame tests and didn't notice observable effect, if any when changing the variable. Something you could have done instead of barging in like a cowboy.
You also failed to mention that there is another gun with that entry that is used by a Luftwaffe plane.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

And for bombs you said that it is the way they are, so you confirmed the data are correct. But now you come here and accuse me of being a "liar". Please, oh wise one, enlighten us what these parameters mean? Please do, since we are so ignorant.

Again, I'm not at liberty to discuss internal game mechanics with you. I can confirm that some of the bomb parameters look odd. At this moment it is unclear how they affect the game. Therefore it is not clear if, and to what value they should be changed.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

So, despite they "look" "fishy" they are "correct". And then, how come and in the 2001 Original IL2 release these values Did NOT look "fishy" ?
could you explain please? Since you are the wisdom-holder.
Moreover people DO confirm these largely false data. They can "FEEL" them but they have not the data to support their feeling. Now they have.
Could you also explain to us ignorants, the meaning of the Bomb values i posted? Please?

Yes they are considered as accurate. Until proven otherwise. The proof consists of performing (preferably repeatable) ingame tests and gathering historical info. Some physical interpolation and interpretation can be used if historical info is incomplete.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Really? So, where are Your Historical sources for the pylons you made to weight 15 kilos? Can we see your "Sources" please?
Can we also see your sources that start the mentone bomb and rocket pylons to have Zero weight?

We have significant amount of sources regarding pylon weights and pylon weights will be changed in 4.10. I believe it was announced already?

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Moreover can you show us your "sources" that justify the Double-Penetration value of some Weapons? Lets say the ShKAS over the .303 Brownings. can we see that please?

I'm not familiar with the subject.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Also, can we see your sources that proove the data from the 2001 release about Bombs as FALSE while the current game data be regarded as corrrect?

No. Those numbers were changed by 1C/Maddox and I have no reason not to trust them without a concrete proof that they are wrong. See one of the answers above.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Please, as i wrote above: can we see your data about the 15 Kgs pylons and for the Zero-Weight pylons also? Also about the guns, Bombs, etc....

As I said, pylons weight are changed in 4.10, no point in discussing 4.09. I can also confirm that 15kg pylon weight is a bug and was brought to our attention by someone performing ingame tests.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Many people have informed you for the many bugs that this game suffers, but you did nothing.

I beg to differ.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

It does not only "looks" fishy, it FEELS "fishy", it IS Wrong! Like the overheating issues, the extraordinary destructiveness of Certain Bombs, Weapons, etc...
With such an attitude, i am not surprised

And what is right then? The rest is just assorted pile of complaints with zero value. No surprise.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I keep myself out of that other 'discussion' and pick a sympatic request:

Originally Posted by Tempest123

Okay, back to the point of this thread, I have another small request, the default skins for the A6M zero's are not so good, particularly the A6M5 and up, especially considering the other Japanese aircraft have some excellent skins. There are lots of great skins out there from Jaypack44 and others, and it would be nice to have some better ones as default given that this is the "de facto" japanese fighter for most of the war. I hope the pacific aircraft don't get lost in the endless "VVS vs Luftwaffe" debate.

There is a long time plan to rework default skins systematicly.
To have best results, we prefer to have done them nation-wise, by one or two skinners per nation only. This is a huge task (with not so high priority though), either by painting work and organizing work. What we will not do, is picking out single plane types (except if that planetype is fixed also in the model like i.e. Hs129) and asking authors for single skins.

But you are right, there are some wonderfull skins out there.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Late war instruments put into early war planes(found for German side, haven´t checked for any other planes)

Emil, could you make a list of incorrect instrumentation (planetype + instrument)? That might be helpful for our cockpit 3D gurus.

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Here you use an estimated value that seems credible.

I hope I'm not putting my foot into my mouth here but the pylons were a special case. When the issue was raised (just prior to 4.09) we didn't yet have the authorization of Maddox Games to continue development so, while we certainly wanted to do it right from the start, we were still in legal limbo and couldn't. Back then our core team didn't have the tools yet, either. But now, as Microwave said, 4.10 will bring individual pylon weights so the issue will be settled.

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

I don´t really care a lot what is coded how.
What do care about is the outcome.
Il2 is supposed to be a simulation (I hoped it was), so let´s simulate that a B-17 can be downed with Mk108 4-5 bullet-hits average or 25 MG151/20mm bullet-hits.
I trust in your abilities and your tools.

General comment: Damage modelling and especially weapon effects are not an exact science. Statements such as "5 hits were enough to down a B-17" should not be understood in absolute terms. Sometimes a single hit may be enough, sometimes ten hits aren't enough. That's Murphy for you ...

[Ltbear]

About bombs. Well some feels abit wrong some feels useless etc.

I have been folowing this debate abit, but in general talking about bombs are talking about different cars. The structure of bombs are a nightmare to follow since they change in some way every 6th month of the war.

German multipurpose bombs was not fragmentet (or many of them was not) The germans used a 5 step fusing instead so the bomb detonatet in 5 stages (5 series fusing)

This in general gave about the same result as a fragmentet bomb.

Again the Germans had SD, SC, PD and AB bombs and in many cases there is versions up to mark III of the same bomb. Each version with some modifications (effect)

With all these bombs, and the limitet versions made ingame you have to do a compremise, you cant have them all (sad actualy but well)

If you look at the games versions of bombs and how they work they are a decent compremise for all these bombs. It could be better, but again, we want it all, but have to patch what we have.

I have only talked about German bombs here, all fighting nations made and used bombs in many many variations, think of the task going through 2000-2500 different bombs and then implement the "fair" changes.

At the end i agree that some bombs feels wierd, especially when you know abit about bombs, but i live with it because i understand the insane ammount of researtch it would take adjusting them. A dummy bomb is actualy not a dummy, its a fairly complicatet device when you look at fusing and structure....A German fragmentation bomb is around as effective (90%) as a American, Russian or other bomb. The problem "tuning" it would be what version should you adjust after, year? Fusing? Mark number?

well enough stupidity from me....

Ltbear

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

So you Confirm that you do "approximations" already, not backed-up by any Real Data. But when i talked about "approximations" based on game's data for Same weight, family, caliber, for weapons and/or bombs you got Screamed about "Reliable data".
Thank you Viikate for confirming that you also do approximations, be that good or bad. When you do it, its good, but IF someone else do it, then "it/he is bad".

I guess you still don't understand that there is no correct answer for the pylon weight if it is one single values for ALL pylons (except those few mentioned before). Therefore it is approximation.

This is same as trying to find a value that is a result of every possible calculation that the current math knows. So was 150kg more correct value for the average rocket rail/bomb rack than 15kg. This change was bad in your opinion? It should have been heavier than 150kg so you have more to whine about?

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by MicroWave

I'm not at liberty to discuss internal game mechanics with you. Just let me remind you of your posts recently:

So your assumption and claim that i am a "liar" and these values mean something else are not valid since you don't provide any credible answer or data.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

1) B20 is used on Russian bombers and it is the cause of Sniper gunner accuracy.

I did Not say this. I only stressed that there is a Cannon that has Zero dispersion value when it used in Flexible Defensive Installations. And that this Value makes it behave like a Sniper-gun.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

You failed to mention there are a number of Luftwaffe guns with the same entry.

I would really appreciate to tell me what this gun is. If it exist though and used in a bomber, why don't you fix this also?

Originally Posted by MicroWave

When proved to be false, you continue

Nope, i accidentally posted another Cannon wich happened to be first in my folder-sorting by date. So i clicked this instead of the correct one.
If you like it or not i won't loose sleep over it.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

2) AHA, but there is another Russian gun which is used on one plane.

Check what i wrote above. And again i did not say that it is used in More than one planes. I just gave an example of how many "unoticed" bugs exist in game. And you intent to do Zero to fix them.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

I performed ingame tests and didn't notice observable effect, if any when changing the variable. Something you could have done instead of barging in like a cowboy.

Wait! This is importand. So you say that by Changing the delta angle error you didn't notice any "observable" effect, right?
If you DO confirm this then i will have a test with people and then they can post here about their experience. I can send you an example also.
Also this will prove that you lack the appropriate knowledge to fix game's bugs.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

You also failed to mention that there is another gun with that entry that is used by a Luftwaffe plane.

See above. If yes then why Don't correct this also?

Originally Posted by MicroWave

Again, I'm not at liberty to discuss internal game mechanics with you.

See above. You gave no valid reason to deny my explanation about the values in the Bombs.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

I can confirm that some of the bomb parameters look odd. At this moment it is unclear how they affect the game. Therefore it is not clear if, and to what value they should be changed.

I am sure that many people will confirm this and i doubt that you haven't encounter this. Just do an Experiment yourself. Put targets and check the destructive radius of the bombs. Easy.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

Yes they are considered as accurate. Until proven otherwise. The proof consists of performing (preferably repeatable) ingame tests and gathering historical info. Some physical interpolation and interpretation can be used if historical info is incomplete.

So BOTH the 2001 Values AND the current ones are accurate? So, 1 equals to 4 and 2 eguals to 8 ?

Originally Posted by MicroWave

We have significant amount of sources regarding pylon weights and pylon weights will be changed in 4.10. I believe it was announced already?

can you post any ? Yet again you have failed to provide any credible data for anything i have questioned you.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

I'm not familiar with the subject.

Ok, so you don't know about the "penetration" values of the bullets and the in-game damage. Anyone from TD who is experienced with this please?
I would really appreciate this info.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

No. Those numbers were changed by 1C/Maddox and I have no reason not to trust them without a concrete proof that they are wrong. See one of the answers above.

So BOTH Values the 2001 era AND the current ones are the Correct?
So 1 equals to 4, 2 to 8, etc ? See a couple of answers above.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

As I said, pylons weight are changed in 4.10, no point in discussing 4.09. I can also confirm that 15kg pylon weight is a bug and was brought to our attention by someone performing ingame tests.

At least you have admitted that you did an "approximation" based on how you "felt" about these values. We'll see when 4.10m comes out. Fair enought. It is the Only straight answer from you until now. Thank you for this.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

I beg to differ.

So you say you don't see any complains for Specific issues/bugs at all? Not even in the current thread?
What can i say if you cannot see.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

And what is right then? The rest is just assorted pile of complaints with zero value.

Right is what is Right, what Feels right over the years. Right is every issue that people gained data for. And if people complain over the years for Certain aspects and we Also have now Proof with Numbers that support their Feeling, there no other option than to be a Valid Complain, a Valid issue. Now why you don't like to address it or fix it it is not of my concern. I only pointed these out with In-Games Data which you cannot deny.

Originally Posted by MicroWave

No surprise.

Unfortunately not,

[bigbossmalone]

well, my request about the ship padlocking problem seems again to have been brushed aside, yet a request for yet more skins makes the grade for a reply? wow.
sure, there are many beautiful skins out there, and the more the merrier, but is that really a gameplay-critical request, and not yet just more eye-candy?
what i am asking is something tha will be appreciated by many players, especially those less-fortunate ones who do not have the luxury of a head-tracking TrackIR system, or such......a proper useful fix to something that seems to be broken.
it's also not taking sides, as it will be equally useful for blue or red players, i'm sure, lol.
surely, after trying to make this request for over a year now, someone would at least have the courtesy to answer?
i mean, it really only needs to be a one-word reply, such as 'yes, no' or ''maybe, we'll see'......for a group that professes to not have the time to reply to everyone, i don't see how much time it would take for at least a simple acknowledgement of this request, yet there are lengthy 'quote/replies' concerning these other weapon issues....i don't get it.
is no-one interested? and here i thought, as 4.10 is apparently a bit more focussed towards ships/ship battles, it might be a pertinent request...