Friday Update, April 13, 2012 - Page 36

Robert · #**351** 04-14-2012, 12:38 PM

I like the esthetics they were trying to achieve with the UI in CoD. The functionality is what could use the work. I'd not mind a combination of an updated QMB as in IL2:1946 and this, but I'd settle for the former without combination if it's not possible.

Oh, BTW 1C team - Thanks for the efforts. They are appreciated and I, like many, are looking forward to the improvements this new beta gives and to the future of CoD.

adonys · #**352** 04-14-2012, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista

Quote:

Originally Posted by klem

I don't know where this idea that the 109 was a better dogfighter than the Spitfire has crept in from. There are many accounts of the Spitfire being superior when in a dogfight against its contemporary 109. Read Al Deere's 'Nine Lives' and his acount of several 109s trying to dogfight two Spitfire MkIs over Calais Mark at the time of Dunkirk, they brought three 109s down. Read Johnny Johnsons's 'Wing Leader' and his early accounts of flying with Douglas Bader. The 109's preferred tactic wasn't dogfighting, it was what we would call energy tactics. The 109's wing loading was far higher than the Spitfire or Hurricane which reduced its turning capability but it had a much better power to weight ratio which is why it could outclimb them. Heinz Knoke wrote in his book 'I Flew for the Fuhrer' that his most reliable tactic for evading them was a spiral climb which would leave the allied fighters clawing for height and risking a stall. Even Adolph Galland infamously asked Goering for Spitfires when told he must fly close to the bombers because he was aware of their superior dogfighting capability. It was not how he wanted to fly the 109.

As for the idea that the 109 was generally the best aircraft in the BoB, that assumes they always had the advantage (which they generaly did due to the enforced defensive tactics of the RAF) but when the Spitfires had the advantage of height etc. the tables were turned because the Spitfire was a perfectly good energy fighter too, it just didn't have too many opportunities to demonstrate that. It was not as well armed as the 109 which is why you could put up a balance of attributes and claim the 109 was better but the 'best' aircraft depended on the circumstances.

Regarding CoD FMs, they need to be realistic as far as possible and provide close relative performance to the real thing although they are unlikely ever to be perfect and we should stop trying to chase an elusive 5% or whatever. In any case pilot skill and opportunity will often negate a reasonable or even large percentage of performance. Just give us FMs as close as you can get.

As for Gameplay and 'historical accuracy' that can only be achieved by mission design and engagement rules, assuming FMs are near enough correct, but this will always be prevented in CoD due to the limitation in numbers the game can support. This is why CoD can never represent the scale of the BoB, the best that can be achieved is a representation of a few of the raids. Mission engagement rules are hard to put in place in a general use on-line server because, for example, most Red pilots are reluctant to fly tight Vic formations, are probably incapable of doing it anyway, and fly combat spread instead for obvious reasons. The kind of scenarios flown in the MMPOG 'Aces High' were the closest I ever came with several hundred participants pre-registered and allocated to Squadrons/Units with clear rules of engagement and a moderator to kick/ban anyone who broke those rules. Oh yes, and you only had one life so you were MUCH more careful about what you did and how/whether you engaged. These take a lot of work to set up, even for a small scale representation of a few raids in CoD. I'm sure the community would really enjoy them but many would not because many just want to dogfight and get kills. You can fly for ages in those scenarios and never see an enemy (as it often used to be in RL) and recent matches between 56RAF and 5./Jg27 on a small scale have left us both searching unsuccessfuly for up to an hour.

So, lets have the FMs as close as possibe including the engines, no daft flight capability with half a wing, 109 pilots suffering and aircraft performance affected by fuel explosions, reasonably balanced AI gunners, etc. etc., and then we'll see how good we are.

good post, we seem to have similar historical information

I can point you towards statements (interviews/books) from LW pilots who said exactly the opposite: that actually 109 could outturn a spit IF the pilot would dare to use the plane up to its limits.

So, this quoting is useless, what we need are hard facts: ie performance charts and that's it.

There are many things you have not mentoned in there, or some you got wrong: there's a big difference between left and right turn for a 109vsSpit fight. Also, 109 had actually better roll rate, and so on..

Regarding for losing the BoB, again you got many things wrong: actually, the RAF pilots were even more used and ruined than LW ones, rotation and all. And it was mostly lost because the order was given two months before getting the damn fuel drop tanks, which would extend the LW fighters battle allowed time over england with at least half an hour, and that would have changed everything.

Of course, the tactical roles switching (from lose high altitde escort to close escort) also had a big percent in this. LW shoud have kept fighters spit into two teams: one close escorting, to keep the RAF from downing too many bombers, and a high alt one, to bounce on the RAF trying to reach the bombers.

And no one is liking DF servers. They are totally off when it comes about simulating the war, exactly because the tactical briefing an requirements of most actual mission would greatly change the battle start situation.

You must not forget how actually these weapons appeared: from the need.. bombers were needed to destroy tactical and then strategical objectives. fighters appeared to hunt down those bombers. escort misssions to have your own bombers protected against enemy's hunters. and so on..

philip.ed · #**353** 04-14-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hayward

It's close enough. Google it.

Yeah, that's just a tragic oversight in a FLIGHT SIM.

You're complaining that the hedgerows aren't quite right in a FLIGHT SIM. Don't talk to me about being difficult. Physician, heal thyself.

Seriously, this sim comes up short for you because the hedgerows aren't quite right and some of the decals might be wrong. That is amazing.

Alright let me put it this way. Firstly regarding colour, the team has the access to model England accurately (according to you). They failed. Google it. The CLoD map looks nothing like the England I fly over. It did in one of the betas, now it looks awful. Of course photos offer good sources, but Oleg always said how they were limited. You are being difficult. You're questioning the people who have lived and thrived in this country and suggesting that a small Russian team is more knowledgeable on our own history. Laughable.

Secondly, at no point have I suggested the lack of hedgerows and decals spoils the sim. The lack of a BoB aspect spoils the sim. I can't enjoy anything near the gameplay that BoB2 has to offer (currently). If I fly CloD for the graphics, I want it to be perfect.
The landscape can be improved, the decals, the campaign, the AI, the missions, the weather etc etc. A lot has to be done for an immersive BoB experience. Now it looks like the community will have to achieve this.

Yes you might ask me to move onto another sim, but why? I love having the choice, and I can recognise how good CloD could be. A channel scrap doesn't satisfy me.

Additionally, this discussion only stemmed from your questioning of the teams resources for the BoB. The fact they sought community information quashes your argument completely. You'd already blown holes in it; now you're trying to throw it into extinction. My comments on the landscape, decals et al weren't game-spoiling matters for me; they were areas which showed the teams limitation. Not bad by any standards, but elements which teams of community 'experts' would happily enjoy re-touching.

Hence why community support and expansion for CloD (working alongside other title) will be brilliant.

zapatista · #**354** 04-14-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey

This is totally wrong, the opposite was true. The standard escape for a Spitfire was a 120mph climbing turn to the right, which would cause the slats on the 109 to snatch, and they'd fall away in a stall.

Hell I need this implemented AT LEAST!!!

your showing your ignorance and are mixing up 2 different concepts. or as they say in dutch, “you heard the bell tolling, but don’t know where the pendulum hangs”. Meaning, you heard some things about this subject, but don’t really understand the essence or meaning

first, Me 109's of the BoB era are less able to hit Spitfires they are chasing (from straight 6 o'clock position) in tight right hand turn because they can't turn inside the spitfire in stern attack. the spitfire had a higher rate of turn and a smaller turning circle than the Messerschmitt (presuming both planes were flown by similarly experienced pilots, each kmowing how to exploit their machine strength and play on the opponents weakness).iirc the spitfire also preferred the right hand turn compared to the left, because the engine torque provided an advantage in that direction (please have some experten confirm or refute this last part)

a spiral climb is something completely different. this was used very successfully by experienced 109 pilots throughout most of the war (and i have used it successfully online in the old il2 series, with great satisfaction

). the critical factor is that both lead and chase plane must be at roughly the same speed when you start your spiral climb, and the spiral must be executed by the leading 109 in the tightest steepest spiral possible. predictably the chasing spitfire or hurricane cant get enough lead on you to aim correctly and get a deflection shot (when they pull the stick to much in trying, they stall out), and it can take a while for the 109 to get out of trouble (so not a good idea to use when there are multiple reds zooming around, but effective even if you have a conga line of chasing reds behind you ). the effectiveness of the maneuvre is based on the fact that the 109 has that little advantage in climb that allowed it to sustain a banked climb which the RAF planes were unable to match. it's a slow fight in the sense that it takes time for the chasing plane to be out-turned (unusual) or getting them to stall out (most common result, and is what you hope for). once you see the chasing plane stall out and drop back, you stomp full on the rudder and do a hammerhead in your 109, with the result you end up right on the tail of the plane that was chasing you (whom is still flying very slow and barely starting to regain speed, so is not very maneuverable), giving you an easy kill. when done correctly it is one of the most satisfying victories, and it frustrates the heck out of the red pilot that was chasing you

adonys · #**355** 04-14-2012, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luthier

We don't place the buildings manually, but we do mark the overall areas manually. We take a historical map and trace historical roads and outline historical settlements.

Then the standard "village" or "town" or "industrial" or whatever texture with the standard pattern goes on there. However that pattern lines up with the spline historical road - we don't know. In some cases it'll line up with the texture and the buildings, in other cases it'll cross the standard village streets at a 45-degree angle.

That's just how it is. If we had to place every building on a map manually, even a small 40x40 km online map would take years to make.

you could have splines attaching points to the building areas (crossroads where external roads are linking with town's important ones), internal building areas splines for the navigation between the buildings, and spawn the building areas rotated so that the splies re going into the attaching points.

zapatista · #**356** 04-14-2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adonys

I can point you towards statements (interviews/books) from LW pilots who said exactly the opposite: that actually 109 could outturn a spit IF the pilot would dare to use the plane up to its limits..

that is not correct.

point being of course, that we are presuming it is a matchup between equally expert pilots, each knowing how to fully exploit the strength/weaknesses of their own plane and that of their opponent in the 109. generally speaking, the only times a 109 pilot could get away with this is if it was against an inexperience spitfire pilot who wasnt able/willing to push his own machine to the limit. with both machines at their turning limits, the 109 lost out in this maneuvre

please provide references to your unusual claim, and dont use single anecdotal statements from one individual to try and resolve it.

what i stated is generally accepted knowledge on both sides of the debate

5./JG27.Farber · #**357** 04-14-2012, 01:30 PM

Ive seen that interview and heard that the 109 could turn inside a spit - no problem. However I think its circumstanstial... For example if a Spit is in a constant horizontal turn a 109 above could dive in vertical rolling inside the spit and shoot. Essentially having "turned" inside the spit. Allot of fear and adrenaline in war, its not so good for the memory.

The spitfire and the 109 ar both great fighters!

Anyway. The OP. Great update!

Martin77 · #**358** 04-14-2012, 01:46 PM

Me 109 E:
"During what was later called the 'Battle of Britain', we flew the Messerschmitt Bf109E. The essential difference from the Spitfire Mark I flown at that time by the RAF was that the Spitfire was less manoeuvrable in the rolling plane. With its shorter wings (2 metres less wingspan) and its square-tipped wings, the Bf 109 was more manoeuvrable and slightly faster. (It is of interest that the English later on clipped the wings of the Spitfire.)
For us, the more experienced pilots, real manoeuvring only started when the slats were out. For this reason it is possible to find pilots from that period (1940) who will tell you that the Spitfire turned better than the Bf 109. That is not true. I myself had many dogfights with Spitfires and I could always out-turn them. This is how I shot down six of them."
- Erwin Leykauf, German fighter pilot, 33 victories. Source: Messerschmitt Bf109 ja Saksan Sotatalous by Hannu Valtonen; Hurricane & Messerschmitt, Chaz Bowyer and Armand Van Ishoven.

Me 109 E:
"Personally, I met RAF over Dunkirk. [During this] battle not a single Spitfire or Hurricane turned tighter than my plane. I found that the Bf 109 E was faster, possessed a higher rate of climb, but was somewhat less manouverable than the RAF fighters. Nevertheless, during the campaign, no Spitfire or Hurricane ever turned inside my plane, and after the war the RAF admitted the loss of 450 Hurricanes and Spitfires during the Battle of France." In the desert there were only a few Spitfires, and we were afraid of those because of their reputation from the Battle of Britain. But after we shot a couple of them down, our confusion was gone."
- Herbert Kaiser, German fighter ace. 68 victories.

"Unexperienced pilots hesitated to turn tight, bacause the plane shook violently when the slats deployed. I realised, though, that because of the slats the plane's stalling characteristics were much better than in comparable Allied planes that I got to fly. Even though you may doubt it, I knew it [Bf109] could manouver better in turnfight than LaGG, Yak or even Spitfire."
- Walter Wolfrum, German fighter ace. 137 victories.

Stublerone · #**359** 04-14-2012, 02:32 PM

What is up here? I just can hear again whining about anything, although this is a thread for which we are waiting a long time now.

@philip.ed: Me (and also many other guys) do not care about this accuracy for now. As David already said: It is accurate enough! If not, then built your own map and play it, sleep on it, sell it or whatever. I do not know, what this point has to do with this update post!?! Or is this post saying: "Please talk about the accuracy of the channel map or about the not released FM!" ???
The map looks okay and this is the last thing to complain about, because we have other problems. Simply just one thing: Open another thread, state your problem and work on it! I can also complain about the new churches and the shape of the bell, which is perhaps not accurate, but I would simply feel like a little whining kid, if I complain about such a stupid, unimportant thing!

I just see so much posts with content, which shouldn't be interesting now or since the game is fixed.

Nobody knows the FM yet, and you already complain about a post from luthier, where he just metioned "up to" 60 mph speed loss of the spit? Please fly it first and then judge (simple as that!!!). And now, people already felt free to evaluate this without any knowledge?

HEY, WAKE UP!!! Do us a favour and wait until you have flown it.

And please don't whine again and state your problems in a seperate thread and additionally in the community bug tracker. Everybody is interested in your complains, but not just on the basis of your thoughts. Thoughts do not matter -> Please give them facts!!! And this is only possible, if you work with the new patch (as soon as it is released) and find out. BUT PLEASE NOT NOW!

It is always the same with flight model. What should the "blue" flyers say about the late war scenarios? They will have the worse equipment! Should they also complain about something, before they actually flew it? I just say: "OMG, what a sh... conversation up to now!!!"

I am also fed up with the whole SLI and AA party:
SLI = You know, that you will get problems with many games as soon as you setup a SLI/Crossfire system. So live with it as soon as it is fixed. And I personally think, that these "framerate fixed" guys just do not know, what they made with their computers and are now complaining everywhere, although they know the problem before buying it.
There are simply too much limits right now, that prevent to use a fully satisfying SLI setup (technically). And the fact, that SLI means less money for nvidia or ati, because old gfx cards will stay longer in the user systems, should let you understand, that they would never support this feature to the maximum. I am afraid, that you will always have to live with this fact. And also get the fact, that it will always be better to buy a single graphics card to avoid annoying SLI and Crossover problems.
In my point of view, SLI mainly is used by the freaks to fight each other with high frame rates and not because you want to upgrade an old system. Sorry, but everyone, who buys an additional old card to prevent getting low fps, is simply on a totally wrong way. (Triple Monitor Setup could be another case)

Concerning AA: This is an appreciated feature, but it comes, when it comes! And it is not that necessary and for me totally out of scope, since full picture AA methods are available without that big impact on performance. FXAA seems interesting and works in CloD. So use such things (or injection tools like ENB series?) instead of asking real AA support again and again and again. Within the last 2-3 days, this question was asked about 20 times. So, this is again not a priority problem for most of us. So stop filling all posts with AA questions. I think, AA could be a problem for spotting plane dots. So, I pilot, who wants to compete with the best, will not use AA, when this happens.

I am simply fed up here with people talking about things, which do not belong to a thread (although I am doing the same right now

).

The key of my quickly written post:
1.) Stop whining until you get the patch.
2.) Stop whining about not added features, because you alread know it.
3.) STOP WHINING in general and take part in the community to SOLVE problems, but you do not help with whining and spamming.

I miss the good old Sturmovik community several years ago. They just were not crying so unsorted and just tried to help developing the game over years.

I simply think, that here are currently several gamers, who are simply not knowing, that all these posts do not help us. This is simply not informative and completely unsorted. And so much information unsorted = WASTE, because nobody can track or even see all things!!!

Sorry for my english, but it is not my native language and it was written as quick as possible.

Anyone who thinks, that he is meant: I am not looking this post anymore and will not answer again. I want to get information and not argue! But it was time for me, to whine against you.

There is a partly destructive community is establishing here, which I do not like.

SirAthlon · #**360** 04-14-2012, 02:44 PM

Stublerone

Quote:

What is up here? I just can hear again whining about anything, although this is a thread for which we are waiting a long time now.

@philip.ed: Me (and also many other guys) do not care about this accuracy for now. As David already said: It is accurate enough! If not, then built your own map and play it, sleep on it, sell it or whatever. I do not know, what this point has to do with this update post!?! Or is this post saying: "Please talk about the accuracy of the channel map or about the not released FM!" ???
The map looks okay and this is the last thing to complain about, because we have other problems. Simply just one thing: Open another thread, state your problem and work on it! I can also complain about the new churches and the shape of the bell, which is perhaps not accurate, but I would simply feel like a little whining kid, if I complain about such a stupid, unimportant thing!

I just see so much posts with content, which shouldn't be interesting now or since the game is fixed.

Nobody knows the FM yet, and you already complain about a post from luthier, where he just metioned "up to" 60 mph speed loss of the spit? Please fly it first and then judge (simple as that!!!). And now, people already felt free to evaluate this without any knowledge?

HEY, WAKE UP!!! Do us a favour and wait until you have flown it.

And please don't whine again and state your problems in a seperate thread and additionally in the community bug tracker. Everybody is interested in your complains, but not just on the basis of your thoughts. Thoughts do not matter -> Please give them facts!!! And this is only possible, if you work with the new patch (as soon as it is released) and find out. BUT PLEASE NOT NOW!

It is always the same with flight model. What should the "blue" flyers say about the late war scenarios? They will have the worse equipment! Should they also complain about something, before they actually flew it? I just say: "OMG, what a sh... conversation up to now!!!"

I am also fed up with the whole SLI and AA party:
SLI = You know, that you will get problems with many games as soon as you setup a SLI/Crossfire system. So live with it as soon as it is fixed. And I personally think, that these "framerate fixed" guys just do not know, what they made with their computers and are now complaining everywhere, although they know the problem before buying it.
There are simply too much limits right now, that prevent to use a fully satisfying SLI setup (technically). And the fact, that SLI means less money for nvidia or ati, because old gfx cards will stay longer in the user systems, should let you understand, that they would never support this feature to the maximum. I am afraid, that you will always have to live with this fact. And also get the fact, that it will always be better to buy a single graphics card to avoid annoying SLI and Crossover problems.
In my point of view, SLI mainly is used by the freaks to fight each other with high frame rates and not because you want to upgrade an old system. Sorry, but everyone, who buys an additional old card to prevent getting low fps, is simply on a totally wrong way. (Triple Monitor Setup could be another case)

Concerning AA: This is an appreciated feature, but it comes, when it comes! And it is not that necessary and for me totally out of scope, since full picture AA methods are available without that big impact on performance. FXAA seems interesting and works in CloD. So use such things (or injection tools like ENB series?) instead of asking real AA support again and again and again. Within the last 2-3 days, this question was asked about 20 times. So, this is again not a priority problem for most of us. So stop filling all posts with AA questions. I think, AA could be a problem for spotting plane dots. So, I pilot, who wants to compete with the best, will not use AA, when this happens.

I am simply fed up here with people talking about things, which do not belong to a thread (although I am doing the same right now ).

The key of my quickly written post:
1.) Stop whining until you get the patch.
2.) Stop whining about not added features, because you alread know it.
3.) STOP WHINING in general and take part in the community to SOLVE problems, but you do not help with whining and spamming.

I miss the good old Sturmovik community several years ago. They just were not crying so unsorted and just tried to help developing the game over years.

I simply think, that here are currently several gamers, who are simply not knowing, that all these posts do not help us. This is simply not informative and completely unsorted. And so much information unsorted = WASTE, because nobody can track or even see all things!!!

Sorry for my english, but it is not my native language and it was written as quick as possible.

Anyone who thinks, that he is meant: I am not looking this post anymore and will not answer again. I want to get information and not argue! But it was time for me, to whine against you.

There is a partly destructive community is establishing here, which I do not like.

1+