Friday 2010-09-03 Dev. update and Discussions

[Chivas]

I'm sure the developers stopped monitoring this insanity quite awhile ago. I'm sure the aircraft are built to scale and the pilots to 175cm. or 5' 9", they've noted our complaints, but are complaints are based on very poor data, other than what we feel looks right.

[major_setback]

Trees look fantastic close up!

[Richie]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I'm sure the developers stopped monitoring this insanity quite awhile ago. I'm sure the aircraft are built to scale and the pilots to 175cm. or 5' 9", they've noted our complaints, but are complaints are based on very poor data, other than what we feel looks right.

Is there a thumbs up icon in here.

[nearmiss]

The developers are probably following this thread on the first day only.

The thread goes off on tangents after the first day. People just quit paying attention and it goes into the wild blue yonders.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger

Having been on the receiving end online of un-modded, but well-aimed .50 cals, I assure you that they have never been porked.

Perhaps the original dispersion didn't suit many, but on target they hurt ... just like the rl guncam footage we see. ( and most of the times I've had my FW190 sawn in half was from a high-speed bounce, not a several-seconds-of-firing effect. )

IMHO, the key is and always has been, the "well-aimed" aspect of firing .50 cals.

I recommend you take some trips out in the Pony and then come back telling us how many FW you de-winged before you start telling us about firepower. Most FW get away with damage because they roll or dive before the burst can be sustained in the same place for long enough, that's the 'well aimed part. That's the reality of it. 4x20mm? You shouldn't even be commenting mate.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Hunger

And of course I don't want porked .50cals this time, we can all see what fatal damage those APIT round do - I can't face another 7 years whining lol

Eh sorry pal, I dont know what guns you are using but if you set your convergence two 200 m and aim well you can shred a 109 in half in less than 2 seconds using any aircraft with 6 puny 50 cals.

Nice vid by the way.

Regards
Hunger[/QUOTE]

Dude, I use 100m, and before 2 secs is up the bugger has dived. Then it's RTB and 100pts in 10 minutes.

109's fall apart way better than FW too.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Now there are many instances of fire in this video that match the effects shown in your clip, but it can be more spectacular. Check out 3:42, 3:59, 4:16 and 4:25.

All these locations in the video show 100+ foot plumes of flame that match up with the screenshots posted by Oleg and Co.

We need to remember that SOW is not IL2 (stock, modded or otherwise) and it would sad if we missed out on a historical portrail of air combat because they were labeled too 'Holywood'.

Cheers!

Nice video. This is PTO so it makes me wonder if fire like this is a Japanese non-sealing tank problem.

Originally Posted by Jumo211

Excellent topic ! also a lot of fun going on because that's about all we have right now

@ Skoshi Tiger

here is what I meant by initial outburst footage with aircraft going all the way to the ground ( or water in this case ) .
These two aircrafts are about the biggest black thick outburst I have seen from tons of WWII archive footage ,
it's rare to find as there is not much of such outburst recorded by gun cameras or by the cameraman on the ground .
These are pretty violent blasts but then again each thick smoke is running out in few seconds .

Here beginning @ 3:24

Now I'd really like to see these effects, where the fuel blows, then is all burned off so there is little trailing smoke 3:35

[Jumo211]

Hi Osprey ,
and these are indeed Japanese aircrafts , it's much harder to find archival footage showing such blast in European Theater of Operations with German , U.S. , Italy , GB and other countries aircrafts .
That's why I will keep saying that there was not much going on with black thick smokes and huge fire blaze especially in ETO .
If you look at that third Japanese plane going down , it's also on small fire with little smoke exactly as many ETO aircrafts shows .
Lets wait for the first BoB:SoW video to see what's going on

[AdMan]

oh so they wore these in WW2??


lmfao

people also conveniently ignore that last week there was a shot of the pilot's feet not reaching the pedals

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

That's a much better base unit of comparison, but the execution is inaccurate without having photos that show the aircraft from the exact same angle.

All of the comparisons done thus far have failed to account for view angle (or aspect angle if we want to put it in aviation terms).

The fact is that unless we view all the Hurricanes in the photos from the same angle (for example, with us sitting 90 degrees to the left of the plane), comparisons will be inaccurate because of the different angles skewing perspective.

For example, let's say we have a Hurricane with a non-moving pilot dummy in the cockpit. If i view the plane from 7 o'clock, the distance between the pilot's head and the windshield will appear bigger than the distance between the pilot's head and the headrest, but if i view it from 10 o'clock it will be the other way around. Add difference of perception due to distance and the fact that we totally discount the 3rd axis in this example and it's obvious we can't make an accurate comparison.

In your comparison, the real-life black Hurricane is viewed from 10 o'clock low, while the SoW Hurricane in the pictures is viewed from 8 o'clock level. So, even with a perfectly scaled pilot the SoW screenshot would exhibit more distance between pilot's head and windshield than the photo of the real one, simply due to perspective (part of the reason you measured 2,5 heads worth of space). Differences in perspective can be explained with trigonometry and such calculations have played a big part in observational astronomy before computers, when people had to measure the real dimensions of objects that are million of miles away based only on the characteristics of the telescopes and the angular data of the viewing. I'm not in the mood to bust out the crayons and start drawing in MSpaint, but a quick google search on stuff like parallax angles and apparent/angular distances will explain a lot.

I agree that in some screenshots the pilots in the fighters look somewhat small and this week's Hurricane is among them. What i can't explain is why the same pilots appear fine in bombers, or even in fighters shown in previous updates. Up till now, it seems that nobody else can explain this either, otherwise someone would have answered this question. Until someone can prove that different pilot models have been used in different screenshots, i'll just chalk it up to being used to the IL-2 oversized pilots and needing some time to get accustomed to the new ones.

In any case, your idea of using the head as a unit of measurement is solid. What would lay the debate to rest and give a positive verdict is if we could take a real photo and replicate its viewing angle and distance in SoW, then accurate comparisons could be made. However, this demands the use of an object viewer or track recording/playback, which i guess wont be available until the release of the simulator.

yes I know viewing angle is hard to compensate for, but there is no way perspective is making his head look that small