Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday Update, April 13, 2012

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Friday Update, April 13, 2012 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=31097)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 410376)

I believe that COD has this feature but it is not 'switched on' / implemented in the current build.

I recall Oleg talking about it - not sure if there was a screenshot (?) - there was another slider for mechanical wear beside the physical weathering slider. Setting it high could lead to engine or other malfunctions during the course of a mission.

Also, in the planned campaign accumulated wear and tear would be tracked.

So, I believe it is all there, but maybe not in fully functioning form as yet. Maybe will be introduced with the sequel? (or when they finally code the dynamic campaign)

edit: found the screen..!

I had a radiator failure message just driving around sightseeing, not sure what was up with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osprey (Post 410380)

Enough is enough. Tired of waiting, here it is

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

Get voting

Done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 410415)

Done.

Well I just voted a negative to neutralize that vote:evil:...:-P

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 410539)

Well I just voted a negative to neutralize that vote:evil:...:-P

Aaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! :grin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ataros (Post 410171)

This is what they did. If you think your research results are different from the devs' ones you have a great opportunity to let them know using the bugtracker to post data, graphs, test videos, etc. Otherwise they may never find out their research was not correct.

As we know they fired some guys who failed to deliver a perfect sim in 2011. New guys probably are fixing only those things which they are aware of and which have enough evidence supporting them because the devs are extremely pressed for time with the sequel by the publishers including UBI. They are a small team and can not afford paying testers for thorough flight tests and research. If we do not tell them something is wrong they will never know it is wrong.

If we want to help there is a bugtracker to post all relevant proofs, graphs and figures. Just a tool to have all data in one place because the devs do not have time to read many forum threads.

So what you are saying is that, even though the research was wrong and the team knows the earlier team delivered a flawed product which needs across the board revision, its up to us to do the analysis (with no tools)? What kind of development team relies only on a community bugtracker?

I realise that this is not the fault of the present team, and that they are being pushed in other directions, but I want to voice my DEEP displeasure at whoever is ultimately responsible for this mess (not the dev team) for releasing a flawed product and refusing to allocate the resources needed to fix it. Sims are not the most popular games but this is surely the best way to kill them altogether.

Having been made aware very early of the flaws in their FM's, it's the publishers/devs responsibility to check each FM, make sure it conforms to the historical data, including correct engine parameters, and to deliver a TIMELY patch to correct such serious deficiencies. Most of the FM's HAVE been raised on the bugtracker anyway. Fixing them does not mean restraining yourself to the issue raised on that bugtracker though. If the research shows they are not using the proper fuel and not performing like the period aircraft, it doesnt matter whether the fix includes things (like 87/100 octane boost issues) that are not on the bugtracker. They are not here to respond solely to a bugtracker (that is only an aid).

And anyway, if what you said was true, and only the Spit Ia was on the bugtracker, then the devs would not be changing almost every plane's FM. Either the data used is correct, or it is not!

Quote:

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos (Post 410217)

To all those following the development of the 87 vs XXX octane fuel (XXX= fill in the number as per your discretion), JG52Uther posted a very interesting screenshot on another thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1334660119

It sounds like that quote is talking about loadouts and selecting fuels to use, not whether the plane FM's will be changed to the proper fuel.

Having said that, correcting incorrect engine performance and fuel grade is not a 'feature' it's a research cockup. It is not something for a sequel!

I mean, what exactly are we simulating here? A hypothetical battle of britain where the RAF used inferior fuel instead and likely lost the war? Why the hell are we simulating that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L (Post 410582)

What kind of nonsense is this? So what you are saying is that, even though their research was wrong and they KNOW the earlier team delivered a flawed product which needs across the board revision, its up to us to do the analysis (with no tools) and point out to them their flaws? What kind of development team relies only on a community bugtracker?

I realise that this is not the fault of the present team, and that they are being pushed in other directions, but I want to voice my DEEP displeasure at whoever is ultimately responsible for this mess (not the dev team) for releasing a flawed product and refusing to allocate the resources needed to fix it. Sims are not the most popular games but this is surely the best way to kill them altogether.

Having been made aware very early of the flaws in their FM's, it's the publishers/devs responsibility to check each FM, make sure it conforms to the historical data, including correct engine parameters, and to deliver a TIMELY patch to correct such serious deficiencies. Most of the FM's HAVE been raised on the bugtracker anyway. Fixing them does not mean restraining yourself to the issue raised on that bugtracker though. If the research shows they are not using the proper fuel and not performing like the period aircraft, it doesnt matter whether the fix includes things (like 87/100 octane boost issues) that are not on the bugtracker. They are not here to respond solely to a bugtracker (that is only an aid).

Not to mention, they seem to be going the opposite direction to what the historical data apparently (according to some) suggests, and it may well be because of the 87/100 octane issue. I'm not saying I know better, but I would at least like to know what and who is correct and why there is stil no consensus on some very basic performance data.

And anyway, if what you said was true, and only the Spit Ia was on the bugtracker, then the devs would not be changing almost every plane's FM. As for voting systems? Beyond eliminating the most frivolous complaints and indicating the community's perception of the severity of a bug (but the devs should use their dicretion anyway), this has no place on a BUG tracker! Either the data used is correct, or it is not!

It sounds like that quote is talking about loadouts and selecting fuels to use, not whether the plane FM's will be changed to the proper fuel.

Having said that, correcting incorrect engine performance and fuel grade is not a 'feature' it's a research cockup. It is not something for a sequel! This is a simulation of the Battle of Britain and the correct aircraft and engine performance should have been in the game.

I mean, what exactly are we simulating here? A hypothetical battle of britain where the RAF used inferior fuel instead and likely lost the war? Why the hell are we simulating that?

i fully agree with that, the main errors like no 100% octane available to all spitfires and hurricanes FROM THE START OF BoB, is a major error that needs to be corrected QUICKLY and as a matter of priority, its a MAJOR oversight that significantly reduces the value of the game as a SIMULATOR !! they are in fact penalizing the allied side with a approx 10% performance hit across the board

however ........

up untill now, for many people like myself, the sim just hasnt performed well enough to even test this out properly. with my mid end pc that according to release information should have played the sim fairly well with some elements toned down, i still have:
- micro-freezes, and major slowdowns and total screen freezes when approaching some ground objects (like trying to fly through a hanger or low over some buildings),
- and some CDT's at other points in gameplay.
- plus, right now you cant even set your FoV to the correct setting for the screen size you have, so all ingame objects (houses, planes, etc) are distorted in size by either roughly 30% to large or to small, totally destroying the correct sense of speed you should get from visual ques while flying in the game, aside for it being rather silly to expect us to fly around in Lilliput land or play with dinky toy objects and pretend we are "simulating" anything.

and there are a few more serious problems like this.........
- for eg the 109 ground handling is totally artificial and very "console game like" instead of simulating a ww2 pilot experience. the plane is nowhere near as difficult or sensitive to land or takeoff as it should be (iirc over 50% of 109's during ww2 were lost during takeoff and landing accidents, rather then in combat). right now a 9 yo with a few pointers can safely do it, is that really simulation ?

but we simply havnt gotten to the point of being able to address most of those issues because the grafix engine has been performing so poorly, only once that is running well will the other aspects be more glaringly obvious, and requests for fixes be more vocal

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper (Post 410362)

It's a neat concept.

I just installed A2A's "Power 3 Spitfire", (Marks I, Ia, IIa, and IIb) including their "Accusim". This is a civilian addon to FSX, so it's really apples-to-oranges to CoD in many respects. It has no functioning guns, no battle damage modelling. But as you describe, Manu, it has a TON of wear & tear engine and airframe modelling which carries over to successive flights. Hit SHIFT 7 and you go to the maintenance hangar. There you are given a detailed report on what's good (green labels), what's so-so (yellow), and what needs immediate attention (red).
The detail is impressive, IMHO.

Imagine if this could be modelled in CoD, with repercussions for hard flying in terms of squadron points/demerits.....or rewards for careful flying (but not as great a reward as for downing e/a!). Or you have to make a choice to risk flying in your beat up aircraft on the next scramble, or fly a Tiger Moth to Castle Bromich to pick up a new one. That kind of thing.
P

this was discussed several times with Oleg and Co in the leadup to SoW-BoB, and all indications are that this level of detail was built into the sim. exactly how deep and extensive it goes i dont know exactly, butt definitely they were talking about modeling engine wear and component failures that stayed with the aircraft used, and it limiting that same aircraft performance over subsequent sorties (with a ticking clock type scenario, if the plane was on the ground at a friendly base for a period of time, gradual repairs would be done to restore it back to 100%).

what wasnt exactly discussed is that a pilot could also be given a "track record", where him repeatedly thrashing or damaging aircraft (or causing friendly fire incidents), would get him to be relegated to other "missions" or tasks because he was wasting to many resources

my hope is that they simply havnt completed that aspect, and will be able to add it in at some point in the future with minimal effort. in the same way they can already add driving vehicles, controlling some ships, AI civilian traffic on roads including buses following a time tabled route with specific stops, integrated AA systems where damaging search lights or them running out of ammunition will affect their performance and effectiveness, articulated skeletal human figures that will animate certain human activity sequences of players in game,.....etc

there is a whole load of unseen goodies under the hood that still can surface fairly quickly, and we should also create some threads where we can work out what exactly we want implemented as some of these major features, and how we see it working. it is those aspects that will take SoW series to the "next level" that is was intended to be, we have just been distracted by the forced buggy and rushed release so far. once the sim is running (in the next few weeks), we more or less will have it as intended for release, and the other main aspects can be worked upon

Great update fellas.

Here's hoping we can have skins, clouds, and no CTD's. I can't wait to be able to use some of the great skins floating around and then be able to hide away in the clouds when I'm in trouble :)

Here's hoping for huge formation flying, skins, and of course, those sorely needed clouds in the sky!

Hope we get something this week. Can't wait to test.

Don't have a heart attack Barbi.

Quote:

- for eg the 109 ground handling is totally artificial and very "console game like" instead of simulating a ww2 pilot experience. the plane is nowhere near as difficult or sensitive to land or takeoff as it should be (iirc over 50% of 109's during ww2 were lost during takeoff and landing accidents, rather then in combat). right now a 9 yo with a few pointers can safely do it, is that really simulation ?

As long as the wheels weren't on the ground the 109 was very docile when taking off and landing.

You might want to look at other a/c and the losses they incurred.

As for the 50%, not even close to the actual number.

You might want to look through this pdf of JG2, http://www.ww2.dk/misc/jg2loss.pdf

A study was done of accidents for JG26 when it operated both the 190 and 109. Guess what, the 190 had more accidents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu (Post 410302)

You only need to give to every flyable plane a random wearing value (hours?).

When you enter in the cockpit you are informed of the engine's limit... it's not a real problem.

yes you need that type of "wearing value", plus...

a "memory" associated with each plane as to how much it was "worn", damaged, or abused/stressed during flight (all numbers which the game already computes and records during the duration of a flight), we now just need this information to stay with the plane for a duration of time determined by:
- normal service time/hrs/days needed for a plane (usually just a few hrs, and many went on a 2e or 3e flight of the same day after just re-arming and re-fueling, with maintenance crews working overnight to service it for the next day again)
- "repair time penalty" for major structural or engine damage, with same plane being unavailable for a few days
- airfields that only have a specific number of new and ready planes available should be directly affected by the above, and not perpetually have available new lanes to respawn to. limits should be placed on availability determined by, planes ready and present, repair time needed, and rate of resupply to each airbase with new planes (as occurred during wartime)

pilots should even have a "track record", where careless pilots who damage a number of planes (or cause friendly fire incidents) are relegated to rear airfields for training purposes only, or fly other missions from other airfields that dont drain the limited supply of good aircraft from frontline airfields (for ex online the player il number could be used for this)