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

[WTE_Galway]

OK lets distinguish between two things ...

a) game balancing where modifications are made to red and blue side so they have roughly equal chances of success

b) game balancing where inherent biases in the game engine are countered by adjusting data. For example if the game-engine/damage-model used means heavy machine guns are too effective when compared to real life, then adjust the figures for those guns so overall they behave more realistically.


I had the impression that in IL2 a) does NOT occur but b) does. This means unless you know the reasons for the adjustments viewing the raw data in the cracked code can give a false impression of game bias.

It also means that in terms of user created aircraft just plugging in the correct raw data does NOT guarantee an aircraft that performs correctly compared to the historical original.

[Chivas]

I don't believe Oleg balanced the sim, but used what he thought was the best data he had.

The data is the big problem. We can't compare the WW2 aircraft now, but have to rely on data written by people who may have had a bias one way or another, or more likely even they could not do a comprehensive assessment.

What we have is very playable except for everyones favorite aircraft which is of course "porked". lol

[skyfox]

Originally Posted by Chivas

What we have is very playable except for everyones favorite aircraft which is of course "porked". lol

How true. lol
The one constant bug in every combat sim out there. in

[Tempest123]

I have a small request that I've been thinking about. The grass runways (not the fields) in the winter and summer are nearly invisible, and I find it's impossible to make a good approach to them because you need to be nearly overhead to make out where they are, can the textures for these be darkened? Due to the "bumpy ground" effect there is often only a short strip of some 40 to 50 feet wide to make a safe landing in. I know that lights/fires could be placed etc. but I find this affects the Dgen campaign missions as well.

[zaelu]

The bias of IL2 is like this:

Say you want to "represent" 2 sniper teams from a historic battle. You can model the accuracy of gunners, the quality of weapons they used in a degree... but you can't mimic the fact that one of the team was starving all that time. That's why it lost... but in your simulation... it will win.

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by zaelu

The bias of IL2 is like this:

Say you want to "represent" 2 sniper teams from a historic battle. You can model the accuracy of gunners, the quality of weapons they used in a degree... but you can't mimic the fact that one of the team was starving all that time. That's why it lost... but in your simulation... it will win.

The mission builder would set the AI level of the starving team lower.

Originally Posted by Chivas

We can't compare the WW2 aircraft now, but have to rely on data written by people who may have had a bias one way or another, or more likely even they could not do a comprehensive assessment.

Partially true. It's possible to have an aircraft simulated these days. I'm not saying it would be to the NASA number crunching level, but you would get very close to real numbers of drag, Mach-number on compression and other numbers that are needed for an aircraft's flight envelope. If only to confirm the numbers someone is using are close enough.

[ImpalerNL]

A new large west european map would a nice addition.

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

OK lets distinguish between two things ...

a) game balancing where modifications are made to red and blue side so they have roughly equal chances of success

b) game balancing where inherent biases in the game engine are countered by adjusting data. For example if the game-engine/damage-model used means heavy machine guns are too effective when compared to real life, then adjust the figures for those guns so overall they behave more realistically.


I had the impression that in IL2 a) does NOT occur but b) does. This means unless you know the reasons for the adjustments viewing the raw data in the cracked code can give a false impression of game bias.

It also means that in terms of user created aircraft just plugging in the correct raw data does NOT guarantee an aircraft that performs correctly compared to the historical original.

Hear, hear! This point is too often left out (other issues aside)

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

@ WTE_Galway

First of all you are preoccupied by saying that "the users only copy FM data to create a new one".
Which is wrong. In the beggining, 2 years ago it was the truth, but now, it is not. Them more the people dig in the "code", the most accurate FMs they produce and it applies to every aspect of game.

And you take for granted that game's data in every aspect is "correct", or "balanced", etc...
While you can only "speculate" these things, i can talk with absolute values.

A VERY small sample from the bombs

Compare the FAB500 and SC500 Iron Bombs:


__________________Fab1000___________SC1000
Effective Radius___500 m ___________168 m
Weight of HE_______555 kg___________630 kg
Weight of Bomb___1000 kg__________1090 kg




And now lets see the 1 ton iron bombs, the last example:

FAB1000

And compare it with the German 1 ton SC1000


__________________Fab1000___________SC1000
Effective Radius___500 m ___________168 m
Weight of HE_______555 kg___________630 kg
Weight of Bomb___1000 kg__________1090 kg




Now this does explain some issues in the game, doesn't it ? A lot of people had the "feeling" of being inneffective when they bombed targets, but they did not have the solid data to argue or support their "feeling". If they had this i would say they would have an argument, wouldn't they?
And we are talking for bombs having the Same KGs, they belong to the same "family" (iron bombs) and used for the same general purpose.
So the data are absolute. The numbers are absolute.

There are litterally dozens of things like this. So if someone put more appropriate data would this be a bad biased "hack"? And if so, then what can be said about the game's data?

And believe me if i start with the air cannons and Mgs.....

Cheers

P.S.
And because someone here talked about Pylon weights;

ALL the following Pylons have ZERO Weight on plane:
PylonRO_82_1
PylonRO_82_3
PylonPE8_FAB100
PylonPE8_FAB250
PylonMG15120Internal


The 4 of them are Russian Bomb and Rocket Pylons and the other is the German MG151/20 Internal cannon firing through the wing root.

The Dual pylon of MG151/20 (PylonMG15120x2) weights 450 kilos.

And all there rest weight 150 kilos y default.


The TD Changed in 4.09m the rest pylons weight that instead of 150kg they weight 15 kg.


Judge for yourself. That practically means that it is adviasable to take Rockets on Russian fighters because there is no penalty for added drag, since it is 0.

And weight here mainly means Drag!

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

An something else:
Everybody complains about the "sniper gunners". Well, there is a parameter that defines the "angle error" of the 'bullet", for each weapon.
This is the "Dispersion" of each gun. The Sniper value is the ZERO dispersion, and the more we increase it, the less accurate this weapon is,
and thus the gunner.

Lets see the Berezin B-20 20mm Soviet cannon when mounts a defensive installation in a bomber:


maxDeltaAngle = 0.0F;

It means that despite it is mounted in a flexible defensive installation its dispersion value is "0", meaning that chances are you get a bullet in your head in no-time.

Lets check the German MG151/20 when mounted in a defensive installation:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.25F;

It has a considerable dispersion value so you won't get a bullet in your head so easily. But still this value is somehow high
compared with the value that the same weapon has when mounted in a plane.

And last lets check the MG131 when it mounts a defensive position:

maxDeltaAngle = 0.35F;

Again, you are fee to judge