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

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

In fact TD, you do NOTHING at all!!!

You keep fussing about the bombs, while there is no comment about the guns the snipers, the non-overheat issues, wrong engines, wrong power settings, wrong cockpits, wrong FM, etc..

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. 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."

Wrong cockpits? Did I miss something?

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.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

I asked WHERE did you find data or WHAT data did you find to make the majority of the Pylons in IL2 to weight from the 150kgs they weighted until 4.09b patch to 15 kgs in the latest. Again you provided No Data for this but only "demand" data from others.

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.

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Team Daedalus, you were the ones that the community hoped for to correct these errors and you could.
But you prefer to sit in your ivory tower and ignore all the named facts.

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."

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).

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.

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.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Bug-List:

- many (often in game used weapons) don´t use historical values
- MK108 has less destructiveness than in RL(4 hit to down a B-17) in the weapons classes and in empirical testing (check Flying Guns of WW2, Anthony G. Williams / http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon)
- MG151/20mm s.o., (5hits to down a fighter 25 hits to down a B-17 (check Flying Guns of WW2, Anthony G. Williams / http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_151_cannon)
- .50 cal Browning s.o.
- FAB bombs destruction radii are a lot higher in late game patches than i the first game releases without referencing how and why
(an interesting point here is that the first game-release had the MG151/20mm weapon-classes closer to RL than they are now)
- some Russian rear-gunners have 0 dispersion on mobile mounted gun
- La series uses later engines than available at the period
- I-185 71A the spawn temperature is beginning at 110°C and when heating up and when running up the engine the temperature runs down to 20°C and stays there.
NO OVERHEAT!
- Bf-110 G2 the ATA pressure is with 73% throttle indicating your are in the war-emergency-power.
- some of the Instruments put into German planes were not available at the time the plane was produced
- Bf-109 uses a ridiculous climb-rate that is one third bigger than in RL
- FW have too low acceleration at low speeds

[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.

[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?

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

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?

I do understand this perfectly but the problem here is that this is the ONLY thing you understand about the problem. And it is completely wrong way to solve it.

I'm willing to remove any changes we did to encounter the "sniper issue" and replace them with your large dispersion values that "fixes the problem". But I guess we need to write in readme that "Sorry about the gunners. We know that they cannot hit anything now, but this had to be done because Hades said so".

So please tell me those large dispersion values that fixes the problem.

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by Viikate

I do understand this perfectly but the problem here is that this is the ONLY thing you understand about the problem. And it is completely wrong way to solve it.

WHO said that this is the ONLY issue about the Sniper gunners? Please DO read again what i posted.

Originally Posted by Viikate

I'm willing to remove any changes we did to encounter the "sniper issue" and replace them with your large dispersion values that "fixes the problem".

Yet again, i did not say this. Can't you read? Its not my fault.

Originally Posted by Viikate

But I guess we need to write in readme that "Sorry about the gunners. We know that they cannot hit anything now, but this had to be done because Hades said so".

Nice,
So are you threating me now that "You will remove this feature because of the "evil" HaDeS who posted some really existent issues"? So that community will "hunt down poor HaDeS because we could not answer his questions"?
Nice "mature" way of thinking.
Post more like this Viikate

Originally Posted by Viikate

So please tell me those large dispersion values that fixes the problem.

So do you Deny that Guns in Flexible Gun Installations have Less dispersion value than they used to have when mounted in Wings or in engine cowl?

You Intentionally Mixing 2 Different things, and yet you Threaten me also.

So, i repeat just in case you Understand:

Dispersion value for Guns and the AI Skill regarding Gunners are something Completely Different that affects Different game's classes BUT the Dispersion Value of Guns is Related with their Accuracy either they are Manned by AI, Rookie or Humans.

Clear now?
Good

Cheers,

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

So are you threating me now that "You will remove this feature because of the "evil" HaDeS who posted some really existent issues"? So that community will "hunt down poor HaDeS because we could not answer his questions"?
Nice "mature" way of thinking.
Post more like this Viikate

Interesting how you managed to find that quoted text from my post, but i cannot seem to find it. Let's see... i'll quite my self. I said that

"I'm willing to remove any changes we did to encounter the "sniper issue" and replace them with your large dispersion values". Isn't this exactly what you have been requesting for the past 4 or 5 pages? That the dispersion values should be increased to fix the sniper issue? If you really think that this is the correct way to go then, I'm willing to try it. Please read this carefully so that you don't see any death threats here.

[ImpalerNL]

Documentation ive found about the bf109K4, shows the iL2 bf109k4 has a lower speed compared to the real bf109k4 data.

The blue line shows 100% power, ingame.
The black line shows 110% power with mw50, ingame.

Ive tested the ingame data provided by IL2 compare, and i managed to hit a "brick wall" at 3km with a topspeed of
~640km/h TAS. (at 110% power + mw50) This is also shown with the IL2 compare data.


The green line shows 100% power, real data.
The red line show 110% power with mw50, real data.

Aircraft takeoff weight is ~3400kg (including 400kg fuel) for both the IL2 bf109k4 and the real bf109k4.



In the first thumbnail ive included the real levelspeed data (green and red), with the ingame levelspeed (black and blue).


All speeds shown in the levelspeed graphs are TAS.

[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.

[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 ...