Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Ataros

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!

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

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:

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?

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

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

[ATAG_Bliss]

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.

[Al Schlageter]

Don't have a heart attack Barbi.

- 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.

[jibo]

As a WW sim veteran, War Eagles!, anyone ? (Cosmi -1989)
The last decades were very harsh for this industry and the vast majority of our beloved companies have gone kablooie
(Sierra/Dynamix, Microprose, Origine/Jane's, Rowan/Empire, DID/Rage, Microsoft Aces Studio etc ...
The last straw was the selling of MFS engine to Lockheed Martin in 2009.

It was a real war but the good guys are still in the cockpit here @1C
This is the biggest day since IL2 sturmovik release for me, a real milestone, at last 1C will show the quality of their work.
Luthier & co, worked their a** off, for years and he nearly killed himself by exhaustion trying to save the baby. But he eventually did.

CoD will become the new WWII sim reference. The bird will fly and bring high in the sky 1C colours (especially with the lightning ).
Of course there's still tons of features left in the garage, and CoD itself will keep the stigmas of a badly rushed product.
But the team is already working on a better platform and when the big merge will come, the champagne will pop! (i pay my bottle and i send it from France) because it will be IL2 all over again (just imagine the pacific omygosh).
I'am confident they have a better control of the publishing (at least in russia) and the russian market is rising. Also we won't see any serious competitors at this level, too much work has been done already.

It's a niche but the dog is a bear

Originally Posted by zapatista

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 ?

It is not that I contest the basic statement of yours about the ground handling of the 109 but could you provide some links to support that over 50% of all 109s were lost during landing and take-off? Personally I would just say that I simply cannot believe that the armament ministry accepted a plane to be produced for so long with such a horrible statistic. Seems to me very unrealistic. 50% means that every second 109 was lost due to accidents during landing or take-offs. Why should any armament ministry accept such a thing? There had been enough parallel designs of fighters to phase out the 109 if it really had been so bad.

To complete the image I also think that the Spit is still far too easy for take off. It is a pain in the you-know-where to make it turn but the torque seems still quite easy and doesn't concur with anecdotal evidence for take-off imho.

[Fenrir]

That 50% statistic has been bandied around a great deal over the years, but I've never seen any hard data. I think it's been over-egged, or too much is placed on the 109s takeoff characteristics.

Bearing in mind accident attrition was quite high on all sides thanks to wartime pressures of training - particularly at times of high casualties, timetables cut and students rushed throught etc -and perhaps some technical failures due to rushed workmanship or maintanence, I think you'd find any accidental loss rate, allied or axis, higher than peacetime.

However, the 109, I believe is easier to takeoff and land in both Il-2 and CloD than it's real life counterpart.

I have a rather neat quote from Mr Charlie Brown; he's a modern day pilot who flies all sorts of warbirds and has many, many hours on 109s, and NOT just buchons. So many in fact that apparently he's quite in demand from collectors who have 109s that need flying, particularly test flights after rebuild or major overhaul.

I bought a book a year ago which goes through the entire test flight program of a Bf109E - yes, I said an E - and it some excellent information that clarifies a great deal. For the moment we'll just look at the T/O characteristics; I leave the rest to Charlie:

Once again the start up was easy, the checks unhurried and I found myself lined up on the runway full of confidence and anticipation. My game plan was as per 'Black 6' [the Bf-109G-2 belonging to the MoD, now - alas - no longer airworthy - Fen]: takeoff 1.0 to 1.2 ATA monitoring the RPM, keep the tail down till 100kph (62mph), raise it slightly (being prepared to catch any tendancy to swing) and then fly her off at 150kph (93mph). What I found was that the tail felt like it should be raised just as the airspeed started to register, that is at 50-60kph (31-37mph). Once the tail was off the runway the familiar extreme change in directional stability became apparent - from almost absolute stability to almost absolute instability. [Fen's italics] The aircraft flew herself off at 110kph (68mph) much sooner than I had anticipated.

Hmmmmmmm...... familiar, eh......?

[SlipBall]

I think I remember reading 10% loss...its been awhile though

Well, it's not that I did not read about the landing difficulties and I do not put this in doubt. I also believe that the losses due to accidents were indeed higher than in peacetime and probably significantly higher. I also read frequently that it is due to the narrow landing gear.

Mh. Now the thing with the narrow landing gear I have a problem: The Spit has a narrow landing gear too, and perhaps even narrower (the landing gear of the 109 is slightly bent outward while the legs of the Spits are just straightforward parallel).

You now may reply: yeah, the torque in the 109 was stronger. This may be true - but only during full power (not gradual power increase) take-off. Never during landing as the power during landing was usually cut down to very little or even idle.

Brown's statement says clearly that he was not familiar with the type and expected a different behaviour. Of course this may indicate that rookie pilots may have had problems to handle this crate. But I really would like to recall that many spit pilots reported on a strong tendency of the spit to break away too during take-off.

I do not contest that the take off of the 109 should not be left as it is (for reminder) but I really think that a 50% loss rate and even "only" 30% appears to me too high and probably a myth as I really cannot believe that the 109 remained the main stay of the German Air Force throughout the war with this kind of flaw.

[Fenrir]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Brown's statement says clearly that he was not familiar with the type and expected a different behaviour.

Er,I think you have misinterpreted and I suggest you re-read. I can tell you that for all the hours that Bf-109G-2 Black 6 was in the air, Charlie Brown was behind the stick for more than half that time. He's familiar with the 109. This was his first test flight in the E. He said the almost complete lack of longitudinal stability at tail-off was familiar - i.e it was a charactersitic of the 109G and was also inherent in the E. What is different is that the E does things at lower speeds, which one can presume is from the lower weight of the E variant compared to the G.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Of course this may indicate that rookie pilots may have had problems to handle this crate. But I really would like to recall that many spit pilots reported on a strong tendency of the spit to break away too during take-off.

Any WW2 era fighter is of 1000+HP on an airframe under 10 tonnes is gonna be a handful at full power and the low end of the speed range - the sheer physics of forces says so - the difference lies in the aerodynamic power of the control surfaces at these speeds to compensate or correct. Clearly the 109s are lacking. Sure the Spitfire could bite but it remained longitudinally controllable and had effective rudder down to walking speed. The fact the the 109 is 'almost completely unstable longitudinally at tail up' even with propellor driven airflow over the tail surfaces speaks volumes. Even in the air you have to work the rudder hard during maneouvres to keep co-ordinated (source: Me109 - One Summer Two Messerschmitts DVD).

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I do not contest that the take off of the 109 should not be left as it is (for reminder) but I really think that a 50% loss rate and even "only" 30% appears to me too high and probably a myth as I really cannot believe that the 109 remained the main stay of the German Air Force throughout the war with this kind of flaw.

When adequately trained and experienced flyers are allowed near the 109 it's a capable aeroplane - Erich Hartmann alone demonstrates this. However what this shows is that to get it off the ground and back on it again requires attention, a good experience of flying tail-wheel aircraft and of airmanship in general. These are things which a peacetime air force or one that is riding a cresting wave of victories can readily supply in the training syllabus. However, these are not characteristics I would associate with the backbone of the Luftwaffe by 1944. And the reason the 109 wasn't replaced by then is because no one in the 3rd Reich had the foresight to work on a successor back when it counted; they thought the war would be over and won by 1943!