Friday 2010-05-07 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Zorin, maybe what we're seeing is not representative of the final appearance of the skin. The sharpness of the textures can be turned down to increase performance, or is maybe not optimized yet?

Some earlier shots show skins which are much more sharp than in Il-2 at the same camera distance.

As a side by side comparison:





It's a huge difference to me.

Sharpness of details is a result of the angle under which we may see it. Its how the light is falling on the surface. So the "sharpness" of Bf 110 is exactly the same as on this shot. Just under the other angle.
I remember Ilya has been shown such effect already in the past.

[Fafnir_6]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

The texture is 2 times greater in geometric size then in Il-2. Can you calculater in square?

In future probably you may add own texture and fly only alone without any other AI or online mates, because you computer will be able to calcualte resolution of all things(not just texture, but result of all things arount it) just for one aircraft but not for the hundreds and even not for the 10.

If you will give me real copy of manufacture production drawings that would show pitot in other place or other size, and trim tabs less then made, then I will ask to rework. If just several photos with different details, nothing will be done.

Same for spit. Most if not all fligth manuals have difference to real things. There are early flight manuals schemes and late for one the same aircraft. The early is for the first production series that went in troops. Late - for the whole series. And even in late - not always made the changes of production series. I have even one flight manual with the marks of real thing different to the real, that are done in squadron (as a sample).
The most correct things may say just engineers that were involved in production. I knew just one such old engineer, that died alredy.

Most aircraft already freezed in development and are in tunings of internal structure, engines, etc. In most cases will be no changes before release.

Hey Oleg,

Would it be possible to have SOW check the mission date when loading the aircraft for that mission and load the corresponding configuration (e.g. early or late). This could be very useful for including such things as gunsight or manifold pressure upgrades over the life of a given variant of an airplane. In BoB, for example, you could have the 1940 Bf109E-3 start with the rounded canopy and then switch to the square canopy in 1941. That way, the evolution of long-serving variants could be accurately modelled using the basic airframe and a palette of equipment upgrades available at different times. For online dogfight or un-dated missions you could just use the latest upgrades for any given aircraft...

...Just a thought. Great update, BTW.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[JFA2]

Hi Oleg & co, thank you for the update. Keep up the good work!
Sorry if this is an old question, but will the clouds cast shadows to the ground?

[ECV56_LeChuck]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...7&d=1273240813

Light Rays maybe?

[zaelu]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

...
If you will give me real copy of manufacture production drawings that would show pitot in other place or other size, and trim tabs less then made, then I will ask to rework. If just several photos with different details, nothing will be done.

Same for spit. Most if not all fligth manuals have difference to real things. There are early flight manuals schemes and late for one the same aircraft. The early is for the first production series that went in troops. Late - for the whole series. And even in late - not always made the changes of production series. I have even one flight manual with the marks of real thing different to the real, that are done in squadron (as a sample).
The most correct things may say just engineers that were involved in production. I knew just one such old engineer, that died alredy.
...

Even today in "computer era" we see manuals for different tools or products in general that mix pictures or info even instructions between different production models and we have to sort it out by ourselves and avoid the errors.

Imagine how sinister will look the debate over how some "GY-345zr rev 2.3" thing from today is not represented accurate in x game or simulation and the proof will be the user manuals or even service manuals, for that matter, that contains info and drawings for 10 revisions of 3 different production models...

So be more relaxed with judging those... it was war... they had no computers... and nobody thought back there you people will be so picky today over a... game simulation of the real thing... mark x.2

[Rodolphe]

...

Originally Posted by zaelu

Even today in "computer era" we see manuals for different tools or products in general that mix pictures or info even instructions between different production models and we have to sort it out by ourselves and avoid the errors.

Imagine how sinister will look the debate over how some "GY-345zr rev 2.3" thing from today is not represented accurate in x game or simulation and the proof will be the user manuals or even service manuals, for that matter, that contains info and drawings for 10 revisions of 3 different production models...

So be more relaxed with judging those... it was war... they had no computers... and nobody thought back there you people will be so picky today over a... game simulation of the real thing... mark x.2

+ 1

Even today Aicraft configurations have a lot of differencies compare to the manufacturer's aircraft manual.




Albion AM463 RAF Refueller







...

[Zorin]

I am not here to argue with any of you. If you think I deserve to be on your personal ban list for pointing out obvious mistakes, I can perfectly well live with that.

On the BF 110. There is no need for factory drawings, just a bit of common sense.

The larger and repositioned pitot tube, as well as the extended trim tabs on the rudder were both introduced on the Bf 110 E late series, which were in production during the winter 1940/41 and therefor you just couldn't see a single Bf 110 C/D during Battle of Britain fitted with them, not one.

Additionally, the radio antennas and aerials need to be moved back half a fuselage section to be positioned correctly. That can be proofed by any photograph of the 110 and even more so by the position of the additional oil tank of the D series, as well as the Dackelbauch of the D series. Because right now the rotating ring antenna would hit the oil tank.

But if you don't deem this sufficient prove, so be it, I did my bit.

[Rodolphe]

...

Originally Posted by Zorin

I am not here to argue with any of you. If you think I deserve to be on your personal ban list for pointing out obvious mistakes, I can perfectly well live with that.

On the BF 110. There is no need for factory drawings, just a bit of common sense.

The larger and repositioned pitot tube, as well as the extended trim tabs on the rudder were both introduced on the Bf 110 E late series, which were in production during the winter 1940/41 and therefor you just couldn't see a single Bf 110 C/D during Battle of Britain fitted with them, not one.

Additionally, the radio antennas and aerials need to be moved back half a fuselage section to be positioned correctly. That can be proofed by any photograph of the 110 and even more so by the position of the additional oil tank of the D series, as well as the Dackelbauch of the D series. Because right now the rotating ring antenna would hit the oil tank.

But if you don't deem this sufficient prove, so be it, I did my bit.

Spot On, You are Zorin.



Oleg you need some real copy of manufacture production drawings ? Got one of Bf110 C.




...

[Skoshi Tiger]

Come on give the man a break! These planes went through continual change, development and improvement throughout the war. The MkII Spitfire was basically the same as the MK I but incorporated all the improvements of 3 years of development plus a slightly more powerful engine.

Oleg is well within his right to ask for official documentation as the basis for changes to aircraft models, otherwise where would he stop? It will also make people wanting these change do some serious research into what their asking.

I also think that you will have to join the modding crowd if you want every variant of your favourite plane (official or otherwise) available to you.

That diagram is used to describe the lubrication points on the control system (as far as the interweb defines Schmierplan). It has no dimensions or acurate representation of the actual components. I think blueprints would be more useful to base a model on.

Cheers!

[zauii]

Originally Posted by Zorin

I am not here to argue with any of you. If you think I deserve to be on your personal ban list for pointing out obvious mistakes, I can perfectly well live with that.

On the BF 110. There is no need for factory drawings, just a bit of common sense.

The larger and repositioned pitot tube, as well as the extended trim tabs on the rudder were both introduced on the Bf 110 E late series, which were in production during the winter 1940/41 and therefor you just couldn't see a single Bf 110 C/D during Battle of Britain fitted with them, not one.

Additionally, the radio antennas and aerials need to be moved back half a fuselage section to be positioned correctly. That can be proofed by any photograph of the 110 and even more so by the position of the additional oil tank of the D series, as well as the Dackelbauch of the D series. Because right now the rotating ring antenna would hit the oil tank.

But if you don't deem this sufficient prove, so be it, I did my bit.

Seriosuly, do you ever want the game to be released?
Time to quit the nitpicking.. and you can spend 6 months making your own aircraft post-release instead of wimping about every little detail... it's after all a game also.