A flyable GST?
 

How about a flyable PBY-5 and a GST, the Soviet licence built version of the PBY-5, then? Would that be possible?

Catalina is from Consolidated hangar ... isn't it?

in fact yes it's a beauty Bird... and we even have some old unfinished preform for Cat ... but main question is who and when will do it ...

if make it right it must be big and not easy project ... i mean Cat have alot pit's for crew members ... by difficult Cat is near by B17...


but again ... it's really interesting plane ... and i love it too ...

if you know any variant's how to clone me .... my clone will make Cat with pleasure)

Never knew Soviets used Catalinas. I found some interesting stories of this beauty in Soviet hands http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...es/commandeur/

Using and even making Cat's by lisence like pointed Verdun ... it plane was named ГСТ ...

Hi Sita, no 4.13.3. update this week? :)

Hope so...

I'm sorry, Sita! You are absolutley right! The PBY Catalina's were made by Consolidated and do not have any issues with the whole N-G-deal! Sorry! My mistake!

It's nice to have all the crew stations modeled in flyables, but most of us would be happy with just flying these big birds. In the first run it would suffice to have

- one 3D cockpit for the pilot;
- one 2D screen for the bombardier;
[- one 2D screen for the radar operator]

All the rest could be added later. It's fun to play a gunner, but modeling all the gunner stations for the B-17 and the like is probably not worth the time and effort.

I agree! The main thing is to fly! The gunner's station could be added later when it comes to the multicrew aircraft.

As I remember, Pe-8 and SB developments were crowdfounded. May be this is the way to go ahead with Cat or other interesting project.
...
Subject there is a designer and TD team has time to examine/adapt new model of course...

*Happy New Year*

Other than the need to create a whole bunch of new crew stations, I think that another issue with the PBY series is that IL-2 can't (currently) handle amphibious aircraft. That would make the PBY-5A impossible, even ignoring the other changes to the aircraft.

PBN-1 Nomad was produced by the US Government and would definitely be free of copyright/trademark issues, as would the GST, the Soviet license-built variant.

A flyable GST would require 8 crew stations (nose gunner, bombardier, pilot, co-pilot, radar operator, 2 waist guns, 1 ventral tunnel gunner). A flyable PBN-1 would require 7 crew stations, omitting the ventral tunnel gun position. Both of these omit the engineer, radio operator, and navigator positions.

If you want to be completist, a good selection of models which saw combat use would be:

GST - Soviet license-built version of PBY (probably PBY-1) with Shvetsov M-62 or ASh-62IR engines, Soviet armament, instruments, and crew equipment. First produced in 1939. Unknown number built, but widely used.

Catalina I - Similar to PBY-4, but British equipment, including 6 .303 caliber Vickers machine guns – 1 in the nose, 1 in the rear tunnel and 2 each in a manual mounting in each of the blister windows. Slightly different engines, engine nacelles, and vertical stabilizer from PBY-5. Direct-ordered by the UK. First introduced in early 1941. Notable because this was the first Catalina in British service and was probably the model which was used to detect the Battleship Bismarck. 109 built.

PBY-5/PB2B-1 (Model 28-5) - Main early war USN production version, also built by Boeing Canada and used by RCAF, RAAF, and RAF (as PB2B-1 or Catalina IVA or IVB). Could be fitted with air-sea rescue, anti-submarine, or anti-ship ordinance depending on nation and intended role. Introduced 1941. 684 US-built, 240 Canadian-built.

PBN-1 Nomad - Naval Aircraft Factory built version of the PBY-5 with altered hull, wingtip floats, and tail surfaces. Clamshell doors protected bombardier's window. Single 0.50 cal. gun in retractable nose turret. No tunnel gun. Strengthened wing and increased wing fuel tank capacity. Could be fitted with Soviet or RAF ordinance. Might have been fitted with RAF or Soviet crew equipment and armament. First introduced in FEB 1943. 155 built, 17 used by RAF as Catalina V, 138 used by Soviet Navy as KM-1.

PBY-5A/PBV-1A late (Model 28-5A) - Amphibious version of PBY-5 with two 1,200 hp R-1830-92 engines. 2 0.30 cal. bow guns. (124 early versions just had 1 bow gun.) This variant carried a wide variety of ordinance depending on its intended role - Air-Sea Rescue, Anti-Submarine or Anti-Ship, and which nation was using it. Some equipped with anti-surface vessel or air-to-surface radar in radome (similar to PBY-6A). Many fitted with other anti-submarine aids (e.g., radio tracking equipment). Used by RAF as Catalina IIIA. 803 built. PVA-1A was Canadian Vickers built version. 150 used as Canso-A by RCAF, 230 used by USAAF as OA-10A (air-sea rescue version, USAAF instruments and crew equipment). 380 Canadian built.

PBY-5A "Black Cat" - As above, but modified to carry Air-to-Surface Radar, fitted with highly accurate radio altimeter, and equipped for night patrol operations. Similar aircraft were used by RAAF. In addition to appropriate USN and RAAF ordinance, these planes sometimes carried smaller bombs and improvised noisemakers so they could carry out night harassment operations. 6 USN squadrons converted to this model (~50 planes?) 2 RAAF squadrons. First introduced late 1942.

PBY-6A - Revised version of PBY-5A. 1,200 hp R-1830-92 engines, taller fin and rudder (similar to that of PBN-1), altered control surfaces. Radar scanner fitted above cockpit. 2 0.5 cal. nose guns in "eyeball" turret. Increased wing strength. This variant carried a wide variety of ordinance depending on its intended role - Air-Sea Rescue, Anti-Submarine or Anti-Ship - and which nation was using it. First introduced early 1945. 175 built, 21 used by Soviet Navy.

Would that be Gibbage's old project:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...o-the-catalina

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...blisters21.jpg

i suppose that exactly what i'm talking about

:confused:
There are several amphibious aircrafts in game: PBN, E13A, A6M2-N, MBR, Ar-196, Cant. Z 506B, and maybe one or two more that I missed. However currently the only flyable option is the A6M2-N Rufe. And there is the Ju-52 version with the floats. Speaking of that aircraft, will that version be made flyable when the standard Ju-52 is?

If I correctly understand it, the game engine can't handle aircraft capable of landing on both water and land. It's either one or the other, even though there are gears and everything in the PBY-5A version IRL.

These are all dedicated seaplanes/flying boats which can only take off and land on water.

A truly "amphibious" seaplane or flying boat has the capacity to take off and land on both water and land.

For some reason, only the allies had amphibious aircraft during WW2, although the technology was well-known.

WW2 amphibians which saw operational service: Consolidated PBY-5A & PBY-6A Catalina, Douglas RD-4 Dolphin, Grumman G-15/J2F Duck, Grumman G-21/JRF Goose, Grumman G-44/J4F Widgeon/Gosling, Shavrov Sh-2, Sikorsky S-43/JRS-1 "Baby Clipper", Supermarine Walrus, and Supermarine Sea Otter. Of this list, the "important" ones which saw the most extensive combat service are the Consolidated PBY-5A Catalina, Shavrov Sh-2, and Supermarine Walrus.

Additionally, a number of land planes could be converted to seaplanes by adding floats, but this prevented them from being operating from land until the floats were removed and wheels replaced. For example, the Ju-52/6m or the Kawanishi N1K Kyofu "Rex."

Just 27 a/c were built according to:
http://www.hydroplanes.ru/gidrosamol...rosamolet.html
http://www.navylib.su/avia/katalina/03.htm

Production stopped in 1940.
There were 11 in the Black Sea Navy (9 lost in 1941-1942) and 7 in the North (at least 4 lost in 1941).
4 planes survived WWII. Engines: М-87А, M-88, M-62, M-62IR.
Superior to other Soviet flying boats, but same destiny - high losses due to reckless (or desperate) tactics in early war period, poor maintenance, low crew qualifications, lack of spare parts.

Thanks for the additional information.

So, a much rarer bird than I thought. That means that the GST is rare enough that it shouldn't be included in the list of historically important Catalina variants.

There is one MOD plane that I know of (the Grumman Duck) that resolves this issue. It can land on water or land. I assume that if the modders can do it, TD could do it too. Yes? No?

Cloyd

I don't think there is any problem to make a seaplane that can land both on water and on land. The Catalinas/Nomads had retractable landing gear like most other land based aircraft. However you would need a separate key-command for the wingtip pontoons so you can use them without lowering your landing gear.

However...the difficult part I think might be the AI and to be able to get that to be able to act the correct way in the correct situation. That is making the AI know when to lower the landing gear or when to lower the wingtip pontoons depending on if it's supposed to land on land or water. I'm not sure how the already present AI PBN Nomad works when it come to landing and taking of on water compared to on land. I think it can only handle water landings and take-off's but I'm not sure. I will have to check that out.

But I'm not a programmer so this is just my thoughts on the matter and I might be wrong here.

EDIT: I did a little test with the stock AI PBN Nomad. I Used the Norway map and set the British seaplane airbase as take of point for it and the big airbase to the south of it as final waypoint and landing point to see if the Nomad would try to land there. But it seems that the AI was smart enough to realize something was afot so after reaching it's last mid-air waypoint it automatically landed back at the seaplane base instead of the land base I had designated as it's landing point.

So maybe a solution would be to have two versions of seaplanes that was historically capable of landing both on water and land. One version for water take-offs and landings only and one for land take-offs and landings only. If it's not possible to make a version that can handle both, both player and AI wise.

Indeed you are right! The reason I suggested the GST was because on a mistake on my side since I thought there was a connection between the US-built Catalinas and Northrop-Grumman thus prenventing them from beeing made flyable in the stock game. But I was wrong and Sita corrected me on it.

Of course the easiest to add would be the already present AI PBN Nomad in the stock game.

+1

An actual Catalina I or PBY-5 would basically be a new plane due to changes to exterior model, as well as many minor changes to crew stations. Canso-A/Catalina IV, PBY-5A, or PBY-6A would require changes to the game engine to allow amphibious aircraft.

How come the last three you mention would require changes to the game engines? Has that to do with the ability to land both on water and on land?

Discussed previously in the thread. IL2 currently lacks the capacity for the same aircraft to take off and land from both land and water.

All three Catalina variants I mentioned were redesigned to be "amphibious" - allowing them to do just that.

I believe this has been altered in modded versions of the game, and that true amphibious planes have been successfully added. So, not impossible for the game engine, just not done yet for the official version.

Yes, I read that! And I do know very well what an amphibious aircraft is. But I was hoping for a more in deapth aswner to my question. In what way does the game lack the capacity to handle aircraft that can land and take off on both land and water. Is it the AI that can't handle both options for one and the same aircraft? Or is it some limitation on the aircraft themself that makes it impossible to have a workable landing gear on an aircraft with a shiplike hull?

Since I'm not a programmer I want to get a little more info on why and what these limitations are.

From a playable aircraft stand point I can't see (or understand is maybe a better word) why and how there are limitations. A player controlled amphibious aircraft would be handled lika an ordinary land based Aircraft (if it has workable landing gear): you want to land on land you push the toggle gear-key and out comes the gear and you land on an airstrip. And if you want to land on water you don't lower the gear and you land using the aircraft hull like with the ordinary seaplanes on the water instead. Off course an additional key would be needed to toggle wing-tip pontoons like the ones Catalinas and Nomads have.
But maybe that is were the limitation lies? That you can't have both retractable gear and retractable wing-tip pontoons on one and the same aircraft?

Maybe it would work for a player controlled aircraft but the AI can't handle it due to AI-limitations? And if so, could there be a work-around using two versions of say the Nomad? One version like the AI-one we have today that can only take-off and land on water and another with works just like ordinary land-based aircraft with working landing gear that is programmed to only take off and land on airstrips on land. That way you choose the "water" or "land" version depending on what kind of airbase you want to use in the mission you are building.

I hope you understand what I mean here haha :D

I just don't want to know that there are problems with handling amphibious aircraft in the stock game. I want to understand what the problem is and why it's there. I want to understand exactly what the limitations are.

Cheers!

Speaking as a just about programmer, that's a definite maybe.

Programming is a job. Like woodcarving, or sculpture. It's not easy. Anyone tells you it is easy, they are lying, that's simple.

Telling you where the limits are? That's not simple, that's not close to simple. With programming, the limits are a lot further out than with sculpture, but the extra range means extra effort, or extra creativity. Extra creativity costs.

The towers of hanoi tail recursive algorith, is pretty. If you don't grock that, I will tell you it's the best you can get. However, there is a non-recursive algorithm, for every number of discs. The recursive algorithm in fact reduces to the non-recursive algorithm for any particular number of disks. The code for the recursive algorithm is shorter for a number of disks greater than about three, and the recursive algorithm is general, it needs to deal with special cases where stack overflow is a problem which maybe about fifty or a hundred discs depending on the processor or maybe the operating system.

On the whole, don't assume that programming is like your work, it's very creative.

I'm not assuming anything! That's why I asked the questions that I did above. I want to know the reasons for why the stock game can't handle amphibious aircraft that historically could land on both water and land and how it can be solved or compromised to being able to have these birds and others like it in the stock game in the future. Your answer however did not answer my questions at all.

You only stated the obvious that programming is damn hard and that I already knew.

I don't know that.
Yeah, I know nothing about that. Programming requires skill, it's not easy, but each particular case is different. It's not necessarily that difficult, for those that can, like swimming the olympics if you're an olympic standard swimmer, but for those that can't, it's almost impossible.

If these guys could be coding for Apple, they'd probably be doing that, so we've got the guys left out, they're better than us, but they're not capable of miracles.

;-) :? :grin:

Eh you just kind of insulted Team Daidalos you know! They do this as a hobby becasue they love the game just like the rest of us, no matter if they work for Apple or not. But that does not make them less skilled programmers! For all we know several of then might work with programming as a living! But this IS A HOBBY! Just like any other hobbies!

So I think you should appologize to TD for insulting them like that!

My apologies for the confusion.

I'm not a programmer either, but my understanding is that amphibious landing capacity wasn't built into the game, but could easily be added.

Currently, there's nothing preventing the addition of amphibious planes in land-only or sea-only versions, but that's just "clunky" and not realistic or fun either, since the whole point of having amphibious planes is their land/sea operations potential. It also requires 2 "slots" for the same aircraft, which is wasteful.

Therefore, the only real option is to do some programming work to allow amphibious ops.

AI would have to be slightly modified to make sure that AI planes keep their wheels retracted when making a water landing/take-off, and extended for land take-offs/landings, and that retractable sponsons/wing floats get extended/retracted as necesssary. (Unless you want to introduce pilot error into the game!)

A new key would need to be bound to allow player-flyable planes to extend or retract sponsons or wing-tip floats (not just for amphibious planes, for but any flying boat which had these features).

But, FWIW, IL2 can't and doesn't model water behavior, much less the interaction of water, wind, and objects in the game world. That would require massive amounts of new programming, essentially making a new sim. That makes truly realistic seaplane ops impossible, although I don't think it would be that hard to "fake" certain wind and wave effects by increasing or decreasing water or wind effects when you're within X distance of a certain object or if you're flying at Y angle compared to wind direction. "Bobbing" effects for aircraft on water could also be made more severe as wind speed increases, but there would be no corresponding animations in the game to show the heavier seas.

Thank you! You have given me a far better understanding of the issue now! :) :grin:

Have you ever tried the worst climate at sea?
Don´t remember the name of it, but waves are there...

Have some fun:

[MAIN]
MAP MTO/load_light.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 6
CloudHeight 1000.0
player IN_NN00
army 2
playerNum 0
[SEASON]
Year 1940
Month 6
Day 15
[WEATHER]
WindDirection 0.0
WindSpeed 0.0
Gust 10
Turbulence 5
[MDS]
MDS_Radar_SetRadarToAdvanceMode 0
MDS_Radar_RefreshInterval 0
MDS_Radar_DisableVectoring 0
MDS_Radar_EnableTowerCommunications 1
MDS_Radar_ShipsAsRadar 0
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MaxRange 100
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MinHeight 100
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MaxHeight 5000
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MaxRange 25
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MinHeight 0
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MaxHeight 2000
MDS_Radar_ScoutsAsRadar 0
MDS_Radar_ScoutRadar_MaxRange 2
MDS_Radar_ScoutRadar_DeltaHeight 1500
MDS_Radar_HideUnpopulatedAirstripsFromMinimap 0
MDS_Radar_ScoutGroundObjects_Alpha 5
MDS_Radar_ScoutCompleteRecon 0
MDS_Misc_DisableAIRadioChatter 0
MDS_Misc_DespawnAIPlanesAfterLanding 1
MDS_Misc_HidePlayersCountOnHomeBase 0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat1_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat2_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat3_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
[RespawnTime]
Bigship 1800
Ship 1800
Aeroanchored 1800
Artillery 1800
Searchlight 1800
[Wing]
r0100
UM_NN01
IN_NN00
g0101
i0102
IN_NN03
IN_NN10
UM_NN02
[r0100]
Planes 1
Skill 3
Skill1 1
Skill2 1
Skill3 1
Class air.MBR_2AM34
Fuel 100
weapons default
[r0100_Way]
TAKEOFF 130066.49 130032.46 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 110114.22 130084.08 200.00 245.00 &0
NORMFLY 90082.14 129959.66 500.00 245.00 &0
[UM_NN01]
Planes 1
Skill 3
Skill1 1
Skill2 1
Skill3 1
Class air.PBN1
Fuel 100
weapons default
[UM_NN01_Way]
TAKEOFF 130048.58 128974.86 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 110095.95 129001.08 200.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 90004.40 128971.93 500.00 300.00 &0
[IN_NN00]
Planes 1
Skill 3
Class air.A6M2N
Fuel 100
weapons default
[IN_NN00_Way]
TAKEOFF 130019.43 128002.30 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 110012.40 127966.33 300.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 90006.35 128018.77 500.00 300.00 &0
[g0101]
Planes 1
Skill 3
Class air.AR_196A3
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0101_Way]
TAKEOFF 130048.58 127029.75 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 110128.02 127017.07 200.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 89895.60 127012.19 500.00 300.00 &0
[i0102]
Planes 1
Skill 3
Class air.CantZ506B
Fuel 100
weapons default
[i0102_Way]
TAKEOFF 130018.45 126027.06 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 109984.23 125987.19 200.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 90009.27 125951.21 500.00 300.00 &0
[IN_NN03]
Planes 1
Skill 3
Class air.E13A1
Fuel 100
weapons default
[IN_NN03_Way]
TAKEOFF 130021.38 125051.58 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 110178.52 124982.56 200.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 89986.95 125034.03 500.00 300.00 &0
[IN_NN10]
Planes 1
Skill 3
Class air.H8K1
Fuel 100
weapons default
[IN_NN10_Way]
TAKEOFF 130046.63 124080.98 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 110011.43 123956.58 200.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 90254.07 123981.83 500.00 300.00 &0
[UM_NN02]
Planes 3
Skill 3
Class air.F4F3
Fuel 100
weapons default
[UM_NN02_Way]
TAKEOFF_003 19284.93 130255.60 0 0 0_Chief 0 &0
TRIGGERS 0 0 20 0
NORMFLY 86722.72 127968.89 500.00 300.00 &0
[Chiefs]
0_Chief Ships.USSLexingtonCV2 1 0 2 1.0
[0_Chief_Road]
19907.65 130084.09 120.00 0 2 8.809722900390625
60345.08 129835.23 120.00
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]



I think this has been toned down. CV movements used to be far more generous on takeoff. Still, I must agree that waves effects only shows a bit while the aircraft is stationary.

When there are blind, rain/snow, or thunder conditions the water texture changes to show white crests on the waves. Additionally, motion effects from waves increase under those conditions during carrier or water take-off and landing.

BUT, due to the limits of the IL2 graphics engine, you don't actually have wind speed, terrain, or large objects such as ships, influencing wave height, appearance, or direction. That makes highly realistic seaplane and amphibious ops impossible.

A realistic carrier take-off in moderately heavy seas and high winds would look like this (at about the 2:30 mark):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHnwxRfzR2A

This is what a float plane take-off would look like under similar conditions:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzjT_EEk5eI

Thanks for Charing those clips, Pursuivant! Very interesting! :)

But even if we don't have and there is no way to get these extrem weather conditions for the open water areas I would still love to be able to fly a Catalina or similar amphibious aircraft or other seaplanes and flyingboats in the stock game as it is now. I already love to play around with the A6M2-N. I feel that souch aircrafts would be a great addition to have for the Norway map for example, and the Channel map when that arrives, just to mention a few.

The clip where the engine falls down is excelent.

I agree. Since we already have the A6M2-N as a flyable plane, there's no reason to not eventually have other seaplanes as flyables.

But, we have to accept that IL2 will never allow for truly realistic seaplane operations because water physics can't be modeled or animated accurately, much less the physics and animations of wind interacting with terrain and water.

What would help seaplane operations a bit would be the option of having sea state (i.e., wave height, distance between waves, current speed, wave direction and current direction) separate from weather conditions, and even wind speed.

It might also be relatively easy to have water motion rocking and drifting effects (but not animations) correspond to wave and current direction and wave height.

This one, I guess.

https://youtu.be/Vnhze7UiGbU?t=44s

Thanks for the share, dimlee!

Another aircraft I would love to see in the stock game as converted to flyable status, the Ar 196.

There are two types of spawn/stay points. One for seaplanes and one for land based aircraft. Notice at the seaplane base they are light blue and at the land base they are green. If you zoom in far enough you can see floats on the seaplane spawn/stay points. If you are having trouble on a map with planes landing weirdly in an area you may find that the map builder used the wrong type.

Sea Planes
http://www.mission4today.com/modules...pawnpoints.jpg

Land Based Planes
http://www.mission4today.com/modules...pawnpoints.jpg

The reason the AI flew back to the takeoff point in your mission is because the bases were so close to one another. In the mission below I had the AI fly all the way to Herdla. The AI plane did not return to its takeoff point but it did still land in the water.

Wheels