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

[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 ...

[bigbossmalone]

well, my request about the ship padlocking problem seems again to have been brushed aside, yet a request for yet more skins makes the grade for a reply? wow.
sure, there are many beautiful skins out there, and the more the merrier, but is that really a gameplay-critical request, and not yet just more eye-candy?
what i am asking is something tha will be appreciated by many players, especially those less-fortunate ones who do not have the luxury of a head-tracking TrackIR system, or such......a proper useful fix to something that seems to be broken.
it's also not taking sides, as it will be equally useful for blue or red players, i'm sure, lol.
surely, after trying to make this request for over a year now, someone would at least have the courtesy to answer?
i mean, it really only needs to be a one-word reply, such as 'yes, no' or ''maybe, we'll see'......for a group that professes to not have the time to reply to everyone, i don't see how much time it would take for at least a simple acknowledgement of this request, yet there are lengthy 'quote/replies' concerning these other weapon issues....i don't get it.
is no-one interested? and here i thought, as 4.10 is apparently a bit more focussed towards ships/ship battles, it might be a pertinent request...

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by bigbossmalone

well, my request about the ship padlocking problem seems again to have been brushed aside.

I had a faint flashback that I have talked with you about this before. Or at least someone requested it and I checked the code and what it would take to make it. Simple change would have enabled it, but then AI would treat ships as different kind of targets and results might be unwanted, so it would need to be changed "more safely" -> more work.

[bigbossmalone]

Originally Posted by Viikate

...Simple change would have enabled it, but then AI would treat ships as different kind of targets and results might be unwanted,..

thankyou, Viikate, for your reply, i appreciate it.
just thinking a bit more on this, currently the way the AI treat ships as targets is pretty atrocious, to say the least. perhaps it would be worthwhile to look into this at some point in the future?
perhaps giving ships the same sort of properties as regular ground targets would be a simpler solution? probably not, but a solution somewhere along those lines...
i realise the implications might be problematic for torpedo bombers, but for most other kinds of planes, the way they attack ships currently leaves a lot to be desired, so it might actually be a case of killing two, or more, birds with one stone, if this can be looked into.

i really hope you guys can investigate this a bit more at some point down the road.
thanks for listening.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by bigbossmalone

thankyou, Viikate, for your reply, i appreciate it.
just thinking a bit more on this, currently the way the AI treat ships as targets is pretty atrocious, to say the least. perhaps it would be worthwhile to look into this at some point in the future?
perhaps giving ships the same sort of properties as regular ground targets would be a simpler solution? probably not, but a solution somewhere along those lines...
i realise the implications might be problematic for torpedo bombers, but for most other kinds of planes, the way they attack ships currently leaves a lot to be desired, so it might actually be a case of killing two, or more, birds with one stone, if this can be looked into.

i really hope you guys can investigate this a bit more at some point down the road.
thanks for listening.

Check P M

[JG53Frankyboy]

Originally Posted by csThor

Emil, could you make a list of incorrect instrumentation (planetype + instrument)? That might be helpful for our cockpit 3D gurus.


..................... ...

i mnot Emil and sure you ment something different , but the Speed gauges in the Ki-27, D3A and G4M have all knot scalas but are reading km/h - so, at 300 and 330(Val and Betty) the scala is at its end

[Ltbear]

About bombs. Well some feels abit wrong some feels useless etc.

I have been folowing this debate abit, but in general talking about bombs are talking about different cars. The structure of bombs are a nightmare to follow since they change in some way every 6th month of the war.

German multipurpose bombs was not fragmentet (or many of them was not) The germans used a 5 step fusing instead so the bomb detonatet in 5 stages (5 series fusing)

This in general gave about the same result as a fragmentet bomb.

Again the Germans had SD, SC, PD and AB bombs and in many cases there is versions up to mark III of the same bomb. Each version with some modifications (effect)

With all these bombs, and the limitet versions made ingame you have to do a compremise, you cant have them all (sad actualy but well)

If you look at the games versions of bombs and how they work they are a decent compremise for all these bombs. It could be better, but again, we want it all, but have to patch what we have.

I have only talked about German bombs here, all fighting nations made and used bombs in many many variations, think of the task going through 2000-2500 different bombs and then implement the "fair" changes.

At the end i agree that some bombs feels wierd, especially when you know abit about bombs, but i live with it because i understand the insane ammount of researtch it would take adjusting them. A dummy bomb is actualy not a dummy, its a fairly complicatet device when you look at fusing and structure....A German fragmentation bomb is around as effective (90%) as a American, Russian or other bomb. The problem "tuning" it would be what version should you adjust after, year? Fusing? Mark number?

well enough stupidity from me....

Ltbear