Friday 2010-11-12 Dev. update and Discussion

[Richie]

It looks like a real warrior and the you know what is painted over.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Solnyshko

+1

Pretty cleary read it that way too - why are people now falling over each other rehashing old questions? Dear god, this is beyond embarrassment!

(or have I missed something)

- late edit: my support of the above quote went as far as the 1st line - I was not endorsing bashing moderators!

I did not believe that I was bashing anyone, but obviously I don't know what that means, or I simply misunderstood the tone of said post. (which is the most likely scenario)

[Freycinet]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

That's one example, Freycinet, and I never said I was perfect:
quote from me above: I may have posted saying things like 'the smoke looks awful', but really I hope to never do so again.

I am actually quite happy to see that you seem (in your latest postings) to have gotten the message that I have so rudely conveyed. I tried with politeness before, but didn't get though. I am glad that we agree to not suppose imbecility in the minds of the developers, and instead give them the credit the amply deserve (based on the updates and movies we´ve seen from them).

It is great to have a channel to the developers, I think both we and they can benefit from the exchanges here, as long as they make a bit sense, i.e. do not demean them over WIP updates and obvious place-holders, or show a total disregard for the obvious limits imposed on sim development by computing power and time and economy constraints.

[major_setback]

There are 3 or 4 people who talk about each other.
This is not about you! You are spoiling it completely for the hundreds of people who come to this thread for information on BoB.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by major_setback

There are 3 or 4 people who talk about each other.
This is not about you! You are spoiling it completely for the hundreds of people who come to this thread for information on BoB.

This is the Internet, selective reading skills are a must.

[LoBiSoMeM]

People see this great update, with this amazing video footage, and keep fighting about nothing.

Strange community sometimes...

[engarde]

Originally Posted by major_setback

There are 3 or 4 people who talk about each other.
This is not about you! You are spoiling it completely for the hundreds of people who come to this thread for information on BoB.

so true.

and so often the original post is lost amongst forum 'experts' posting increasingly useless minutiae in an attempt to checkmate a thread poster.

in my opinion, every Maddox post should be locked.

so, idiots cant pollute the information, and those that dont give a damn about some unknowns useless opinion can read the devs contribution unhindered.

[winny]

Maybe have a locked thread where any direct comment OM makes about SoW could be put.

Title it.. 'Before you get any more ideas above your station, read these'.

Then at least someone with a genuine question can get a reply and people would also have a starting point. Not saying someone should go back and trawl all OM's old posts but it could start anytime.

[klem]

Hi Oleg,

well I finally found a way to read all your posts (thanks to Urufu).

I have read through all of them but can't find answers to a couple of my questions - perhaps you answered them somewhere else that I can't find. So may I ask them again?

You wrote that thermals will be avaiable. Will this and general turbulence be adjustable at various altitudes? Also, the turbulence in IL-2 seems quite coarse/rough, almost on/off at even lower settings. I'd like to see more use of turbulence but I think the mission builders leave it out because it is too coarse especially for upper layers.

You gave an answer on the question about different tracers being selectable by the players (probably not) but did not say if DeWilde ammunition would actually be available. Can you tell us please?

With respect, my feeling is that IL-2 landings (gear modelling) is not very realistic, the Oleo compression seems to be too harsh and if one wheel of many fighters touches even the smallest amount before the other the aircraft bounces around wildly. (I don't mean to be rude but I don't know how else to say this.) Will the SoW gear be more forgiving?

I hope you can answer these but if there are reasons why you can't could you just say "I can't answer just now" so that I know the post has been seen?

Many thanks,

[philip.ed]

Come on guys, talking about how you all agree that members are doing 'such and such' just lowers you to their(our) level.

Winny; I think I said that in a seperate topic I while ago. I think the consensus was that it's a bit pointless...the same thing will probably happen.
I don't know. If I had more time I'd be tempted to put together a comprehensive topic for all of Oleg's questions and Answers so that people can resort to this if they want to check-up on any answers. I don't have the time though.
I have always thought a list of what Oleg has revealed will be included in the sim would be nice, especially if the list was split into categories (e.g. one category for AI, another for the terrain, etc) I know that Heinkill put together something similar a while back.



Klem; regarding tracer this may be interesting to you:

The incendiary ammunition was also variable in performance. Comparative British tests of British .303" and German 7.92 mm incendiary ammunition against the self-sealing wing tanks in the Blenheim, also fired from 200 yards (180m) astern, revealed that the .303" B. Mk IV incendiary tracer (based on the First World War Buckingham design – it was ignited on firing and burned on its way to the target) and the 7.92 mm were about equal, each setting the tanks alight with about one in ten shots fired. The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon), which contained 0.5 grams of SR 365 (a composition including barium nitrate which ignited on impact with the target) was twice as effective as these, scoring one in five.

The 'De Wilde' bullets were first issued in June 1940 and tested operationally in the air battles over Dunkirk. Their improved effectiveness, coupled with the fact that the flash on impact indicated that the shooting was on target, was much appreciated by the fighter pilots. It was at first in short supply, and the initial RAF fighter loading was three guns loaded with ball, two with AP, two with Mk IV incendiary tracer and one with Mk VI incendiary. Another source for the Battle of Britain armament gives four guns with ball, two with AP and two with incendiaries (presumably Mk VI) with four of the last 25 rounds being tracer (presumably Mk IV incendiary/tracer) to tell the pilot he was running out of ammunition. It is not clear why ball was used at all; presumably there was a shortage of the more effective loadings. (By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary.)


It's from an article written by Tony Williams (I don't know if he's famous or not). In one or two SoW videos, I'm sure I saw a 'flash' from hits from a Spitfire/Hurricane, which might indicate de-wilde ammunition.
It's interesting to read about the tracer, because apparently it did burn, and so left a smoke-trail (Williams says this) Oleg did say this is being modelled; I'm not sure if he had the relevent info on the MarkIV tracer, but I'm sure he does