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

[Flanker35M]

S!

I brought up this thread with fellow EOD/armament personnel at work, showing replies of TD regarding bombs. Verdict: stop talking about things you know a squat of. After looking at the radiuses in IL-2 questions were: what is this based on? How do you define destruction range? What damage is considered? Which formula was used to get such results, what parameters are taken into consideration..and many more. You might know the inner works of IL-2 etc. but seemingly there is not a single guy in the team knowing more than theoretical things, nothing about RL application of explosives. Or am I wrong?

In IL-2 the bombs of ALL nations could use a closer check to determine how they are modelled. This has nothing to do with blue or red, I am beyond that crap. If there is an error or discrenpacy in data then a check is not a bad thing..I think no-one would disagree with that?

I rest my case here. It is useless to argue.

[Hans Burger]

If there is an error or discrenpacy in data then a check is not a bad thing..I think no-one would disagree with that?

Fully agreed. It is a question of credibility. I think that this "problem" could be fixed very quickly, if data are available.

[Ltbear]

As i mentioned in my original reply i understand the problems about changing values because of the gigantic task it is to go through 2000-2500 models of ww2 bombs...

My problem is that my english dont cover what i want to say and therefore i have to with draw from the discution.....

All i can say that i know is clear is that a bomb is not only about fragments, it is more complicatet than that. I wish i had the English to make my point...

Im a "fan" of TD and in general im am happy with the work they do and i will rest my case with that. Maby in one or two years my English have improved enough lol...

Catch a great day all....

LTbear

[Furio]

Originally Posted by Flanker35M

S!

I brought up this thread with fellow EOD/armament personnel at work, showing replies of TD regarding bombs. Verdict: stop talking about things you know a squat of.

In theory, I agree. But the explosive experts probably don’t know a squat of simulation. The very same argument can be used about aerodynamics. For example, I’m not convinced at how the trim works in Il2. In real life it has mainly to do with stick forces, that can’t be modelled at all. I understand that to work efficiently with a sim has its own rules and requires its own competency.

[Qpassa]

Is expected some screenshots or something?
How is the progress of the bugfixing?
Thanks

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by Furio

In theory, I agree. But the explosive experts probably don’t know a squat of simulation. The very same argument can be used about aerodynamics. For example, I’m not convinced at how the trim works in Il2. In real life it has mainly to do with stick forces, that can’t be modelled at all. I understand that to work efficiently with a sim has its own rules and requires its own competency.

lol
by that logic we don´t touch anything, since the process is so complicated that it might affect Idon´t know what.

In fact it is very simple.
This is what a FAB 500 looks like:

public class BombFAB500 extends com.maddox.il2.objects.weapons.Bomb
{

public BombFAB500()
{
}

static java.lang.Class _mthclass$(java.lang.String s)
{
return java.lang.Class.forName(s);
java.lang.ClassNotFoundException classnotfoundexception;
classnotfoundexception;
throw new NoClassDefFoundError(classnotfoundexception.getMes sage());
}

static
{
java.lang.Class class1 = com.maddox.il2.objects.weapons.BombFAB500.class;
com.maddox.rts.Property.set(class1, "mesh", "3do/arms/fab-500/mono.sim");
com.maddox.rts.Property.set(class1, "radius", 250F);
com.maddox.rts.Property.set(class1, "power", 275F);
com.maddox.rts.Property.set(class1, "powerType", 0);
com.maddox.rts.Property.set(class1, "kalibr", 0.678F);
com.maddox.rts.Property.set(class1, "massa", 500F);
com.maddox.rts.Property.set(class1, "sound", "weapon.bomb_std");
}
}

Relevant here is the highlighted/bold passage that needs to be adjusted to a credible or even better a historical value.

[JtD]

Blablabla, personal attacks, blablabla.

Is it so hard to provide data for something you want to see changed?

"This is wrong, fix it." does not work.

"Here's what it historically looked like." is the important part. And that's what still is missing.

Or how about proving the game workings with the "range" by blowing up a dozen cars from 500m away with a FAB 1000? Doesn't work? Oh boy, if only it had been tested before starting a debate.

[dFrog]

Originally Posted by JtD

Is it so hard to provide data for something you want to see changed?

Is it so hard to provide data for in-game values ? I'd like to know where the TD's ultimate truth came from...

[JtD]

Originally Posted by dFrog

Is it so hard to provide data for in-game values ? I'd like to know where the TD's ultimate truth came from...

Do you have the game? Why don't you test for yourself?

[dFrog]

You do not understand. I'd like to know their sources of data they implement into the game. Books, graphs, etc.