A flyable GST?

[Verdun1916]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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.

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.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

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.

[Verdun1916]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

+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?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

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.

[Verdun1916]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

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

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!

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

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.

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.

[Verdun1916]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

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.

I don't know that.

Your answer however did not answer my questions at all.

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.

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

[Verdun1916]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

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.

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!

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Verdun1916

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?

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.