Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[LEXX]

Good call Kurfurst. If its that hard for the developer to pre-define combinations of weapons, let the customer/server do it.

Perhaps offer a few widely used weapon loadouts for the Newbies, maybe depending on difficulty settings.

Kurfurst::

A 109 has different model if it has a bomb, if it`s a clean fighter etc.

I think the planes under differing loadouts have the same basic model, but parts of the model like pylons are used in-game if a weapon requires it. Not sure. I think that's how it can work in the StrikeFighters.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by csThor

Honestly I am not a friend of that suggestion, Kurfürst. IMO the preset loadouts are the best way - both from a historical and technical POV. I mean it's not like flying a Bf 109 G-6/R6 one day and have the techs reconfigure it into a G-6/U4 ten minutes before take-off. That wouldn't work in reality and so it shouldn't in game, either.

It`s not really a question of pre-set/modular loadouts, and it could be very well done with modular layout. It`s only a matter of setting certain flags, and programming the engine to understand them. It`s not even more work to do, since it`s the same time wheter you set these flagseach and every time you add a new plane (ie. set attributes for a 109E with droptanks, then the 109F with droptaks, then the 109G with droptank - instead, it`s much easier to set attributes for droptank only once, since it`s the same on all aircraft and then just refer to this set of attributes later)

If certain equipment was historically permanent, then, during campaign, on the plane you have (as I believe SOW will keep track of the player`s aircraft log - engines, airframes will be worn out etc) it remains constant and cannot be added/selected; but for purposes of dogfight servers, they could be set to be freely choosen/removed any time by the player.

Here is how I imagine - there would be a seperate txt file (like current Il-2) describing the available loadouts; files describing aircraft FM woud refer to these files, and take them into account. Any combination that isn`t ruled out by incompatibility of loadouts (ie. you can`t have droptanks AND bombs on the fuselage rack at the same time!) can be selected with a selection box.

The advantage is that this work only needs to be done once - you describe, and later add new modules to it as development progresses, and it`s much easier to overview and debug for the developer as well; it also frees the developer to make each and every time all combinations of aircraft loadout. Ie. what is easier, having fixed preset loadouts, basically a 'new' aircraft model for every variation such as :


Bf 109G-6
Bf 109G-6 with droptank
Bf 109G-6 with 4 small bombs
Bf 109G-6 with 1 big bomb
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SC 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SD 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type PC 250
Bf 109G-6 with 1 cluster bomb
Bf 109G-6 with 1 droptank

Bf 109G-6 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with droptank and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 4 small bombs and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 1 big bomb and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb
Bf 109G-6 with 1 cluster bomb and tropical filter

Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and droptank
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 4 small bombs
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SC 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SD 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type PC 250
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 cluster bomb

Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and droptank and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 4 small bombs and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SC 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type SD 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 big bomb type PC 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with gondola cannons and 1 cluster bomb and tropical filter

Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and droptank
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 4 small bombs
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb, type SC 250
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb, type SD 250
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb, type PC 250
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 cluster bomb

Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and droptank and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 4 small bombs and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb type SC 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb type SD 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 big bomb type PC 250 and tropical filter
Bf 109G-6 with 21 cm rockets and 1 cluster bomb and tropical filter

etc. etc.

Then do the same thing for G-2, G-14 etc, oh and yes, you will have to adjust all of their FMs every time you tune the single base aircraft`s FM...

OR as selectable checkboxes, valid for

General
X tropical filter (or in case of a 109E/F, here could be an external armored windshield, too)

Centerline rack
- 4 SD 50 small bombs
- 4 SC 50
X one SC 250
- one SC 250
- PC 250
- One AB 250/1
- One AB 250/2
- One AB 250/3 etc.
- One 300 liter droptank

Underwing pylons
- 2x21cm rockets
- 2x20mm cannons in gondola

You can select exactly the same combinations, and more...

Which one is much easier for the developer in the long term, gives much more combinations to the player to choose from, and which one makes more sense..?

;;109EFGK_centerlinedroptank
text : An external 300 liter droptank used commonly on LW fighters during WW2
type : SPcamp_selectable; MPcamp_selectable; DFser_selectable; centerlinestore
date : 9_40
ammo :
belt_customizealbe :
weapon weight : 7.5;220;0.0;0.04
drag : 0.04; 0.005
jettisonalbe : YES
hp : 1; fueltank
incompatible : 109centerline_store
designation : addnothing

;;109G_U4_MK108
text : The MK 108 was begun to be used on the Bf 109G-6 from 1943 onwards; it was a permanent installation, meaning that only aircraft which have been built as such in the factory had them; such planes received the additional designation of /U4
type : SPcamp_fixed; MPcamp_selectonce; DFser_selectable; permanent_installation; motorkanone
date : 6_43
ammo : 65
belt_customizealbe : yes; MK108_viermot
weapon weight : 58;40;0.5;0
drag : 0.0
jettisonalbe : NO
hp : 10; gun
incompatible : none
designation : addfirst_'/U4'

;;109GK_gondolas
text : The 20mm gondolas were commonly used on the G and K series, and all aircraft were factory prepeared with wiring etc. to mount them; adding/removing the gondolas before mission to a plane was a matter of a couple minutes. Adding the gondolas did not change the aircraft`s designation - the, ie. G-6/R6 designation is wrongly used, such plane was still a G-6, carrying the Rüstsätz VI (ie. gondola field kit).
available : 109G-2; 109G-6; 109G-6late;109G-6/AS;109G-14; 109G-10; 109K-4
type : SPcamp_selectable; MPcamp_selectable; DFser_selectable; wingstore
date : 5_42
ammo : 135; 135
belt_customizealbe : yes; MG151_nonviermot
weapon weight : 135;80;0;0
drag : 0.0135
jettisonalbe : NO
location : 109FGK_winggondolamount1; 109FGK_winggondolamount2
hp : 10; gun
incompatible : 109G_R3_2x300liter_DT; 109GK_21cmrockets;
designation : addnothing


;;109F_gondolas
available : 109F-4
text : Some 109F-4`s had gondolas as well, however it was only available to aircraft prepeared in the factory for them; these aircraft were historically designated F-4/R1, so we have the same gondolas, but only for the F-4, and this time add designation, too!
type : SPcamp_selectable; MPcamp_selectable; DFser_selectable; wingstore
date : 1_42
ammo : 135; 135
belt_customizealbe : yes; MG151_nonviermot
weapon weight : 135;80;0;0
drag : 0.0135
jettisonalbe : NO
location : 109FGK_winggondolamount1; 109FGK_winggondolamount2
hp : 10; gun;
incompatible :
designation : addfirst_'/R1'

- name : this shows it`s the MK 108 engine cannon for the Bf 109G series for the programmers, mainly

- text : Here a short text for a 'floating help' can be entered to give information for the player when he puts the mouse pointer over the selected loadout)

- available : this loadout module can be selected on the following aircraft (can you imagine the list for a GP purpose bomb, say an SC 250, used by almost all aircraft, how much time this can save?)

- meaning you can`t remove or add it in the SP campaign, you can add it once to your aircraft in a hypothetical MP campaign to allow players to costumize their planes, but only once then it 'stucks' (ie. like the player would pick an G-6/U4 ship when replacement planes arrive from the factory),

- meaning it`s available for selection, where selection is allowed, from say, June 1943 etc.

- number of times weapons can be fired (counter), per gun

- flag if the weapons belt combination can be set by player; default belting, in this case, historical Luftwaffe belting used in the Western front against heavy bombers.

- Weight of the loadout it adds to the plane (58 kg); second number showing additional weight of ammo, which can decrease; third at which point of aircraft`s the Centre of gravity, front-back, left-right(this may be important for GM-1 system, rear tank of Mustang etc., where CoG was important)

- drag : the amount of drag that is added to the aircraft`s FM, until loadout is not jettisoned; second number, after loadout was jettisoned (ie. bombrack remains)

- jettisonable : yes or no; gondolas, fixed rocket rails cannot be, droptanks, bombs etc. can be jettisoned.

- predefined locations at which the SOW engine should add the external model

- Hit points the loadout possess before destroyed, 'gun' is type of aircraft part for special attributes (like inflammable or not, damagable by schrapnels etc.)

- incompatible : showing if you select this loadout, which others you can`t select before you remove it

I hope you see what system I`m thinking of. Really, it`s much better for everyone, developer and user alike.

[csThor]

The problem I have with this is that people will mix armament variations with bomb loadouts and vice versa - which in 99,9% of all cases would be ahistorical and technically impossible (real life, that is). Unless there's some "watchdog" keeping the user from glueing together what can't be glued together it's a suggestion that promotes dweebery, gaming-the-game-style behavior and erodes yet another layer of historical relevancy.

Sorry to say this but when I look at various boards (especially those of online servers) I usually see the big "BOOM-BOOM" loadouts (e.g. SC 2000 on Ju 88 ) while the historically relevant loadouts collect dust in the hangar because they don't offer enough instant destruction. I, first and foremost, am interested in flying "history-style" and this includes realistic loadouts. Most people simply don't know about them or do not care.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by csThor

The problem I have with this is that people will mix armament variations with bomb loadouts and vice versa - which in 99,9% of all cases would be ahistorical and technically impossible (real life, that is).

I don`t think you`ve read the above post of mine in which I describe how it would/should work in my understanding; if you`d have, you`d have noticed that there are settings which PROMOTE exactly the things you are asking for :

- that equipment has attribute to tell the ENGINE from what date a given loadout CAN be used from, ie. no more selection guns and bomb types that only become operational two years later...
- that equipment has attribute to tell the ENGINE with which other loadout CANNOT be used with/mixed.

Plus I believe you have an improper understanding of the working of these kits. These were meant to be modular in the first place, they could have been combined. Droptanks were combined with rockets, gondolas, bombs. HISTORICALLY. Some were common, others were not so common, but possible. '99,9% of all cases would be ahistorical and technically impossible' - sorry but you`re 'painting the devil on the wall' without too much basis I am afraid...

Especially in bombers there were a lot of combinations possible with bombload. It is simple a matter of programming to set certain bombloadouts incompatible with others, or that simply mix the best of the two systems - for example, you`d have pre-set bomb loadouts selectable like a trop filter, but you can still combine this with a tropical filter, a Kutonase, electric turrett etc.

Let`s be frank about it, Il-2`s original loadout GUI was NEVER meant to handle such insane amount of aircraft and loadouts... it was meant to be a sim for the Il-2 attack plane, for which the player could select a well defined number of loadouts... then Soviet fighters were added... then why not have opposing German fighters... why not have German bombers, too... why not Western Allied planes..

Currently we have only 2 British and 2 German fighters in BoB SOW, plus a couple of bombers. Yes, loadouts can be done in the old way, ie. presets and no ability to modularly fit only droptanks, only bombs, or rockets, or a combination of these... already that 3 is so many combinations that will make your scrolling-finger ache if you need to select these from pre-sets... not to mention programmer`s work, it will be many times the work for EACH aircraft. What if when we will have 50 aircraft? I tell you : it will consume so much work that de-bugging and FM-fine tuning will be much more difficult, since you will have to do it for each..

Originally Posted by csThor

Unless there's some "watchdog" keeping the user from glueing together what can't be glued together it's a suggestion that promotes dweebery, gaming-the-game-style behavior and erodes yet another layer of historical relevancy.

Basically, you want to limit every other player to what they can use and what they cannot; this should be a tool for server hosts, not an artifical limit imposed on most players by a small, hardcore minority (and yes, I like historical settings, too, but I don`t want to ruin the fun of those who just enjoy playing in other style).

It has nothing to do with method of selection the loadout, pre-set or modular; incompatibility between sets can be easily set, which would prevent impossible/ahistorical combinations. There are not too many of those, since aircraft were limited by takeoff weight and space/attachment points, and to some extent, Centre of Gravity. If the engine is well written, there should be problem with this - realistic physics take care of the rest - you can`t take off too much overloaded,

Originally Posted by csThor

Sorry to say this but when I look at various boards (especially those of online servers) I usually see the big "BOOM-BOOM" loadouts (e.g. SC 2000 on Ju 88 ) while the historically relevant loadouts collect dust in the hangar because they don't offer enough instant destruction. I, first and foremost, am interested in flying "history-style" and this includes realistic loadouts. Most people simply don't know about them or do not care.

Pray tell me what is soo realistic about the current loadouts. That I can`t have a historical droptank for the 109F, because that loadout wasn`t made? That I can fly a Ju 88 with the SC 2000 AND full fuel load? That I can fly bombers overloaded, since nothing stops me from having max bombload and max fuel load, even if in real life it was either full fuel or full bombs.

That I am limited to those pre-set loadouts the developers given to me, even if there were other combination historically used?

Having SC 2000 on a Ju 88 - again, it has nothing to do with the method of selection. The problem can be easily solved if the server`s owner gets ability to set the availability and quantity of choosable equipment.

2, People are using big bombs because they only have targets - tanks, buildings etc. - that require big bombs.

Sure, people are not using a more historical loadout for say, a Ju 88, which was many 50 kg small bombs carried internally, and/or a couple of 250 kgers externally. And why are you surprised with that, what exactly should they bomb with 50 kgers - which in real life were used against soft targets, primarly infantry, by far the most numerous target on RL battlefields...

Now how many infantry do you see in this game? Is there a detailed DM for trucks and such that would allow fragments from small fragmentation bombs leak the engine, fuel tank, tires of a truck..?

You can`t expect real life tactics to be mimiced if the game does not mimics real life targets. Most of the time, we have tanks, guns and such as target - even in real life, they used bigger bombs against these...

[csThor]

And you missed my "message" - what I was trying to say is that people will sling a SC500 under a Bf 109 G-6 (I am still not convinced the 109s ever used bombs greater than a SC250 BTW) and add two MG 151/20 gondolas under the wings for more firepower. That is the kind of combo I want to prevent because it is ahistorical and a serious overload for the aircraft. In real life it would be a serious overload and would certainly put quite a dent into the aircraft's performance - no sane pilot would dare to fly that crate.

Bottom line for me is - history (and not just tech trials at Rechlin - frontline availability and use count as much and even more!) must be the fundament for the technical details. In Il-2 there are a load of ahistorical and useless loadout selections (Mk 108 and Mk 103 gunpods) which were never issued to the front and therefore misplaced while others, historically relevant loadouts (can you say Pb-1 and Pb-2?) were omitted because of time and ressource issues of the developer. Right now I see the system in Il-2 as technically fine - just the loaudout details need a revision.

[robtek]

@csThor

but kurfürst did say that such combinations as you quoted would make an aircraft unflyable in the sim.
And he did also reason why there have to be non-historic loadout to handle a non-historic target-environment.
Where couldn´t you follow his reasoning?

[csThor]

To be honest I did not read anything that would indicate such limitations in Kurfürst's words. If I indeed missed this intent then I'm sorry.

But don't we all know that "people" wouldn't bother with reading documentation? They'd come here, or to some other board and whine and b*tch and moan about whatever comes to their mind if things didn't go according to "their way". Maybe I'm a cynic but I have stopped believing in the ability of people to understand what rules and regulations are for. I've read so many whines about planesets, loadout limitations or similar stuff that I no longer have any illusions about what a lot of people really seek in a combat flight simulator - instant gratification. And since I am some kind of "purist" I am rather weary of such mechanisms.

[robtek]

i just have to agree with you

[Antoninus]

I don't understand why the attitude of people that want to play "air quake" should have any influence on the features in BOB. A simulator should try to model reality as good as possible. If people have problems with that they should try another genre.

As Kurfürst said the current system in Il-2 is just extremely cumbersome. It only works well for aircraft with a rather limited capability to carry air to ground weapons.

I see no reason why overloading aircraft shouldn't be possible. If your bombload is too heavy your plane will simply not be able to take off or the climbrate will be minimal. If a station can't handle a SC 2000 bomb it simply wouldn't be selectable. If the BOB engine can simulate changes in fm and weakened substructure due to battle damage, it can handle the negative effects of carrying too heavy bombs as well. Thus flying an overloaded aircraft will be a very unpleasant experience.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by csThor

And you missed my "message" - what I was trying to say is that people will sling a SC500 under a Bf 109 G-6 (I am still not convinced the 109s ever used bombs greater than a SC250 BTW) and add two MG 151/20 gondolas under the wings for more firepower.

... and then - what?

First of all, available stores can be simply listed for the plane. If the SC 500 is not on that list, because it was not available for a plane type the player is not able to select it in the first place.

Again, historical accuracy has nothing to do with the method wheter you choose your aircraft`s loadout from a rigid preset or put it together from single pieces.

Secondly, incompatibility with other loadouts also is simple to program as attribute; simply you give it attribiutes that if player chooses Loadout A (say, droptank) he can no longer select Loadout B (say, an SC 250), but he can select something else, like an external armored glass, tropical filter or such.

So, in a practical example, there`s nothing preventing the developer, should evidence arise - other than your belief that it wasn`t if I may add - to that the 500 kg bomb could not be used with gondolas, then he could simply add a line to the section describing the gondolas that once they are choosen, 500 kg cannot be choosen, and vica versa; or to add a line to the 500kg bomb that it cannot be used with certain plane subtypes (because it is too big for them).

Again, if you`d have actually bothered to read what I`ve written, you`d stop having the false idea that I propose that every plane should be able to choose every loadout, 109s with SC 1800 and the like. That is NOT what I propose.

What I propose is basically a streamlining of the GUI to a much more user friendly one, which is easy to overview, and perhaps easier to develop in the long term. Otherwise, when you will have aircraft with 2-3-4-5 attachment points, historical possibility for rear tanks to be filled, extra ammunition, you will either have to spend a lot of time having either

a, an EXTREME number of loadouts listed, with high probability that something will be overlooked and bugged
b, simply not having several important, and historical loadouts available to the user

PS - 109K was the first one to have been officially cleared for the 500kg bombs, and I suspect it was possible on late versions with the long tailwheel - it was a ground clearance issue with bigger bombs, not a takeoff weight issue.

That is the kind of combo I want to prevent because it is ahistorical and a serious overload for the aircraft.In real life it would be a serious overload and would certainly put quite a dent into the aircraft's performance - no sane pilot would dare to fly that crate.

Dear Thor, it is you who think it`s 'ahistorical and a serious overload'. It could be easily demonstrated that you are wrong in this - this is not the place, or time for such - but basically you want to dictate what people should be able to fly, and what they cannont, and I am not 100% you have a solid base to decide over that.

I am not in favour of 'purist' players dictating 'casual' players what they can fly and cannot; he majority of the customers are not 'purist', nor for the matter of fact these 'purist' have the right idea always; often they only have just some strong-headedness. Not that historical accuracy should be sacrificed, not at all - it should be available to the server HOST as a tool to decide what equipment does he makes available, and to what extent (ie. no rare/experimental loadouts allowed, limited number of plane types that saw service in small numbers etc.)

I've written that down clearly in my previous post, it`s a pity you don`t bother to read them.

Now, if one would want to fly in a 'purist' enviroment, he is free to create his own server or join a server made for 'purist' players with full real settings. But others should able to select more casual simulation experience.

The limitations of the plane are written down in their manuals. The manuals are available.
It`s easy to sort out what can be fitted to each plane and what not.
It`s also irrelevant from the point of historical/technical accuracy, wheter you choose that from a pre-set list or 'build' your own loadout from given modules (bombs, rockets,etc).

The advantage of a modular ordonance system would be :

- ability to use any and all historical combinations, not limited by the amount of resources spent on it by the developer
- much simplier and less work for the developer on the long term
- and actually easy-to-use GUI, thinking ahead when we will have dozens of planes with hundreds of loadouts.

Overall, you completely miss the point and simply do not get what I propose.

Bottom line for me is - history (and not just tech trials at Rechlin - frontline availability and use count as much and even more!) must be the fundament for the technical details.

In theory it`s a fine idea. Question is, where do you stop? OK, you say the MK 108 was not available in big numbers until 1944 (in the big picture), so let`s not make it, a loadout, unavailable. OK, that`s fine.

Problem starts when you have to apply it to all others - eventually, there will be hundreds of loadouts, and dozens of flyable aircraft.

Will you do the historical research on availability for EACH and EVERY aircraft, bomb type and so on? How many FW 190s were available on June 1942? How many droptanks for them in September 1943? How many P-47s had paddle props in March 1944? How many gondolas were issued to Bf 109 units on November 1944? How many SC 1800 bombs dropped by Stukas in 1943/

You have any idea how difficult would that be?

In Il-2 there are a load of ahistorical and useless loadout selections (Mk 108 and Mk 103 gunpods) which were never issued to the front and therefore misplaced while others, historically relevant loadouts (can you say Pb-1 and Pb-2?) were omitted because of time and ressource issues of the developer.

You keep arguing that somehow choosing from a preset would guarantee historical accacy; YET the current loadouts, choosen from exactly that kind of preset are in many cases ahistorical.

And again, it has nothing to do how the loadout it selected; the adding of the MK 108 gondolas had nothing to do with how the loadout was selected; the lacking of Panzerblitz rockets have nothing to do how the loadout is selected. Historical accuracy has nothing to do how the loadout is selected.

It`s purely a practical question of GUI and development. This decision must be taken early, as later it is difficult to revise it.

Right now I see the system in Il-2 as technically fine - just the loaudout details need a revision.

Disagree. It may have been sufficient when it was developed and all it had to do as to select 1-2 bomb loadouts for available for a single plane. In the long term it won`t do, and it will burden the development team to spend it`s resources to far more important task.

It`s simply inflexible, limits your choices to those that could be done in a limited amount of time, and later there`s usually no big change - new developments taking away resources simply.. for how long do we lack vital loadouts for the 109F and others because of this??!!

The other thing in the GUI that would be definietely useful with over time is a FILTER function for PLANE SELECTION.

I.e. ability to show only FIGHTERs, BOMBERS, ATTACK aircraft etc; this combined with some advanced, multi-lever filtering (ALLIED + BOMBER + MID WAR for example).

Again, it`s not an issue yet, but it will be when there will be a lot of planes.