1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-02-2019, 03:37 PM
taly001 taly001 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
(Ki45)Ko and Otsu in the game have 2xHo-103 slanted as one of variants. This is not "canonical", but could be attributed to field modifications which are mentioned frequently.
Sometimes the AI planes can pick extra armament options that are not historical, for example Hungarian or Finnish Me109G in 1944 at least will appear sometimes with 210mm WfGr rockets if you don't edit them out. (such as the use of USSR RS-132 rockets is date limited in code). I expect the 2x20mm slant guns on the Ki-45 are also date limited to late 44-45?

Quote:
I wish we have IL2 Compare beyond 4.11 to s
I'm not sure but il2 compare data must be generated from game code not in game testing, as it would take too long to get all the curves and so smoothly I don't think il2Compare is made by TD though.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-05-2019, 02:17 AM
Thaeris Thaeris is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8
Default

So, I confess I'm still trapped on 4.12, for better or worse, but I ask this question:

Has the Me-262A-2 been given the ability to carry cluster bombs? This is a historical loadout, and if it's not been implemented in the versions since 4.12, it really ought to be on the roadmap. The Stormbird really is fun to fly, even if the AI is not very intelligent about how to operate it. Also, I'm not sure it couldn't be fitted out with all four cannon if necessary - having the options to carry four guns for defense missions would be nice if historically viable.

Also considering the '262A-2, a U1 would be really cool to have. It's been a while since I've done any research into this matter, but I believe it would have a similar weapons sight as used in the Ju-87 and 88, with a release cue being displayed for the pilot on the gunsight, sort of like a proto-CCIP display.

Hope you fine chaps consider this - regardless, you're still great.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-06-2019, 08:56 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

My pet peeve is damage models/damage textures, especially for the planes which have been around ever since the original IL-2. I find it strange that people have been squabbling over FM for the last 15+ years, but nobody seems to give a damn about realistic DM.

There might still a few outright DM errors after all these years, although I haven't had a chance to check out them out in the new 4.14.1 release.

Some of the D2 damage textures are still ugly and unrealistic (Bf-109 series in particular).

On some planes, breaking parts break in the wrong places, especially on the wings. This creates the annoying effect of planes being destroyed by wing damage which appears to be historically survivable.

In particular, tough, high-powered aircraft like the F4U, F6F, TBF, and P-47 should still be able to fly with the outer third of one wing blown away. For the UK, the Wellington airframe should be tough to break, and for the Germans, the Ju-88 series.

Effects of internal and flak explosions need to be modeled a bit better. Currently, they're modeled as blasts that emit a star-shaped pattern of fragments, rather than having concussive power which disperses uniformly as a function of distance with the power to bend or crush vital systems.

Effects of bullets, explosions, and shrapnel vs. humans don't appear to be well modeled. For example, a pilot can take a .50 cal bullet to the arm and keep flying, and a gunner can survive the explosion of a 20mm cannon shell within an enclosed tail turret and keep on shooting. (Realistically, the pilot's arm would be blown off. Assuming the shock didn't kill him, he'd rapidly bleed out and die due to massive blood loss. As for the gunner, even with some of the plexiglass in the turret removed, there'd still be enough energy and shrapnel from the explosion that he'd be stunned if he was very lucky, or shredded if he wasn't.)

Finally, while it would be a massive undertaking, IL-2's damage models ideally need to be improved to modern standards. That means taking into account things like different types of armor, aircraft construction, and self-sealing oil and fuel tanks, as well as allowing for damage to any aircraft system, with realistic malfunction options.

Last edited by Pursuivant; 07-06-2019 at 09:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-08-2019, 12:02 AM
Thaeris Thaeris is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8
Default

I like your position!

However, I'd like to also state that Il-2 does not have that bad a damage model when compared to many other options available on the market (paid, free, old, or new). It's not that it should not be improved, but I'm not convinced it's as bad as you make it sound.

For instance, I remember playing WarBirds where losing anything other than an aileron was potentially a disaster. I can generally at least get back to friendly lines without an elevator in Il-2. I also generally don't feel like the sim has "hit points" when I fly. Other oldies-but-goodies, Like Falcon 4.0, have absolutely piss-poor damage models which can't be anything else other than HP models.

In contrast, I do wonder (and rage) about some damage effects - like how a seemingly random shot can knock out the flight controls on an FW 190, or how I could EMPTY a 20mm magazine into a Yak and see that dumpsterfire still flying around. Those issues probably are genuine bugs, however, and if legitimate bugs can be found and squashed, that's really what I think should be done first before decrying the DM as poor. My gaming experience is likely older and lamer than yours, but Il-2 has never left me thinking that it was lacking in general. The only other flight sim that has left me with a feeling like that was Parsoft's old A-10 Attack! simulator series, where indeed parts could be blown off the plane and it would handle accordingly.

So yes, I like your position, but mine would be that the bugs ought to be crunched first before the existing DM is.

Speaking of bugs... was the Horten IX / Ho 229 / Go 229 AI landing bug ever fixed? You know, when the AI attempts to land the plane, but rather than touching down, does a suicide loop into the runway instead?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-08-2019, 02:18 AM
Treetop64's Avatar
Treetop64 Treetop64 is offline
What the heck...?
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Redwood City, California
Posts: 512
Default

I'm not sure that IL-2's DM is something to get so troubled about.

It's very easy to be critical about inordinately specific points, then make obvious suggestions about what could/should/needs to be done about it, without having the know-how and resources required to actually do the job as suggested. Not to mention understanding the risks associated with fiddling for negligible gains.

Considering that it is now a 20 year-old product, IL-2 DM is excellent as a whole. It holds up well even by today's standards. Sure, they aren't perfect, and I agree there is favoritism applied - accidental or otherwise - to some Russian equipment, but still...

Probably best not to get all huffed up just because the effects of some AI turret gunner's pinky finger being blown off isn't modeled. There are far bigger, more important fish to fry.

Last edited by Treetop64; 07-08-2019 at 02:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-08-2019, 08:09 AM
gaunt1 gaunt1 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: India
Posts: 313
Default

Il-2 damage model is fine for its age, but there are some serious concerns. Yaks or Lavochkins built from stalinium is the least of the problems. Heavy (and some medium, He-111, Ju-88, both were quite tough in RL) bombers like B-17, B-24 or B-29 are way too easy to shoot down. Sometimes just a single burning engine is enough for the crew to bail. In this regard, old European Air War was far more realistic. It wasnt really possible to shoot down more than 3 B-17s in a mission in the Fw-190A8, even if you survived the bomber's defensive fire. They were just that tough. And they were able to return to base with just a single working engine (barely, but still)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-08-2019, 03:07 PM
Treetop64's Avatar
Treetop64 Treetop64 is offline
What the heck...?
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Redwood City, California
Posts: 512
Default

One of the only issues I have with the DM is that there is no way to isolate a fuel leak in multi-engined aircraft with multiple fuel tanks. For example, if just one of the fuel tanks in your SB-2 gets holed, fuel stored in the remaining undamaged tanks will also "drain" from the leak in the damaged tank.

This is especially critical in aircraft with non self-sealing fuel tanks. At least in aircraft with self sealing tanks the hole(s) will eventually seal shut as long as the damage isn't too bad, but the underlying issue still remains.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-08-2019, 03:32 PM
Sita Sita is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treetop64 View Post
One of the only issues I have with the DM is that there is no way to isolate a fuel leak in multi-engined aircraft with multiple fuel tanks. For example, if just one of the fuel tanks in your SB-2 gets holed, fuel stored in the remaining undamaged tanks will also "drain" from the leak in the damaged tank.

This is especially critical in aircraft with non self-sealing fuel tanks. At least in aircraft with self sealing tanks the hole(s) will eventually seal shut as long as the damage isn't too bad, but the underlying issue still remains.
it's interesting and complicated moment ... i tottaly agree that is not right and will be good to make true fuel system ... but it's very hard to do ... even on il2 level .... i mean ... just imagine ... most of planes have more than two fuel tanks ... not every tank on external model have collision - hit box .. plus in that case need make working tank selector plus gauges in pit must indicate right fuel level .. and at that moment multiply it on all flyable planes ..

i must say that i with pleasure will fly on that kind plane with working fuel system .. but its a huge work ..
__________________
work hard, fly fast

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-08-2019, 03:35 PM
Sita Sita is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 904
Default

and in addition ... hitbox for fuel tanks o externa lmodel must be set in right areas ... not for every plane can find fuel tank scheme ..
__________________
work hard, fly fast

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-09-2019, 01:16 AM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treetop64 View Post
I'm not sure that IL-2's DM is something to get so troubled about.
Fair point. Most of my complaints are about cosmetic issues - things that don't LOOK right, but which actually are right on a technical level.

There were actually very few actual remaining damage model problems under 4.13 when I did my damage model tests. The posts and database results are still somewhere around on this forum if people care to hunt for them.

I also agree that it would be a massive undertaking to bring IL2's damage models up to 2020 standards, just like it would be a massive undertaking to improve the graphics or to further refine the flight models. Not a realistic request.

That said, this IS a wishlist thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treetop64 View Post
Sure, they aren't perfect, and I agree there is favoritism applied - accidental or otherwise - to some Russian equipment, but still...
My tests indicated that there wasn't that much actual favoritism so much as some crude damage modeling in some of the early planes. If there's favoritism towards Soviet aircraft it's because they really were that tough (e.g., IL2 series) and/or because they were some of the first aircraft modeled.

Likewise, there are a few very minor potential errors in the DM for some of the German aircraft.

For example, in the Bf-109 series, there's a very small gap between the firewall behind the engine and the armor glass on the front of the canopy. If a bullet just happens to go through that gap, which can happen when you're diving on an enemy bomber and the tail gunner is shooting up at you, then it's very easy to get a PK result. That might be realistic, or it might not be depending on whether the control panel was made of metal that had protective value.

The actual damage model problems are mostly quick fixes, like making sure that hits to the left wing fuel tank actually affect that tank, or recalculating some numbers to make big but lightly-built aircraft (e.g., Me-323) less vulnerable to airframe damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treetop64 View Post
Probably best not to get all huffed up just because the effects of some AI turret gunner's pinky finger being blown off isn't modeled. There are far bigger, more important fish to fry.
Agreed. Given the choice between someone making new aircraft to fill in the remaining gaps in the roster, or turning AI aircraft into flyables (ahem . . . Blenheim) vs. spending time upgrading damage textures, then I'll go with the first option.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.