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

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

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-05-2010, 08:03 AM
Romanator21 Romanator21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 505
Default

Quote:
so many differences
Oleg's Team 10 in simulator and 7 in history
Try to do better

There are hundreds of us who know minute details on just one subject. BOBC may know a ton about early Spits, but I doubt he knows much about about late war Japanese aircraft. Oleg and his small team are trying to tackle everything within a limited time frame, dealing with translation issues, you name it, and they're still doing a damn fine job.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-08-2010, 04:06 PM
KG26_Alpha's Avatar
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,796
Default

There were many Spit MkI pits variants depending on year/month/squadron etc etc.

Its incorrect to say this is the standard Spit MkI pit

There wasn't one.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-08-2010, 05:24 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha View Post
There were many Spit MkI pits variants depending on year/month/squadron etc etc.

Its incorrect to say this is the standard Spit MkI pit

There wasn't one.
Half-right. The AM would have had a standardized version, which in all sense would be 'the standard' to go by
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-21-2010, 11:19 PM
BOBC BOBC is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Default

Hi,
Glad to see this 'heads up' on the Spit Mk1 differences has got this far, still not sure if Oleg is aware of it. I did try and PM him offering my services, just wish to see accurate BoB sims wherever they exist !...but his inbox is full, despite trying again recently. Just how does one contact him ? If anyone has observations to get across, it seems impossible to get them across !
Yes I haven't a clue about Jap aircraft, I just know the Spit Mk1 thoroughly after 10 years of dedicated research. I have studied five surviving Mk1 inst panels, and footage of a Mk1 being serviced. Also I know very well the Ju88A1, shape and cockpit of the Do17Z (for which I need some head on shots to see if the usual assumption has been made), Hurricane and Me109E.

I also know my Luft and RAF camouflage and markings. 30 yrs of studying such. Cosfords Spitfire Mk1 is in ACCURATE green/brown by the way, matching AM swatches. The Me110 I saw from BoBSoW is in two shades of olive green which isn't right. Consult books like Merrick for RLM70/71, or even some modellers websites give rgb mixes for such. Incorrect Luft colours should not be occurring nowadays with all the references out there. Someone knows their trimtabs and pitots and has flagged that up.

Agreed Oleg has such a mountain to climb data wise. He should open his doors to observations if backed up by proof of knowledge, experience etc.

By the way the Albion AM463 refueller (three boom) should be in RAF dk green and Dk earth. Stations used aircraft paint stock to camouflage up vehicles from the uniform RAF blue grey at the outbreak of hostilities. I have colour shots of the Brockhouse/Zwicky refueller supporting this green/brown.

Somewhere I had also made observations on the Luft parachute, tunic colours and so on. Not sure if they were ever seen. If Oleg wishes to run WIP past me before artwork is set in concrete thats fine by me. Perhaps have a thread where those in the know can make observations.

Anything to assist this fine work. My mission is to assist any BoB sim to be accurate before its too late. I awiat contact with Oleg.

BOBC

(P.S. wish someone did a Bomber Command sim also)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-22-2010, 03:54 AM
jocko417 jocko417 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 43
Default

Interesting stuff BOBC, what's your opinion on the chord-wise stiffeners over the wheel wells on the SoW Spitfire model?



Should they be there? Or were they a modification added after the BoB had ended, in order to beef up tired airframes? I know K9942 has them today but I can't see them on any Spitfires in period photos.

Last edited by jocko417; 05-22-2010 at 04:23 AM. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-22-2010, 06:11 AM
BG-09 BG-09 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Univerce
Posts: 225
Default

Oleg...is this so...No authentic Spitfire for SoW...It is a TRAGEDY for me...and us...So many Years of believe that SoW is the REAL BOB SIMULATOR...
It seems we would not be able to join "The Few" in to the skies...but we will have nice ARCADE SHOOTER...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-22-2010, 08:54 AM
kendo65 kendo65 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BG-09 View Post
Oleg...is this so...No authentic Spitfire for SoW...It is a TRAGEDY for me...and us...So many Years of believe that SoW is the REAL BOB SIMULATOR...
It seems we would not be able to join "The Few" in to the skies...but we will have nice ARCADE SHOOTER...
I sincerely hope that this is a tongue-in-cheek comment. A 'tragedy' ...? Suddenly BOB is to be downgraded to 'arcade shooter' level.

I'm hoping for authenticity too, but at the end of the day this is a game. It won't be perfect and it won't recreate every facet of 1940 England as some people have been hoping for in other threads.

Please keep things in perspective!

Last edited by kendo65; 05-22-2010 at 09:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-22-2010, 11:11 AM
KG26_Alpha's Avatar
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.ed View Post
Half-right. The AM would have had a standardized version, which in all sense would be 'the standard' to go by
Well by the nature of anything manufactured there has to be a standard for production of course.

Its just at the point of actual use and implementation, the cockpit was in a state of flux, that's why its difficult to pin point a definate "at field level" standard pit at that time.

It could be deemed as rivet counting but would make sense to have a "basic" type pit for the Spit MKI / MKII.

But as we know what ever they do it wont be 100% correct for every one.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-22-2010, 12:22 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha View Post
Well by the nature of anything manufactured there has to be a standard for production of course.

Its just at the point of actual use and implementation, the cockpit was in a state of flux, that's why its difficult to pin point a definate "at field level" standard pit at that time.

It could be deemed as rivet counting but would make sense to have a "basic" type pit for the Spit MKI / MKII.

But as we know what ever they do it wont be 100% correct for every one.
I agree. It's probably easier to go by AM specs, although really it's a no-win situation, as there will always be some people who know more and are unhappy. The same is true for all aspects of the sim; people who work with, say, tracer rounds in their real-life may not be happy with the way it's presented in game, whilst others may like it if it looks like Hollywood
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-22-2010, 05:26 PM
BOBC BOBC is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Default

Jocko417
My memory of the facts about these are that they were not widespread during the Battle.
I have just looked closely at R6693 just prior to the Battle commencing and it is without the stiffening strakes. That then makes the L series, P series also without such. Next I need to find an X series.

I would have to go back through spitfire detailed amendments to see when the instruction for these to be fitted came out.
Also a major sift through books here to focus on that aspect and provide solid evidence. My instant reaction to did they have these though is no. Only added later to those that were still surviving.


Quote:
KG26_Alpha......It could be deemed as rivet counting but would make sense to have a "basic" type pit for the Spit MKI / MKII.
It goes without saying that the basic features that denote a Mk1 should exist.

I dont think a list with that many notable differences is counting rivets. I can understand a forum poster saying the roundels are out of place by 3 inches may be deemed such.

Accurate sim or arcade game as someone said, the choice is Oleg's. There is eye candy and there is historical accuracy. Look beyond the stunning 'skins' to the basic structure, should it be right ? Should it look like the item photoed in 1940 ?
Does the Do17Z have its asymetrical glazing, does the Ju88 have BoB period wingtips or later war, does the Defiant have just two brownings. Should the sim aim to get basic details correct, and modify whats done if errors are spotted ?


I simply point these differences out for anyone wishing to go for a Mk1. Take it or leave it. Such notable observations are always going to be met by the phrase rivet counting by some, (do they want notable errors to remain ?) and welcomed to achieve a better result by others.

Quote:
KG26_Alpha.....But as we know what ever they do it won't be 100% correct for every one.
In this case follow it and it is 100%, follow some of the more notable differences like the rudder pedals and only one fuel gauge, and it will be better for it, not immediately looking like a MkV/II.

Those that don't know their spits wont mind either way, but those that are expecting a strong degree (not 100%) of accuracy will now know they are flying a Mk1.

Quote:
Philip.ed.....as there will always be some people who know more and are unhappy
There are always those that know more....yes... if that advice is available but refused early on in development its a shame, as its just as easy to get things right as it is wrong. I flagged this up a year ago and still it exists, surprises me a little.

Unhappy...not in my case, just surprised if the apparent aim for a quality sim lets such findings pass.

If details on an aircraft or vehicle make it a different mark than is aimed for and the developer is after accuracy, one would presume they are taken on board. Perhaps accuracy within reasonable expectations is not the aim.

Bottom line is, are notable differences to be pointed out to allow for correction, or is a forum simply for responses like 'looks good'...'fab' etc. Its all down to whether the developer has amassed the knowledge base required and is self sufficient with enough experts to ensure the sim meets a certain pre-set standard, the forum simply being a one way advert, or if they seek to find notable changes to be made, observations on errors and so on.

Perhaps its source code can be tweaked after its release by users for them to make corrections, as was Rowans BoB.

As mentioned, all Oleg needs to do is contact me to check on details, its just as easy to get it right as it is wrong. This was sent through a year ago. Along with other basic errors spotted recently on things like Luftwaffe pilot artwork, bowser colours etc I hope these are corrected. I personally wish to be in a Mk1. For others, what the user doesnt know, they can't grieve about. Others though are now also aware its not a Mk1.

Lets not detract though from what is shaping up to be an awesome sim.

BOBC
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 11:45 PM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.