posted 04-09- 03:23 PM               

An effort has begun to upgrade the 10 planes that originally came with the sim. The physical models will be corrected/enhanced. The FMs will be brought as close as possible to the specs for the plane. The planes will then be tested against each other for parity with how they performed against each other in reality. Finally, they will be checked for useability. (i.e. If a planes FM is exact, but because of the length of runways and mountains in the flight path... the plane cant take off reasonably well, that portion of its FM must be changed....)
Damage models will be brought up to the state of the art... NOT standardized since there is more than one way to do things....
The training missions are going to be rewritten and historical loadouts checked (i.e. bazooka tube rockets for the P51 maybe???) There is a liason to the nations group as well.

If you are currently working on any of the 10 original planes, please let me know, we need you. If you are interested in working in these areas also let me know.

There is a structure to the group...
FM lead - Zur (temporarilly)
DM lead - Jedi
PM lead - Wakeup Tailgunner
QA lead - Spin (Snickers will backup)
Nations Liaison - Werner Moulders
Missions Lead - Jeeves

Anyone is welcome to help. This is a large effort. We would like to release these 10 planes at the same time sv and crew comes out with the next WWI plane pack as well as the patch. Once this is done we will take 10 more planes and do the same to them (in the next go, plane authors will be automatically involved (if they want to be) when their plane is worked on... This way planes that are not completed will be. In addition, over time, the plane pack will become more balanced (like the WWI pack is).

posted 04-09- 04:40 PM               

Oh, and only early model P-51s had the tude rockets.

posted 04-09- 04:45 PM               

Regardless you all are doing a great job.

posted 04-09- 04:45 PM               

I'll need some guys who want to work on the damage models of the orginal planes. I may do SOME of this myself, but then you'd only see "my" kind of damage being modeled. There are several guys who have done a lot of stuff I haven't tried (flat tires, brake failures, damage skins, engine "parts" that can fail, etc) and I'd like to get them involved.

Not sure how we'll approach beta testing yet, or how the actual "assembly line" of 3D tweaks, FM tweaks, DM tweaks will work, but if you're interested in adapting some of the new DM stuff to the original "boxed" planes, let me know. Some of these (P-51, Ju-88, B-17) may have VERY little DM work to do, since they've had guys upgrading them for a while, but others (Spit V, FW-190A, Mossie) are virtually untouched and will require a major effort.

posted 04-09- 04:48 PM               

Now,

Razer, your talents are not in question. Finish up that B-26 and lets get on with it shall we

Gunner

posted 04-09- 07:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SCROFT:
So will this be PP6.1?
or
PP6.2?
or
Something different?

---

If it releases with the patch, something different (as I belive the concept of the PP changes with changes in the patch...) If it were to go out today, it would be a part of the next PP.... (There would not be duplicate or additional downloads...)

posted 04-10- 02:26 AM               

I don't mind if anyone modifies the Ju88A4 DM, though, so long as it turns out better than mine . Check out my DM (v6.2) and see if it it's a good starting point for further work. Most of the advanced DM concepts like flat tires, brake failures, engines seizes, oil loss, coolant leaks, etc are already included in my DM.

Cheers

------------------
Visit FS:SDOE Online

posted 04-10- 05:01 AM               

The Ju88 wil also get a model re-vamp. I don't know how much of one, but it will get new engine nacelles and a few tweaks. Harmans work on it won't be wasted! I know the work he put in on it, and I will make sure it keeps all the good stuff he added. It may grow a few extra tricks though...

We don't want to wipe out good work, but we do want to bring ALL the old stock planes up to the standards of the newer releases. The P51 will get a new nose and scoop, with some extra damage options, but why waste Raiders hard work? We can have both!!!!

It's a BIG project, and it will take a lot of time ( hence the missing names...there are quite a few very talented people who have other sim commitments right now ) but it should be well worth it!

posted 04-10- 07:23 AM               

I wish I could help out more, but apart from my other current projects, I'm not much of a 3d modeller apart from minor 3d work here and there and in the DM dept, imo, I've pushed the '88 as far as I could, great to see a team of people working to push it and other planes further

posted 04-10- 01:55 PM               

The 190's are fine we just need to replace the A4 with the A3 like it was ment to be. I've ported over the engine fan for the A8 for yardstick so it's ready. These planes are fine and i think other planes should be looked at like the typhoon.

Engine DM and some visable damage is nice but I think we need to draw a line on how much damage we are adding to planes. We spend all this time on damage modeling when we can be improving other things like larger terrains or adding planes we really need like med bombers, things like that.

Over the last week i've really started to get turned off on all this damage modeling. It's been a week and i've had no desire to work on planes cause all the stuff that is now needed to finish one.

When we first starting modeling planes it was great. Then Condor comes in with some great engine DM and things was really moving up. Then we get coolent leaks, jammed guns and i'm really liking this.

Now we have damaged panels and airframes that show up. Now forgive me if i'm totally wrong but half the damage that shows up on the La-7 the real plane would have fallen out of the air way before it showed up. A plane with that much drag would have ripped the tail off or something. I think we've moved passed the realistic damage on some of this stuff.

It's totally up to you guys but I'm starting to think that it's really time for me to move on and just release what I have. I know it's not something people want to hear and it's not something i want to say but i think we've lost sight of the main reason we all stuck with this sim in the first place.

I like the idea of updating the planes but i think it should be to a point. I personally like the planes with just the engine DM.

I'll go ahead and say i'm completely against chopping up all the old planes to add airframes and things like that. I don't take stands much, matter of fact this is only the second stand i've made. There is somethings this game just doesn't need.

I've stood by and said nothing but it's time for me to speak up. I think we need to set a line for DM and never cross it. You guys have to remember we are dealing with an old render and something we just shouldn't do.

posted 04-10- 03:39 PM               

No one is saying we ALL have to build a plane with every possible option on it, but with the standard PC packing so much more power, we can do these things without killing FR's.

I just tested an FW190 model with all the bits and pieces, and I'm still getting FR's up in the 60's and 70's. When I started playing SDOE with a slow processor and Voodoo2 I was happy if I hit 30.

Yes, there is a limit, but the limit should be what the sim can handle without serious slowdown.

I don't understand why you feel you have to do this stuff if you don't want to though. I don't think anyone will say your planes are second rate coz they don't shed all their panels and collapse to the point where you are flying just the seat....

This is an OPEN sim, and people can do pretty much what they want with it. That is what interests me. You can't impose a barrier and say no further, coz if you do that, you kill the sim. and besides, will you outlaw people for building illegal planes?

After all, if we build the planes, nobody is going to twist your arm to download them

It would be a shame if you left, especially over something like this, but the question is,

What IS the main reason people stay?

You don't speak for me on that one.

and what is changed by adding new ideas to old planes?

I don't understand your hostility to new ideas here, at least let us finish what we want to do and judge it then. WE don't know how these planes will look or fly until they are finished.

posted 04-10- 03:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snickers:
Have talent in any of the following?
Physical Modeling (PM)
Flight Modeling (FM)
Damage Modeling (DM)

---

How about historical research and loadouts? I just re-wrote the entire german planeset.

posted 04-10- 03:55 PM               

this is my point about adding all this stuff to the old planes. Yes, I do agree it would be nice to see new features on old planes, But i don't agree with it since it means we'll not going to get the good FR's we've had in the past with these planes.

all this new DM things came with a price. We have a lot more CTD's then we used to and as the days go on our FR's are getting lower and lower and this render just wasn't designed to handle all this stuff. There can;t be a limit on the things we add but there needs to be a limit on thigs we add that cause the game to not be enjoyable anymore. I don't care if the plane has the greatest FM or DM we've ever seen. If i can't fly more then 1 plane in the air and not get over 20 FPS, then it's no longer fun.

That's the point i'm trying to make. You never get something for free, you always pay a price and in this game the price is CTD's and loss of FR's.

Wakeup, i liked that B-17 you did, and personally if this game had a better engine then that would have made B-17 II look like Chuck Yagers Air Combat.

But when Razor747 and I flew online with the 163 we both were running in the 20s for FR's when only 3 B-17s and just 2 163s. Where before with the old B-17 (and we switched back to it after the mission) we was getting in the upper 70's with the same amount of planes.

I wish you would see where i'm coming from with this. I don't fly this game offline much just online. You get lower FR's online then you get offline and if we are having FR problems offline it's not going to be playable online.

I'm not trying to piss a bunch of people off i'm just trying to keep the game playable.

posted 04-10- 04:33 PM               

Setting a line and not crossing it, reminds me of somethine someone else once said about not wasting time trying to land on water. Why would you tie your hands in such a manner? Yes, many hours went into different theories on how to allow a plane to land on water. Mace came up with an answer. The sim developers watch what goes on in the various sims. (I know because everytime I made an announcement about the PBY, someone from inertia.games hit my web site...)

It may be that this gets tried but is too much of a FR hog and gets tossed and never used again. Or it may be that it works. Or it may be something in the middle (most likely). But we will have tried and will will have learned. The sim will have grown.
I respect and understand your position. Please understand ours. Again, we are not creating a standard, just updating planes....

Please go back to the original post. "...Finally, they will be checked for useability...." This will include some of the types of things you mentioned in response to WTG's post.

QA is also a major thrust. If a plane is causing ctds then it doesnt get released. Period.

posted 04-10- 04:35 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maury Markowitz:
How about historical research and loadouts? I just re-wrote the entire german planeset.

Maury

---

Now that Bryan has fixed a lot of the damage problems i think we can do without spoons loadouts and go back to historical data.

posted 04-10- 04:50 PM               

After reading Razer's post, there's a lot I agree with. This is because I have a lower mid range system with a 400MHZ Cpu. From many of the posts we've seen there are a lot of users running systems in the 400-550 MHZ
range. Many are the biggest supporters and fans of SDOE.

I think the engine damage code should be included as it evens the odds some with flying tanks like the P-47. The seperate systems damage is cool too, but there is a threshold and compromises we can use to keep the game playable for everyone.

Here's my opinion. Non-visible damage that can be modeled without killing the frame rate is fun. Evene visible damage where you can see bullet holes is a big plus. But as far as pieces coming off, I think we should
limit it to major catastrophic failures.

For example, the tail section coming off on a Typhoon from too much stress, or other sections like wings & wingtips. This kind of damage should be the main stream for NOW. But why not rename the models with extensive damage modeling something like Bf109g6dm? Razer is right, if you have too many things coming off, the plane shouldn't be flyable. This should be something voted on by the community with a good explanation of what kind of framehit each eature adds. This will keep people with less powerful CPU's from getting left out in the cold. Having special DM versions will provide those with lot's of CPU hp an option. When the median user moves up into the 700 MHZ range, we can roll the dm versions in as the regular versions.

Now for compromises- A lot of inertia boxes kill framerates because of the cpu load. On multiengine planes can we pair things into 1 box? For example, have one inertia box for 2 cylinders instead of individual cylinders. How much of an effect does have textures switched for bullet holes or oil on the windscreen cause? It didn't seem like a whole lot on the Ju 88. If texture replacement provides a significantly smaller FR hit, why not start with that? That would leave chunks flying off to catastrophic failures.

The rendering engine is being improved, and we're seeing good increases in framerates, but I'd like to see this being used to put more planes in the air too. Playing SDOE offline with 30+ aircraft and a good framerate would make me ecstatic.

posted 04-10- 04:54 PM               

There is a real problem with doing too much DM. Some things are great, like obProb and per-part damage that makes sense. But turning a wing into 5 parts is not in the spirit of OpenPlane IMO- especially if each part has an airPt! If you do this, the FM will be wrong for sure. AirPts should never appear in-line along the chord of a wing, etc.

Also the more complex an OpenPlane object, the lower the frame rates will be, and there is a higher chance of hidden (and not so hidden) bugs.

Certainly the shipping planes of SDOE were an example of minimalism - but they guaranteed high frame rates and stability - and an ease of working with the models. I think that because of newer/faster systems and more man-hours of effort, the new planes should have allot more added. But not every addition makes a plane better - some things are natural and make sense - others can be counter productive.

I don't think people should tell other people how to make planes, but when any one sets out to make a "pack", the goal of the pack must be evident. One of the most important reasons for having a pack is to relate the planes together so that the relative FM and DM make for fun game play.

So there it is, "game play" - that can be one main goal for a pack. Game play is best with most of the effort put into relative FM/DM and good frame rates. Cool damage or 3d work is not the focus - but this still needs to be balanced. For example, I love the real 3d cockpits with canopy reflections - but in a way, this is not the best thing to have if good game play is the goal.

It is tough because it is personal - each person has the elements that they want to have - it is hard to enforce any one priority in pack, and yet this needs to be done!

But one thing is more objective IMO, and that is how OpenPlane is used. If you break the wing into many parts for DM - and add airPts in a way to help DM, you will cause FM to suffer immensely. Also, as the complexity (of an all ready complex) object skyrockets, manageability goes out the window. This is especially dangerous when you attempt to apply ambitious damage modeling approaches to all aircraft. This is a concern.

I really don't mean to suggest that clever and effective damage modeling not be implemented. I just think that one needs to be aware of the trade-offs and realize what the goals are for any project.

I think the best solution might be to keep with the diverse damage/flight model approach. This way each aircraft has an individual approach and you get to enjoy many flavors when flying. I think this can work so long as the relative testing takes place - so long as a "victory" or "defeat" thresholds are fair, it should not matter how either are arrived at - the details of the FM/DM need not effect the ability to achieve a good relative FM/DM.

posted 04-10- 05:01 PM               

What I wont do though is change the way I'm building right now, well, I will, it'll get better and have more features, but the La7 is now my base spec model to be imropoved, upon. OK, SDOE is no IL2, but get this.. everything you see to do with the aircraft in IL2 can be done in SDOE, the big point though is that we have to be ingenious in how we do it because our game engine is old, but being careful and aware of FR issues will not stop be building more and more advanced aircraft. Basicaly if I had built the La7 to "normal" a SDOE standard it would have taken just over a week. Infact it's taken around 4 months from my first thoughts on how to do this type of model, which started with my Il2 Type3, then advanced more in the La-5FN, and finaly on the La7. Each step was a progression, learning more efficient ways to do things, and I'm still learning little things that would help even now.

The Beta release La7 is actualy half the size in code alone of the version that first flew, it's all a learning process, no-one is forcing me to do it, and by the same margin, no-one is forcing anyone else to try and emulate this method, if you want to build it this way you can, if not you don't. I fully understand the worries about large changes made to Plane Pack aircraft, and alot of care must be taken when deciding about updating them, and testing how those changes have affected every aspect of the aircraft, luckily I'm building new aircraft not rebuilding old ones, so my work isn't so upseting to most people, but not trying to blow my own trumpet, the La7 is an example of what can be done, and if more worked along those lines then the method would be improved.

I'll take Argon as an exmaple, we've talked maney times about aircraft he's been working on, and I've shown him and told him maney things about how to build up the DM, in the end he's decided not to use them, this is fine because it's his aircraft and he wants to build it and release it quickly. It didn't make it a worse aircraft because it's built to normal standards, but on the other hand, he COULD have added much more to it, he had the choice, and anyone using the plane had the choice to fly it or not.

I guess in the end, things are going to change around here, if people feel that advancing the aircraft in SDOE is a cause of CDT's online, the don't add the La-7 to the plane pack, or any of my future releases, I'd feel insulted by that, but hell if it's a problem, then so be it. Like I said above though, care will have to be taken with updating the main stream aircraft, but there again, my name isn't mentioned in Snicks list as working on DM or PM, and it hasn't been said that what I've done to the La-7 is going to be applied to other aircraft, so maybe you're worrying about nothing, but speaking purely for myself, I'll take a couple of months to build my aircraft rather than a couple of weeks to build a "stock" aircraft because at the end of it I feel I've accomplised something new and inovative

boy that was a long post lol, hope it all made sense

posted 04-10- 05:08 PM               

It was a work in progress and still is. I put it out for testing and people tell me how it plays for them. If it is killing your FR's why didn't you tell me?

The whole project is going to be tested and tested again, which is where FR issues etc, can be ironed out. Please give us the time to do these things and to get them right. Then if you still don't like it, then post this sort of comment. You're criticising ideas at the moment, and that is bad.

p.s If people have problems online with the B17 then don't have it in the planepack. That's easy to fix. Also, pp6.1 isn't online standard yet as far as I know. It is still in development. As the B17 shows. Testing highlighted issues. People informed me, and I am fixing them as best I can.

p.p.s Razer, your post did annoy me for a while. You are entitled to an opinion, but please don't tell me I can't try new things, but most of all, let us do this project and keep an open mind.

posted 04-10- 05:21 PM               

Sv..? Not in the spirit of Open Plane?? if no then what???

I guess my wings are fine in 5 parts though, since the airPts don't appear inline across the cord of the wing, so someone else must be doing similar damage to mine, can't wait to see the results But as for the FM being wrong.. I seriously doubt it could be any more wrong than any other aircraft could be, the difference is ofcourse I'm able to show a wing with less lift due to damage, where lets say the Spitfire (only an example) flies just like new until you finaly blow the wing off.. oh, infact what a good example since the Spit in SDOE will fly just aswell with a wing tip (half of its wing) BLOWN OFF! Now, how screwed up is that FM?

Yes there is a higher chance of bugs, but then, you have to be patient to build an aircraft like the La-7, if given that patience you should also adhear to rigourous testing, as I have done.

FM's should never be realitive though, only relative to the actual aircraft being built, but the DM's have to be for sure. If the FM of an aircraft I build is judged relative to an aircraft thats FM is wrong, then you want me to make my FM wrong so that it's realtive to the other? I think not. But on the other hand, I wouldn't like to take my La-7 up against a 109-K4 though, the K-4 is built like a flying bunker and where the L-7 will take damage, the K-4 doesn't until it dies. So, parity between damage models must be maintained for online standard

posted 04-10- 05:25 PM               

Please give us options.

I really don't want to write this as I have no talent for repainting or tweaking of anything. But I would like to add my two cents worth. Probably more like a penny. I have not had this sim that long and feel I'm stepping on toes here.

As far as a plane packs, I really would not like to see too much change from the basic game. DM is starting to go far beyond the reaches of needed for gameplay. I applaud you who have created and tweaked for more stuff to fall off, but to add to a plane pack maybe not everybody's cup of tea. If you go beyond the a certain point, it shouldn't be manditory to use this or that. My thought is to have 2 plane packs. Maybe it wouldn't work I don't know, but please think of every gamer here. Please give us options. If we have a slow computer or want simple, option 1. If we want all the bells and whistles, option 2. Do we really need another plane pack? Why not addons or group addons. Maybe skin update/replacement packs. All of this is way over my head.

To the people who have worked on this sim deserve a big applause. Thank you to all. But don't take away from this sim by making things too complicated. I like the keep it simple plan. Maybe because I'm stupid. Please keep plane pack 1 and add other plane packs or whatever. Again, options are great.

Just my thoughts. I hope that I haven't offended anyone. That was not my intention. I'm not speaking for everybody, just myself. Thanks for all the addons and help this community has offered.

Riverrat out!

posted 04-10- 05:31 PM               

If splitting the wings up fails the FM to a large degree, then the DM goes another route. The B17 routine changed the way the wings fell apart, but didn't change the FM. There are many ways to approach it, and only those that work well will survive to the end.

Not every addition will be added, but to start with, we can throw as manyideas into the development process as we can accomodate, and let natural selection take it's course. We also want to test onas many different levels of system as is practical. My part in the team is to sort out the 3d models. I like a plane to look good, but the rest of the team have just as much input. My goal in the project is to give mor eDM options, and to improve the look of the plane. I have also set myself targets on poly count and FR's.

posted 04-10- 05:35 PM               

I'm not saying you shuldn't try new things i'm saying you shouldn't put all them in one plane.

posted 04-10- 05:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverrat:
it shouldn't be manditory to use this or that.

---

First off, you have stepped on no toes (didnt even come close ... It is my intent to test everything we do on a PII 300MHZ machine. (Othere machines will be used also). I dont know where this falls in the scheme of things, but its probably slower than most peoples machine though faster than machine minimums for the original game.

I cannot stress enough that playability is one of the major concerns. Skins are a totally different area (in which I have very little skill...

posted 04-10- 06:00 PM               

As I understood the main goal here is to make the planes fly as historically accurate as possible, make them look historically accurate without hurting the FR, give them all comparitive DM so no plane is uber and finally create missions with good match-ups that are historically accurate.

That doesn't mean the FM or DM has to be complicated and the FR has to suffer. I think the most attention would go to the FM.

As far as DM, I (personally) would like to be able to check for damage just like a real pilot, by looking at the gauges and visual clues, (color/location of the smoke, where are the holes/leaks, etc.) that doesn't mean it has to be complicated.

Don't miss the point. I think they are most interested in makeing these planes match up correctly.

posted 04-10- 06:23 PM            

- Rubberized tires. If you've had the pleasure of testing Razer's B26 beta (beta P51s too I would imagine) you know what I mean. Huge difference for ground handling.

-Oil splatter effect. Value added, pure and simple. Doesn't add TONS, granted, but it "costs" even less.

-Sliding Cockpits. Some might think they are as useful as t**s on a bull since we can't get out and do anything anyways, but I always pop the lid before bailing, and when I land too. Value added.

-Engine Damage. Ok, starting to get into the fray a little more, but there's got to be a compromise somewhere between what we have now and excessive microdetailing. Like I said I have faith in the experts.

Historical Loadouts would be nice too, but remember that the problem online is packet loss, and that is never going to go away unless we all move in together and buy a sweet LAN. Personally I think Razer's socks smell, so I'm not too keen on that idea. Anyways, I'm sure we can come to some kind of arrangement whereby those who fly exclusively offline have a set of loadouts that reflect the absence of packet loss, those who fly exclusively online have a spoons-equivalent set, and maybe we could get a GUI APP guru like Spyder to make a cameo appearance to produce a program that could switch loadouts back and forth for the rest of us, similar to SDOE Chameleon.

This is big stuff we're talking about here, kinda like renegotiating the constitution, but please everyone, remember that we're all on the same team here. I think cooler heads are prevailing, but lets keep it that way.

Ok, back to lurking, if you have Nations Qs (other than release date ) feel free to ask me, but beyond that I'm just a civvie in all this. Don't shoot me please.

Werner

posted 04-10- 06:28 PM            

WM

posted 04-10- 06:32 PM               

You don't tell me my aircraft are to complicated because each wing has 5 parts, and the fuse has 25 parts, and I wont call you're work to simple because you're aircraft only have 2 parts per wing and only 2 parts per fuse..

Deal?

posted 04-10- 07:21 PM               

I really cant do his type of extensive DM because 1. I cant model 2. I dont want to take up too much of WT's time when he does model for me and 3. I dont have 4 months to build one plane.

But I sure do add in a competitive and round-about DM and FM! So WT's and my planes are in no way "knock-ups" or simple... All the WWI planes Ive released thus far have a pretty good engine DM and fuse/wing DM. My wings and fuse's arent in many parts, but if you do damage the wing, engine, fuel tank and fuse, bullet holes show up, damaged skins kick in, fuel leaks occur, fire, smoke and loss of HP and RPM occur and the wing becomes a tad bit less effective. Now this is not the best DM there is, but its WAY better than MOST of the current DM and stock DM in our planes.

If all the planes had at LEAST the above mentioned DM features, I would be a happy guy.