Battle of Britain Campaign Feedback

[Heck]

Hi CA,

 

And I agree, the 109 seems a little easy to take out - but I do not claim any expertise on the subject. However, again taking Bungay as my source, he has this to say, at p. 201:-

 

"But the aircraft the most vulnerable of all to the guns of British Fighters was the Bf 109. RAF pilots managed to get a bead on 70 of them, and of those they destroyed 54, some 77%, a markedly higher destruction ratio than the 63% the Bf 109s achieved in return. This may be because the damaged machines had further to fly home and force-landed in England or dirched and so were lost. But it also looks as if Spitfires and Hurricanes were even more deadly than the Bf 109 itself, and that in FIGHTER combat their eight Brownings were at least as destructive as the two cannon and two machine guns of the Bf 109E."

 

 

One point many historians seem to miss in making comparisons between these aircraft and their relative combat effectiveness is that there were still many 109e-1's flying as late as September, or even October of 1940, which skews the numbers, because the e-1's had only four rifle caliber machine guns. And many aircraft flying during this period were just beginning to be retrofitted with pilot armor. Galland mentions in one of his recollections that his Me 109E was fitted with an armor plate behind his head in early 1941, at his mechanic's behest, and the plate saved his life when he was hit by a Spit V. His aircraft had an armored seat, but originally, for whatever reason, lacked the armor plate covering his head, which was attached to the canopy. So these aircraft were by no means standardised in their equipment during the battle. I think you can feel free to change them in any way that feels right to you, and you won't be far off the mark, so if the 109 feels too weak, I'd bump its armor until it feels right. You'd need to add some more squadrons to equip one with E-1's, so it's probably not worth the trouble to add them, because of the way the game has to deal with equipment, but they were there...

[keith]

Baltika

 

No, I don't get large formations of bombers in BS1944.

 

I am going to get stuck into my .ini files! Can you tell me how to resize the bmp's - Is it just a case of opening in Photoshop and resizing the image?

[+Baltika]

No, I don't get large formations of bombers in BS1944.

 

I am going to get stuck into my .ini files! Can you tell me how to resize the bmp's - Is it just a case of opening in Photoshop and resizing the image?

 

Yes, any photo program you like, simple as that. Just make sure the image stays in proportion, ie 512x512, 256x256, 128x128 etc.

 

Some bombers have more than one bmp for different parts of the plane. The Ju-88A4 has one, the Do-17Z has two, and the He-111 series and Stuka have about 4 different ones. You have to resize each one. Also, for the Stuka, make sure the .ini file has CastShadow set to FALSE, as per capun's instructions above. That made a big difference in my setup.

 

As you don't see large bomber formations in Burning Sands '44, I think it's safe to say that those are the culprit in BoB. Hopefully the above will help.

 

 

Heck, thanks for the info. B Bandy RFC has pointed out that the 109E3 included has a centreline nose-mounted cannon, which is not right for BoB, so people may want to edit out that entry if they like.

 

The more you dig, the more there is to change

 

Cheers all.

 

Still plugging away on v0.60, so don't give up hope

Edited August 11, 2007 by Baltika

[keith]

My lo-tech solution for the 109 cannon was to set the ammo to 0...

[+Stary]

Speaking of guns and such, I threw away the centerline cannon for 109 long time ago. Also one may find it useful to edit the Hurri's and Spit's guns to have them in a pair of 4. I use it from beginning to conserve ammo, and not to go dry in chaos. 4 Brownings are deadly firepower alone. Anyone knows if such modification is historically correct?

 

Also anyone finds out the stock pale/grey hangars and shelters unfitting into BoB theme? If you're interested I did some retexturing to give those a little more camouflaged/era look:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I you are willing to use them, after minor re-touch I'll post them on Combat Ace. And, yes, these are higher res. And harder to spot, if you're brave enough to fly Stuka

[+Baltika]

Hi CA,

 

Oh yes, those repaints are FAB, and if you are cool with them being released I would love to have them in the BoB campaign -

 

S!

 

Damnation, you guys never want to let me finish 0.60, do you

 

Haven't heard about 4 Brownings as standard - the general view here has been for more firepower rather than less, but if it works for you, then go for it

 

I'm interested, though - do you get bomber kills with 4x MGs? If so, how? Any .ini bomber edits, or stock?

 

I confess I have tweaked my bombers as follows:-

 

engine nacelle hitboxes (as described above)

fuel tank FireSuppression=FALSE, but

fuel tank SelfHealing=TRUE

engine FireSuppression=FALSE

 

Plus the [AIDATA] mod capun posted in this thread WAY back, and his ammo limitation.

 

I still have a hard time bringing Ju-88s and He-111s down, which I think is as it should be, but I can get a fair number of engine "kills," which means stragglers to pick off, which also seems to be how it was.

 

Just my view, and as ever, feedback appreciated.

 

Cheers,

 

baltika

[Bandy]

Very briefly guys, I just got off a 10 hour drive home from 2 week vacation today, with a 4 year old asking "are we there yet" about every 10-20

minutes (no kidding).

 

RE: editing aircraft INI's Most of you hve your own way to go about doing this, and likely involves keeping a stock INI copy in the A/C folder (and I suppose you can always download it again) but if you're trying to tweak changes and don't want to try to keep several files going at once, I just copy the lines or sections I am about to change, put // in front of each line in the copy (to preserve the original code) and edit the other line. It makes it easy to spot/keep track of the mod, and return to the original when the mod doesn't work... Sorry keith, no slight intended on your solution, but a bit more code-oriented.

 

RE: skins and bombers. I've read that it isn't so much the size of an individual skin than the fact that these bombers have more than one to call upon. That's the rub for the system...

 

RE: resizing the skins!?! I say great solution, afterall, blurry or not, they look better with flames and smoke trailing!!!! (apologies to those who fly them on a regular basis )

 

RE: Me 110 If you also look in the INI, all the various fuselage/wing/tail sections have pretty high structural factors associated with them for a fighter, including the tail section for some reason. One would think that the graceful thin tail would be especially vulnerable, but I defer to historical references (I'll do some digging...).

 

RE: Bomber fuel tanks. They are described historically as being BOTH self-sealing and "bullet proof". The fuel tank INI code of most of the Luft. bombers (if I remember correctly) also has structural factors, as well as fire suppression, and self-sealing. Edit as you see fit...

 

RE: Bomber engines. I've only found one historic reference re: this point. During BoB the bombers had NO, zip, zilcht, engine armour. It was the "hole over the dragon's belly" [sort of paraphrasing Tolkien from the Hobbit] SO AIM TRUE LAKEMAN!!! However some bombers' INIs have structural factor BOTH in the nacelle and the engine code (which may give it an unfair doubling effect, I am unsure here...). I will look into this via play testing, but if somebody knows the answer, let me/us know...

 

RE: V 0.6 Can't wait !!!

Edited August 12, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+Stary]

Ok, quick one:

 

Grouping guns: Did it for my own usage -I prefer switching to x4 when in cruel dogfight. Attacking the bombers I switch back to x8. Most kills are engine stops on loners/strugglers. Dorniers are fairly easy to shoot their control surfaces off.

 

Bombers skins: Did some resizing (even to 32x32 single colour) and it gives some fps boost, but larger raids still choppy.

 

Hangars reskins: Testing various skins versions, but it's just a matter of time. Surely will post them.

 

V 0.6:

[Bandy]

Bf 109's and 110's historical points to consider:

 

From Patrick Bishop's excellent "Fighter Boys: The Battle of Britain, 1940" which uses dozens of personal accounts and primary historical resources including an excellent section on the Battle of France and Dunkirk, leading up to BoB.

 

Me 110:

 

The Me 110 "Destroyer" was an unknown quantity, and much feared leading up to the RAF's first encounters with it in France. Air Marshall Barratt offered dinner in Paris to the first pilot to shoot one down. The distinction fell to three No. 1 Sq pilots, Johnny Walker [guess what his call sign was?], Bill Stratton, and Taffy Clowes, who between them on March 29th destroyed 3 x Me 110's.

 

P. 138 "Once attacked, according to the squadron record, the German machines 'proved very maneuverable, doing half-rolls and diving out, coming up in stall turns'. ... the consensus was that the Me110's were not as fearsome as their name suggested. The record concluded: 'As a result of this combat it may be stated that the Me 110, although very fast and maneuverable for a twin-engined aircraft, can easily be outmaneuvered by a Hurricane.' The pilots reported that 'it appeared that the rear gunner was incapable of returning fire whilst [the] Me 110 was in combat because of the steep turns "blacking him out" or making him too uncomfortable to take proper aim.' " [bold is my emphasis]

 

This last point is echoed in an episode of "DogFights" on the history channel, where a single Dauntless dive bomber pilot was dueling with 2 or 3 Zeros and had to continuously do extremely tight turns to face the various attacking vectors of the NME A/C. His rear-gunner could do absolutely nothing since his arms were pinned to his sides by the g-forces...

 

The Bf 109 p 141:

 

In the Me 109 [Willy Messerschmidt] attempted to wrap a light airframe around the most powerful engine it would carry. ... The thin wings that gave the aircraft its performance were inefficient when flying slow, requiring a system of slots on the leading edges to increase lift on take-off and landing. Their fragility placed severe restrictions on the way guns could be mounted. Nor were they strong enough to take the machine's weight, a weakness which meant that undercarriage had to be supported by the fuselage. This made for a narrow and unstable wheelbase which was the cause of many crashes on landing. According to ne estimate, 5 percent of all Me 109s manufactured were written off in this way."

 

Thus, the fact that our Strike Fighters virtual 109's wings easily fly apart when damaged seems to have some historical merit. Perhaps the damage model could be improved to have sections fall off, rather than whole wings, but that would be a complete re-modeling job I think.

 

I am really enjoying immersing myself in historical manuscripts, such as the Spitfire IIA & IIB Pilots notes I placed on CA download here [yes, a shameless plug I know, but some really worthy points, such as Section 40 "Protection of Pilot" which details the additional armor added in this upgrade from the Spit IA], and am trying to mod some of my Aircraft INIs in this way. For instance, the wood and cloth construction of the Hurricane was documented to be able to take more damage than the stressed metal skin of the Spitfire, thus I have introduced slight amounts structural factor code of 1 to 1.5 into the relevant sections of the A/C, nothing like that seen in the Luftwaffe bomber INI's, but a modest reflection of historical fact. This may seem picky and overboard to some, but ultimately it is about enjoying the game, and this how I enjoy it most...

 

CA_Stary: The hangar skins look great. Landing is always a relief in this campaign, but the aerodrome is always so "gray" and disappointing. So really looking forward to your mod.

Edited August 12, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+Stary]

During the night on Tangmere field some jokers from the Civil Defence Department painted hangar roofs green...

 

In other words -they're ready to download.

 

Cheers for now

 

CA_Stary

[+Baltika]

During the night on Tangmere field some jokers from the Civil Defence Department painted hangar roofs green...

 

In other words -they're ready to download.

 

Cheers for now

 

CA_Stary

 

Excellent

 

Off to d/l now

 

Thanks,

 

baltika

[+Brain32]

As somebody who uses SF series for jet combat only, I'm sorry to interfere but I simply have to correct some things and it might help you guys.

 

Their fragility placed severe restrictions on the way guns could be mounted. Nor were they strong enough to take the machine's weight, a weakness which meant that undercarriage had to be supported by the fuselage.

 

With all due respect to the writer of that book, this is a fairy tale. Me109 had very strong wings it could put up with very high dive speeds and G-loads.

The machineguns in the wings comment is very amuzing, as early ME109's(the "E" model that fought in BoB) could not only mount machineguns but also 20mm MG/FF cannons!

 

Me109 ofcourse had it's downsides as all planes did, however wing weakness was not one of them.

[+Tailspin]

:ph34r:

[Bandy]

Brain,

Thanks for chiming in, you've made some good points especially with regard to the wing mounted cannon.

One reference does not a case make, and it wasn't presented as such, more of a critique on the damage modeling. Its all just food for thought and constructive discussion...

Edited August 14, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+Stary]

Another quiet day on Hafkinge field...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are 90% ready high poly hangar2.lod replacements. Three versions done. Need colision meshes and some more performance tuning.

Will have level of detail.

 

 

 

 

 

Trees will come in few variants (row, single, group) as placeable objects thru _TARGETS.ini.

 

 

 

 

 

Those need a bit more work. ShelterA won't have windows as shelterB does.

 

And no, they all propably won't have shadows due to performance (and self shadowing) issues.

 

Tower, barracks and so to be started...

[Bandy]

Holy S__T !!! Those are amazing!

 

My first thought was, how did he get an AC inside the hangar!?! Then read that you haven't applied the collision meshes yet. Don't know much about how flexible collision meshes can be, but I've been trying to fly under a bridge for the longest time (don't ask... Vogesen terrain in FE, see below...), and the applied box CM just doesn't allow for it -- instant explosion... I would love to be able to taxi into a hangar, or do a victory lap under London's Tower Bridge in BoB...

Edited August 15, 2007 by B Bandy RFC

[+Stary]

B Brandy, the hangared Hurri is a BoB target placed in Battle of Britain_targets. For some strange reason collision mesh doesn't work yet. But I think one surely would park inside. Dunno about collision boxes for Vogesen bridges (nice ones), still saving money for First Eagles.

Right now, they do have noticeable impact on framerate when three or more on screen. Working on level of detail meshes. And I must mention my processor is fairly old.

 

All this work presented is a part from my planned high definition ground objects replacement. Mostly "WW2/Korea" themed.

 

Cheers

[Bandy]

...the hangared Hurri is a BoB target placed in Battle of Britain_targets.

 

Yeah, I realized the Hurricane was a static AC after I posted and log-off'd. You MUST get FE, it is worth every penny and there is SO much 3rd party activity... Eat cat food if you have to

[keith]

Baltika

 

I tried an anti-ship single mission with the Ju-88-A4, but the plane was unflyable. The fuselage detached itself from the cockpit, all the wingmen blended in with each other and the flyby view had all aircraft flying sideways! This does not happen with a strike mission. There were also no ship targets

 

Could you help please (in your spare time!!)

 

TIA

Keith (you make 'em, I break 'em)

[+Stary]

keith by your description of flying sideways and viewpoint corruption I assume you were place in a "no fly zone", or border, in other words at the map edge. It's created to prevent one from flying into the void. Strange as it never happened to me on BoB Grosterrain. Did you do something harmful to campaign or terrain *.ini?

 

Here's one to compensate for this terrible event, and rise your wingmen's morale:

 

Morning Glory

 

 

 

Mainly an eye candy. Village made as single object. Very easy to place near your base. Soon to be available.

Edited August 17, 2007 by CA_Stary

[keith]

CA_Stary, my wingmen send their Salutes to you and their morale is overflowing (I think 6 - 7 litres of Keltenbrau while on leave in Berlin also helped). The mission-planner Keith has been demoted and sent out to retrieve and reinstall the Terrain and Campaign .inis after recklessly modding them to try out the Torpedo Beaufighter...

[keith]

D'oh!

 

Keith is sacked, burned, drowned, and has his shoe-laces tied together.

 

I somehow managed to move the GroundObject folder into the BoB folder...

 

...feeling v small...

[+Stary]

It can happen to anyone. Just backup any file you mod Gotta two BoB installs -pure 0.59 and my own happy testings ground.

 

S!

[+Stary]

Ok, I've been playing with BoB ground objects lately.

 

I've added trees (lots!) and enabled water effect on London parks:

 

 

 

 

 

Also slowly populating areas around bases

 

Added 27 custom&new villages/towns/cities around player campaign start airbases (ussually 4 by base). Will be released when I finish my "Architecture Pack" -which may took a week or two

 

Below are shots from town next to Carquebut (initial I./JG3 home base)

 

NOTE: If you look closely, you should spot a 109 on these shots

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: these may look dense, but they are very frame rate friendly

 

Cheers,

 

CA_Stary

Edited August 21, 2007 by CA_Stary

[Bandy]

I love your stuff!!! If I may ask though, what is your ultimate plan? World domination???

 

ie: are you hoping to get the green light to release your work as a modded BoB terrain, or simply release the objects and make us do the grunt work too...

OR, and I just thought of this, you're just teasing us perhaps???

 

I think you know what we're hoping for...

 

Edit: oops, just saw you're planing on a release. Great News! and Thanks.

 

BUT where are the Home Defense gents with the pitch forks and shot guns???

Edited August 21, 2007 by B Bandy RFC