Discussion of Developer Diary #09

[Catseye]

On 8/15/2024 at 6:26 AM, Sea Serpent said:

With battles like Midway, you have large groups of planes in the air for hours, and when they finally get there, the number of guys that actually hit something is low.  And of course, 3 of Hornet’s squadrons never found the target in the first place.  I’m curious how such a battle could work in an MP environment, because you probably aren’t going to have many people who wish to wait for a realistic strike to be spotted on deck, spend 2 hours flying somewhere, likely miss with their one 500 lb bomb, and then be in the air for another few hours to try to get back.  And if you’re a TBD pilot, you will realistically get whipped every time you go into action against the KB, and have nothing to show for it.  I can see grognards doing this a few times in SP, but I doubt there is much appetite for this on any kind of regular basis to daily populate a MP server.  It will be interesting to see how they address this situation but still retain the flavor of a realistic sim depicting carrier operations.

Hi Sea Serpent:

This is an excellent observation! For squads developing servers with a goal of recreating historical battles and all the inherent thrill of mass takeoffs, boredom of long flights, the flurry of actual combat over within a short time and . . . . trying to find a way back to the carrier using only a compass and stopwatch and careful observation of the fuel guage might be exactly what the doctor ordered. 

But, for the PvP crowd, I do think that some form of airstart or positioning of carrier groups within close ranges in an editor would also work. Optons for building both scenarios IMHO, should be one of the orders of development.

Cheers,

Cats . . .  . 

[PinkCube]

My thoughts on the carrier Akagi deck is that the timber looks too clean at the moment. I imagine that the timber will be stained more heavily where there are oil/fuel leakages and spillages. 

I see there is some soot residue on the side of the current model. However, imo the soot residue would cover the entire rear quarter.

I think the deck is the most important piece in the environment up close. It may even be the ONLY thing a pilot gets to see in the game outside of his cockpit besides the sea and clouds.




Here in this low fidelity picture we see oil / dirt / fuel strains everywhere. 

 

In this recolourised version of the same image we can see light patches and dark patches. The timber max have been originally finished with some kind of wax / oil. This wears off over time and isn't impervious to oils or fuel seeping through. These types of stains generally cannot be scrubbed or sanded out (the seep deep into the wooden grain), so it would be almost impossible to make the deck look clean again after a good scrubbing session.

Imo, what this image shows here are several different things.

Dark patches - Oil spillages
Light patches - possible fuel spillages bleaching the timber. General wear and tear to the original finish, exposing the deck to sun damage.
White lines - Repainted on, also evidence that the deck is extremely abused.

 

Edited August 20 by PinkCube

[Major Lee]

True; weathering makes the model. 

[Blue 5]

Gorgeous. I totally and utterly will not be buying this the moment it becomes EA available.

[Robli]

On 8/17/2024 at 7:56 PM, Catseye said:

trying to find a way back to the carrier using only a compass and stopwatch and careful observation of the fuel guage might be exactly what the doctor ordered

For sure carrier aircraft with several hundreds of miles of combat radius could not use dead reckoning to get back to a moving carrier reliably. I know that Americans had the Hayrake system to guide planes back to carriers, but am really interested to know how the Japanese pilots get back to their carriers. Simple homing beacon is generally ruled out as it would reveal carrier position to enemy also and I have read stories about bubble sextant being used for navigation, but this method seems too inaccurate also for an aircraft to find a relative small floating ship. I believe some kind of beacon system must have been in use for the Japanese also, but have never really seen a proper description and explanation of it.

[Catseye]

4 hours ago, Robli said:

For sure carrier aircraft with several hundreds of miles of combat radius could not use dead reckoning to get back to a moving carrier reliably. I know that Americans had the Hayrake system to guide planes back to carriers, but am really interested to know how the Japanese pilots get back to their carriers. Simple homing beacon is generally ruled out as it would reveal carrier position to enemy also and I have read stories about bubble sextant being used for navigation, but this method seems too inaccurate also for an aircraft to find a relative small floating ship. I believe some kind of beacon system must have been in use for the Japanese also, but have never really seen a proper description and explanation of it.

Here ya go.

 

[Amiral Crapaud]

Yeah wanted to share that too based on the thumbnail, until I realized there was no mention of any beacon system (that the Japanese actually absolutely had). That evening raid that got caught by the US CAP and tried to land on US carriers at Coral Sea sure did not find its way home by looking solely at the stars ^^

Edited August 20 by Amiral Crapaud

[Robli]

1 hour ago, Catseye said:

Here ya go.

Like I said, I find it highly doubtful that Japanese pilots could fly hundreds of miles in variable wind conditions, in single seat aircraft without a dedicated navigator, participate in combat, and fly back to a carrier that has also moved elsewhere, by using dead reckoning. Sextant also does not seem accurate enough for that purpose, like I said before. There surely must have been some sort of beacon system, from carriers at certain times or from support ships or possibly from recon planes or something else. Using just dead reckoning or sextant over such distances does not sound credible at all.

Edited August 20 by Robli

[Amiral Crapaud]

The Japanese had their own systems, using their directional finders. Lundstrom alludes to these in Black Shoe Carrier Admiral.

In the meantime Biard continued relaying to Fletcher the messages intercepted from the Japanese strike group. In the Lexington Fullinwider did the same for Fitch. Lt. Cdr. Clarence C. Ray, the Yorktown communications officer, recalled, “The air was full of their conversation trying to get home and aboard.” One of Biard’s intercepts received at 1903 gave an all too accurate position for TF-17 (bearing 160 degrees and 110 miles from Rossel), so not all enemy aircrew were befuddled. At 1900 another aircraft said it would “arrive” at 1940. Had it been one that buzzed TF-17, its carrier might be seventy to a hundred miles away, direction unknown. That seemed to be that case at 1939, when another plane requested its carrier turn on the lights. At 2003 an aircraft advised: “I see you.” A few minutes later the observer piloting his plane requested, then demanded, that a searchlight be shone on the sea so he could try a water landing. The revealing transmissions lasted until about 2130. They appeared to show two carriers differentiated by their call signs. In addition to communicating directly with the aircraft, these ships also used high-frequency transmissions as radio homing beacons, but TF-17 lacked proper receivers capable of taking a bearing on such transmissions.
[...]

Takagi agreed to Hara’s recommendation that MO Striking Force assume a special formation to facilitate recovery of the strike. The Shōkaku and Zuikaku deployed abreast, while ahead off to starboard the two heavy cruisers aimed searchlights across their bows and destroyers on both quarters shined their searchlights forward to demarcate the flanks. Takagi could risk illuminating MO Striking Force for as long as it took to recover his planes, because he (unlike Fletcher) had a pretty good idea of the position of the nearest enemy ships. At 2000 when the first strike plane landed, the two carrier forces were about one hundred miles apart. Thereafter the distance between them increased as Takagi steamed east and Fletcher southeast.

[...]

At 2151 Fitch informed Fletcher by TBS: “Presence of enemy planes during recovery of our fighters and analysis of later radar plots indicate enemy carrier or carriers about thirty miles bearing 090 at 1930.” He also warned that the Japanese carriers might have “excellent” high frequency radio direction finders. Thirty miles east? The Lexington’s radar tracked the strike planes as they circled thirty miles away and seemed to disappear one by one as if landing. The reason why at least some Japanese planes circled was the U.S. fighter director transmissions jammed their radio homing signals.

Edited August 22 by Amiral Crapaud

[Sea Serpent]

A report of the Akutan Zero says the rdf was made by Fairchild:

Quote

“

The radio compass was made by Fairchild Aero Camera Co., New York City. Aerial #429. Loop located in pilot enclosure just in back of pilot's seat. Controls located on right hand side of cockpit. L or R meter located on instrument dash board. This equipment looked as though it had been used before it was installed in this plane. Frequency range, 170 to 460 and 450 to 1200 KC. Switch was located in the 450 to 1200 KC position when gear was removed.”

https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt08/zero-fighter.html

[III.JG52_Otto_-I-]

On 8/13/2024 at 3:46 PM, Jason_Williams said:

Community Feedback

Before we get into the details of this Dev. Diary, we want to point you to our new Community Feedback questionnaire utilizing Google Forms which is very easy to work with and manage. We'd like to know your preference about how certain types of non-combat related engine damage should be modeled. 

Respecting to aircraft engines damage model, it would be very interesting, to model a temperature overheating when the engine is running at WEP. This would prevent to pilots running all the time at full power without consequences.
A proper model of sounds with, over revs sound, bearings whistling, pistons knocking, engine misfires,intermittent cuts, vibrations, etc.  could warning to the pilot, the moment for let rest the engine for prevent the engine dead.

Piston rod broke out in take-off power. 👇

 

Edited August 21 by III.JG52_Otto_-I-

[Major Lee]

Holy smokes, that P51 crash landing! Great stuff!

[Mysticpuma]

On 8/21/2024 at 9:09 PM, III.JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Respecting to aircraft engines damage model, it would be very interesting, to model a temperature overheating when the engine is running at WEP. This would prevent to pilots running all the time at full power without consequences.
A proper model of sounds with, over revs sound, bearings whistling, pistons knocking, engine misfires,intermittent cuts, vibrations, etc.  could warning to the pilot, the moment for let rest the engine for prevent the engine dead.

Piston rod broke out in take-off power. 👇

 

This is the full interview with the pilot discussing the entire incident afterwards. (35mins)

 

[Mysticpuma]

The full incident report can be downloaded here:

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation-to-north-american-p-51d-mustang-g-tfsi

[Charger]

I see by the screenshots of the Zero, that they have gone with a whiter shade of IJN grey/green. 

 

I myself prefer a greener tinge, but it's all subjective. I have been down this rabbit hole in model building a few Zeros.

Long read here http://www.aviationofjapan.com/search?q=Zero+grey&m=1

 

[Sea Serpent]

There are 1000 threads on modeling forums about the specific paint color, but the answer shouldn’t really be “subjective” since real samples exist.

They have the pieces of the Zero that crashed at Fort Kamehahameha during the PH attack, and it seems the color is fairly definitive.  It might look different in different lighting conditions, but the truth is out there, Scully.
 

 

 

Added—Nerdy people have analyzed the colors of planes shot down at PH.  For example one of the crashed Kates is said to be Munsell 7.5Y 5.5/2 (which means nothing to me)

https://j-aircraft.com/research/jimlansdale/ph_crashsite/ph_crash_1.html

Historian Daniel MARTINEZ and ARIZONA Memorial Curator, Scott PAWLOWSKI assisted in the relic color analyses conducted on the relics held by the Memorial.  The “Hospital Kate,” relic, or artifact “USAR 162,” has two colors that were examined and compared to JPMA 2005-C color samples.  The “olive-green” paint is a glossy paint color that is a very close match to a color between JPMA C27-50D and JPMA C27-60D (Munsell 7.5Y 5/2 ~ 7.5Y 6/2; approximately 7.5Y 5.5/2).  The hinomaru red is a glossy-red close to JPMA C05-40V (Munsell 5R 4/12). No primer coat appears evident between the outer layer of paint and the natural metal.

Strangely enough, the entire background of the J-Aircraft website appears to look a lot like the color of a Japanese carrier plane and I doubt that’s a coincidence.  The highlighted color came across when I cut and pasted the text.  I’m sure the developers already know all this.

Edited August 27 by Sea Serpent
Additional info

[Amiral Crapaud]

On 8/26/2024 at 8:41 PM, Charger said:

I see by the screenshots of the Zero, that they have gone with a whiter shade of IJN grey/green. 

 

I myself prefer a greener tinge, but it's all subjective. I have been down this rabbit hole in model building a few Zeros.

Long read here http://www.aviationofjapan.com/search?q=Zero+grey&m=1

 

Could be the feeling indeed at first sight, yet I think that it also makes sense to compare it to the actual whiter shade of the replaced moving surfaces on the model. Then, in retrospect, the color tone the chaps picked eventually for the "worn out" ameiro looks much greener when compared to the clean newer amber grey picked for the moveable parts, with the assumption that it would turn slowly into the color of the fuselage with a few extra weeks of carrier service.

Edited August 28 by Amiral Crapaud

[TP_Bunster]

That is such a good screenshot of the zero and the carrier, the level of detail is several steps up from anything we have in current Flight Sims. 

Makes me wonder how difficult it must have been to actually sink a carrier, all the flak from every angle, big ships and tough !

I wonder how the damage model of the carriers are going to work in the simulator ? just a cumulative number of bomb and or torpedo hits ? or specific damage to specific areas. For example, if the ammo magazine was hit on a destroyer it would sink fairly quickly I would assume. Can we destroy specific flak guns on the carrier ? could the aircraft elevators be damaged / destroyed ? can the steering mechanism be damaged ? could the control tower be taken out ?

I hope the sim tries to represent how difficult it must have been to sink a carrier, I hope it isn't just a cumulative number of bomb hits 🙂 Knowing Jason and the team, I expect they have something special in mind.

S! Bunster

Edited August 28 by TP_Bunster