PDA

View Full Version : Hawker Typhoon question



Sillius_Sodus
04-07-2006, 02:06 PM
Hi,

I've been away for a while and it's nice to see some new patches for the game. I noticed that 4.03 gives you the Tempest which is good because there were lots of people who were clamoring for it, or at lest a few who were clamoring very often for it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Anyway, I was wondering why no Typhoon? It was a pretty good ground pounder as I recall. I understand that the two a/c were similarly armed but there was a performace spread. I wonder how hard it would have been to mod the Tempest to make the Tiffie. I've searched the archives for threads on this but haven't found anything on the suject yet. If there are, please let me know where and I'll check on it myself.

Thanks!
Sillius_Sodus

OD_79
04-07-2006, 02:08 PM
It's actually quite a big change, wouldn;t be a simple job to do, I think it would be a start from scratch job! While they do look similar overall, there are big differences.
I'd love a Typhoon, being one of my favourite aircraft I'd give anything for a play with one.

Pretty good ground pounder...it was the best, ask any German soldier what would worry him most I think you'll get the Typhoon as a pretty regular answer!

OD.

Beaufort-RAF
04-07-2006, 02:44 PM
Thankfully although Tempests didn't use rockets operationally we have them in game so at least we can recreate the essence of Tiffie ops.

Skycat_2
04-07-2006, 02:59 PM
The wing shape is very different between the two planes, for one thing. There are other external differences as well, even between the Tempest V and the Typhoon IB with bubbletop canopy.

The Tempest was an independant project by fans. As I understand it, there was a Tyhoon 'work in progress' being constructed by a different team at about the same time. I don't know if it was ever submitted. At that time there were several independant projects that were rejected solely because they did not meet 1C:MG's technical standards or because they surpassed the deadline for contributions. Even if the Typhoon model could have been salvaged, or a version could have been hammered out from the Tempest, it would still most likely have been an AI-only object because the Tempest and Typhoon cockpits were configured differently and had different gunsight systems.

I would have liked to have seen the Typhoon as well, but all things considered the Tempest V is a good substitution because it has either rockets and bombs as loadouts; I think that historically the Tempests were rarely (if ever) armed with rockets for combat missions during WWII.

VW-IceFire
04-07-2006, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Hi,

I've been away for a while and it's nice to see some new patches for the game. I noticed that 4.03 gives you the Tempest which is good because there were lots of people who were clamoring for it, or at lest a few who were clamoring very often for it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Anyway, I was wondering why no Typhoon? It was a pretty good ground pounder as I recall. I understand that the two a/c were similarly armed but there was a performace spread. I wonder how hard it would have been to mod the Tempest to make the Tiffie. I've searched the archives for threads on this but haven't found anything on the suject yet. If there are, please let me know where and I'll check on it myself.

Thanks!
Sillius_Sodus
There were alot of things changed to get the Tempest...even comparing the late Typhoon to the early Tempest there is a significant difference.

Tail section is completely different. Fuselage is modified. Wings are completely different. Radiator was slightly different. The cockpit had a number of differences in the instrumentation...and if you do a 1941-1943 model then the canopy is also quite different.

Believe me...the only thing better than flying the Tempest would be flying both the Typhoon AND the Tempest.

For the record...the Typhoon was the most feared anti-tank and fighter-bomber the Allies had. While the P-47 was a fearsome fighter-bomber, the Typhoon had an edge in the rocket and cannon department. Although records show that tanks destroyed by Typhoons was significantly lower than claimed, the impact on morale and the fact that even a near miss by a RP usually chewed up roads and made terrain impassable meant that the Typhoon was doing an extremely effective job.

vocatx
04-07-2006, 04:36 PM
Ice-Fire, something tells me I already know what your sig will be when the BoB forums open! Here's hoping it won't take as long as getting the Tempest did.

VW-IceFire
04-07-2006, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by vocatx:
Ice-Fire, something tells me I already know what your sig will be when the BoB forums open! Here's hoping it won't take as long as getting the Tempest did.
Yeah an early Typhoon would be GRAND...but of course I would only be for it if they expand the product into the early channel war. It wasn't really until 1942 when the Typhoons began getting kills over the channel. But at the time they were the fastest thing under 10,000 feet.

Sillius_Sodus
04-07-2006, 05:57 PM
Thanks for the quick responses gang. I did not realise the extent of the differences between the Typhoon and the Tempest other than the engine. I also understand that when it was decided to name the EF2000 the Eurofighter Typhoon there was some controversy, particularly in Germany about the name due to it's history, at least that's what I'd read.

Good Hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

VW-IceFire
04-07-2006, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Thanks for the quick responses gang. I did not realise the extent of the differences between the Typhoon and the Tempest other than the engine. I also understand that when it was decided to name the EF2000 the Eurofighter Typhoon there was some controversy, particularly in Germany about the name due to it's history, at least that's what I'd read.

Good Hunting,
Sillius_Sodus
Actually...the engine remained almost unchanged through the whole Typhoon Mark I through Tempest Mark V series. They were all Sabre II's...either a Sabre II, or a IIA, or a IIB, or a rare IIC. The Tempest Mark I, II, III, and VI were markedly different in engine selection.

Sillius_Sodus
04-07-2006, 06:36 PM
Oooops!

I'd better hit the ol' WWII aircraft books befor I post again! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Good Hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

goshikisen
04-07-2006, 09:03 PM
I've posted these pictures a number of times in the past but I suspect Sillus_Sodus hasn't seen them before. This is the model that was built for the IL2 engine... but unfortunately, not to Oleg's standards.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/pf21.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/pf16.jpg

VW-IceFire
04-07-2006, 09:07 PM
And just to nip an argument in the bud...when Oleg's standards are mentioned that is regarding the quality of the 3D mesh and how it fits together. Specifically...if the mesh is not done to standard (regardless of the game engine) the game engine will crash or corrupt the display of the model (in the most common scenarios).

Sometimes fixing a model that has a bad mesh takes more work than building a new one. Thus the present situation. We are fortunate that Alex Voicu, the fellow who did the Tempest model, had experience in modeling for game engines and did a superb job.

IL2-chuter
04-09-2006, 07:19 PM
After seeing the screens above and besides the potential mesh issues mentioned, maybe it exceeded Oleg's standards too much. It can go both ways.

VW-IceFire
04-09-2006, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by IL2-chuter:
After seeing the screens above and besides the potential mesh issues mentioned, maybe it exceeded Oleg's standards too much. It can go both ways.
Not sure if you understand how a 3D mesh works inside of a game engine but thats not likely. Poly reduction is not too difficult...its sometimes a painful process to do but its not too difficult. What is difficult is when a model is improperly constructed with bad techniques.

Keep in mind that the proces involves creating the model over some 10 or 12 times (for the various levels of detail) and if this or a particular hierarchy isn't followed it becomes difficult to slavage. I constructed some third party stuff for another older game engine and while my skills as a modeler were not very good I do have some experience...and I learned the very hard way...causing the game to crash and so forth (Descent: FreeSpace). Its easy to fix a "borg cube" (how hard is it to make a basic cube and triangulate it? Not much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) to make it compatible with a game engine after much fighting...its not so trivially easy when you've got a complex shape like the Typhoon.

os5vd4si2fsijd1
04-10-2006, 12:58 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif