PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, Any idea if the A6m5b will be fixed?



rugame
02-23-2006, 03:34 PM
This bird has an incorrect loadout. It should have a cowl mounted 7.7mm mg added.

This inaccuracy has been noted by myself and a few other people since this plane was released, several patchs later still its ignored.

Any idea if this inaccuracy will be fixed?

Oh i know its nothing major.....compared to several pounds of boost for some other planes...but before you all flame me, take away a .50 from the mustang or a 13mm from a 190 and then tell me i am whinging.

p1ngu666
02-23-2006, 03:48 PM
i said that, back in the day http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BH-21
02-23-2006, 04:01 PM
Its not the only thing ignored or not worked on. Now that we have had a patch for the patch to appease the Mossie fans ect... If they dedicated one guy to just simple file editing, in a week he would have most of it knocked out. Things like actually getting the FM for the P-38 right would take longer. Its harder to find an aircraft that is finished then it is one that needs work in this sim.

crazyivan1970
02-23-2006, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by BH-21:
Its not the only thing ignored or not worked on. Now that we have had a patch for the patch to appease the Mossie fans ect... If they dedicated one guy to just simple file editing, in a week he would have most of it knocked out.


Apparently you know alot about IL2 code http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
02-23-2006, 06:46 PM
according to Joe Baugher, here: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html)

the 5b should also have automatic CO2 extinguishers for all fuel tanks



in the same site, it relates hat the A6M3, from the 4th example on, actually carried 100 rds of 20mm ammo...seems we got the A6M3 modelled after the first 4 A6M3 32s, with but 60 rds of 20mm


i was actually going to rsearchthis further, and present it both here in ORR and email Oleg about it, in hopes of a correction for the next patch after 4.03..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

guess i will have more research time until 4.05 comes out, now....lol

guderian_ente
02-24-2006, 05:44 PM
The A6M5b should also have automatic CO2 extinguishers for all fuel tanks.

I'm sorry, but this is one of those issues I just can't get worked up about.

According to the link you posted production of the A6M5b started in April 1944. By that time Japanese industry was already suffering from increasing lack of materials and general chaos. How many of the 470 A6M5b built suffered from engine problems, poor fuel, or badly manufactured ammunition? How many of the ones in the game suffer from it?

How many of those automatic fire extinguishers didn't work or were never installed in the first place? How many of them worked only until the CO2 ran out since there wasn't any refill?

Late-war German and, especially, Japanese aircraft already get a bonus because the game doesn't model manufacturing defects, poor maintenance, lack of spares, etc. If some features are missing or not working on those aircraft I think that's only, well, realistic. At least as realistic as the opposite, which is a 100% reliable aircraft without any production defects whatsoever. In other words not a typical late-war Japanese aircraft.

Daiichidoku
02-24-2006, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
Late-war German and, especially, Japanese aircraft already get a bonus because the game doesn't model manufacturing defects, poor maintenance, lack of spares, etc. If some features are missing or not working on those aircraft I think that's only, well, realistic. At least as realistic as the opposite, which is a 100% reliable aircraft without any production defects whatsoever. In other words not a typical late-war Japanese aircraft.


whatever...how about Russian types, more or less throughout the war that had QC probs?...how about all the Russian AI planes with radios, when most were lucky to have recievers at all?

hand-built merlins had QC problems

basically ALL manufactured war materiel had QC problems

we either get ALL of them modelled in the sim, with ALL equipment having SOME kind of % failure, or nothing at all, as we currently have

stop bit ch in

rugame
02-25-2006, 02:39 AM
guderian_ente thanks for the insightful comments. Now please go and troll another post.

Some people swing from the extreme to the stupid in this forum. A correction in the loadout is bought to Oleg's attenion and you state that he needs to model poor manufacture etc into the sim?

Whats the go with your post, what possible good does it serve? really?

Jetbuff
02-25-2006, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Apparently you know alot about IL2 code http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Naah... he's going off his own experience developing his own award-winning sim. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

guderian_ente
02-25-2006, 05:34 AM
Basically ALL manufactured war materiel had QC [quality control] problems.


True.



We either get ALL of them modelled in the sim, with ALL equipment having SOME kind of % failure, or nothing at all, as we currently have.


That's where our viewpoints differ. Yes, a lot of equipment produced during the war had quality problems. But the extent of the problems varied enormously.

There's literally a world of difference between a well-paid, well-fed American factory worker building airplanes in Texas and a Soviet worker who's just been forcibly evacuated to a makeshift plant in the Urals, or a Nazi slave worker working in an underground factory. The late-war Japanese production situation with chaotic, decentralized production and acute shortage of raw materials was much closer to the latter than the former.

So I'm not totally happy with the "same standards should apply to everyone" argument here. In fact, if there are a few errors and omissions here and there if they happen to disproportionately affect late-war Japanese aircraft then I have no problem with that. I actually consider it more realistic, even if the solution is an indirect one.



What's the go with your post, what possible good does it serve? Really?


I wanted to bring up the issues above, which I think are very important for the game.

My viewpoint is probably affected by the fact that I'm primarily an offline and coop player, so I'm not as interested in millimeter justice as the dogfight server crowd is. Like I said, I want more stuff that doesn't quite work or isn't built exactly to spec in a realistic world war two sim. Which is why I'm trying to offer an alternate vierwpoint and shift the focus of the disucssion here.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

J_Anonymous
02-25-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
according to Joe Baugher, here: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/%7Epettypi/elevon/baugher_other/a6m.html)

the 5b should also have automatic CO2 extinguishers for all fuel tanks



in the same site, it relates hat the A6M3, from the 4th example on, actually carried 100 rds of 20mm ammo...seems we got the A6M3 modelled after the first 4 A6M3 32s, with but 60 rds of 20mm


i was actually going to rsearchthis further, and present it both here in ORR and email Oleg about it, in hopes of a correction for the next patch after 4.03..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

guess i will have more research time until 4.05 comes out, now....lol

Fire extinguishers were indeed installed in A6M5b, according to the book written by the chief designer of A6 Zero series. I translated a table in his book from Japanese in the following thread,

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/1131071214

The production of A6M5b started in April 1944, as stated in the table. It was about 1 year before Japanese manufacturing was knocked out by B29's.

J_Anonymous
02-25-2006, 12:35 PM
Forgot to mention. Mr. Horikoshi worked for Mitsubishi, and his table includes only A6M5 manufactured by Mitsubishi. The competing company, Nakajima Aircrafts (the manufacturer of Ki43, Ki84 etc.), was good at mass-production.

rugame
02-25-2006, 02:39 PM
sorry guderian_ente i just get annoyed that some A/c seem to get all the attention, while others are left by the wayside. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Daiichidoku
02-25-2006, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
There's literally a world of difference between a well-paid, well-fed American factory worker building airplanes in Texas and a Soviet worker who's just been forcibly evacuated to a makeshift plant in the Urals, or a Nazi slave worker working in an underground factory

yes, there is

but did you know that Douglas, and AFAIK many other US manufacturers used...ummm..."developmentally challenged" ppl for a large portion of the workforce?

( i wont call them "******s", as this is an insult to them, compared to those who usually wear the title on th einternethttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

sure, they werent given the most skill-critical tasks....

HarlockGN
02-25-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
I'm sorry, but this is one of those issues I just can't get worked up about.


What about we don't model the guns too, since some of them could jam? Oh, of course there are bound to be engine problems, so let's downrate that a little as well. Do you like the idea?

Sorry, but yours is a rediculous point. Since we're at it let's have PF automatically disable the joystick when one selects a japanese plane, so the redwhiners will be finally happy with their beloved autowin option.

Was the Extinguisher and the extra gun there? Yes they were. Not wanting them modeled just because of the "chance" that there could be a malfunction is a laughable excuse to deny a possible useful function to the users of an aircraft. Sorry, but that's kind of pathetic.

If oleg doesn't have the time/technology/way to model them, then THAT is an acceptable reason. The rest is just excuses.

PS: just to let you know, japanese (and german, and italian) mechanics/specialists were well known to be expectionally dedicated/crafty, wprking overnight most of the time to keep the planes in more than decent flying and operating conditions despite the loss in production quality and the lack of spare parts. So i guess it all balances out, isn't it?

Daiichidoku
02-25-2006, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by HarlockGN:
PS: just to let you know, japanese (and german, and italian) mechanics/specialists were well known to be expectionally dedicated/crafty, wprking overnight most of the time to keep the planes in more than decent flying and operating conditions despite the loss in production quality and the lack of spare parts. So i guess it all balances out, isn't it?

i would imagine MOST nation's mechs could be and were very resourceful, when necessity came knocking

i knew a gentleman who was an RAF mech in Burma, attached to a Thunderbolt sqd

he told me that when his unit arrived at an ex-IJA airbase, they found abandoned airframes there...apparently, due to lack of spares and/or for conservation of such, the tires of the JP planes were all stuffed with wild grasses, presumably the rough strips would take thier toll on inflated tires, and this remedied it


anyhow

nice info from the zero designers book, J_Anonymus

any chance you could scan the pertintent info from the book, and sent it to Oleg, or at least post it here?

ElAurens
02-25-2006, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
I just want some easy kills.


Be sure.

Daiichidoku
02-25-2006, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
Which is why I'm trying to offer an alternate vierwpoint and shift the focus of the disucssion here.

then with all respect, start your own thread in regards to something you can get worked up over

Max.Power
02-26-2006, 12:52 AM
Well, regarding the issue of modelled factory defects, I think that this is a valid argument when you are talking about offline campaign flying. If you are talking about online flying, it is utterly ridiculous for reasons I do not need to delineate. Omissions and inaccuracies that penalize one plane or set of planes are not a substitute for the accurate modelling of actual problems, and are also totally ridiculous.

guderian_ente
02-27-2006, 08:14 AM
The production of A6M5b started in April 1944, as stated in the table. It was about 1 year before Japanese manufacturing was knocked out by B29s.


Yes, but it was still after the shortage of raw materials caused by the submarine blockade (http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/wapa/guides/offensive/sec6.htm) had started to bite. During the second half of 1944 the blockade turned into a stranglehold and Japanese industry suffered accordingly.



Just to let you know, Japanese (and German, and Italian) mechanics were well known to be exceptionally crafty, working overnight most of the time to keep the planes in more than decent flying and operating conditions despite the loss in production quality and the lack of spare parts. So I guess it all balances out, isn't it?


Not necessarily. As the war went on more and more Japanese units found themselves in isolated positions with little hope of resupply. Of course you can cannibalize and improvise, but only up to a point. In the long run skilled and dedicated mechanics are not a substitute for a working logistics pipeline.



Oh, of course there are bound to be engine problems, so let's downrate that a little as well. Do you like the idea?


Actually I do. This is what Bill Gunston has to say about some of the late war Japanese fighters:

"The unreliable engine kept Shidens mostly unserviceable..."

"Progressive deterioration in quality control meant that pilots never knew how particular Ki-84 would perform, whether the brakes would work or whether, trying to intercept B-29s over Japan, they would even be able to climb high enough.

[...]

The 22nd Sentai then moved to the Philippines, where the rot set in with accidents, shortages and extremely poor serviceability. Frequent bombing of the Musashi engine factory led to various projects and prototypes made of wood or steel [as opposed to aluminium]..."



Well, regarding the issue of modelled factory defects, I think that this is a valid argument when you are talking about offline campaign flying. If you are talking about online flying, it is utterly ridiculous for reasons I do not need to delineate.


Why is it different online? Shouldn't the same standards apply everywhere?



Omissions and inaccuracies that penalize one plane or set of planes are not a substitute for the accurate modelling of actual problems...


Agreed. It is a makeshift solution at best, and I hope BoB will give the issue more attention.



With all respect, start your own thread in regards to something you can get worked up over.


Good idea. I'll do that.

JG53Frankyboy
02-27-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
............
in the same site, it relates hat the A6M3, from the 4th example on, actually carried 100 rds of 20mm ammo...seems we got the A6M3 modelled after the first 4 A6M3 32s, with but 60 rds of 20mm


...............


count again ( ">user STAT" on a dogfight map), the 4.04 A6M3 has 100rpg in its wingcanons - as before.

personally , im wondering if the 1000rpg in the fuselage Typ97 guns in the most Zeros in game are correct ! AFAIK it should be 500rpg , like the A6M5 in game has.

Daiichidoku
02-27-2006, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
............
in the same site, it relates hat the A6M3, from the 4th example on, actually carried 100 rds of 20mm ammo...seems we got the A6M3 modelled after the first 4 A6M3 32s, with but 60 rds of 20mm


...............


count again ( ">user STAT" on a dogfight map), the 4.04 A6M3 has 100rpg in its wingcanons - as before.

personally , im wondering if the 1000rpg in the fuselage Typ97 guns in the most Zeros in game are correct ! AFAIK it should be 500rpg , like the A6M5 in game has. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


really? cool! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif tx Oleg!

this must have been a 403 fix, as im sure it was only 60 rds previously to that

still hope for corrections for the M5 series then, RE: extiinguishers and (5b) 7.7mm cowl gun

JG53Frankyboy
02-27-2006, 04:58 PM
actually the A6M3 has since a long time 100rpg - long before 4.03..........

J_Anonymous
02-27-2006, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The production of A6M5b started in April 1944, as stated in the table. It was about 1 year before Japanese manufacturing was knocked out by B29s.


Yes, but it was still after the shortage of raw materials caused by the submarine blockade (http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/wapa/guides/offensive/sec6.htm) had started to bite. During the second half of 1944 the blockade turned into a stranglehold and Japanese industry suffered accordingly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The number of various models of A6 Zero manufactured by Mitsubishi is already quoted in the table I translated. Please refer to another thread.

The competitor, Nakajima Aircraft (which is a part of today's Fuji Hreavy Industries, which markets cars with brandname "Subaru") actually produced more Zero's. (According to Mr. Horikoshi, manufacturing at Mitsubishi's plant was in chaos because the Navy ordered manufacturing of J2M3 raiden and A7 Reppu, then reversed the decision and demanded more Zero etc.) A year by year break down of all aircrafts manufactured by Nakajima is as follows;

[Year], [IJA aircrafts], [IJN aircrafts], [commercial aircrafts], [total]

1937 117 241 5 363
1938 420 553 14 987
1939 673 489 15 1,177
1940 728 349 4 1,081
1941 744 341 0 1,085
1942 1,412 1,376 0 2,788
1943 2,658 3,027 0 5,685
1944 3,613 4,330 0 7,943
1945 826 1,449 0 2,275

Source : http://www1.toptower.ne.jp/~katumata/sub584.html (http://www1.toptower.ne.jp/%7Ekatumata/sub584.html)

As you can see, Nakajima produced the most airrafts in 1944.

So, an important question is how many A6's Zero of what model were manufactured in which months by Nakajima.

Unfortunately, I could not find a clear cut answer. However, in Mr. Horikoshi's book, I spotted some important statements (pp-412).

"The number of Zero's manufactured by Nakajima always exceeded 200 per month from Fall 1943 through Spring 1945." (p-413).

Given that Mitsubishi began to manufactuer A6M5a and A6M5b since March 1944 and April 1945, respectively (maybe at different factories?), it is *probably* safe to assume that Nakajima produced evem more of these models from Spring to December 1944. Please note that Nakajima produced twice more Zero's overall (over 6500 units) than Mitsubishi (which designed Zero).

In the subsequent paragraphs, the authors explain why the overall manufacturing of Zero's went down since december 1945; earth quake in Nagoya (Dec. 7 1944), B29 raid on an engine (Dec.13) and an airplane (Dec.18) factory. Later, they also explain that Nakajima manufactured as many as 138 Zero's even one month before the surrender, because they had moved the factory to the northern part of Japan; but the manufacturing of engines slowed down after Jan. 1945 beause the engine factories were scattered around Tokyo and B29 raids disrupted the production of engines.

In p-416, they also state;

".... there is no dount that the most significant factors that directly slowed down Japanese manufacturing of aircrafts (since dec. 1944) were the U.S. air raids, and an earth quake. However, .....there were some other indirect factors.... including the naval blockade by submarine, which limited the supplies of aluminum and rare-earth metals...."

J_Anonymous
02-27-2006, 07:33 PM
Forgot to mention. Mr. Horikoshi was apparently a very number-oriented person. His book contains some other amusing tables. For example, in the appendix, he compares how many manpower-hours were required to manufacture A6 Zero, J2 Raiden, and P-51. Answer, 14,000 man-hour, 14,000 man-hour, and 4,500 man-hour.

Max.Power
02-28-2006, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Well, regarding the issue of modelled factory defects, I think that this is a valid argument when you are talking about offline campaign flying. If you are talking about online flying, it is utterly ridiculous for reasons I do not need to delineate.


Why is it different online? Shouldn't the same standards apply everywhere?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Offline, the game is a much more serious simulator than online. Especially in dogfight servers, there is very little you can do in seriousness to force players to play as if they were fighting a war in the 30's and 40's. The situations are not equal, and therefore, the circumstances are not equal- therefore, the standards should not be equal. It is a question of intent and practice... there is also another question of player enjoyment and sales, in that regard.

For instance, I am going to hazard to assert that anyone involved in squadron competitions would be quite upset to learn the aircraft they compete with suffers frequent defects. This is simply not a situation where such a feature would be wanted or warranted.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Omissions and inaccuracies that penalize one plane or set of planes are not a substitute for the accurate modelling of actual problems...


Agreed. It is a makeshift solution at best, and I hope BoB will give the issue more attention.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. It is not a even makeshift solution, it is a flaw. The only thing that the omission and an actual, carefully modelled flaw would have analogous results is if you measured the amount you pissed off those who like to fly the zero. Only, I'm sure, that this pisses them off a lot more, considering it's without reason, and you are never able to get aircraft that fly to spec with the 'flaw in the model' method.

rugame
03-01-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Max.Power:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Max.Power:



No. It is not a even makeshift solution, it is a flaw. The only analogous factor that the omission and an actual, carefully modelled flaw have is perhaps if you measured the amount you pissed off those who like to fly the zero. Only, I'm sure, that this pisses them off a lot more, considering it's without reason, and you are never able to get aircraft that fly to spec with the 'flaw in the model' method. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>[/QUOTE]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

rugame
03-09-2006, 04:40 PM
bump

Any1 form OM or team care to coment pls

Slipstream_
03-13-2006, 04:18 PM
Why not "simulate" flats and flat batteries/dud starter cartridges/oily sparkplugs as well? Probably just as worthwhile IMHO...
Maybe an idea for the next simulation tho, "WW2 Airfield Tycoon: Storm of Spares" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
I think if any aspect of lacking supplies/raw materials/whatever is to be modeled one would have to include low fuel levels, bad grade fuels, low compression (worn) engines and whatnots. And to simulate those supply levels hitorically correct......ouch. Might take a few days to dig out those facts. Not to say I disapprove of the idea, it'd be a neat mission going Kamikaze in an A6M/fighting the Eighth AF in a 109 with a serious need for an engine replacement http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif. I just think that can't be historically simulated with the desired degree of accuracy.

And from the same POV, if the A6M5b had some equipment in the specs it would seem very logical to include it. It seems highly illogical to exclude it because it may have been on the wrong airfield at the wrong time where the chain of supply might have been lacking. Or the factory may, or may not, have been missing the whatnots needed to produce the whatevers.

Popey109
03-13-2006, 04:36 PM
AI will chase you now with there hair on fire and missing half a tail LOL! Till dameged AI have priority landing! or will return to base if injured or dameged, simulating critical falures wont work for AI http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

rugame
03-15-2006, 04:02 PM
AI already have a simplified flght model, they are unlikely to get a complex failure model....

Then again, sometimes in Il2 you are lucly to get an accurate model of the plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

rugame
10-22-2006, 12:17 AM
a bump for an issue that is old but still not fixed, or even commented on.

This is the product of having a game that is so hard to work on as a 3rd party / end user that little flaws make a big impact on the overall enjoyment of the game for people...

meh.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

msalama
10-22-2006, 03:41 AM
Regardless of however real some of the flaws you guys mention may be, you probably won't see then fixed anymore because Oleg probably has neither the time nor the manpower to actually do the work this late in the day... HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But then again, what do I know?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hippies FTW!