PDA

View Full Version : How about enabling the MG station in the IL-2 1941 Field Mod?



UberDemon
01-31-2006, 09:58 PM
How about enabling the MG station in the IL-2 1941 Field Mod?

So Oleg, since the original IL-2 was released in 2001, I've been wondering about when that beautiful IL-2 1941 Field Mod would be completed... at the time there were some issues with the outside gun station in that IL-2 model... but the TB-3s use the same type of MG gunner station, and with the same model of dual DA machine-guns... and they are all enabled in the TB-3... how about adding that interior model to the IL-2 1941 Field mod so that we can play that as a 2-seater in online games? or just to play as gunners?

You gotta admit... not that bad of an idea is it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Look at the pics below:
http://www.uberdemon.com/pictures/uwhine0.jpg
http://www.uberdemon.com/pictures/uwhine1.jpg
http://www.uberdemon.com/pictures/uwhine2.jpg

HotelBushranger
02-01-2006, 03:52 AM
Yup, I have often wanted the same http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

However, Oleg would have to model the back of the early Il-2, so I dunno if he's up to it or not. Probably not <party pooper!>.

KG26_Alpha
02-01-2006, 04:55 AM
Im trying to remeber Olegs reply to this question from years ago.
Wasn't it something to do with the gunner position being moddeled correctly?
I think it was due to lack of info sadly

Stigler_9_JG52
02-01-2006, 08:11 AM
Lack of info never stopped him from making a flight model decision, apparently.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hawgdog
02-01-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:

I think it was due to lack of info sadly

THAT line gave me a chuckle. Plenty of planes had a bit of artistic license applied. LOL
Would be nice, yes. OR make the rear gunner hit harder to compensate for his lousy eyesight.

KG26_Alpha
02-01-2006, 04:54 PM
Name 1 plane with artisitic license applied to Graphics re cockpit moddeling and gunner positions please ?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
02-01-2006, 05:34 PM
He's probably saving it up for when we return to the Eastern Front. It doesn't make a huge impact...how many fly the Field Mod variant these days anyways? I know I do...and will continue to do so...but I can live with the lack of gunner control. Its worth talking about for when we do go back to the Eastern Front...having the station would be nice.

UberDemon
02-01-2006, 05:39 PM
We'll, I think that the benefit and gain of having that modelled (even if it is only partially accurate from the graphic standpoint) would far outweight not having it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif As long as the gun works, and using the TB-3 as a basis, I believe it works.

Oh well, I try not to whine too much, but everynow and then I feel the natural need to whine about something IL-2 related. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ElAurens
02-01-2006, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
Name 1 plane with artisitic license applied to Graphics re cockpit moddeling and gunner positions please ?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Mitsubishi G4M1-11 "Betty" for one. Instead of being able to view the rest of the interior from any gunner position you merely have the image area blacked out.

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/Betty.jpg

Looking back from the Pilot's seat at what should be a perfectly visible gunners station.
Still, it is a very good compromise to have the Betty flyable.

KG26_Alpha
02-02-2006, 02:19 AM
I thought you meant the binoculars left hanging there .............. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BTW that screen shot is neither a cockpit or gunner station just a "inbetween area" If you want to nitpick at over the shoulder views I suggest you get in a Bf110 G2 to have a look at Gunner/radio & cockpit moddeling as it should be.

This kind of moddeling is purley done for polycount limitation I would imagine as opposed to artistic license.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/Fuselageshot1.jpg


BTW Uber Deamon

I want more than anything the gunner stations to be put in I mean it looks simple right ?

B17 would/should be the simplest to do with a vast array of information out there about it but alas its just not happening, Ive waited a mere 4/5 years for the Ju88 so who knows whats going to happen with the new IL2 series restarting with TBoB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

avimimus
02-03-2006, 05:27 AM
UberDemon,
I believe Oleg posted that this was impossible due to an engine limitation.

This has kept coming up since the earliest days of Il-2 and I think it will have to wait for bob's successor (it would be nice to have something other than that under equiped giant 12.7mm though).

Philipscdrw
02-03-2006, 07:14 AM
Does anyone use the gunner positions?

I don't, really. I might go to the nose-gunner's seat on the TB-3 to get some idea of where the target is (how did a TB-3 pilot see where to go? Can't see anything ahead because of the nose!) but I don't really go to a gunner's seat to fire the guns...

Stigler_9_JG52
02-03-2006, 03:25 PM
Anything to stop "deadeye-****" from manning that weapon.

UberDemon
02-03-2006, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Does anyone use the gunner positions?

I don't, really. I might go to the nose-gunner's seat on the TB-3 to get some idea of where the target is (how did a TB-3 pilot see where to go? Can't see anything ahead because of the nose!) but I don't really go to a gunner's seat to fire the guns...

Yep. I do. It is very cool getting a kill in a gunner station, because it is not that easy to do - at least not when you have limited ammo.

The limitation on the engine thing I can't believe is an issue anymore, not when the same gun stations work on the TB-3 (same mechanical system, same guns, gunner "outside" plane). But I could be wrong... I just think it was something that was left and not revisited. A lot of the times it is easier to start new developments than revisiting old ones. For example, it is a lot easier for me to develop a new feature in UQMG than to fix an old one.

Stigler_9_JG52
02-03-2006, 06:39 PM
This "no sources" excuse has been going on far too long.

If you can make an educated guess as to what a station looks like, why is that not good enough???

Provided you can get the space set up so that the gunner doesn't get a better field of view than he would in real life (and that's not a problem, if you know the dimensions of the fuselage space and the canopy framing), you can make well educated guesses.

Will it render the entire airplane model useless if you miss a bolt or two? If your interior wall struts look a little different?

And, then, if the data doesn't exist, how is anyone going to prove it didn't look like how the team models it????

Finally, if the interior, or a few pieces of equipment are missing or not properly modeled, or have the wrong color, what does that mean for the quality of the simulation? I'll tell ya: not a darned thing.

I wish Maddox' team were this picky about their flight models, this would be a better sim overall if they were. Meanwhile, the Pe-2 continues to be a great plane, with great utility we could have been enjoying for years now, if not for the pigheadedness of the design team.

UberDemon
02-03-2006, 07:13 PM
Stigler,

Kinda funny you said that... look at my reply in the Other Ju-88 post... Of course I was not as eloquent... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

KG26_Alpha
02-03-2006, 10:19 PM
Didnt Oleg say as user PC's "catch up" to IL2 engine more things will be added.

Just a thought http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

UberDemon
02-03-2006, 10:25 PM
Yeah... that means I need a new PC for BoB... darn it all to heck!