RE: Typo on Pe-2I information (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Neilster -> RE: Typo on Pe-2I information (5/22/2006 4:36:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Can you provide a source that says thet the Pe-2I used 1000hp engines? Even the earlier models of Pe-2 used VK-105 engines of at least 1100hp.


You're right about the 1,100hp engines. The typo I made in the original was to add an extra zero at the end of '1,1000hp' rather than adding an extra 1 at the beginning. The position of the comma should have told me that. [8|]

Information about the Pe-2I came from http://www.vectorsite.net/avpe2.html among other sources. I concur with the authors observation...' Trying to document aircraft is troublesome -- if you read three different sources you usually get three slightly different stories -- but in the case of Soviet aircraft the stories are often wildly inconsistent, and some sources even contradict themselves. '



This is from your link...

"Myasishchev's Pe-2I featured extensive streamlining, inspired by the British de Havilland Mosquito light bomber, with no turret but a tail stinger; a "lowered" fuselage to increase bombbay volume; M-107A engines; and two crew."

It seems that M-107A and VK-107A were interchangeable names.

I know what you mean about the difficulty of sorting out specs for various developments of aircraft and Soviet stuff is especially difficult in this regard. My only concern is to get the info in the game as accurate as possible.

Cheers mate, Neilster



Neilster -> RE: Ridiculous Go229 (5/22/2006 5:16:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

I don't think it's erroneous to use the Go 229 nomenclature (as stated at the beginning of this entry) but this aircraft was clearly a fighter-bomber and it's a pretty serious hole to have this counter with a ridiculously high air-to-air rating and no air-to-ground rating. I'll be changing the CSV file.

I looked at Il-2 Sturmovik the PC simulation game, and the Go229 is proposed zero ordonnance possibilities when you fly it. You cannot load any bomb on it.

I think that, even if this is right that the Go229 was designed from the start as a fighter-bomber, it could simply have been rushed out in operations in fighter only mode first, being added the ordonnance capacity later, as the Me262 was.

This is a plane for which only 1 exemplary was actually flown, for 2 hours as the Wikipedia is saying (not the most reliable source about planes). So anything that can be written about it is from the "what if" / "suppositions" domain. So I believe that it is credible that the WiF game put it as a fighter only plane. Fighter-bomber version could have been developped thereafter, with less air to air factor and more tactical factors.

About the 13 air to air factor, I do not think that it is ridiculously high.

The best Me262 is at 12, and the designer simply believed that the Go229 was +1 compared to the Me262. +1 is not ridiculously high.

As a comparison, the Mig-15 & Grumman F9F Panther are rated at 15 on the PatiF / AiF countersheets, and the North American P-51H Mustangs are rated at 10.


If you don't like Wikipedia I can provide plenty of other sources for the Go 229 being designed with a bombing capability. This is from nurflugel.com (an authorative site on all-wing aircraft) and is by one of the Horten brothers themselves...

In a speech before representatives of the aircraft industry, Reichsmarshall Goering had announced that no new contracts would be given, unless the proposed aircraft could carry 1000 kg bombs, fly 1000 km /h, and have a penetration depth of 1000 km; penetration depth being defined as the total range.
The Fighter Division requested that the aircraft also be fitted with 30 mm machine guns, something that would lessen the machine's efficiency as a bomber

We started drawing and calculating without a contract. Our plan was to build two full size prototypes. The initial penetration depth would only be 800 km, since the fuel proof glue necessary for the full wet wing, was not yet available. On the other hand, the smaller fuel load allowed a doubling of the bomb load, so we went ahead and submitted our proposal.

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/horten_nurflugels.html

Or this...

Gotha immediately began work on the production of the flying wing fighter. The initial production version was to be given the designation Go 229A. The Gotha team found it necessary to introduce some changes in order to adapt the Ho IX for production. They redesigned the cockpit, enlarged the turbojet housings, revised the air intake geometry and modified the undercarriage.

Provision was made for four 30 mm MK 103 or MK 108 cannon mounted immediately outboard of the engines. Hardpoints were to be provided beneath the center section for two 2205-lb bombs or for two 275 Imp gall fuel tanks. A two seat radar-equipped all-weather version (designated Go 229B) was also envisaged."

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/baugher.html

Both clearly indicate that the aircraft was designed for bombing. It took time to develop the Me-262 as a fast bomber because it was originally designed as a fighter. The Go 229 was developed as a fighter-bomber from the outset, which radically simplifies the process as the aircraft's structure is already stressed for external loads.

As for the rating of 13 being ridiculously high; I clearly explained why I thought so above.

" The fighter variants of the Me-262s rate 11 or 12 and with its wingspan of over 16m, weight and probable yaw instability there is no way the Go-229 would be a better interceptor than them. My guess would be about 10 as it was super quick and it's pilots could have used energy maneouverability (as indeed, the Me-262 drivers did). "

I think it's air-to-air rating is about 3 higher than it should be and IMHO that's ridiculously high. Why would I think it only equal in air-to-air to a piston engined fighter (P-51H)? Because the P-51H had enormous range and was much more reliable and maneouverable.

Again, my concern is to get the game as accurate as possible. I'm happy to tinker with the CSV files, as I'm sure many others will do too.

Cheers, Neilster









Froonp -> RE: Ridiculous Go229 (5/22/2006 5:48:38 PM)

quote:

Both clearly indicate that the aircraft was designed for bombing. It took time to develop the Me-262 as a fast bomber because it was originally designed as a fighter. The Go 229 was developed as a fighter-bomber from the outset, which radically simplifies the process as the aircraft's structure is already stressed for external loads.

Yes, and both also say that the aircraft should reach 1000 km/h and have a range of 1000 km. It's not because the aircraft was designed for something that it was a success.

Maybe the ADG's designers made the Go229 a pure fighter because they thought the first version might have been a pure fighter (It is a 1946 aircraft). Maybe the Luftwaffe would have had to wait until 1948-1949 to have their Go229 as it was designed. Maybe the one in WiF FE is just a rushed fighter-only version.

But my bet is that ADG simply needed a 13 strength fighter for the Luftwaffe (because the CW had one, and the USA had the P-80), and they choose the Go229. Maybe this was simply the better choice amongst all the Luftwaffe wonder planes.

With only 1 plane who flew, nobody here is right, becauser there is no truth, only assumptions. Yours and those of ADG have as much chances as being right, both are plausible, but ADG designed the game as a whole, so their choice may be better for their game.



Froonp -> RE: Ridiculous Go229 (5/22/2006 5:56:23 PM)

quote:

If you don't like Wikipedia I can provide plenty of other sources for the Go 229 being designed with a bombing capability.

Not that I don't like Wikipedia, I love it, but I take what I read there with a pinch of salt, as you say in English.
I generaly tend to verify informations that come from Wikipedia, because it tends to be vandalized these days.



Neilster -> RE: Ridiculous Go229 (5/22/2006 6:02:14 PM)

quote:

Maybe the ADG's designers made the Go229 a pure fighter because they thought the first version might have been a pure fighter (It is a 1946 aircraft).


Well, they would be wrong. The first versions were going to be fighter-bombers. Gotha was building them when their factory was overrun in April 1945.

Your points about play balance are probably correct. It's a cool aircraft and it's tempting to make it a "wunder jaeger". I think ADG would have been better off doing that with an advanced Me 262; rocket boosted versions of which were flying in 1945.

Cheers, Neilster



Neilster -> RE: Ridiculous Go229 (5/22/2006 6:15:56 PM)

Here is a cutaway of the Go 229.

Cheers, Neilster


[image]local://upfiles/10515/ABCBA2CA6BAE4F25A7E9199E0334FE4F.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: Ridiculous Go229 (5/22/2006 6:16:46 PM)

quote:

Well, they would be wrong. The first versions were going to be fighter-bombers. Gotha was building them when their factory was overrun in April 1945.

They were building Go229V-3, which should have been Go229A versions, fighter-bomber as you say, but they were only building V-3, that is prototypes. There is no certitude that the operationnal A version would have been an operationnal fighter-bomber available in June 46. I believe a lot of testing would have been needed, both to make a flying wing safe to fly and to make it a stable enough plateform to deliver bombs or rockets.
That's why I believe that chances are high that the first operationnal versions would have been pure fighters, because the Luftwaffe was in dire needs of pure interceptors to fight the devastating US bombings.



Neilster -> Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 6:16:48 PM)

...and the prototype being prepped for flight.

Cheers, Neilster


[image]local://upfiles/10515/269FDEFB4698416D8415661E1A33BD7C.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 6:19:11 PM)

Is this the V-2 who flew 2 hours, being destroyed by an engine failure at landing ?
Difficult to identify this bird from that view.



Neilster -> RE: Ridiculous Go229 (5/22/2006 6:30:33 PM)

quote:

That's why I believe that chances are high that the first operationnal versions would have been pure fighters, because the Luftwaffe was in dire needs of pure interceptors to fight the devastating US bombings.


That would be the logical thing to do. That didn't stop Hitler insisting on a bomber version of the Me-262 though.

I was under the impression that the preliminary stages of production had actually begun for delivery Go 229s (wing bonding, rib construction etc), even though prototypes were still being completed. Germany's war situation was so desperate that they were going to risk it. I read that ages ago though, and I could be wrong.

An aircraft stable enough to be an effective fighter is stable enough to deliver bombs and rockets. On what basis do you say otherwise? I have demonstrated that the Go 229 wouldn't have made a very good interceptor so why would the Luftwaffe ignore its bomber potential?

Cheers, Neilster



Neilster -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 6:32:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Is this the V-2 who flew 2 hours, being destroyed by an engine failure at landing ?
Difficult to identify this bird from that view.


I believe so.

Cheers, Neilster



Froonp -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 6:39:35 PM)

quote:

An aircraft stable enough to be an effective fighter is stable enough to deliver bombs and rockets. On what basis do you say otherwise? I have demonstrated that the Go 229 wouldn't have made a very good interceptor so why would the Luftwaffe ignore its bomber potential?

To be a good interceptor it should be stable at high speed, because high speed is his better characteristic. This plane could have approached the B-17 boxes with such a speed that manualy aimed guns would be near useless against it.
To be a good bomber, it would need to be stable at (relatively) low speed, and I doubt that this flying wing design plane, with such poorly reliable engines, would have been reliable at low speed low heigth enough to be a good fighter-bomber. It would need lots of months of testing and improvements for this to happen.
See the time it took Northrop to develop flying wings.



Neilster -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 7:02:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

An aircraft stable enough to be an effective fighter is stable enough to deliver bombs and rockets. On what basis do you say otherwise? I have demonstrated that the Go 229 wouldn't have made a very good interceptor so why would the Luftwaffe ignore its bomber potential?

To be a good interceptor it should be stable at high speed, because high speed is his better characteristic. This plane could have approached the B-17 boxes with such a speed that manualy aimed guns would be near useless against it.
To be a good bomber, it would need to be stable at (relatively) low speed, and I doubt that this flying wing design plane, with such poorly reliable engines, would have been reliable at low speed low heigth enough to be a good fighter-bomber. It would need lots of months of testing and improvements for this to happen.
See the time it took Northrop to develop flying wings.


High speed stability is one consideration for an interceptor but also of great importance is it's worth as a gun platform (a different thing), roll rate and turn radius. The Go 229 would have had to combat fighters as well as bombers. Approaching bombers at super high speeds didn't work well either because of the relatively slow firing cannon like the Mk 108. You don't get enough rounds on target before overshooting. That's why the Me 262s used roller-coaster attacks where they dived through the fighter screen then approached the bombers from below at much lower speeds.

Fighter bombers didn't attack at low speed. They generally dived at reasonably steep angles to improve their accuracy and to increase their speed. In doing so they made themselves a harder target for flak, spent less time over target and maintained their energy to help avoid being bounced after their attack. Your point about the unreliability of the Go 229s engines is well made but, again, the same engines were already being used in fighter-bomber Me-262s. The Ho IX prototype was lost when an engine failed but that was at very low height and speed and right on the edge of the aircraft's performance envelope.

The Northrop flying wings had different development problems. The powerplant/prop installation in the XB-35 and the YP-49 displayed yaw instability when bombing from high altitude.

Cheers, Neilster



mlees -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 8:06:29 PM)

I was wondering if the debates on specific air type/model aircraft and the appropriate ratings they deserve were gonna flare up here.

Remember: These counters are just counters.

It's a fighter unit, with an A2A rating of "13". It doesn't matter which model aircraft is illustrated on the counter. That illustration is just eye candy. It is not meant to be a judgement value on the aircraft model displayed.

Is it a manueverable aircraft? A ton of machine guns and cannon? Does it get it's strength from numbers? Who cares? Eye candy. That's all...

These debates could rage over the values on the named ships, as well. Why does one ship of a "class" have a higher anti-ship value than a sister ship of it's class? (I have the UK Queen Elizabeth class ship's in mind here...)

[:'(][:'(]



Neilster -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 8:49:21 PM)

Yes. Quite.

Cheers, Neilster



Klingon -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 8:56:02 PM)

Yep... I read the designer's notes from Federation and Empire (a Star Trek strategic game) and simiar issues arose. One class of ship was say 6 points, and another, clearly better one was 7 points,... but then they had the refit of the original ship, wich was clearly better than the original, but also clearly inferior to the second ship... so they had to just decide what it was going to be, and end the debate, and the players would just have to understand that.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 9:14:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klingon

Yep... I read the designer's notes from Federation and Empire (a Star Trek strategic game) and simiar issues arose. One class of ship was say 6 points, and another, clearly better one was 7 points,... but then they had the refit of the original ship, wich was clearly better than the original, but also clearly inferior to the second ship... so they had to just decide what it was going to be, and end the debate, and the players would just have to understand that.

Perfection is an elusive goal.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/22/2006 11:47:34 PM)

Here is one screen shot of the French (counter sheets 3 and 4 bitmaps done).

I threw inthe Brazilian air unit, the Poles, and a couple of new Chinese and a Russian.

I am not sure why the Russian is Isolated (red supply status). Nor do I understand why the Poles (and Brazilian!) are merely out of supply. I'm gonna have to read through the code for determining supply.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/C457F64C0D7645A6A3F927ED48FC4111.jpg[/image]



mlees -> RE: Flightline Go 229 (5/23/2006 12:16:09 AM)

quote:

why the Russian is Isolated (red supply status). Nor do I understand why the Poles (and Brazilian!) are merely out of supply. I'm gonna have to read through the code for determining supply.


Did you spread these guys out in the borders of the USA? I think this all reflects the cooperation rules...

Commonwealth minors (Poles?) and US controlled minors (Brazil) may trace supply through each others territories, and may base in the respective home countries, via the cooperation rules, without HQ restrictions... therefore they out OOS, but not isolated.

The isolated units (Russian, French, Chinese) have HQ requirements, and may trace supply only to their own respective HQ's. In other words, the French units trace supply only to a French HQ, and no matter how close they are to an American city. Because the units are unsupported (according to HQ limits), they are also isolated.

At least, that's my story, and I'll stick to it until Froonp shows up...



tigercub -> RE: Typo on Pe-2I information (5/23/2006 5:32:57 AM)

The mk5 spit was the most produced spit of all models,but was slower {369 mph most mk5s } and had a lower climb rate than the luftwaffe pair both could dive away from the spit allmost at will. FW190a,BF109f/g in just about every war game ever made this over rated plane gets a pat on the back hey but they did fix the carby so they could dive and not stall.

But the winners write history and the loses get lost in it.

there is a hurricane x11 with a 6 rating when they came out they were no longer used in front line sevice as a fighter. rating night mare
spit mk5 rates 6 more like 5 use a mk8 for a 6 rating if you must at least i can keep my lunch down.

BF109f rates 5/6 fine
BF109g1 rates 5 dreaming try 6 or change model to the bomber attack type g6
fw190a rates 6 7 would be more like it was the best fighter in the world for more than 2 years.

The germans lost the control of the air because they were out numbered 10 to 1 not because
of better allied types for the most part.
there is a list of planes with ratings that suck a bit.
D520S 5 to high 4
PZL p24 4 to high 3
good to see that i can change the ratings my self hope it is user friendly.



Zorachus99 -> RE: Typo on Pe-2I information (5/23/2006 6:55:03 AM)

There are a few air units which have the same designation and different combat power.

You see this with Italian lend-lease as well in the german force pool. (the one I've inspected most closely ;)

So you see planes with designations of 5's and 6's with the same model. The factor that you may not be taking into consideration is that not all air formations performed up to their full effectiveness. Some wings overperformed, some underperformed - consistently.

The first 2 Fw-190's that germany can build are a 6 and a 7 pt ftr both with a range of 6 (exceptional for german aircraft). These planes come so early they become pivotal over your usual russian campaign. A 7 pt ftr is VERY powerful in 1942, particularly when the majority of ftrs backing it up are mostly 6 with some 5 pointers. The Russians get shredded unless they do one or both of two things.
1) get lucky on air-to-air combat (insane russian comrades with their 4 pt leading fighter)
2) withdraw out of enemy ftr coverage and toward your own.

With luck some air-to-air parity will occur in '42 for the russians. Otherwise completely outclassed.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Typo on Pe-2I information (5/23/2006 7:00:28 AM)

User friendly? No.[:D]

But not right user hostile either. Here is a sample.

627,51,76,Spitfire I,Spitfire+I,1938,0,5,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
628,51,76,Spitfire I,Spitfire+I,1938,0,5,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
629,51,76,Spitfire II,Spitfire+II,1940,0,6,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
630,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1942,0,7,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
631,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1943,0,8,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
632,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1943,0,8,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
633,51,76,Spitfire VB,Spitfire+VB,1941,0,6,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
634,51,76,Spitfire VB,Spitfire+VB,1941,0,6,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
635,51,76,Spitfire VC,Spitfire+VC,1942,0,7,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
636,51,76,Spitfire VIII,Spitfire+VIII,1943,0,7,0,0,3,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
637,51,76,Spitfire XIV,Spitfire+XIV,1944,0,9,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
638,51,76,Spitfire XIV,Spitfire+XIV,1944,0,9,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
639,51,76,Spitfire XVI,Spitfire+XVI,1945,0,8,0,0,3,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,

Unit #
51 is the code for fighters
76 is the code for United Kingdom
2nd name is for how it should be fragmented for display on the counter
Year available
Obscure binary variable
The numbers are want you want to change:
- air-to-air strength,
- air-to-sea strength,
- air-to-sea type (normal, pink, or red),
- tactical strength,
- strategic strength,
- range,

More obscure binary variables: extended range, twin engine, night, tank buster, etc.



Neilster -> RE: Typo on Pe-2I information (5/23/2006 9:22:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The mk5 spit was the most produced spit of all models,but was slower {369 mph most mk5s } and had a lower climb rate than the luftwaffe pair both could dive away from the spit allmost at will. FW190a,BF109f/g in just about every war game ever made this over rated plane gets a pat on the back hey but they did fix the carby so they could dive and not stall.

But the winners write history and the loses get lost in it.

there is a hurricane x11 with a 6 rating when they came out they were no longer used in front line sevice as a fighter. rating night mare
spit mk5 rates 6 more like 5 use a mk8 for a 6 rating if you must at least i can keep my lunch down.

BF109f rates 5/6 fine
BF109g1 rates 5 dreaming try 6 or change model to the bomber attack type g6
fw190a rates 6 7 would be more like it was the best fighter in the world for more than 2 years.

The germans lost the control of the air because they were out numbered 10 to 1 not because
of better allied types for the most part.
there is a list of planes with ratings that suck a bit.
D520S 5 to high 4
PZL p24 4 to high 3
good to see that i can change the ratings my self hope it is user friendly.



Mate, try using punctuation. I can't work out WTF you are on about half the time. And it's "too" when something is "too high", not "to high".

Cheers, Neilster



Neilster -> RE: Typo on Pe-2I information (5/23/2006 9:25:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

There are a few air units which have the same designation and different combat power.

You see this with Italian lend-lease as well in the german force pool. (the one I've inspected most closely ;)

So you see planes with designations of 5's and 6's with the same model. The factor that you may not be taking into consideration is that not all air formations performed up to their full effectiveness. Some wings overperformed, some underperformed - consistently.

The first 2 Fw-190's that germany can build are a 6 and a 7 pt ftr both with a range of 6 (exceptional for german aircraft). These planes come so early they become pivotal over your usual russian campaign. A 7 pt ftr is VERY powerful in 1942, particularly when the majority of ftrs backing it up are mostly 6 with some 5 pointers. The Russians get shredded unless they do one or both of two things.
1) get lucky on air-to-air combat (insane russian comrades with their 4 pt leading fighter)
2) withdraw out of enemy ftr coverage and toward your own.

With luck some air-to-air parity will occur in '42 for the russians. Otherwise completely outclassed.



Also, the aircraft on the counter is only that most dominant in the mix of aircraft the counter represents.

Cheers, Neilster



Neilster -> CSV file info (5/23/2006 9:57:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

User friendly? No.[:D]

But not right user hostile either. Here is a sample.

627,51,76,Spitfire I,Spitfire+I,1938,0,5,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
628,51,76,Spitfire I,Spitfire+I,1938,0,5,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
629,51,76,Spitfire II,Spitfire+II,1940,0,6,0,0,0,0,3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
630,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1942,0,7,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
631,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1943,0,8,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
632,51,76,Spitfire IX,Spitfire+IX,1943,0,8,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
633,51,76,Spitfire VB,Spitfire+VB,1941,0,6,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
634,51,76,Spitfire VB,Spitfire+VB,1941,0,6,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
635,51,76,Spitfire VC,Spitfire+VC,1942,0,7,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
636,51,76,Spitfire VIII,Spitfire+VIII,1943,0,7,0,0,3,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
637,51,76,Spitfire XIV,Spitfire+XIV,1944,0,9,0,0,2,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
638,51,76,Spitfire XIV,Spitfire+XIV,1944,0,9,0,0,1,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
639,51,76,Spitfire XVI,Spitfire+XVI,1945,0,8,0,0,3,0,5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,

Unit #
51 is the code for fighters
76 is the code for United Kingdom
2nd name is for how it should be fragmented for display on the counter
Year available
Obscure binary variable
The numbers are want you want to change:
- air-to-air strength,
- air-to-sea strength,
- air-to-sea type (normal, pink, or red),
- tactical strength,
- strategic strength,
- range,

More obscure binary variables: extended range, twin engine, night, tank buster, etc.


Piece of piss! Looks like the Luftwaffe's going to get those jets in 1942 after all. [:D] Ho Ho Ho Ho.
Or maybe the RAF will get that Centaurus engined Tempest like they should have. [:@] Don't get me started. [:-]

Cheers, Neilster



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: CSV file info (5/24/2006 5:34:50 AM)

Here is where I am on rounding corners, shadowing, and status indicators.

1 - I have increase the shadow effect slightly.

2 - The air and naval unit bitmaps are now rounded.

3 - I tweaked the positioning of the naval bitmaps down when there is a single line of text for the name.

4 - I changed the color for HQ's supply status from dark green to teal, but it is still too hard to see.

5 - Here is a transport unit with its label underneath. I guess I'll shift the bitmap image to the left and up a bit. The same bitmap will be used for all naval transports.

6 - All these units have a light green outline (are selectable) because it is the setup phase of the Global War scenario.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/60D493114E7742E1B1BB92B9B4497B61.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: CSV file info (5/24/2006 5:36:13 AM)

Someone asked what this loked like at different levels of zoom.

The first screen shot was at level 8. This is level 6.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/C9EAEE43CD85452787DFC5E6198CED5C.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: CSV file info (5/24/2006 5:39:28 AM)

And here is level 4.

I believe the game is still quite playable at this level. Level 3 should be oktoo, if I come up with reasonable medium resolutions for the different unit types. Note that all units shown here include air, land, and naval units.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/7AECC303CEE54716954480F8B8E348DE.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: CSV file info (5/24/2006 5:46:53 AM)

4th in a series of 5 screen shots.

Here are the Commonwealth member nations. I have added the country abbreviations to teh air units and changed those of the land units so the colors match. The naval units are yet to be done, but that will be easy.

1 - The Indians are a problem. When I used green for their 3 letter abbreviation, it was really hard to see. The red is different - it is hard to look at. I don't want to go to white since I am using that for the Australians and the New Zealanders already. I might try making the background for the letters white. Then I could go back to green.

2 - I am still unhappy with the green and red icon for the Indians too. I have some possibilities in mind for how to improve that too.

3 - Note the different placement of the country code for the fighters and the naval air. The next screen shot shows how it looks for land based bombers.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/D7CE395BEC57473E91AC78A35FC78B9F.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: CSV file info (5/24/2006 5:51:57 AM)

Last in the series.

1 - Here are theother 3 Commonwealth member nations.

2 - The HQ names aren't quite centered correctly. I'll investigate.

3 - Most of these units have no status indicators showing, only the Brits (and 1 NZ ?). I am using a debugging tool to just dump these units in the middle of Canada so the routines for determining status are struggling to make sense of things.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/266A2BC34A634EE18B604063B77360A9.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125