Aeroplane Heaven HE-111 P2 Released

[bazzar]

You are trying to compare completely different models and camera angles, sim view positions and eyepoints. Set up something with your knowlege of camera view/CFG settings, to suit you better.

 

[YoYo]

Ok, perhaps I found the scale problem.

Please see this. Perhaps You did the front panel in the wrong place (marked red line), but it must be on the orange line. You can check it by frame position. It is on the half position of second window, between the first and second frame of front glass nose:





Second example:



So it looks like here is the reason why the front panel is narrow also if You check the real pictures and of the model. Less place simply here in the beginning of the nose of Heinkel.
Hope it helps.

Btw.
Few correct positions examples from sims:
IL-2 Cliffs of Dover: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EEot-4ELnQo/maxresdefault.jpg
IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad: https://i.imgur.com/RCfY5TU.jpg
FSX (Alpha sim) https://www.avsim.com/pages/1207/He111/2dnormal.jpg

 

[bazzar]

You are quite correct. Somehow it has slipped forward one station. This will be corrected with a new service pack. Thankyou for pointing it out.

 

[UnknownGuest12]

Thank You for new file. I downloaded 1.1 from PCAvaitor however (PBR effect is less now) this rusty effect is present still:



Ok, but I found this file in Texture folder and I'll do this I like for myself :- ))).

Btw.
What about the view? Does it looks right? I feel like something is wrong with scale:



Horisontal flight. See Yoke position here and in IL-2 BoX. If I 'll go up the 2/3 view to front will be covered by front panel and I dont see horizontal line.

Just installed v1.1 with the original wear, and although not looking for "anomalies" and before this post, tried all the planes and nothing like this appeared on my system. No rust here….
regards

 

[YoYo]

This will be corrected with a new service pack.

I'm glad that I could help, Baz .

No rust here….

So strange. I noticed it at dusk. I have REX Texture direct (the sun, sky, ect) and PTA (so maybe PTA problem?). I'll check the reason when I'll install default shaders, so not very important .

 

[YoYo]

.... and PTA (so maybe PTA problem?). I'll check the reason when I'll install default shaders, so not very important .

Ok, I checked with default shaders and the rust effect (on PBR textures) gone! So looks like its PTA problem (I'll write to his support). No problem here .



Btw.
is is possible to add for incoming service pack - the glass effect for all windshield?
Here is example between two glasses (on the left effect is present):



Maybe not strong like this here, but it could be nice to see a little reflections at all parts .

 

[YoYo]

FYI (maybe it helps for the future for PTA users and PBR textures).

I did bigger research and rust effect was done by "Shadows depth" (nice shadow below clouds):



If setting is more than 1.01 (I had 1.10) this rust, brown effect is present on PBR Texture. With smaller setting (1.0 is default) - less darker shadow below clouds but model looks ok again.



Here is example with max setting=1.4:



Interesting found.

 

[UnknownGuest12]

Ok, perhaps I found the scale problem.

Please see this. Perhaps You did the front panel in the wrong place (marked red line), but it must be on the orange line. You can check it by frame position. It is on the half position of second window, between the first and second frame of front glass nose:/QUOTE]

Thank you YoYo for pointing out this error. Found strange the view forward but unable to find the reason Lets hope they fix this very soon. "Things" happen but this one was to obvious to miss…
Regards

 

[pilto von pilto]

Ok, I checked with default shaders and the rust effect (on PBR textures) gone! So looks like its PTA problem (I'll write to his support). No problem here .



Btw.
is is possible to add for incoming service pack - the glass effect for all windshield?
Here is example between two glasses (on the left effect is present):



Maybe not strong like this here, but it could be nice to see a little reflections at all parts .

Why are you emailing PTA ? It's your settings. Dial them back. The heinkel was made with stock SDK settings with a change on the metalness side as Lm recommend a setting that doesnt work for older warplanes. I think you'll find that you have tweaked PTA to get non-pbr planes looking better. We test on standard non tweaked up to date simulators. Always have. If you tweak the simulator then the onus is on you to understand what you have done.

To all.

This will likely be the 5th time I have had to say this.

I run the helpdesk. For support you should email us. Forum posts are not the correct nor fastest way to get your issues/questions resolved. EG I will give out more tailored help/information to your requests in a personal private email. On a forum... we're going to be less tailored and more general. Sure Baz spends an inordinate amount of time on SOH but he cant keep all requests and

It isnt hard. I can then simply flag issues, set up a cron job to popup a notification every 1/2 hour that bugs me till I answer the email and stick the bug into the spreadsheet. I have a number of people on my ignore list on SOH ( at last count 9 ) and therefore cant see some of your comments. If you email me I have to see your comments.

So here's the email address again help@aeroplaneheaven.com Yep I put it in a public forum. It's on our website , it's a link on our store , it's a link on fb. Please use it.

thanks.

 

[YoYo]

Pilto von pilto,
You have right and not . No one requires answer here from devs I suppose. Forum (each open forum) is for users firstly and here it was good example (with PTA shaders) that user helps user to find solution and to find reason where was the problem (after 3th post from the others about not rusty effect I was thinking something is wrong in my sim). Firstly (according me) user ask users - they noticed the same problem or not. If yes, the next step could be contact to developer. You and Baz are very active here as one of the few (what is very good and I appreciate it a lot! Thank You for this ) but what I wrote are not allegations to developer directly, just question for the other users (firstly) what solved my issue (maybe You are too fast ?). As always - sorry for my English .

Happy Easter!

 

[pilto von pilto]

Pilto von pilto,
You have right and not . No one requires answer here from devs I suppose. Forum (each open forum) is for users firstly and here it was good example (with PTA shaders) that user helps user to find solution and to find reason where was the problem (after 3th post from the others about not rusty effect I was thinking something is wrong in my sim). Firstly (according me) user ask users - they noticed the same problem or not. If yes, the next step could be contact to developer. You and Baz are very active here as one of the few (what is very good and I appreciate it a lot! Thank You for this ) but what I wrote are not allegations to developer directly, just question for the other users (firstly) what solved my issue (maybe You are too fast ?). As always - sorry for my English .

Happy Easter!

Ok I think I understand. And to be honest the comment about contacting help desk wasnt actually for you alone but generally.

However where your thinking falls over is when a user post here of "bugs" or feature requests before notifying the developer,

If you see it from a developers point of view for a second.
- Someone posts in a public forum that they are having an issue(s). Without the developer having any chance of rectifying the issue or in fact helping out.
- Potential customer sees issues and thinks " there's a problem with this I will not purchase/download ".
- Issues may be feature requests or possibly an issue with that persons personal computer and isnt indicative of the actual product in question.
- There is no follow up. Damage is done.

So my problem is that the first we knew of any issue that you had or anyone else has is in a public forum. In the case of one of the bugs it was as a result of tweaking.

But think on that person who was deciding ( or not ) to buy the product. That person is now not going to. That hurts the developer. Now I am sure there will be people who will say " This is an open forum where people have the right to say what they want ". And they are absolutely right ( I'll bold that as some people might think I dont agree with free and open discourse ) but common sense would dictate that you would at least give the dev a chance to answer your queries before going public with a " bug"

So perhaps an email to the developer first before jumping on to a public forum. It helps us and it helps the community by not furthering unintentional false information.

Again my email is help@aeroplaneheaven.com if you think that there is an issue with your product from us or if you have a feature request contact us.

Anyway that's my point of view thanks for taking the time to read it ( if you did ) and continue with the holidays!

 

[jeansy]

any plans for a fix for the bomb animation?

 

[bazzar]

I would think so Matt, when the dust has settled and we can see just where this type of add-on stands.

 

[YoYo]

any plans for a fix for the bomb animation?

+ a little reflections on the glasses of cockpit (as wishes).

 

[UnknownGuest12]

pilto von pilto
If I may with due respect...and with a consumer point of view. Wanted to buy the HE-111, and read about the missing pitot tube. So, previously, I contacted helpdesk, got the garantee about a fix immediatly, so I bought it. And got the patch very next day. Very good service and wrote a post about it, praising AH. This is what we consumers want. Bugs, errors one more evident than others, mishaps, happens. And we have all the right, as you stated, to take notice of them and express an opinion on foruns. I´m well aware that as a consumer if I read bad critics about a product I will not buy it. But if I read a post saying "ok, it,s wrong but will fix it in a matter of days or in a reasonable time period" either will buy it or wait for a fix. When I read bazzar's answer to jeansy "I would think so Matt, when the dust has settled and we can see just where this type of add-on stands." think this is the wrong signal to buyers if I'm correct...maybe or maybe not fixed. There's a known bug that I, as a developer not sure if I'm going to fix it. Commercially, think you must ensure and make people know, that whatever it's wrong, and errors happen, it will be fixed. This is the best policy. A consumers points out a bug, others read about it, quite normal, AH developers will have to take notice of it and post "we are going to fix it". That's your follow up, must be, it's part of the business. The Heinkell is a very, very good product and can be made better when you at AH fix those bugs. Personally don´t care about the bombs although a fix is necessary, but think that front panel position needs immediate attention. Bazaar as already said so. After all in a plane as complex as this only 3 bugs to date. Pitot tube, bombs and front panel. One down, two to go.
Best Regards

 

[bazzar]

I guess this is what the internet has done to people. The inability to employ a little patience, to allow time for these things to happen.

Have we said we would not "fix" problems?

Do you not think that we might want to see if there are other issues with customers before we embark on the process of creating a service pack?

It has been Easter. We, like most, have families, commitments and other issues that must be addressed. The product has only been out there for a few days. How long do you think it takes to "fix" issues. Why do people think that modifying a product that can take a year or more to make can take just hours.

You should be aware that we have a good record for supplying patches and SPs. Why would this product be any different.

One last thing, the point about the help desk is valid. If we were not to spend time sifting through these threads and you don't use the proper channels, how the hell do you think we'd know about "bugs"?

 

[bazzar]

We will be removing the ability to re-arm in flight. This will remove the side-effect of the bombs visually "re-loading". If you want to re-load, this will have to be done at the end of the flight on re-load of the aircraft or scenario.

 

[jeansy]

We will be removing the ability to re-arm in flight. This will remove the side-effect of the bombs visually "re-loading". If you want to re-load, this will have to be done at the end of the flight on re-load of the aircraft or scenario.

thats fair enough

 

[YoYo]

FYI.
Wow! It was very quick! From FB of AH:

Heinkel HE 111 P2 Service Pack
V1.2 is out. The SP includes revised positioning of main panel, additional reflection in the interior glazing (customer request) revised bomb-drop sequence and removal of in-flight re-loading (customer request). It should be at the usual vendor sites soon.

Thank You!

 

[UnknownGuest12]

Downloaded and installed v1.2 even before e-mail from the vendor.
Some flights and when I don´t forget to unlock that damned Hidraulic Lock this Heinkel is becoming one of my favourites planes. Grand...and appreciate very much the effort from developers to better it in a matter of days. Think it´s perfect now. Congrats and best of luck