Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[FrankB]

Hallo Team.Daidalos!

Looking at your ambitious schedule of releasing 4.10 in early April, I would like to ask whether you have started the release process already?

It is not an easy task to put all the bits together and we all remember how 4.09 was delayed several times due to the last minute bugs. Is it still the case that you need someone from MG guys to compile stuff for you?

[Sita]

update today? ;-)
+1 :)

[daidalos.team]

Update posted.

[Insuber]

Very good! Stats page is a nice addition, I've always missed stats ...


Insuber
Update posted.

[nearmiss]

Everytime I click on the images a bunch of sites are opened on my browser. The open behind the scenes, but when I click off the 1C there they are.

Imageshack is a nuisance with respect to this kind of thing.

Nevertheless, it is nice to have the pics.

All I'm hoping is I don't get porn or other not-so-nice junk, those creeps have all kinds of ways to infect your computer with spam.

[Avimimus]

Wow. As usual.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hallo Team.Daidalos!

Looking at your ambitious schedule of releasing 4.10 in early April, I would like to ask whether you have started the release process already?



Thats not clear to answer. Generally all our doings aim for the release.
But while a few things are already done and working, others are still in progress. We have all the time a working copy ready, featuring the finished projects, which increases as work goes on. What you mean, will really happen as soon as the last content issue is considered as ready and only the search for bugs and shortcomings is left to do.


It is not an easy task to put all the bits together and we all remember how 4.09 was delayed several times due to the last minute bugs. Is it still the case that you need someone from MG guys to compile stuff for you?

Honestly, this isn't sorted out 100% yet. Hopefully we will have this on our hands in the end.

[Fafnir_6]

Hello,

Thanks for the great update! It is very cool to see the progress on the Re.2000 cockpit. It does make me wonder if you guys are planning any additional Reggiane-related material such as the Re.2000 Serie II Carrier Fighter or the Re.2000(GA) Serie III Attack fighter. Other developments could include the Hungarian Heja II and the later Daimler-Benz or Piaggio-powered Re.2001, 2002 or 2005. I am hoping you can maybe shed some light on this.

Thanks for another awesome update,

Fafnir_6

Hs129B Rules!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hello,

Thanks for the great update! It is very cool to see the progress on the Re.2000 cockpit. It does make me wonder if you guys are planning any additional Reggiane-related material such as the Re.2000 Serie II Carrier Fighter or the Re.2000(GA) Serie III Attack fighter. Other developments could include the Hungarian Heja II and the later Daimler-Benz or Piaggio-powered Re.2001, 2002 or 2005. I am hoping you can maybe shed some light on this.



You think, the Reggiane series topic is not yet exceeded? Maybe you are right.
No details yet. Maybe in one of the next updates. ;):rolleyes:

[Tbag]

Guys, thank you so much for your work, it's simply stunning!

[Fafnir_6]

You think, the Reggiane series topic is not yet exceeded? Maybe you are right.
No details yet. Maybe in one of the next updates. ;):rolleyes:

Let the speculation begin! ;)

Fafnir_6

[BadAim]

Good stuff.

[P-38L]

Hello and thank you very much.

I can see all the hard work you put on this simulator. For me is the best.

And I want to thank you for keep working in the development of new upgrades. I can't wait to see the 4.10 final release.

Thank you.

[ben_wh]

Thank you again for the great work. Quite an extensive improvement list this upcoming patch turns out to include.

My only concern remains with the changes in AI visibility - the potential improvement to offline game play with this is tremendous, but since this will have such broad impact the potential for completely unexpected result is there as well.

But I am sure that TD would have a good handle on the debugging process already...

Keep up the good work.

[Mhondoz]

Impressed by the amount and ambition of changes in the upcoming patch, well done team Daidalos! :-)

Very nice with the stats page. They are available for offline play now?

If so, would that be posted to the log as the online stats? I am asking because thats the way I can include stats in my G15 Applet (http://mhondoz.net) (small LCD on keyboard showing stats).

If they are not posted to the log, maybe another way of accessing them offline is possible, for example with DeviceLink...?

[ivagiglie]

Thanks for the update, very nice guys!

One suggestion: would be better to add the digit after the decimal point in the gun % statistics (last screenshot, Stats page), just integers in this area seems rather too coarse.

Maybe you're better guns but it's not uncommon to be below 10% for the hits, the way it's implemented now will leave most of us "mortals" with just one digit :P

[jermin]

Very nice work, TD!

My biggest hope is that you can enablle ture wide-screen support in the next patch.

I'm really looking forward to 4.10.

Keep up the good work!

[Kwiatek]

Bump for wide screen suport and wider FOV ( at least 100 instead 90)

[Mysticpuma]

Will it be possible to make smoke and particle effects 3D, rather than the 'horrible' 2D sprites we have at the moment? Nothing breaks the immersion than following a slat stripe of smoke that sort of staggers around as you approach it :(

I think the QMB additions, especially the ability to load any map from FMB (Slovakia....wow!!) will make missions a joy, so many thanks for that.

Loving these updates, cheers, MP.

Lastly, do you see any chance in the future of 6 DoF being adopted?

[FC99]

Will it be possible to make smoke and particle effects 3D, rather than the 'horrible' 2D sprites we have at the moment? Nothing breaks the immersion than following a slat stripe of smoke that sort of staggers around as you approach it :(

I think the QMB additions, especially the ability to load any map from FMB (Slovakia....wow!!) will make missions a joy, so many thanks for that.

Loving these updates, cheers, MP.

Lastly, do you see any chance in the future of 6 DoF being adopted?
Il2 is old game and whatever we do will not make it up to modern standards in terms of graphics. On the other hand changes in graphics can take a lot of PC power and consequence is that we wouldn't be able to add some other features.

With all of that in mind it should be easier to understand why we are focused more on adding improvements in other departments.

We have tested 6DOF but it is questionable if we will implement it. There is too many problems with it and in most cases it is not possible to have acceptable 6DOF without 3d changes in cockpits. To be clear, we are not against 6DOF, in fact we would love to implement it but we will not do it if it is not done properly.

FC

[Borsch]

Would it be possible to update the way emblems (RAF circle, German cross, Red Army star, Japanese Red Circle, etc) so that they would no longer look as rough and ugly, but smoother and more "integrated" into the overall look of the plane's appearance? I know that there are mods for this sort of thing, but I would like to see it in default IL2... +its not hard to do;)

Big thanks for your effort regardless and I'll be waiting anxiously for the patch!

[ben_wh]

TD,

Impressive list of improvements so far - thanks for the great work.

Is there any plan for new map(s) in 4.10?

Cheers,

[SturmKreator]

DT can you improve the performance in the game? like real multicore support and real imrpove of new vgas?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

DT can you improve the performance in the game? like real multicore support and real imrpove of new vgas?

No. This would mean a complete rearranging of the core engine which is out of our possibilities. Its just too difficult.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Would it be possible to update the way emblems (RAF circle, German cross, Red Army star, Japanese Red Circle, etc) so that they would no longer look as rough and ugly, but smoother and more "integrated" into the overall look of the plane's appearance?

Its on our list. Not sure when this will happen though.

[Holgersson]

Hi Daidalos Team,

like many other devoted users of IL-2 and your updates I want to thank you for the excellent work you guys are doing. Being very interested in the conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland, especially the Fokker D.XXI made my day, fantastic work!

I would like to place two requests to further enhance the simulation of the Finland wars:

Firstly:
Is a new map possible which depicts the area north of the current "Gulf of Finland"-map, more precisely the area North and East of lake Ladoga?

Secondly:
A (AI) Do-17Z that was used from 1942 onwards by the Finnish Air Force.


Of course you are receiving many, many requests, but I hope that my requests are somewhat within the scope of what TD is allowed to realize within Olegs limits and might be considered as a worthwhile addition to the great "Forgotten Battles".

Best regards

Holgersson

[Mysticpuma]

First of all QMB is now expanded to 3 windows. First one is same old standard one with just a few changes.
As you can see number of flights is doubled in 4.10, having 32 vs. 32 fights is lot of fun or maybe 1 vs. 32 :))


Hello guys, when I saw this, I thought it was one of the best steps forward since the QMB was ever created.

Can I ask a question though?

I appreciate that the number could be limited, as putting too many aircraft up, may cause issues for some players, however some of us do have the ability to have a lot of aircraft (128 nice and smooth in FMB) in the air at one time.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to have 64 v 64 as a maximum?

Currently I enjoy escorting large bomber groups (50+ aircraft) with 16 Fighter escorts into battle, but this is a pain to set up min FMB.

With the new Maps allowed in QMB, and the ability to have 64 on one side v 64 on the other, at-least you'd be able to have 52 bombers with 14 fighter escort, over Flak fields with oncoming enemy?

32, is still a great start, but doesn't lend itself to large Bomber formation escort.

Is there any chance of 64 v 64, even if it's only an option for those with more powerful machines?

Cheers, MP

[Avimimus]

Hmm... One of the problems with the default QMB waypoint groups is that they spread out the flights a lot.

I think the new copy and paste functionality in the FMB should make it much easier to set up such large missions.

Anyone thought of contacting UberDemon? UDQMG has a lot of features that could be used for inspiration or further developed/improved upon.

[IceFire]

Its on our list. Not sure when this will happen though.
Oh thank god! Please fix the RAF roundel colours as well :)

I know it isn't a marking simulator but this would be much improved and we know with Mat Manager that a lot is possible!

[Mysticpuma]

Anyone thought of contacting UberDemon? UDQMG has a lot of features that could be used for inspiration or further developed/improved upon.

This is the exact reason I thought of this, as the UD Mission Generator could have lots of aircraft, without any problems, so I wonder if they TD could incorporate some of his know-how to make large formations possible?

I just don't get on with FMB :(

Cheers, MP

[Avimimus]

You've got me thinking:
One thing that would be neat is if we could eventually make templates in the FMB and export them to the QMB... would this not be the optimal approach?

[slipper]

Team Daidlos,

Thank you for your continuing support of il2, really looking forward to 4.10.

One thing i would like to ask, is that with the release of the blind approach system and radio beacons for navigation in the upcoming 4.10 patch. Do you plan in the future at all to expand the gameplay of il2 in to the NightBomber/NightFighter war?

I remember there was talk of a radar at one stage, is this still capable of being implemented? or do you have any further ideas to make night battles more realistic?

some ideas such as H2S,Oboe,Window and jamming equipment for the bombers would be great.

Radar, Homing recievers, running commentary for the fighters.

maybe extra weapons such as incendaries, flares, TI's, blockbusters.

This is an area i have a great interest in and as yet have not seen implemented in any sim, would really add a new dimension to this already great game.

many thanks for any replies

regards

slipper

[BK_JG27_Treiber]

I have a question for TD: Could you get rid of bouncing aircraft on landing? It's caused me nothing but grief and yesterday it really got heartbreaking. Here's the topic I started for it elsewhere: Posted by me elsewhere: I hate landings. Because every time I try to land, BOUNCE, BOUNCE. This came to a head Wednesday. I was in a coop where I did much service in ground attack, but had to limp home on one engine. After limping on one engine across the entire map, I made it to my home base, and proceeded to make a beautiful three point landing on one engine. Then, for no reason at all, BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE. First my tail wheel came off, then next thing I know I'm coasting to a stop with everything aft of the wings gone. Though I come to a stop on the runway, crew alive and well, it didn't count as a landing as far as the code was concerned.

I'm sick and tired of bouncing, and want to know, how can I land without bouncing at all, because the bouncing in game is totally unrealistic for a plane landing on a tarmac. I mean, how many real planes do you see jumping into the air like they were punched by a giant fist every time they landed? Sorry for venting, but this was really heartbreaking and I'm considering quitting coops if I can't find a solution.At least in dogfight servers it doesn't matter how I land, but requiring a virtually impossible task to be achieved to keep being in a coop is seriously flawed, and no future patch will be releasable IMO if this isn't addressed.

[dafat1]

Landing without bouncing is of course a matter of skills, like in the real world. But the mass of the planes seems indeed to be undermodeled while the tendency to flip over when landing off an airfield is for sure overmodeled on planes with a tailwheel. I'm a real world pilot and fly tailwheeled planes a lot and land them on grassfields and it never happened to me in real, while I always flip over when I land in IL2 beside an airfield. ;-)

Really looking forward to radionavgation! :-)

[Azimech]

Decent rate, speed, power, three point landing. I don't have much problems with bouncing. Except when landing on rough ground of course.
So if you bounce and break of your tailwheel while performing a three point landing, you must have stalled it too high because your decent was too quick.

Sometimes I forget my brake lever, then I flip over or break my gear :)

[Tempest123]

The bouncing is pretty realistic, that's just what happens in a real aircraft when you come down too hard. You need to know the approach speed for landing and flare at the correct time.

[CKY_86]

Is there going to be an update today?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I have a question for TD: Could you get rid of bouncing aircraft on landing?

It's realistic, there's no reason for removing it, as far as I'm concerned.

You might be bouncing every time for a number of reasons. You only need to figure out which one's causing your constant bouncing and correct them.

It's sure not Il-2's fault, because even I manage to pull a decent landing.

Just set a mission in the FMB already in final approach, and try landing every single way possible. When you find the perfect one, just repeat it until you master it.

My 2 kopek-worth guess, it's high sink-rate. MrMoonlight did a very instructive post on your thread at Mission4Today, try his suggestions and see if you can fix it.

Good luck ;)

[F19_Klunk]

update? :D

[Insuber]

Bad landings are not a bug, they are just bad landings. Why do you think that in your special case it's a bug?

[BK_JG27_Treiber]

Bad landings are not a bug, they are just bad landings. Why do you think that in your special case it's a bug?I didn't say it was a bug. I said it was a problem. I just learned that the failing to lower flaps was what did me in.

[MikkOwl]

Landing without bouncing is of course a matter of skills, like in the real world. But the mass of the planes seems indeed to be undermodeled while the tendency to flip over when landing off an airfield is for sure overmodeled on planes with a tailwheel. I'm a real world pilot and fly tailwheeled planes a lot and land them on grassfields and it never happened to me in real, while I always flip over when I land in IL2 beside an airfield. ;-)

Really looking forward to radionavgation! :-)

In regards to landings, I am not a real pilot. But I do 'support' the thoughts of mr dafat1 above. The 'doesn't behave heavy enough but instead has some other oddity' is a super common phenomenon in 1990-2010 game physics. Most easily seen on armored vehicles doing stuff (WWII online for example) but any object can be used as an example.

The tendency to stand on the nose could partially be explained by the differences in using our controllers, lack of acceleration sensation and differences in aircraft/brake design. Our controllers make it easy to apply maximum brake force without feeling a thing. Modern planes may have more easily modulated brakes and perhaps not even as powerful ones as in WW2. And in either way, the real pilots might brake much less than we do by reflex and seat of pants feeling.

A training video I saw for the IL-2 Sturmovik (plane) from 1943 taught to brake, then come off the brakes and repeat the process when having touched down. This probably to avoid standing on the nose, but since the pilots were such noobs they needed to teach them a simple way to avoid it rather than threshhold braking.

--

Radio Navigation seems awesome! I need to go learn morse code now.

[Avimimus]

It should also be noted that Cessnas (or passenger jets for that matter) are not WWII fighters. The design requirements, performance and air/ground handling are quite a bit different.

Don't land a WWII fighter like a jet on a trap. Keep the nose low (even a negative pitch), then pull out so as to skim the runway. Make sure you end up close to stall speed and within a metre of the ground, only then can you throttle down and assume a positive angle of attack.

[daidalos.team]

Just a small update today guys. Refresh first page. Enjoy.

[Tbag]

Thanks DT, nice update, as always!

[ben_wh]

TD,

Thank you for the update as always.

Quick question on AI visibility changes - does it include blind spot on a plane?

For example, can the player be easily spotted if s/he approach, say, a lone rookie AI fighter plane from six o'clock below; or if bouncing it from 'out of the sun'?

Thanks again,

[Flying_Nutcase]

Team Daidalos, you guys rock big time. The AI seeing thru clouds was always the thorn in my IL2 side. It's a game changer having that sorted.

And you're setting a good model for the client side of software development.

Keep up the good work!


Flying Nutcase

PS What Ben asked: Will there be blind spots for AI aircraft? Being able to do genuine bounces on AI aircraft would be superb.

[Avimimus]

I like the new night.

You've got me thinking:
One thing that would be neat is if we could eventually make templates in the FMB and export them to the QMB... would this not be the optimal approach?

Apologies for my stupidity. I originally read about this feature, but I was apparently too excited to remember it.

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

With you work il2 becomes the game it has to be, it`s 10 years old but its a whole new expiriance to fly now around with those new nice detailed and with love created birds.. can`T wait to check the new AI improvements in a offline campaign, AAA limited by clouds and daytime .. damn that`s what we realy need!!! You guys rock!!!

[Mysticpuma]

Still wondering if there is any chance of updating the dll's for the next patch?

Just asking.

Cheers, MP.

[PeterPanPan]

Sorry if this has already been asked/answered, but with the new night effects, how will aerodrome lighting be dealt with? Will we be able to request the 'flare path' lights are turned on from the air? Will the touch down floodlight area come on automatically?

Cheers

PPanPan

[nearmiss]

They passed each other

Interesting...

What was their up and down, and side to side separation?

Just curious, I know it's an improvement. We are all tired of an AI (enemy or friendly) that always attacks it seems regardless of altitude or distance.

Thanks

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Sorry if this has already been asked/answered, but with the new night effects, how will aerodrome lighting be dealt with? Will we be able to request the 'flare path' lights are turned on from the air? Will the touch down floodlight area come on automatically?

Cheers

PPanPan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljgmXx07R8

Stop at 6:20 and look at the orders (esp. order #6)! ;)

[FC99]

Still wondering if there is any chance of updating the dll's for the next patch?

Just asking.


Very unlikely unless Oleg do something but I wouldn't count on that.

They passed each other

Interesting...

What was their up and down, and side to side separation?

Just curious, I know it's an improvement. We are all tired of an AI (enemy or friendly) that always attacks it seems regardless of altitude or distance.



Same mission only different clouds setting. Red flight at 500m,Blue flight at 1500m
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1285/grab0000b.th.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/grab0000b.jpg/)

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/192/grab0001.th.jpg (http://img444.imageshack.us/i/grab0001.jpg/) http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8726/grab0003jz.th.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/grab0003jz.jpg/) http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9784/grab0002e.th.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/grab0002e.jpg/)

I hope this is clear enough.

FC

[ADorante]

Quick question for new AI Visibility reaction under following conditions:

Same as in video at night (allies and opponents are passing), just now the enemy is followed with ground searchlight. In theory the enemy should be blinded and seeing nothing until being attacked, while the the blue forces should have seen the enemy from miles away.

Is this possible?
Thanks for your constant work on the patch which keeps my interest in Sturmovik as high as on the first release day!

[Tata]

Sorry if it was answered, I not found. What about possibility to assign axis for breakes (separate left and right)? To have possibility fully use functionality of rudder pedals. Is it in your plans, DT? And thank you for great improvement of our oldie IL2 ;)

[jermin]

TD, I strongly request you to lock the game codes for multiplayer in the next patch. This will keep all kinds of FM/WM/DM mods away from the online play and eventually bring the whole community back into one piece.

However, you can keep the single player open to mods for those offline players.

[Blackdog_kt]

TD, I strongly request you to lock the game codes for multiplayer in the next patch. This will keep all kinds of FM/WM/DM mods away from the online play and eventually bring the whole community back into one piece.

However, you can keep the single player open to mods for those offline players.

By force? No thanks. Let people use what they want to use and fly in the appropriate servers.

If it's cheating you are concerned with, we have the CRT=2 check to ensure compliance with each server's list of allowed modifications. If people want to fly with arcade FMs let them do so, as long as each group is happy with their server settings it's all ok.
The problem is for example if i fly with the no-cockpit view in a closed pit server. Then that is indeed cheating and that's why the CRT=2 checks are in place, to prevent people using settings that are different from the server ones.
Sure, some people might even bypass that one too, but if someone goes to the trouble of doing it then we're dealing with a minority of last causes anyway. I'd rather see the development time and resources spent on what they are spent on, than the whole of TD forcing half the community to fly in a certain manner just to catch a miniscule percentage of hard-core cheaters.

I don't fly online much due to my ISP troubles, but if someone told me i would be suddenly unable to use all those new maps and flyable aircraft i'd totally shelve the game, or not install the latest TD update. I can live without the radio navigation because the online maps are usually small, but i can't live without some of the new maps. As you see, you can't reunite the community by force when a good chunk of it will prefer to stay with the unofficial add-ons if they are made incompatible with the official ones. I'd go as far as to say that there's nothing to reunite, people are happy flying with the kind of installation they want just as they do with their choice of realism settings. We don't go about telling people they should make our difficulty settings the default for the entire community, so i'm happy to let everyone decide on their choice of add-ons in a similar fashion.

[AndyJWest]

Yes, I think Blackdog is right about this. It is far to late to try to enforce anything online beyond use of whichever 'standard' is required by the users. If TD were to make existing mod packs unuseable, even after revision, with the latest update, all it would achive would be further divisions.

I'm not happy with the somewhat cavalier attitude to FMs adopted by parts of the modding community, but I think such disputes are best solved by discussion rather than by coercion, particularly when this is unlikely to work anyway.

[jermin]

Well, Blackdog is not playing online. So it is understandable that he doesn't know what the situation has been on HyperLobby.

If you have chance to log into HL, please go there and see how many servers there are enforcing CRT checking, and how many of them are populated.

'Let people use what they want to use and fly in the appropriate servers.'

- Log into HL by yourself and see what most of the players there want to use.

Do you think a hacker will be stupid enough to play in servers with CRT=2?

[MikkOwl]

The option to use CRT is there and as far as I can tell a lot of them use it (because I'm stuck with very few servers that allow my TrackIR to function properly, that allows such mods to be used). If I was forced to do without my TrackIR functioning properly I would stop flying online.

The servers are privately run. They choose whatever settings they like. And so do the users. They seem happy with this or they would not be prefer such servers and settings. Why try to take that away from them? For whatever preferences you have, all you need is a single server with your preferred settings to play on. If there's not enough people, get organizing through forums and teamspeak. Start your own with your own preferred settings and so on.

I have not been troubled by cheaters ever as far as I know, and the benefits I get from choosing what I want to fly with makes it quite satisfying and enjoyable. I am sure many feel the same way or the sitation would not be this way.

[David603]

TD, I strongly request you to lock the game codes for multiplayer in the next patch. This will keep all kinds of FM/WM/DM mods away from the online play and eventually bring the whole community back into one piece.

However, you can keep the single player open to mods for those offline players.
I doubt that TD would want to do that, and anyway it would be pointless.

If the 4.10 patch prevented mod use online, then mod users would not install the 4.10 patch, at least not in the form provided by TD.

All that would happen is the mod pack creators would either mod the 4.10 patch to undo the changes to net code or they would open the patch, take the new content, and add it to the existing mod packs, thus bypassing any changes to online coding.

Either way, all it would do is ruin the currently very healthy relationship between TD and the mod community.

[Blackdog_kt]

Well, Blackdog is not playing online. So it is understandable that he doesn't know what the situation has been on HyperLobby.

If you have chance to log into HL, please go there and see how many servers there are enforcing CRT checking, and how many of them are populated.

'Let people use what they want to use and fly in the appropriate servers.'

- Log into HL by yourself and see what most of the players there want to use.

Do you think a hacker will be stupid enough to play in servers with CRT=2?

Maybe you misunderstood. I said i'm not flying online because of internet problems. I didn't say that i've never flown online. When i did it, i was usually on warclouds and on the warbirds of prey (spits vs 109s and zekes vs wildcats) servers.
Maybe i'm not a hardcore online flyer, but in more than 100 hours of online flying during the last couple of years, i've seen maybe 2-3 cases suspicious of cheating, which were not definitely proven either. There once was a case (pre-CRT=2) on a server where someone was caught, the players submitted tracks to the admins and he received a permanent ban on his IP. Problem solved.

Bottom line is, you can't force people to fly the way you think is right, they'll keep flying the way the want to anyway.

And finally, i agree that's it's better to keep good relations between TD and the unofficial add-on makers. If you "ban" all of these guys do you think they'll work with TD in the future? Nope, they won't. I'd rather have them free to do their thing and contribute, i can choose what i want to install and sometime, someone's work will be of a high enough standard and be included in the official updates.

Take a look at the moving AI units on dogfight servers for example. Where do you think this started? Unofficial add-ons. If the TD patches disabled compatibility with these add-ons, do you think the creator of this new feature would work with TD and agree to have his work included in an official patch? I say let each one of them do their thing and come up with their own stuff, when appropriate their will combine forces and you'll get it all in one nicely rolled-up package, ready to install, while the impatient ones will scour forums to download and install manually.

These guys are not antagonists, they are a bunch of people that daily release and test new features for us. Heck, even one player that goes to the trouble of making a modded install work, provides feedback and technical data, is like a play-tester for you. Why should we stop them from what they are doing when it's obvious that we can all benefit from it?

What i mean to say is, don't underestimate the amount of synergy and the potential benefits for the community from these two groups (official and unofficial add-on makers) having a healthy relationshipt. In plain English, if it wasn't for mods you probably wouldn't be getting moving AI for DF mode in the following TD patches. ;)

[Baron]

Is there a way to fix the bug where some planes explode, when on fire, as soon as u bail, Bf109 beeing the obvious one.


If not a bug, whats the thinking behind such a "feature".


Lost count of how many times my pilot burns to death staying inside the pit or get blown to bits the second he bails.

[Qpassa]

when will be the release of the 4.10?
It is expected to create a mega-update? Now you have to install 4.08-4.09-(4.10)

[steppie]

Il2 is old game and whatever we do will not make it up to modern standards in terms of graphics. On the other hand changes in graphics can take a lot of PC power and consequence is that we wouldn't be able to add some other features.

With all of that in mind it should be easier to understand why we are focused more on adding improvements in other departments.

We have tested 6DOF but it is questionable if we will implement it. There is too many problems with it and in most cases it is not possible to have acceptable 6DOF without 3d changes in cockpits. To be clear, we are not against 6DOF, in fact we would love to implement it but we will not do it if it is not done properly.

FC
In regards to 6DOF,no matter what game you in its never what you expect but it a matter of getting us to it, I have used the 6DOF and o it let do thing is look around the copit frame work and when targeting and aircraft i can zoom in on it to get a better visual id without having to us the switches to zoom in and out on it.I have use trackir in ARMA and there still glitches with it and don't alway work properly but it is still worth having still.
Of all the thing that is a must and if people have problems with it then they can disable the extra axis in the trackir program. It just give people the option that people would like to see in the patches.

[IceFire]

Is there a way to fix the bug where some planes explode, when on fire, as soon as u bail, Bf109 beeing the obvious one.


If not a bug, whats the thinking behind such a "feature".


Lost count of how many times my pilot burns to death staying inside the pit or get blown to bits the second he bails.
I'm failing to see where the bug is here. At a certain point when a plane is on fire it will explode... pilot in the plane or not. The pilot cannot bail out if there are extreme G forces involved as well thus any delay in getting out can be attributed to that.

Coincidence is not a bug :) Well... you can take that one up with the universe if you want.

[Baron]

I'm failing to see where the bug is here. At a certain point when a plane is on fire it will explode... pilot in the plane or not. The pilot cannot bail out if there are extreme G forces involved as well thus any delay in getting out can be attributed to that.

Coincidence is not a bug :) Well... you can take that one up with the universe if you want.


Its not like im asking to be able to fly arround all day long on fire. If u flew the BF alot u would know what im talking about ;)

If i didnt know better i would say that the explosion in the Bf was triggered by the fact that u press Ctrl+E and bail and i fail to see how thats a feature and not a bug.

Fact is, if Bf109`s caches on fire u are pretty much deat unless u bail within 2 sec flat, unlike many other ac`s, that, while they do explode, they do so mostly when they hit the ground.

Like i said, if it is a feature it would be intresting to know the thinking behind the fact that a few select ac`s, Bf109 in perticular, explodes just a few sec after caching fire (without exeption in my experiance) when most dont. I mean, fire is fire, right?

I mean, even the Ki84 can have fire in the wings that goes out on its own, enebeling the pilot to bail or even make it home again, thats just not the case with the Bf109 once on fire. If u are fast enough and lucky u will make it IF u press refly, again, fast enough, and thats just "gaming" the game in my book.

[Flanker35M]

S!

I think the bashing of modders should be quitted and talks of "locking up" IL-2. Sit on a branch high up in a tree and saw it off would describe that best ;) I believe TD and modders talk a lot more "behind the curtain" than in the open as community turns to a zoo if words mod or similar are said out loud ;) :D Look at MDF..made by ZUTI. Now coming to an official patch! That is co-operation and improvement of the game. It is damned great to see how much TD does for IL-2.

Regarding the 6DOF..if they are worried by the issues, which I believe are mainly the holes etc. in 3D, those can be solved. Look at AHS on the Bf109, works perfectly with 6DOF. Again modders that have fixed these issues could help TD..win-win again :)

TD and community both do great work for one and SAME passion: IL-2 :) My 2 cents..

[brando]

Its not like im asking to be able to fly arround all day long on fire. If u flew the BF alot u would know what im talking about ;)

If i didnt know better i would say that the explosion in the Bf was triggered by the fact that u press Ctrl+E and bail and i fail to see how thats a feature and not a bug.

Fact is, if Bf109`s caches on fire u are pretty much deat unless u bail within 2 sec flat, unlike many other ac`s, that, while they do explode, they do so mostly when they hit the ground.

Like i said, if it is a feature it would be intresting to know the thinking behind the fact that a few select ac`s, Bf109 in perticular, explodes just a few sec after caching fire (without exeption in my experiance) when most dont. I mean, fire is fire, right?

I mean, even the Ki84 can have fire in the wings that goes out on its own, enebeling the pilot to bail or even make it home again, thats just not the case with the Bf109 once on fire. If u are fast enough and lucky u will make it IF u press refly, again, fast enough, and thats just "gaming" the game in my book.

Have you flown the P-39 Airacobra much? Or the Spitfire, or the Hurricane? What I mean is, they all exhibit the behaviour you are talking about. That is, they catch fire and explode almost immediately, usually, especially in the Airacobra, at the point of bailing.
I have often wondered whether it's the act of jettisoning the canopy or opening the door, thus admitting a rush of air, that causes the fire to go out of control and detonate the fuel tank? I suppose it would depend on the location of the fuel tank that has ignited - which would account for why the Spit, with its tank in front of the pilot, is less prone to exploding as you bail (though the pilot is likely to become severely wounded or dead very quickly).

What I'm saying is that this modelling, right or wrong, is not confined to the Bf-109.

B

[Baron]

Ok, didn`t know that. Am a 99% blue flier, but its "nice" to know its not an oddity confined just to one ac.

If its correct or not is another issue.


would still be intresting to know why it is like that, if there is any kind of logic thinking behind it or if its just "like the way it is"



Edit: All i know is that the Spit especially, will blow up if one hit the tank directly.

[Igo kyu]

In the P39 I don't like it, I don't feel it's at all realistic, and it's much too often that it lights up when hit in the fuselage, even if it barely begins to smoke then it's time to get out. I suspect it's because the P39 is otherwise too good, if you could get out of it by bailing then it would be unreasonably superior to the other aircraft.

[bf-110]

OMG,new stuff!
Hs-129 and Reggia Aeronautica FTW!

Long time I don´t play IL2,since my DVD cracked inside my dvd reader...
I was outdated,didn´t knew more planes were added.

[DiO]

Здравствуйте.
Меня радует , что планируется обновление 4.10 , но почему оно не занято усовершенствованием игры ? вместо ненужного дополнения самолётов. ???

Собираетесь ли вы исправить проблемные FM?


Hello.
Me pleases, what updating 4.10 but why it is not occupied by game improvement is planned? Instead of unnecessary addition of planes.???

Whether you are going to correct problem FM?

[FC99]

Hello.
Me pleases, what updating 4.10 but why it is not occupied by game improvement is planned?
I would say that we already showed plenty of game improvements that will be included in next patch.


Whether you are going to correct problem FM?

And what exactly is the problem with FM?

FC

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Здравствуйте.
Меня радует , что планируется обновление 4.10 , но почему оно не занято усовершенствованием игры ? вместо ненужного дополнения самолётов. ???

Собираетесь ли вы исправить проблемные FM?


Hello.
Me pleases, what updating 4.10 but why it is not occupied by game improvement is planned? Instead of unnecessary addition of planes.???

Whether you are going to correct problem FM?

Dear DiO,

we for sure care for every aspect of the game.
I for myself am a modeler, who cannot do any FM changing. But I can do model. So guess, what I should do best? Changing FM's? No. I better model and thus you get more planes. Sorry for that.

We use every human capacity, that we have, each one on its/his/hers own working area. Including fixing, tweaking, inventing new stuff and also discussions/descisions about FMs cangings (which is still a hot theme and should not base on one or a few simple oppinions).

You should better wait untill you got 4.10 in your hands (on your PC) and jugde, what was done then.
Its like calling a girl to have a fat bumper, and you only have seen her naked shoulder yet.

[F19_Klunk]

hurrah.. today is Thursday :D

[Flanker35M]

S!

Tomorrow friday with all the updates and all :) As of FM fixes, maybe TD could take a look in the planes that can fly with overheated engine until they run out of fuel and losing maybe 100km/h from top speed in broken engine situation. These include at least Spitfire Mk.IX 25lbs and FW190A-9..can be more of them.

[KG26_Alpha]

hurrah.. today is Thursday :D


Well done

Here's a gold star
http://odeskmommy.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/gold-star3.jpg

[Viikate]

Could someone list war time radio station names (historically correct). So far I only got these:

Radio Honolulu
Suomen Yleisradio
BBC
Radio Moscow

Probably not hard to guess what these are for...

[ruxtmp]

Magyar Radio Budapest 1 (Hungarian radio broadcast from Budapest)

Here is a link that has an audio of the interval signal (jingle) towards the bottom of the page 1940 vintage.

http://www.intervalsignals.net/countries/hungary.htm

[DiO]

I approximately represent that (!) will be 4.10 in updating.... There there will be nothing interesting.
In FM it is a lot of errors. If you are interested in correction of errors let know.

You speak Russian? At me it is not so good with English...


There was a Soviet Information Bureau. Announcer Levitan.
Советское Информационное Бюро. (СовИнформБюро)

[FC99]

I approximately represent that (!) will be 4.10 in updating.... There there will be nothing interesting.
In FM it is a lot of errors. If you are interested in correction of errors let know.

You speak Russian? At me it is not so good with English...


There was a Soviet Information Bureau. Announcer Levitan.
Советское Информационное Бюро. (СовИнформБюро)

You can write everything in Russian, we have people who can translate it so if you think that something is wrong with FM just let us know what it is.

FC

[MikkOwl]

I have a few questions (none have been answered ever in the past, but I am not cynical - yet :-P ):

1. Is it possible to do anything about the engine overheat aspect of IL-2?

As far as I know, cylinder head and water temperature are the one and same on radial engines, and that temperature is used to decide when 'overheat' starts. On water cooled inline engines, the oil-out temperature determines the overheat, nothing else. When overheat occurs, a set timer, specific for that plane, starts to count down, after which the engine dies. People exploit this, the timer in particular.

I don't believe a lot of changes are necessary. For example, randomizing the timer, and randomizing the overheat temperature would probably change things a lot. Also, the absolute temperature of the engine could be allowed to influence the timer (and adds another slight random chance of the engine suffering a failiure of various kinds the higher the temperature is).


2. With the arrival of Prop. pitch for individual engines: possible to also toggle prop pitch auto/manual for each engine?

This is something that of course multi-engine planes like the Bf 110 had. More realistic and useful for damage control.


3. Individual prop pitch and individual engine is coming. Also radiator. Is the radiator control individual, or just one axis controls all engines?

Just another thing that is present in engine management. And makes a difference on managing different engines, especially when one is not functioning 100% right (losing coolant/pressure etc).

The Bf 110 for example has separate oil cooler levers on the left side, in front of the throttle and fuel primer levers. They move up and down slowly when the radiator is changed on each engine (but because of IL-2 engine selection behaviour it is not possible/practical for users to have different radiator settings currently, just like with prop pitch not having been practical until patch 4.10). The 110 also has water coolant radiators which are seperate for the engines as well, but they are not used in Il-2. Not sure what radiators are being controlled actually.

[DiO]

Немного попозже или я или мой коллега(он лучше меня знает ситуацию с ошибками) напишет вам какие ошибки присутствуют в fm.

например у фокке вульфа а-9 , а-8 и f-8 уменьшается мощность двигателя при включении впрыска!!!

[Oktoberfest]

Or P47 that doesn't overheat at 7 k+ with max engine power... Or P38s engines able to burn forever without EVER setting the fuel tank on fire, which allows to travel for hundreds of kilometers with a burning engine but overall no consequences on the aircraft.

[PeterPanPan]

Stop at 6:20 and look at the orders (esp. order #6)! ;)

BRILLIANT ... can't wait. Thanks

(Although I can't read what it says at '6'!)

PPanPan

[LesniHU]

I have a few questions (none have been answered ever in the past, but I am not cynical - yet :-P ):

1. Is it possible to do anything about the engine overheat aspect of IL-2?
2. With the arrival of Prop. pitch for individual engines: possible to also toggle prop pitch auto/manual for each engine?
3. Individual prop pitch and individual engine is coming. Also radiator. Is the radiator control individual, or just one axis controls all engines?
1. it is possible to do anything, but its very hard to do something useful, realistic and working correctly for all planes in game. Changes to stop exploiting the engines are in the pipeline (but nothing directly related to everheat time). BTW inline engines have water and oil temperature threshold too and both are used to determine overheat.
2. possible, not planned now. We can add them in the future if there will be demand for it. I believe that for example feather prop would have bigger priority :-).
3. one axis for all engines.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

BRILLIANT ... can't wait. Thanks

(Although I can't read what it says at '6'!)

PPanPan

Use the Youtube link on top to get to the site... there you can increase movie quality. In-browser solution of youtube movies is not very good.

[DiO]

А когда выйдет обновление?

Ещё один вопрос косающийся игры: вы поменяете картинки опозновательных знаков? Старые картинки уже страшно выглядят. Они одноформенные и некачественные. И ещё одно- уделите внимание стандартным раскраскам самолётов(!). Например на Bf-109 E4 1940 стандартная раскраска очень маленького разрешения и очень плохо смотрится на самолёте.

[Avimimus]

3. one axis for all engines.

Regarding the radiator: Is there any chance that we'll get a "radiator open" and "radiator closed" keyboard commands with the next patch?

The problem with the current setup is that only a few airplanes have an animated radiator lever or engine that is visible from the cockpit.

This poses a problem for people who want to fly with the HUD log off (in the conf.ini) and "no external views". The current command is a toggle and it is impossible to tell whether the radiator is open or closed prior to pressing it.

Having two separate keyboard commands would solve this problem.

[MikkOwl]

1. it is possible to do anything, but its very hard to do something useful, realistic and working correctly for all planes in game. Changes to stop exploiting the engines are in the pipeline (but nothing directly related to everheat time). BTW inline engines have water and oil temperature threshold too and both are used to determine overheat.
2. possible, not planned now. We can add them in the future if there will be demand for it. I believe that for example feather prop would have bigger priority :-).
3. one axis for all engines.
Appreciate the answer. :)

1. I understand the reasoning. Too big of a task to accomplish to change the modeling with limited resources. But inline engines having water temperature involved?! Are you 100% certain about this? I performed several tests with the Bf-110 G-2 and every single time - overheat message at 125 degree oil-out temperature, and 'engine normal' at 124 degrees. It seemed only that water temperature affected how fast the oil can heat up or cool down - but not the overheat mechanic itself.

2. Oh yeah, feather prop. I forgot.. I have that stuff in that Multi-throttle program I made so I didn't even think about it. I agree that would be more important if one does not use third party apps like mine.

3. One radiator for all, understood. If it has a devicelink interface (maybe it will not) then I could possibly make it work with separate radiator for each engine. But while I want it, I don't have enough controllers to control all this stuff.. I would have to plan to get another quadrant :D Crap. SoW will almost force that :(

Regarding the radiator: Is there any chance that we'll get a "radiator open" and "radiator closed" keyboard commands with the next patch?

The problem with the current setup is that only a few airplanes have an animated radiator lever or engine that is visible from the cockpit.

This poses a problem for people who want to fly with the HUD log off (in the conf.ini) and "no external views". The current command is a toggle and it is impossible to tell whether the radiator is open or closed prior to pressing it.

Having two separate keyboard commands would solve this problem.
I have the same concerns you do in general - eliminating that crappy helmet mounted display (the so called 'hudlog') and still be able to know what my controls are set to. If they don't do that radiator thing, I think I can make it work with my multi-throttle program. I already have, in fact, but it is controlled by a controller axis, not buttons. We'll see what I can come up with if need be.

[daidalos.team]

Update posted on first page.

[Qpassa]

incredible,how easy you can crash your airplane :o

[Skoshi Tiger]

This patch is going to stir the proverbial pott.

A very large number of pilots are going to have to rethink their combat manuvers and alter the way they handle their planes.

But, as in real life, team work and sticking to the strengths and weaknesses of your plane are going to get you the points

Cheers and thanks for the work that you are putting in to this sim.

[MikkOwl]

Very impressive. There is so much new stuff coming. I like many of the new features highly. Individual stuff on axis and g-loadings is especially delicious. Fantastic work being performed which is well directed.

A concern: the new joystick profiles we can configure, I hope this means the inability to center (going offset) bug for joysticks could be eliminated so that all can make use of the profiles. It has been confirmed by several and reported in the 4.09 bugs section.

For me personally, the number one wish is 6DoF support. Then I could fly on all kinds of servers and not be stuck with the handful that facilitate it. I already read that the current 6DoF work could not be implemented in the patch because it was not polished to the standard required for a commercial gaming release.

[ben_wh]

TD,

Brilliant. Great work as always.

The G-limit change will have a significant and positive effect on the realism of this sim. Hats-off for the vision for this sim.

Also very much looking forward to the official inclusion of 'the Slot'.

Side note - I hope that the AI (esp. that of the heavy bombers) will be 'informed' of this change...

Thanks again,

[AndyJWest]

Structural G-limits! Wahey!

Only thing is, it is going to give the whiners something new to whine about - 'the wings fall off too easily on the Fw-190 A4'. Then we'll have the battle between the chart-mongers and the anacdotal army over the structural strength of every known aircraft in WWII. ;)

The rest of us will have to content ourselves with learning to fly properly. Keep up the good work, TD.

[CKY_86]

Another fantastic update TD :)

Very happy about the structual G limits and am looking forward to learning to fly and learning to fly in combat again ;)

The Slot :o

[_RAAF_Smouch]

The Slot...yeah :grin::grin:

Still need North Aust map :idea::idea: :-P:-P


But very nice update, keep up the great work

~S~

[RAF74_Winger]

How does this work in game ? You take your stock standard Fighter MK 1 with Default armament +100% Fuel your limits are +8G/+12G. You add 2 x 500lbs bombs. your limits now reduce to 5G/8G.

This works for fuselage mounted bomb racks, what about the bending relief that you get with wing-mounted bomb racks? You now have two masses attached to either wing which act to reduce the total bending moment at the wing root - i.e. the acceleration x mass forces act in the opposite direction to the applied aerodynamic load. Do you intend to increase the G-limit for those cases or just leave them the same? Just asking.

I'm going to ignore the CofG movement with the added mass - that's different for each plane and probably much more than you intended to consider.

W.

[jermin]

Thanks for the updates, TD. I have to say that I'm really impressed by the new feature of structural G limit. Your incoming patches will surely make IL2 a brand-new game! You guys are making history!

My question:

Is there any chance for you talented guys to incorporate jager Fw-190As in one of the incoming patches? All the Antons we have now are jabos, which are supposed to do ground pounding works and only have good performance below 1000 meters.

[IceFire]

Thanks for the updates, TD. I have to say that I'm really impressed by the new feature of structural G limit. Your incoming patches will surely make IL2 a brand-new game! You guys are making history!

My question:

Is there any chance for you talented guys to incorporate jager Fw-190As in one of the incoming patches? All the Antons we have now are jabos, which are supposed to do ground pounding works and only have good performance below 1000 meters.
Where did you hear that?

[BadAim]

Very nice DT! Keep up the good work and do not grow weary, I'm looking forward to this, as are many others. Your work is appreciated!

[DiO]

А планируется ли добавление ранних Bf-109 , Ju-87 ,Bf-110 в последующих обновлениях ???

[csThor]

@ DiO

Not at this moment. As you have seen in the current update there are fundamental issues to be sorted out, so that further sub-types of already existing planes aren't exactly high on the priority list.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Interesting this G-factor. Are the G-limits differentiated in planes? For example Fw190 had stronger wings in later versions etc. And for me when looking at the video..the bombrack would break before the plane would. A 500kg bomb would rip itself from the hooks.

Another interesting thing is this g-limit lowering. Modern planes have strain gages measuring the level of strain on critical components of the plane. These planes pull over-G etc. but their G-limit does not drop because of this. It takes some time to build fractures and cracks etc. that would hamper the plane. The over-G causing critical failure would need to be very sharp.

But nevertheless, a very interesting feature. I really am interested in this and how it is implemented. Will there be documentation of this with patch release?

[mkubani]

Flanker, as written in the description, each plane will have its specific G-limit defined.

There will be a very similar and detail guide in PDF as with the 4.09 patch.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Thanks mkubani :) Must have missed it in all excitement ;) Why I am interested in this G-limit is because of my work with military jets. We do follow the G-limits, strain etc. so some grasp on it ;)

[FVV190]

I am a il-2 fan from China. So you don’t mind me translating this post into Chinese? If not I will post the translated version in inSky forum. www.insky.cn/bbs/, which is a non-commercial flight simulator forum.
Besides , a few personal comments:
1 I believe the G feature is critical for an ideal FS and I think the model in 4.10 is very good.
2 Do you have plan to include the F2G “super corsair”? I think this fighter will be very interesting to fly, with superb climb rate and bubble canopy.

[Skoshi Tiger]

S!

Interesting this G-factor. Are the G-limits differentiated in planes? For example Fw190 had stronger wings in later versions etc. And for me when looking at the video..the bombrack would break before the plane would. A 500kg bomb would rip itself from the hooks.

Another interesting thing is this g-limit lowering. Modern planes have strain gages measuring the level of strain on critical components of the plane. These planes pull over-G etc. but their G-limit does not drop because of this. It takes some time to build fractures and cracks etc. that would hamper the plane. The over-G causing critical failure would need to be very sharp.

But nevertheless, a very interesting feature. I really am interested in this and how it is implemented. Will there be documentation of this with patch release?

This is purely from a laymans perspective, and I don't claim to have any engineering knowledge, but couldn't over-stessing an airframe lead to things like elongate bolt holes and deforming bolts, rivets and assorted fasteners at the various stress points? This sort of damage may not cause the wing to fail at that point but would lower the g-limit for the wing?

Like I said I don't claim to be an expert.


Cheers!

[daidalos.team]

FVV190, feel free to translate it. No plans for the super corsair.

[FVV190]

Thanks

[Flanker35M]

S!

That is what happens. rivets loosen, bolts shear or their holes wear, structure like spars and so forth get "tired" of the stress and generate cracks in them. The cracks and damage are more likely if the airframe is stressed a lot already and older if comparing toa totally new one. for example Bf109 had structure life calculated to about 400 hours if flown within limits. This of course did shorten due damage and strain.

I read about Finns losing 2 Bf109's to structural failure in combat. One was in a speed exceeding 900km/h when the wooden tail broke off and plane crashed to ground. Pilot was KIA. The other was a Bf109 losing it's wing in a tight turn due the bolt keeping wing attached failed and broke. Pilot KIA. There are some text about the plane surface buckling or similar after hard turns and older airframes feel "mushier" than new ones. So strain has degrading effect on the plane.

As said, implementing G-factor to IL-2 is very interesting thing :) Waiting for it very much.

[FC99]

Just a few remarks about new G_Limits

1. Few RL data for USA planes, I think that nobody can argue that these were not well made and engineered. :grin:
F4U
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6849/f4u3.th.jpg (http://img502.imageshack.us/i/f4u3.jpg/) http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8578/f4u2.th.jpg (http://img708.imageshack.us/i/f4u2.jpg/) http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4484/f4u1.th.jpg (http://img246.imageshack.us/i/f4u1.jpg/) http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5535/f4uload.th.jpg (http://img222.imageshack.us/i/f4uload.jpg/)


P51D
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7976/p51d2.th.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/i/p51d2.jpg/) http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2950/p51d.th.jpg (http://img17.imageshack.us/i/p51d.jpg/) http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9759/p51d3.th.jpg (http://img231.imageshack.us/i/p51d3.jpg/)

P-47N
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1285/p47k.jpg

As you can see RL limitations are tight, pilot have to use his head too during piloting, not a muscles only. This might explain you why some of the pilots in guncam videos don't do things you see from virtual pilots.

2. G_Limits are not fixed, if plane is in 8/12 category that doesn't mean that it will get damaged every time you exceed 8G or that it will broke when 12G's are exceeded. If you are lucky you can pull 13G's and get away with it but everything above 8G is lottery. If you are carrying bombs limits are much tighter and you should be very careful in maneuvers.

3. Don't expect this to be 100% accurate in every way, that's not possible to achieve in PC simulation with 200+ planes. Some generalizations are necessary but our opinion is that this feature is big step forward in making the sim more realistic.

4. Readout in yellow will not be part of the game, that's just for demo purpose, just in case if somebody expected to see this during playing.

FC

FC

[ZaltysZ]

This "fix" can have very strong effect on how people fly. No more high speed last moment pullouts, no more bombers acting like fighters and lots of complaints from people who are used to yank the stick all over the place.

---

Maybe dynamic CoG is planned in the future?

[ECV56_Lancelot]

This is purely from a laymans perspective, and I don't claim to have any engineering knowledge, but couldn't over-stessing an airframe lead to things like elongate bolt holes and deforming bolts, rivets and assorted fasteners at the various stress points? This sort of damage may not cause the wing to fail at that point but would lower the g-limit for the wing?

Absoulutely right, but for doing that you have to simulate the plastic behaviour of the airframe, and the airframe, and i don´t think that the sim can do that.
I think its a great addition to improve realism, its far from the best, but its better that we had, IMO.

As one mentioned, there will be A LOT of complains from people that are used to move the joy like crazy at any speed. :)

[FlyingFinn]

Looking forward to your next update, DT. It's like christmas every week!

Now I have a few questions conserning future updates. Sorry if they're asked already.


Are you planning to fix the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 powerplant cooling?
Do you have plans to fix unhistorical ammo beltings, like the Browning M2 APIT belting for the later USAAF planes?
Will you consider fixing/updating the ordinance behaviour for bombs and rockets? Fuselage bombs drop in pairs now instead of a single bomb at a time and some rockets could be fired one at a time, in pairs or all at once.
Could it be possible to add a feature to the N1K series to remove the automatic flaps? As I understand the pilot had an option to set the flaps manually or to leave it on automatic.


Thank you for your hard work daidalos team and everyone involved! You are breathing new life into a dying game.

[FAE_Cazador]

+1 again !
And please, don't allow such bombers to roll like the hell when attacked by fighters or taking extreme AOA to allow their dorsal gunners to hit the attackers :)

This "fix" can have very strong effect on how people fly. No more high speed last moment pullouts, no more bombers acting like fighters and lots of complaints from people who are used to yank the stick all over the place.


Excellent news ! Many thanks , DT :grin:

I hope also no more trim-cheating or bat turns , neither from human nor AI planes !


Excellent news
You

[Erkki]

Looking forward to your next update, DT. It's like christmas every week!

Now I have a few questions conserning future updates. Sorry if they're asked already.


Are you planning to fix the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 powerplant cooling?
Do you have plans to fix unhistorical ammo beltings, like the Browning M2 APIT belting for the later USAAF planes?
Will you consider fixing/updating the ordinance behaviour for bombs and rockets? Fuselage bombs drop in pairs now instead of a single bomb at a time and some rockets could be fired one at a time, in pairs or all at once.
Could it be possible to add a feature to the N1K series to remove the automatic flaps? As I understand the pilot had an option to set the flaps manually or to leave it on automatic.


Thank you for your hard work daidalos team and everyone involved! You are breathing new life into a dying game.

I'd add...

1. not just R-2800, problem(opening rads increases drag but not cooling) is present in at least F4F, F6F, F4U, P47, probably in others as well.
2. dont forget MG151/20, il2 is west front sim now! :grin: Possibly Bredas too?
4. I think this was hardcoded... Either manual or auto... How about 2 N1Ks, one with manual and the other with auto flaps?

BTW GJ TD again! Publish the patch already! ;);)

[FC99]

I hope also no more trim-cheating or bat turns , neither from human nor AI planes !


Full nose up trim plus full elevator is better to avoid :grin: chances for damage are very big in that case.

People should have in mind that this is not too big change for pure fighters, you will not break plane that often but you will have to be more careful not to damage it. When airframe deforms your sortie is effectively over, you can get back to base even fight a little but you are seriously handicapped.

Biggest change is when you are carrying ordinance, you need to be very careful not to overstress the airframe.

FC

[OberstDanjeje]

Thanks guys, you are doing a great job, very tired see bomber doing loop!!!!

[maclean525]

Daidalos guys, would it be possible since you're in the joystick code, to fix the bug where only controllers that are ID#1 show up in the in-sim joystick configuration screen? Right now my primary flight controller is ID #2 and while it works perfectly in the sim, the configuration screen does not work with ID #2 only ID #1 which means I have to adjust my joystick with an external utility.

Thanks for the great work!

[jameson]

FC,
Any chance of having sound added for Me109 slats operation? When new 109 pilots heard the loud bang when they extended for the first time, some thought they were being shot at! Some pilots as a consequence flew the 109 so that they never opened them, apparently. With your new G limits, it would also be useful audio cue to ease up on the stick as well as making flying more immersive and historically accurate. 109 drivers would certainly be more aware of stall onset, particularly at higher speeds.
Thanks for all the good work!

[Flanker35M]

S!

AS of the "trim cheat". Well, veterans used this little "cheat" to make the Bf109 turn better. This was explained by one of our veterans Kyösti Karhila, he called it the "ace trick". When entering a turn he quickly applied some trim up on the wheel and pulled on the stick making the Bf109 enter turn faster. Some aces flew with a plane trimmed nose up so they had to push the stick to keep level flight.

So I think the trim cheat is just a whine. Maybe the look should be taken to the speed of trimming, how fast you can apply it. This depends on the trim wheel and it's ratio how fast it can move the trim tab or the control surface. Some were slower, some faster. But IRL what I've seen the trim movement is subtle and not fast.

[MrBaato]

I have an issue with the Fokker DXXI

I know its a draggy plane with its irretractable gear, but its exaggerated in Il2.

I have read about the Fokker being able to do 700 km/h in a dive, because its a sturdy plane, but in IL2 it faces so much drag that its impossible to fly over 600 km/h!
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/interwar/d21-fokker.htm

Furthermore, the ki27 flies alot faster than the DXXI in Il2, although
according to wikipedia the Ki27 its top speed is 444 km/h while the Fokker its top speed is 460 km/h

TD, could you pls fix the drag on the DXXI? and continue with the great work you do :-P

[nearmiss]

S!

AS of the "trim cheat". Well, veterans used this little "cheat" to make the Bf109 turn better. This was explained by one of our veterans Kyösti Karhila, he called it the "ace trick". When entering a turn he quickly applied some trim up on the wheel and pulled on the stick making the Bf109 enter turn faster. Some aces flew with a plane trimmed nose up so they had to push the stick to keep level flight.

So I think the trim cheat is just a whine. Maybe the look should be taken to the speed of trimming, how fast you can apply it. This depends on the trim wheel and it's ratio how fast it can move the trim tab or the control surface. Some were slower, some faster. But IRL what I've seen the trim movement is subtle and not fast.

The trim cheat and bat turns were an issue in the early releases of IL2-Forgotten Battles. Mostly, just a way for Onliners to whine and complain when they got shot down.

Even today many onliners cannot believe it when a very competent online pilot hands them their head, several times. They explain their lack of skill with excuses...

Thanks TD for the updates... The new maps = very excellent

[Oktoberfest]

With this G update... I will see a lot of spit pilots complain when their wings will fly away after a 90 - 180 degree turn on a 3 meter radius, when they were so used to do that. :)

[T}{OR]

Quick question to the TD:

With the new AI, will the patch for team killing AI gunners make it into 4.10? I recall seeing a video which shows work on the AI gunners.

Found the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ezXO0A_aMc

[Azimech]

I love it. Love all these evolutions. The only thing that worries me that with the enormous amount of added features at the same time, the risk for a lot of bugs rises too, right?

But I'm no programmer.

[Viikate]

I have an issue with the Fokker DXXI

I know its a draggy plane with its irretractable gear, but its exaggerated in Il2.

I have read about the Fokker being able to do 700 km/h in a dive, because its a sturdy plane, but in IL2 it faces so much drag that its impossible to fly over 600 km/h!
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/portland/971/Reviews/interwar/d21-fokker.htm

Furthermore, the ki27 flies alot faster than the DXXI in Il2, although
according to wikipedia the Ki27 its top speed is 444 km/h while the Fokker its top speed is 460 km/h

TD, could you pls fix the drag on the DXXI? and continue with the great work you do :-P

Are we talking about the same simulator here? Please make sure that you don't mix TAS & IAS.

Le Fokker by Peter de Jong gives diving speed of 673km/h (TAS) for Dutch Fokker. I can reach this without any problems. Even faster is possible but then the engine will overrev and get damaged.

Lentäjän Näkökulma 2 by Jukka Raunio has about 6 pages of test pilots descriptions of Fokker behavior. It says that in 90 dec. dive, speed didn't increase over 480-485km/h (IAS no doubt). So what we have in game is faster than this, but the finnish test were done with ski plane so skis might slow down the plane more in dive.

Level speeds at sea level & hi-alt are pretty accurate in game too. We spent quite lot of time fine tuning them because fixed prop FMs are tricky to do.

[FC99]

With the new AI, will the patch for team killing AI gunners make it into 4.10?
Probably.

[IvanK]

This works for fuselage mounted bomb racks, what about the bending relief that you get with wing-mounted bomb racks? You now have two masses attached to either wing which act to reduce the total bending moment at the wing root - i.e. the acceleration x mass forces act in the opposite direction to the applied aerodynamic load. Do you intend to increase the G-limit for those cases or just leave them the same? Just asking.

I'm going to ignore the CofG movement with the added mass - that's different for each plane and probably much more than you intended to consider.

W.


Thats a good point on Wing Bending relief. Its not a factor in the DT revised G module. Wing Bending relief is something very important in long term Fatigue management in large aeroplanes. Most current large transports for instance keep fuel in the outer wing tanks for as long as possible to take advantage of this relief. In military fighter circles its not such a big player. Even in modern flight control systems with active G limiters I don't believe any increase in G is available because a store is on the wing station. The Flight control computers are aware of whats where and that obviously affects some parameters (like rolling G limits AOA etc). In most cases any store means an increase in weight if that weight results in a value over the design (Nzw thingy) then a reduction in g limit applies. In the case of WWII fighters the documentation shows no bending relief credit for wing mounted stores, you put something on the aeroplane (anywhere) the G limit is reduced.

As to C of G shift with external stores. Thats already there in native IL2. Try the Yak9B with 128 Ptabs in the back. Its longitudinal stability is pretty average, drop the PTABS and you are back to a normal aeroplane. Why we dont see a lot of this in IL2 is that just about every aeroplane in Il2 has its stores close to the C of G.

Flanker35M ... you keep resetting those 811 codes the pilots will keep generating them for you :)

[Flanker35M]

S!

IvanK, I am now in the higher level maintenance than flight line anymore ;) But yes, those codes were familiar and all that work that went into checking it all..Sometimes the pilot overstressing the plane was ordered to help us strip the plane etc. so he would appreciate the amount of work it takes to measure and check a plane after Over-G...

[MikkOwl]

Any tips on how to perform wing-snapping maneuvers? :) Of course an above corner speed super tight turn, with flaps getting deployed, is one. But any other? Like rocking the plane up and down vertically with the elevators or going from a max inverted G turn to max positive G turn (kind of like a pendulum swing/scandinavian flick in rally racing - it brings more weight than usual come flying which is enough to break traction and stability, and oversteer one gets).

[ben_wh]

1) While many pilots may need to go through an adjustment period with the new G-limit, I believe that many would also agree that it is step towards the right direction for the sim. It would be interesting to know however which plane would be more affected than others with this limit.

2) Also, I trust that the G-limit be introduced as an realism option selectable in the menu?

3) Lastly I am wondering whether the AI-controlled plane would be subjected to the same limit as the player and whether their behavior would be re-coded to take into account G-limit.

Cheers,

[MrBaato]

Are we talking about the same simulator here? Please make sure that you don't mix TAS & IAS.

Le Fokker by Peter de Jong gives diving speed of 673km/h (TAS) for Dutch Fokker. I can reach this without any problems. Even faster is possible but then the engine will overrev and get damaged.

Lentäjän Näkökulma 2 by Jukka Raunio has about 6 pages of test pilots descriptions of Fokker behavior. It says that in 90 dec. dive, speed didn't increase over 480-485km/h (IAS no doubt). So what we have in game is faster than this, but the finnish test were done with ski plane so skis might slow down the plane more in dive.

Level speeds at sea level & hi-alt are pretty accurate in game too. We spent quite lot of time fine tuning them because fixed prop FMs are tricky to do.

Well, i certainly cant reach 673 km/h, full fuel tank or not, no matter what throttle/mixture, in a 90 dec. dive (assuming TAS is indicated with the red digit speed bar in the low left corner..)

[KG26_Alpha]

Well, i certainly cant reach 673 km/h, full fuel tank or not, no matter what throttle/mixture, in a 90 dec. dive (assuming TAS is indicated with the red digit speed bar in the low left corner..)

That's IAS

IIRC

TAS is shown in cockpit off (wonder woman) view.

[MikkOwl]

Planes that will be affected? Can try to guess. Anyone feel free to correct any bad guesses/assumptions here :-P

We already found out that non-fighters (like bombers) are getting the worst penalty, so not going to talk about those.

For the fighters & fighter-bombers, without knowing how their G-rating is like. Wo knows, some aircraft might have very high rating and not be affected at all.

Good turning ability at low speed: Turning hard means more G generated, but if traveling slowly enough, it does not necessarily amount to a very high amount possible.
Result: Minor Penalty

Good turning ability at medium speed:
The G's start to stack up if turning well. The aircraft that turn well in this range tend to turn REALLY well although the
Result: Large Penalty

Good turning ability at high speed:
Potential to really mess up the aircraft if being a bit reckless on the elevator controls. Good instantaneous turn rate in combination with high speed is maximum Gs possible.
Result: Large Penalty

Good roll rate:
Completely unaffected by the change.
Result: Large Improvement (relative to other traits getting worse)

Heavier MG's/Cannons options:
Strapping on heavier guns and ammo means does not mean more G's, but more strain on the wings at any G-loading.
Result: Large Penalty
(Bf-110's Bk 3.7 cannon, and Mk 108's come to mind as well as all kinds of gun-pods)

Using a fighter platform for bombing (fighter-bombing):
The greatest penalty of all, especially if it is a well turning model with high speed abilities.
Result: Very Large Penalty

High internal fuel capacity:
Had some benefit in being able to fly around a lot without suffering the drop tank speed penalty. The drop tanks can at least be dumped at any time to lighten up the plane.
Result: Minor penalty

Forgetting to jettison bombs and drop tanks before maneuvering wildly:
Result: WINGS OFF!

The traits are so dependant on the type of fighter, and who knows of how durable each model is. Are energy fighters going to be affected at all as long as they stick to 'energy fighting'? Are turn fighters going to be affected much, as they can already turn beyond blackout point and still probably be below the service loading? Will the FW-190 be affected much, as it's roll rate is more valuable but the quick short jink style turns are less available? Will the twin fighters get affected by their heavier armament/bombs and poor roll rate, as they usually go into battle with very low fuel (compared to what they are capable of carrying) and them probably being built to be very sturdy anyway? Will diving fast make much of a difference, as the elevators suffer compressability at high speed anyway?

I think the Fw 190 will be affected when on the defensive. And that single-engined fighters will be worse for bombing and fighter-bombing. I cannot tell about twin engined heavy fighters when carrying bombs out there... the lighter bombers (AC-20) is already known to be affected strongly, and how much different is the 110 really? If rockets are much lighter than bombs, then the P-38's should become an even more preferred method to kill things on the ground with.

Having a very heavy bomb-load will be worse, in any aircraft. Maybe there's more incentive to choose a bit less extreme bomb load.

Drop tanks to carry fuel in should be more valuable than putting it internally (done to avoid the speed penalty of drop tanks otherwise). The tank can be jettisoned any time anyway and the manuverability is unaffected then.

[Skoshi Tiger]

What stress model with multirole aircraft like the Mosquito and Beaufighter get? Fighter or Bomber?

And will dive bombers like SBD's and Stukas be stressed apropriately?

[MikkOwl]

What stress model with multirole aircraft like the Mosquito and Beaufighter get? Fighter or Bomber?

And will dive bombers like SBD's and Stukas be stressed apropriately?
There is neither fighter nor bomber profiles (if I read it correctly). Each aircraft will get it's own unique profile. Though since it is not included in either 'average' fighter or bomber, the multi-role middle-ground is a big mystery.

The mosquito is really a slow turning airplane to begin with (and made of wood :eek:). Maybe affected perhaps similarly to any other aircraft when loaded up with tons of bombs.

Ju-87.. they can black out the pilot for sure, without damage to the wings (pulling out of dive). But can they repeat that with a ton of bombs underneath I wonder (not that one would ever need to try that).

I think we can expect some noticable differences between different aircraft, affecting some more than others. I think I read somewhere that fires of spit have extremely good tolerance to G's. But I could be wrong. Either way, the twin engined multi-role planes are probably the most mysterious to me.

I'm also wondering about wing-loading. Low wing loading means being able to pull more G's (typically) while high means less. The twin engined multi-role planes seem to have higher wing loading than others despite having larger wings. Having engines on the wings themselves, however, means a LOT of weight moved away from the center of the fuselage. Makes me curious how much a 110 fuselage weighs compares to single engined planes. And if it can have any bearing on it's ability to carry more. Longer wings could also exert more forces at the wing attachment point than shorter wings, if that sort of leverage physics works on wings.

[IvanK]

Gents you are overcomplicating the whole thing, relax and take breath It all works exceptionally well. Each single aircraft has been considered in its own right and role. SBD and JU87 are strong enough to do what they need to ... 6G dive recoveries after release is not an issue. So yes all aircraft are stressed appropriately.

[MikkOwl]

I don't have much concern for what planes changes how (I have confidence it will be fairly realistic, which is all I would want). Any apparent stressed concern is just keen passion to think about the topic (and combined with an excessive verbosity = long posts). :grin: Curious I am to learn more. Here I go thinking I had a decent understanding of how aircraft behaved in some aspects and things like these come along to stir the pot.

May have a look around for official figures for some of the aircraft.

[Skoshi Tiger]

There is neither fighter nor bomber profiles (if I read it correctly). Each aircraft will get it's own unique profile. Though since it is not included in either 'average' fighter or bomber, the multi-role middle-ground is a big mystery.


Thats good to hear.


The mosquito is really a slow turning airplane to begin with

According to il2 compare (I've got V4.07 at the moment) the FBMkVI in the game out turns a Bf-110G-2 from about 285kph up (by a conciderable margin) so it's not too shabby.


(and made of wood :eek:). Maybe affected perhaps similarly to any other aircraft when loaded up with tons of bombs.

Hey! Wood was the composite of time, and De Havilland had a long history of long distance wooden planes like the DH-88.

By all accounts they were a robust aircraft, much loved by their pilots. Early on they had some problems with wings de-laminating but that was traced down to faulty glue and exposure to the elements. But no more problems than other all-metal planes suffered from during their development.


Ju-87.. they can black out the pilot for sure, without damage to the wings (pulling out of dive). But can they repeat that with a ton of bombs underneath I wonder (not that one would ever need to try that).

I think we can expect some noticable differences between different aircraft, affecting some more than others. I think I read somewhere that fires of spit have extremely good tolerance to G's. But I could be wrong. Either way, the twin engined multi-role planes are probably the most mysterious to me.

I'm also wondering about wing-loading. Low wing loading means being able to pull more G's (typically) while high means less. The twin engined multi-role planes seem to have higher wing loading than others despite having larger wings. Having engines on the wings themselves, however, means a LOT of weight moved away from the center of the fuselage. Makes me curious how much a 110 fuselage weighs compares to single engined planes. And if it can have any bearing on it's ability to carry more. Longer wings could also exert more forces at the wing attachment point than shorter wings, if that sort of leverage physics works on wings.

Agreed, it's going to be a very interesting time once it is released. :)

Cheers

[Skoshi Tiger]

Gents you are overcomplicating the whole thing, relax and take breath It all works exceptionally well. Each single aircraft has been considered in its own right and role. SBD and JU87 are strong enough to do what they need to ... 6G dive recoveries after release is not an issue. So yes all aircraft are stressed appropriately.

Good to hear! Cheers!

[Flanker35M]

S!

Interesting read :) As of modern jets, their FCS software/computers limit the G you can pull with loadout attached. This is achieved by telling the FCS via armament computers what you have etc. This is simplified way of saying this, won't go to details for apparent reasons ;) So basically if a plane can carry say 1000kg of ordnance the G-limit would drop, but carrying the loadout itself won't stress the airframe that much as it is designed for it.

The problems arise if you go over the G limit with ordnance attached. With mild stress the attachment points, like bomb racks, pylons and their attachements, are stressed and the structure of tha aircraft. Yet this is not enough to cause deformation or broken places. The structure must be worn out already to even fail undr mild over G.

Now you pull moderate over G with ordance and this can cause slight damage to attachment points, bomb rack locks, even slight deformations or buckles. Yet structural failure is not imminent unless the structure/attachment point is stressed already and worn out. But this moderate over G will reduce the overall plane life expectancy regarding structural integrity.

Now with heavy over G there will be damage, deformation, loose or even broken rivets. Attachment points can be damaged or even broken thus losing the ordnance and/or structural parts. Usual place is the bomb rack locking mechanism to give away before the pylon or other structure. This is to protect the plane. Heavy over G greatly reduces the life of the airframe if continuous and will cause cracks, dents and deformation in the long run. Planes are afterall designed to tolerate a certain amount of stress before breaking or reduced integrity.

Severe over G can cause loss of structural parts and integrity. But this would require a very sharp high peak value of G. The risk is biger when the airframe is older. Again the structural loss can be due other parts than the structure itself breaking, like in Mustangs the main landing gear uplock mechanism failing in a high speed high G pull up causing it to extend and rip off thus causing a Class A mishap. So basically structure itself begins to break when secondary or tertiary structure/equipment fail exposing the structure to loads above design criteria. A single severe over G maight not break a plane, but it could be a write off due damage it will sustain.

I hope this clarified even a bit of this matter. This all based on my work and all that. Over G is not just simply an on/off situation to lose a part or similar, more like a cumulative event. Everything adds to strain and when the maximum has been reached failures begin and lead to catastrophic results.

Have a nice weekend!

[Ernst]

I believe this ll be a major issue to spitfire with good elevator autority at high speeds. Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators before maximun g-loadings, its really hard to go beyond its limits. Second p-51 picture shows that.

[MikkOwl]

Here is some interesting stuff. Training docs for the A-20G say:


Acrobatics are forbidden
Power-on stalls are forbidden, high-speed stalls at over 200 mph IAS (320 kph) will pull the plane apart.
Turns of over 75 degrees of bank will damage the plane's wings, turns of 70 degrees stall the plane at 200 mph IAS
The plane isn't designed to go into sharp angle dives or pull out from a steep angle dives

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=2122.0

Interesting read :) As of modern jets[...]
Thanks for that information. Very enjoyable and interesting (my very first and longest keen interest was regarding mid-coldwar onwards jets, when I was a kid in the mid 1980's - and I never heard about this). Do you think the WW2 metallurgy, no titanium alloys, lack of carbon fiber composites, lack of engine power but with a rough vibrating powerplant, no robotic CNC precision manufacturing etc might make them behave differently from the modern jets in any way to being over-stressed?

I believe this ll be a major issue to spitfire with good elevator autority at high speeds. Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators before maximun g-loadings, its really hard to go beyond its limits. Second p-51 picture shows that.
I do not follow. "Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators" makes my mind run never ending barrell rolls especially. Could you rephrase/elaborate?

According to il2 compare (I've got V4.07 at the moment) the FBMkVI in the game out turns a Bf-110G-2 from about 285kph up (by a conciderable margin) so it's not too shabby.
Comparing the 110 C-4 and G-2 to the Mosquito models, they come out pretty much exactly the same, but with 'in general' the 110 having slightly better average than the Mosquitos. The wing loadings are also similar, with the 110 having slightly lower in the C-4.

Indeed they were great aircraft. Been watching a documentary of the Mosquito since last night due to this (biased and Brit-promoting, leaving out almost any bad word of how the Mosquitos performed in various missions, but great modern footage of mosquitos flying, from outside as well as long in-cockpit views facing forward. Strange seating arrangement and entry hatch).

[MikkOwl]

I have a request for Team Daidalos for a multiplayer server option: Accelerated fuel consumption. Just a multiplier equal for all planes.

For the sake of not spending an hour to fly to a target, multiplayer servers very, very often place airfields very close to the border between the teams. But this significantly benefits single engined fighters who can with no penalty grab a big bomb load (if they have the option), forgo drop tanks and still be able to loiter if they need to. Meanwhile, twin engined aircraft give almost no benefit at all (their fuel capacity being wasted). Grabbing 25% to 50% fuel in even short range single engined fighters is common, even when carrying big bombs.

This also leads to performance beyond what was achievable in reality in most circumstances, range being completely irellevant and a tendency to see single engined fighters doing the bombing.

I am sure some servers would see this as a big improvement and finally giving a more varied use of aircraft (and thus, tactics) to mix things up and make them more realistic.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I have a request for Team Daidalos for a multiplayer server option: Accelerated fuel consumption. Just a multiplier equal for all planes.

For the sake of not spending an hour to fly to a target, multiplayer servers very, very often place airfields very close to the border between the teams. But this significantly benefits single engined fighters who can with no penalty grab a big bomb load (if they have the option), forgo drop tanks and still be able to loiter if they need to. Meanwhile, twin engined aircraft give almost no benefit at all (their fuel capacity being wasted). Grabbing 25% to 50% fuel in even short range single engined fighters is common, even when carrying big bombs.

This also leads to performance beyond what was achievable in reality in most circumstances, range being completely irellevant and a tendency to see single engined fighters doing the bombing.

I am sure some servers would see this as a big improvement and finally giving a more varied use of aircraft (and thus, tactics) to mix things up and make them more realistic.

Agreed, but when you think about it, it's fairly unrealistic to have the pilot choose his loadouts (or planes for that matter) at all. Maybe if you were a famous ace or squadron leader you could have made a request, but in general those sorts of decisions were made at a higher level and a pilot flew what he was given.

I'm fairly sure the server and mission designer can restrict aircraft and their loadout at the moment.

When BoB is released I'ld love to see a mission where all the planes are worn out and damaged from the start of the mission!


Comparing the 110 C-4 and G-2 to the Mosquito models, they come out pretty much exactly the same, but with 'in general' the 110 having slightly better average than the Mosquitos.


Some things you just can't average out. You have your aircrafts flight performance and your opponents. Part of being a good combat pilot (And I'm nowhere close to being one of those) is looking at your stengths and your opponents weaknesses and flying appropriately


Cheers

[Qpassa]

Could be implemented the selection of the fuel at 10%'s

[MikkOwl]

There are many things unrealistic already, just having the airfields close like that to begin with. It is a simple optional solution to rectify a problem that appeared trying to solve another problem (the long flight times).

Limiting loadouts does not really stop the single engined fighters being able to access much better performance than they had in real life, because they will still be able to loiter and engage in fights with very low fuel amounts (with the performance that goes with it). The problem will become worse when airframes will be able to be damaged from excessive G-force for the given weight of the aircraft. Being able to fly at low fuel then = hugely beneficial, while at the same time bombers are penalized even more. Their fuel carrying/range ability being even more irellevant, while suffering from their weak airframes even with low fuel.

[Skoshi Tiger]

There are many things unrealistic already, just having the airfields close like that to begin with. It is a simple optional solution to rectify a problem that appeared trying to solve another problem (the long flight times).

Limiting loadouts does not really stop the single engined fighters being able to access much better performance than they had in real life, because they will still be able to loiter and engage in fights with very low fuel amounts (with the performance that goes with it). The problem will become worse when airframes will be able to be damaged from excessive G-force for the given weight of the aircraft. Being able to fly at low fuel then = hugely beneficial, while at the same time bombers are penalized even more. Their fuel carrying/range ability being even more irellevant, while suffering from their weak airframes even with low fuel.

Agree with you 100% And add to that minimal fighter escort that leave at the first sign of e/a so they can shoulder shoot their team mates in a gound level furball. No wonder bombers have to resort to non-realistic tactics!

Cheers

[ElAurens]

Please do remember that none of the aircraft in the sim can appraoch their real world range/endurance numbers as it is, even at 100% fuel load. Do you want ot give the Bf 109s only 15 min of fuel even at 100% load?

The problem is not the aircraft, or the tiny maps, it's the fact that this is not WW2, nor is it real life. This is something we do for fun, because we enjoy it. NO one is really going to fly for 4 hours to do 30 seconds of combat. Who has the time for that?

Enforcing your distored reality on everyone only will lead to an empty server.

When aircraft in the sim are exposed as being poorly modeled, eveyone goes ballistic and demands a fix, yet now you propose a totally unrelistic solution, accelerated fuel burn, to a non-problem.

You cannot re-create WW2. You can't. Nor can you enforce your ideas of what is "proper". It doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again on countless now dead servers, and by guys like me that got all caught up in uber realism at the expense of enjoyable play.

[ben_wh]

If TD is still aiming for the release schedule on the first page patch 4.10 is less than a month away. Very much looking forward to this.

This patch will potentially bring very significant improvement to the sim, and will likely be in even higher demand than 4.09m when it was released.

Given the experience last time, is there any plan to coordinate the release with several sites to handle the download demand?

[MikkOwl]

Please do remember that none of the aircraft in the sim can appraoch their real world range/endurance numbers as it is, even at 100% fuel load. Do you want ot give the Bf 109s only 15 min of fuel even at 100% load?
The real E-series without using additional fuel could fly over an hour. The rest of them similar, without using drop tanks. How different are the numbers in the game when flying with closed radiator and crusing speed/RPM?

15 minutes would suggest running a multiplier of 0.25 on fuel consumption - without using drop tanks (and assuming it does not significantly differ from the real version). A bit too short.

The problem is not the aircraft, or the tiny maps, it's the fact that this is not WW2, nor is it real life. This is something we do for fun, because we enjoy it. NO one is really going to fly for 4 hours to do 30 seconds of combat. Who has the time for that? There was a problem - limited time/patience etc. It was solved by altering the maps. Not bad. But that messed up another aspect of the simulation - fuel and aircraft balance was vastly distorted. In general, a simulator tends to strive to be able to provide simulation of something. This can be tweaked back to suit people who don't want simulation if it is a simulation that can cater for numerous preferences.

Enforcing your distored reality on everyone only will lead to an empty server.First of all, servers are privately owned and administered. They force nothing on anyone. Participation is voluntary. They set their rules. Secondly, is the following reality, or is it distorted reality?

Helmet Mounted Display with following projection abilities:


Instant, 100% accurate damage assessment system
Precision range-finder
Friend-or-Foe identification system
Target box
Aircraft System status and Instrument readings
Fuselage mounted array of cameras, processed and projected over the cockpit, giving the ability to see through the cockpit.
External, invisible ultra-maneuverability capable remote controlled UAV with live image feed transmission.


Furthermore:


Mind control/telepathy link between crew members in aircraft.
Any percievable mishmash of aircraft, markings and load-outs in any percievable scenario.
The front and its airfield being 30-90km apart.


When aircraft in the sim are exposed as being poorly modeled, eveyone goes ballistic and demands a fix, yet now you propose a totally unrelistic solution, accelerated fuel burn, to a non-problem.The problem exists. It is described and well defined. You do not care about this problem, just like plenty of people do not care about the list of reality/unreality I supplied above, or a 13.5g airframe tolerance to G-forces and so on. If you do not care about the problem, I would not expect you to care about an optional solution for those who consider it a problem. Just like I don't care about supplying see-through cockpits as I don't see the lack of such as a problem to begin with. But regardless of what you and I think, we can both see that other people do care about problems. Or just want to customise their experience the way they enjoy it the most.

You cannot re-create WW2. You can't. Nor can you enforce your ideas of what is "proper". It doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again on countless now dead servers, and by guys like me that got all caught up in uber realism at the expense of enjoyable play.I very clearly said I requested it as an option, not a hard-coded alteration.

And this not being WW2? You cannot be serious. So it is not WW2, what does that suggest of any relevance to anything? These are not real planes either. The bullets, the cannon shells, the G-forces on the virtual pilot - it's not real. We are not pilots. Why would anyone want to fly planes that simulate the behaviour of those of WW2? Or be able to black out from the G-forces? Why have limited ammo as an option at all? I mean, come on, that is really a silly argument. I think "whatever floats your boat" applies here. Realistic simulation of aircraft and the scenarios they often found themselves in floats my boat. 4 hour flights to target and back does not float my boat, but dealing with that (in the way that we usually see) causes my boat to float less well as a consequence. And therefore, my request.

EDIT (And edited again!: The 'focused on uber realism at the lack of fun play' argument works exactly the same against your own beliefs as it does to mine. I am proposing making an aspect of aircraft engine modeling adjustable to be less realistic for the sake of fun (beacuse I feel it is more realistic/immersive in that way as a net result). Both of us already axed realistic flight times because it was very impractical and tedious. Imagine if someone told you that axing landings and take-offs is good because it's more fun and landings are boring and impractical, taking away from the dogfight action. I am guessing you don't agree with that statement, and neither do I. And then you would get accused of not knowing what fun is, yearning for realism at any cost and how that is nonsense.

[ECV56_Lancelot]

I apologise if a sound i'm rushing you, its not my intention, but would like to know if you have already an aproximated list of the things you will add on the 4.10 patch?.

I remember the interview on SimHQ about you geting know to the public, and showing the bf-110 with radar, partial 6dof, and other things.

I ask you what features of that interview, and new, will be implemented on the new coming patch?

If you don't want to announce it yet, its fine for me. :)

[nearmiss]

Lancelot

Go to starter post on this thread. Also, look at the bottom of that post for link to additional items that will be included in 4.10

[Skoshi Tiger]

Please do remember that none of the aircraft in the sim can appraoch their real world range/endurance numbers as it is, even at 100% fuel load. Do you want ot give the Bf 109s only 15 min of fuel even at 100% load?

The problem is not the aircraft, or the tiny maps, it's the fact that this is not WW2, nor is it real life. This is something we do for fun, because we enjoy it. NO one is really going to fly for 4 hours to do 30 seconds of combat. Who has the time for that?

Enforcing your distored reality on everyone only will lead to an empty server.

When aircraft in the sim are exposed as being poorly modeled, eveyone goes ballistic and demands a fix, yet now you propose a totally unrelistic solution, accelerated fuel burn, to a non-problem.

You cannot re-create WW2. You can't. Nor can you enforce your ideas of what is "proper". It doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again on countless now dead servers, and by guys like me that got all caught up in uber realism at the expense of enjoyable play.

Hey! Some of my most successful sorties have been on big maps with the airfield far apart. I take off and get lost and fly around going "Where the hell are those (Bule/Red Delete own side) planes! I tend to get shot down less on those maps! ;)

I do agree that that it is a fine balancing act between realism and enjoyable game play. Which comes down to the skill of the mission designer.

As long as there is a level playing field, half the fun is knowing what you can and can't do with your plane and staying just this side of what you can do.

That's whats going to make the 4.10 patch so interesting. There's going to be a lot of re-learning going to happening one it's released.

Cheers!

[Flanker35M]

S!

MikkOwl, the difference between modern airframes and WW2 is of course quite big. The planes of WW2 were designed for less than 1000h service, like Bf109 was for about 400h and it's engine for about 120h before complete overhaul. Now the modern planes are designed for 6000h and civilian planes can fly twice or even more that amount, as their airframes are not stressed like fighters.

Materials and manufacturing techniques have evolved of course too, but for their time for example F4U was very solid build, especially the midsection where the wing was. Like a tank. Bf109 was of lighter build, but it was designed for something else than F4U for example. FW190 was a sturdy plane, but had more roles than Bf109 and of curse design philosophy was different a bit.

Have to take in account the design specs in planes because that determines quite a bit of their structure etc. But there is one commong thing for them all: to save weight where possible. Even today this is an issue so we have new materials like composite etc.

As of the performances of planes in IL-2. The debate has gone on forever, since release ;) Bt a serious look could be taken in the fuel consumption and fuel quantities planes have, the overheating and engine damage exploits plugged and so on. One of the most accurate planes in fuel consumption is actually the Bf109. You can fly with internal fuel 407 litres roughly one hour if cruising, but the flying time reduces quite a bit in combat. But there are planes that fly longer with same fuel capacity. This makes fighting in Bf109 a challenge as you have almost always to take 100% fuel load and then you are fighting planes that fly with 25% or at most 50% fuel because they simply use less juice. Go figure the rest.

TD is making good fixes and additions for IL-2 and hopefully continue on that path. But I wish there would be a balance between bringing in a lot of new stuff and features when some of the old is still broken. Of course all can not be fixed or is not even feasible, but basic stuff like fuel quantities, fuel consumption etc. maybe are not that hard to check and fix.

[MikkOwl]

Ugh, even more discouraging things regarding the fuel/engine issues there, Flanker. But all this info on aircraft engineering is very interesting.

So movable parts/accessories of the aircraft are the ones likely to give out first, if anything goes? It would be interesting to see bombs/drop tanks get torn off. And I wonder how that would affect aircraft with interior bomb bays.. If a bomb is torn, then it would smash open the bomb bay doors.

Watching Mosquito documentary. Seeing the assembly process made me shudder a bit. Wood.. wood all over the place. And then they made such a high performing aircraft out of it. The mosquito was heavier than the Bf 110 series (by far), but looks like it would be more aerodynamic. I'm getting sidetracked here:

1. Any idea at all how the engineering/materials of the Mosquito might set it apart from non-wood airplanes of the era?

2. It was discussed before regarding stores on the wings compared to center mounting. It was said it does not affect the load limit. But, what about having engines mounted out on the wings instead of the fuselage? 110 and Mikksquito (as well as all the bombers - who are weak as far as load resistance go) transfer a very large amount of weight from the fuselage out on the wings. I can't help to think this would assist them in causing much less stress on the wing-fuselage point during turns - both because of less weight in the middle, and maybe somehow the engines straighten the wings out a bit. Perhaps these aircraft snap their wings at the engine mounts rather than near the fuselage in some circumstances?

[ramstein]

I was chatting with a pilot that flew mosquitos (in fact he was an Flying Tigers Pilot in the P40's, flew Mosquitos, and B25,s and more..) in WWII. He told me quite a bit about his experiences. He said that he got lots of splinters in the mosquitos. He also said his wife is still picking shrapnel out of him to this day! So, I would think that when a mosquito is being fired on and takes direct hits, the pilots will get splinters if the cockpit area is hit.. I am just saying what he said.. his metal shrapnel was from the bombers..

for the P-40 he also told me that the pilots would remove the sheild behind the (60 lbs.) pilot's seat to gain more climbing speed... and how much in inches of mercury boost it would gain..

[VT-51_Razor]

Ramstein, there must have been a slight misunderstanding on your part while talking to that WWII veteran pilot. Taking weight off the plane would not gain anything in engine performance, only aircraft performance. The engine would not produce any additional boost (manifold pressure) as a result of removing 60 lbs of armor from behind the pilot's seat.

[IvanK]

Wether the engines are in the wings fuselage or wherever the aircraft is designed and certifed to given structual load limit. Now if you get some bending relief from weight in the wings then the designer takes that into account to allow the structure to to be certified at the specified structural design G limit.

[TheGrunch]

Ramstein, there must have been a slight misunderstanding on your part while talking to that WWII veteran pilot. Taking weight off the plane would not gain anything in engine performance, only aircraft performance. The engine would not produce any additional boost (manifold pressure) as a result of removing 60 lbs of armor from behind the pilot's seat.
I think Ramstein was talking about two different things. The P-40 (and the P-47 as well) were well known for being run above their rated boost-pressures due to the confidence of pilots and ground-crews in the engines.

[Tuphlandng]

I think what U guys are doing is truly awesome I love this game and really thought that 409m was going to be the last patch I just have a small request. Would it be possible to make the"Visual Approach Slope Indicator" or VASI functional on the Japanese Carriers and maybe install one on the American Carriers?? It would sure open up some time Lines for my missions

Thanks I hope it isn’t to late for this request

Tuph

[ramstein]

I think Ramstein was talking about two different things. The P-40 (and the P-47 as well) were well known for being run above their rated boost-pressures due to the confidence of pilots and ground-crews in the engines.

I am paraphrasing different parts of conversations..

he could dial in the boost depending on the weight..
I am pretty sure he was saying he could squeeze out 2 more inches of hg with a 60' lbs. weight reduction.

some numbers he remembers, other numbers he could not remember.. he forgot the convergence numbers for guns.. other numbers he remember clearly, he is in his mid 90's..

He also gave me tips on tuning B25 engines..which was funny because I used the same tips he knew on old engines that used points instead of electronic ignition pickups..
he used mathbook covers (he worked with the mechanics that kept his planes running.. and praised their skills..),, and so did I used matchbook covers also, on old car engines because they just happen to be .017 of an inch which is the point gap on ignition systems that used contact points.. also the B25 leaked oil all the time and threw it all over the plane.. I am amused because I was a gear head in my earlier life..


I speak to him every few weeks, for a few hours each time..

he voluteers a lot of info (very chatty and full of life..).. he was shocked and happy I knew what the 'P-26' Peashooter plane is,, he trained in one ..

actually I know two AVG Flying Tiger Vets..(not personally), we go to the same doctors at the VA hospital (clinics) ....
but they are 40 years older than me... and they will probably outlive me..

One of them also flew bomb missions from Tripoli to the Poliesti oil fields in Romania.

[TheGrunch]

Ah, never mind then. Never heard of anything like that either. Lucky to be able to talk to a WWII veteran on such a regular basis, though, Ramstein!

[IvanK]

Tuph, do you have details of VASI's equipping US and or Japanese carriers ?

Are you referring to the Mirror Landing system of modern times on carriers ?

The VASI on land airfields and the Mirror Landing system on carriers are post war developments.

[DBG_Kabayo]

I would like to ask if the Multi-throttle/prop pitch/radiator
controls will be just for two engine bombers or will it include
three and four engine bombers?

[Tuphlandng]

Tuph, do you have details of VASI's equipping US and or Japanese carriers ?

Are you referring to the Mirror Landing system of modern times on carriers ?

The VASI on land airfields and the Mirror Landing system on carriers are post war developments.Only from the game
http://i670.photobucket.com/albums/vv69/Tuphlandng/JapanesVASI.jpg
http://i670.photobucket.com/albums/vv69/Tuphlandng/AmericanVSI.jpg

[IvanK]

These I dont believe are VASIS but Nav/Running lights for following ships etc. As it is its below the flight deck !

[VT-51_Razor]

The Japanese did use a light system inlieu of an LSO, but not sure if that is what is being shown in the first screen shot above. Not sure at all what is being shown in the following screen shot??

[Tuphlandng]

And it wasnt my intention to be annoying

Tuph

[FrankB]

Hello TD, in some parts of the world the Thursday is already over, where is the update? ;)

[Qpassa]

Hello TD, in some parts of the world the Thursday is already over, where is the update? ;)

yup,we want update :3 :grin:

[daidalos.team]

Still Thursday here. ;) Update posted on first page.

[AndyJWest]

Multi-Crew option on dogfight servers

Nice!

[Zorin]

Still no news on the Ju88 pilot kill issue... Will you look into this or not? I just would like to know if I can still write off one of the best medium bombers of the war or not.

[ZaltysZ]

Question: will there be ability to selectively allow access to multi crew plane? I don't want take off and find a clown shooting off my tail later on. I would prefer to choose which players are allowed to be my gunners.

[Qpassa]

This will be very interesting :)

[Zorin]

question: Will there be ability to selectively allow access to multi crew plane? I don't want take off and find a clown shooting off my tail later on. I would prefer to choose which players are allowed to be my gunners.

+100000000

[jermin]

Very very nice feature. The old dream finally comes true.

Thank you for your great works, TD!

[RAF74_Winger]

Very cool. Any chance of a two-seat training aircraft that we can use with this feature?

W.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Very nice TD well done.

Looking forward to the patch being released ;-)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Question: will there be ability to selectively allow access to multi crew plane? I don't want take off and find a clown shooting off my tail later on. I would prefer to choose which players are allowed to be my gunners.

This problem was discussed alot and we have a solution to prevent such behaviour.

[IvanK]

The Japanese did use a light system inlieu of an LSO, but not sure if that is what is being shown in the first screen shot above. Not sure at all what is being shown in the following screen shot??

Do you have details of this system Razor ?

[|ZUTI|]

Question: will there be ability to selectively allow access to multi crew plane? I don't want take off and find a clown shooting off my tail later on. I would prefer to choose which players are allowed to be my gunners.

You will have an option to either allow or not joining of other players as your gunners, but not which players join your team. Joining is only possible when you are on the ground, with your engines shut off. But for AI, there will most likely be an option, mission based, that will allow (or not) joining of AI planes either when they are airborne or on the ground only. We'll see.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

This problem was discussed alot and we have a solution to prevent such behaviour.


This it?
http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/fighting.gif

[Viikate]

Still no news on the Ju88 pilot kill issue... Will you look into this or not? I just would like to know if I can still write off one of the best medium bombers of the war or not.


Please F5 my memory. You mean the lack of pilot armor? Ju-88s has gone through some changes. New collision boxes is one of the changes.

[LeLv8_Otto]

JU88 is impossible to land on a belly into terrain - if you are are very skillfull you can do it on runway flat surface. You can ditch it into water but even then the speed must be <170km/h, otherwise you get killed. If there is something that can be done on this it would be nice.

I have heard rumours about missing pilot armor - if true pls fix it too.

Thanks !

[ZaltysZ]

JU88 is impossible to land on a belly into terrain - if you are are very skillfull you can do it on runway flat surface. You can ditch it into water but even then the speed must be <170km/h, otherwise you get killed. If there is something that can be done on this it would be nice.

"Impossible" is too strong word. Yes, it is more tricky than other bombers, but still it is pretty easy. The main thing is correct attitude of plane. If its nose is too low (or one of engines is too low), you will die on contact with ground. Basically, you need to make tail touch the ground first.

P.S: in anyway, Ju-88 seems too fragile for me too.

[_ITAF_Gianpaolo]

what do you mean with skillfull??
if you want a simulation it has to be hard to land... expecially if it is a belly landing!!

anyway is possible to land with the ju88 no flap without lg down...

[LeLv8_Otto]

Ok - it is possible but much more difficult compared to other bombers in game - why is it so?. And it doesn't help at all when you normally must do it without engine(s) and wing surface damaged.

Since you guys seem to know all about it can you tell me why it is the pilot who always dies ?

[akdavis]

Bravo on fixing the bridges after so many years of sillyness!

[Adwark]

2. G_Limits are not fixed, if plane is in 8/12 category that doesn't mean that it will get damaged every time you exceed 8G or that it will broke when 12G's are exceeded. If you are lucky you can pull 13G's and get away with it but everything above 8G is lottery. If you are carrying bombs limits are much tighter and you should be very careful in maneuvers.

3. Don't expect this to be 100% accurate in every way, that's not possible to achieve in PC simulation with 200+ planes. Some generalizations are necessary but our opinion is that this feature is big step forward in making the sim more realistic.

My be you can little bit explain, if it's not a top secret :D. Does G-limit algorithm have a plane construction parameter.I meant , does G-limit algorithm, when calculated G number for each plane, used different algorithms for full wood, wood/metal, full metal planes construction? In reality it's must be different, but I doesn't know, how it realized in game.

[IvanK]

..."used different algorithms for full wood, wood/metal, full metal planes construction? In reality it's must be different"

Why must it be different? The overall design specification is that the structure must be able to withstand XX G at YY Weight. The designer then ensures his structure using his choice of materiel's meets the spec. a 10G structure is a 10G structure whether it is made of wood or steel, its failure modes may be slightly different though.

In the G limit routine each aircraft has its own unique profile.

[T}{OR]

I do hope you guys are planing on including some kind of permission to who can join as my gunner. I am afraid that this might be used in the worst way possible. For example - shooing at your own plane or shooting at your wingman, thus exploiting the added option.

[daidalos.team]

Yes Thor, we do.

[T}{OR]

Yes Thor, we do.

I didn't doubt for a moment. Thanks for the reply! :)

[MikkOwl]

I didn't doubt for a moment. Thanks for the reply! :)
Does not this post from (EDIT: Often when I post, it starts a new page) two pages before this one already answer your question in detail?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=149303&postcount=438

[T}{OR]

It obviously does. And I missed it.

There was a time when I was able (had the time) to track all what is going on, but nowadays I am too busy to read the whole thread.

[Oktoberfest]

Hello,

about the board gunners, how will you be able to determine which plane from what player you are selecting ?

Thx.

[MikkOwl]

Hello,

about the board gunners, how will you be able to determine which plane from what player you are selecting ?

Thx.
Did you check the first post? They have a video showing it.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=136666&postcount=1

[FrankB]

Hi TD,

have you considered the idea of creating a sample mission or two for each of your patches demonstrating the content of the patch?

E.g.

4.09:
- static mission for Avia B/534 on a Slovakia map with some easy target (e.g. low-altitude bombing of car convoy in the mountain valley) to show the new plane and the best places on this wonderful map

4.10:
- mission for CW-21 on the Slot map showing / teaching the radio navigation
- mission for Ju-88 with the guided bombs

What concerns me is the fact that now, half a year after release of 4.09, I have not seen a single offline mission/campaign for the new maps (mod-free, of course).

[Adwark]

Why must it be different? The overall design specification is that the structure must be able to withstand XX G at YY Weight. The designer then ensures his structure using his choice of materiel's meets the spec. a 10G structure is a 10G structure whether it is made of wood or steel, its failure modes may be slightly different though.

In the G limit routine each aircraft has its own unique profile.

You are right. Sorry my previous post not correct. I was agree, 10G structure is 10G structure and you are right about failure mode. I don't know how it working in game, but if we are looking in the "Resistance of materials" theory wood was quickly fatigue like aviation aluminum. And if in game was used that info, 10G wood construction must be broken faster like metal 10G structure. For example, 10G wood plane doing 4 over limit turns, but 10G full metal plane 5 or 6. That was took in game more realism.;) But of course game is game. I was watching on youtoobe.com WW2 documentary movie about B-17. One of them have a very heavy damaged tail, but crew return to base and successfully landing. In comments was written "thats gays is lucky", but this not a luck, This is, How to the "Resistance of materials" theory work in real life. If B-17 has a wood structure they doesn't be so lucky.

[jamesdeanoo7]

Being new I guess what I am going to ask will be old hat but here goes. I really love this game and the mods but if we can release rockets in pairs why cant we release bombs the same way instead of a heap? Is it possible to have depth charges? Is it possible as we have shadows of the aircraft that converge in relation to their height, to have leigh lights fitted that act in the same way? Thanks guys and keep up the great work.:)

[SaQSoN]

"Resistance of materials" theory wood was quickly fatigue like aviation aluminum. And if in game was used that info, 10G wood construction must be broken faster like metal 10G structure.

Can you support your claim?

To my knowledge, wood, being a natural composite, is, actually, less affected by fatigue, then crystalline material such as metal.

I'd really like to see a Wöhler diagram for both wooden composite and aluminum spar of equal terminal strength...

[jermin]

then why aviators adopted metalic structure and abandoned wooden one while wood is better?

[MikkOwl]

then why aviators adopted metalic structure and abandoned wooden one while wood is better?
Being better at a certain type of fatigue does not make it better at everything else. I am sure that metals are both much more durable all-round and have much better strength for any given size and mass. The Mosquito, for example, is very heavy.

[Thunderbolt56]

Yes, the key here (regarding the "strength" query), is mass. Wood was MUCH heavier to achieve the same (or slightly greater) terminal strength thus it also negatively affected top speed and maneuverability. It was, however, very available and could be worked into a functional item in just about anyone's back yard.

[RAF74_Winger]

S!

If you look in ANC-18, the standard for design of aerostructures in wood, there isn't much data. But they do say that for fully reversed loading (R=-1) in douglas fir, the fatigue limit is around 30% of the ultimate strength.

Modern aluminium alloys have a fatigue limit about the same, but the older aluminium alloys used on WWII fighter aircraft, although almost as good were very prone to stress corrosion cracking. I think the main argument against wooden aircraft is not so much strength or lightness, but that they are prone to moisture absorption and so require hangars to be stored.

W.

[RAF74_Winger]

Wood was MUCH heavier to achieve the same (or slightly greater) terminal strength

Not quite true. When you consider pure tensile stresses, yes that is the case. In bending however, with careful design, wooden structures can be much lighter than even aluminium.

W.

[AndyJWest]

I think it is misleading to talk about 'wooden' structures without looking in more detail at the finer points of construction - a Mosquito fuselage for example is a 'composite' of thin plywood skins on a balsa core, and may well actually have been stronger than an aluminium structure of the same weight. I suspect the real objections to the use of wood in aircraft are more related in problems with consistancy, protection against moisture, and difficulties in bonding (less of a problem now than during WWII). In a sense, the move from metal aircraft construction to composites (carbon fibre etc) is going full circle - wood is a natural 'composite', and has the advantage of millions of years of natural selection to perfect the 'design'.

[erco]

There is an old story that goes like this:

Two airplanes are, late one night, sitting in a hangar, one made of wood and the other of metal. The metal airplane, feeling very superior and modern, looks sideways at the wooden airplane and whispers, "Dry rot". The wooden airplane, knowing the true score, whispers back, "Metal fatigue".

The point being that a wooden structure, properly protected from moisture, has a virtually unlimited life, being free from fatigue issues. Many restorations of antique aircraft have reused spars that in some cases are over 60 years old. Metal fatigue can be mitigated with good design (DC-3, anyone?), but will always be an issue. Wood needs more particular and specialized care, which is a big selling point for metal structure.

Many purpose-built aerobatic monoplanes and biplanes use wood for their wing structure, where it's high strength and light weight are useful.

[He111]

wouldn't it be good to have a player control each character in a bomber, you could have specialist pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and noob gunners! :)

[AndyJWest]

wouldn't it be good to have a player control each character in a bomber, you could have specialist pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and noob gunners! :)
There's not much demand for navigators in IL-2, but you can fly as a gunner in online co-ops already, He111. TD are also looking at doing this for dogfights, as they said earlier.

[TheGrunch]

then why aviators adopted metalic structure and abandoned wooden one while wood is better?
Wood was harder to work with in mass-production to close tolerances, as well, I think. You can't cast wood. ;)

[SaQSoN]

Being better at a certain type of fatigue does not make it better at everything else. I am sure that metals are both much more durable all-round and have much better strength for any given size and mass. The Mosquito, for example, is very heavy.

Exactly. A similar part with similar terminal strength, made of wood is noticeably heavier, then metal one.
Besides, wooden structures decay much faster, then metal (it doesn't apply to wood only, but also to the glue, used to bond wooden parts). Not a big deal during the war, where planes don't live too long anyway. But important for the peace-time maintenance. For instance, the factory declared life span of a wooden Yak airframe was max 2 years. After which it should have been scrapped. Same for Mosquito, I guess.

[SaQSoN]

Wood was harder to work with in mass-production to close tolerances, as well, I think. You can't cast wood. ;)

Not quite. In the 1940s USSR, for instance, it was more difficult to build metal airframes, teach workers and produce raw materials for them, then for the wooden ones. I guess, nowadays, it may be opposite, it largely depends on current technological level in the country's industry as a whole.

[Avimimus]

I remember that I was told once that the He-162 had problems with the wooden construction (presumably overcome in the V-tailed variant)...

I wonder how G-loads will work for the FSW He-162? Anything over 1.1 Gs causes the wings to snap off above 200 kph?

[Avimimus]

Hi TD,

have you considered the idea of creating a sample mission or two for each of your patches demonstrating the content of the patch?

E.g.

4.09:
- static mission for Avia B/534 on a Slovakia map with some easy target (e.g. low-altitude bombing of car convoy in the mountain valley) to show the new plane and the best places on this wonderful map

4.10:
- mission for CW-21 on the Slot map showing / teaching the radio navigation
- mission for Ju-88 with the guided bombs

What concerns me is the fact that now, half a year after release of 4.09, I have not seen a single offline mission/campaign for the new maps (mod-free, of course).

Now this is a brilliant idea! The original Il-2 patches had short campaigns for new aircraft (I-16 and Bi-1 both had five-seven mission campaigns). More single missions would be excellent to see in 4.11

[Adwark]

Can you support your claim?

I doesn't tray to teaching you, but this is motive, why I was asking stupid questions about G and wood/metal plane differences :). The reason, why I was starting this discussion about G is here http://www.me.mtu.edu/~mavable/Book/Chap1.pdf , please look first 3 pages and Table 1.2 at page 3.This is a Mechanics of Materials section - Stress education materials.

To my knowledge, wood, being a natural composite, is, actually, less affected by fatigue, then crystalline material such as metal.
This is not my quotation, its I was find in mechanics related forum where experts explaining how it work based on Mechanics of materials :
1. The tree along fibers behaves as a fragile material, across - as plastic
PS metal material is plastic in both directions.

2. Stability - loss the most artful kind of destruction. It occurs suddenly. The most simple example-ruler(wood) which it is compressed length ways. It resists to the last, then suddenly curved and breaks.
PS Metal ruler doesn't braking in this way.


I'd really like to see a Wöhler diagram for both wooden composite and aluminum spar of equal terminal strength...
I agree. The present time wood material (really its a composite) can be equal of metal or better like metal, but I was talking about materials what was used at WW II. Thats not identical like used at present time. The plane is a very complicated mechanics device and flaying is a very stressfully action. So many forces with different strength was work on plane in flight. And if our plane caring bombs and drop its in diving, stress forces increased.

[IvanK]

When the designer sits down to build his aeroplane he does so to a specification. Part of that specification will include the structural strength (ultimate load), the design life and the planned Fatigue spectrum. In that Fatigue spectrum are things like the expected flight hours the expected number of take off and landings and the expected number of cycles of xx applications of various G. With all that defined he then makes his aeroplane to be able to meet that Fatigue spectrum. This then means the aeroplane will LAST that long provided the fatigue spectrum is accurate.

DT are not dealing with fatigue management and aircraft life. We are dealing with structural strength solely on a mission to mission basis. Pilots are given a recommended set of limits to fly to. Stay inside the limits no drama will occur. Exceed the limits and bending things may occur, grossly exceed the limits and structural failure may occur.

" ....And if our plane caring bombs and drop its in diving, stress forces increased" .... agreed and exactly that happens in the DT G Limit module.

[MikkOwl]

The present time wood material (really its a composite) can be equal of metal or better like metal, but I was talking about materials what was used at WW II. Thats not identical like used at present time. The plane is a very complicated mechanics device and flaying is a very stressfully action. So many forces with different strength was work on plane in flight. And if our plane caring bombs and drop its in diving, stress forces increased.
I imagine wood composites have a higher range of elastic deformation (flexes but returns to original shape), but worse plastic (permanent) deformation and worse ultimate strength (the point where 'necking' starts to occur, leading quickly to a snapped off wing). Metals should probably survive being permanently deformed by stress better, due to crystalization of the material with deformation (hardened metals exploit this behaviour). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_hardening

Ultimately I don't think there will be much of a practical difference even if the two are treated the same in the upcoming patch, because I am sure the numbers/formula/ratios etc will just be set differently, based on the official numbers. Maybe wood structures will have a bigger or smaller difference between safe loading limit and max limit to take care of that :)

All in all, I hope that we are NOT told anything more than what the pilots back then would have access to - just 'don't exceed this G and absolutely not this G'. The exact values being hidden to us :grin:

[IvanK]

"All in all, I hope that we are NOT told anything more than what the pilots back then would have access to - just 'don't exceed this G and absolutely not this G'. The exact values being hidden to us"

That is the intent. Given that in a PC environment you have no physical "G cueing" we do need to provide something that will give you some idea of where you are ... you wont get precise g knowledge however..... but you will know when you have bent the jet :)

[DBG_Kabayo]

I would like to ask if the Multi-throttle/prop pitch/radiator
controls will be just for two engine bombers or will it include
three and four engine bombers?

I asked this question on 3/8/10 and still no reply or answer. Can someone take time and answer this question. Or is this just for the good old boys country club to get answers. Seems every one here is just advoiding answer questions excpet for their friends!!!!!!
Thank You

[Skoshi Tiger]

Or is this just for the good old boys country club to get answers. Seems every one here is just advoiding answer questions excpet for their friends!!!!!!
Thank You

Maybe it's just a case that no one wan't to answer if they don't know the answer to the question. In a team situation you may not know what other people are working on.

Has TD released any 3 or 4 engined bombers? If not you many need to go to the mod sites that released them and ask the question.

[Viikate]

I asked this question on 3/8/10 and still no reply or answer. Can someone take time and answer this question. Or is this just for the good old boys country club to get answers. Seems every one here is just advoiding answer questions excpet for their friends!!!!!!
Thank You

I recall that this was already answered earlier. Up to four engines is supported, although I guess not many people have four throttles.

[DBG_Kabayo]

~S~
Sorry if I sounded off like that, give to old age and medical problems I have. I will not go into that because I am not sure how much longer I will be around.
Any way Thank You for your answer. I did read every post and replies here, but may have missed the answer.
So TD muti-throttle ect... will support up to four engines. I am glad because I am getting a new Flight Yoke and Throttle set up, since I only fly the USAAF Heavy Bombers. So in another word I can get the set up I want and use at least two throttle set up.

Again sorry for the I sounded off. Thank You TD for your work.

Kabayo

[ZaltysZ]

Has TD released any 3 or 4 engined bombers? If not you many need to go to the mod sites that released them and ask the question.

No, but let's not forget our old TB-3, which we have long time. It would be weird if only 2 throttles were working. ;)

[Skoshi Tiger]

No, but let's not forget our old TB-3, which we have long time. It would be weird if only 2 throttles were working. ;)

Well if airspeed is anything to go by I assumed the extra 2 engines were constantly in reverse on the TB-3!

In fact I distinctly remember a mission on SOV where a person drove his TB-3 overland across the map and parked it on the enemy airfield and swapped to the gunner positions.

In the chat I think he said it was faster that way! Anyway I thought it was an excelent ploy and he got 100% for creativity!

Cheers and thanks, I'ld completely forgotten.

[Azimech]

I recall that this was already answered earlier. Up to four engines is supported, although I guess not many people have four throttles.

With current hardware prices that's rapidly changing I guess...

I only hope IL2 will handle that many USB devices, currently I have 2 saitek throttles (3 axis each), homebuilt pedals (USB), Sidewinder 2 and if properly supported I will buy additional saitek throttles.

[Huor]

Hello, greetings from the south hemisphere..

I have a question: the 4.10 patch (and subsecuents patch) can be installed over a 4.09b1m instalation???
I mencion that because i love the 4.09b1m for the b-17's, b-29's, and other planes and maps. And i actually have the UP 2.0 witch work almost perfect with 4.09b1m (some planes cannot appear and Zuti's mod not work propely)

And finally, my wishlist for 4.10, 4.11....

-Radars in nightfighters
-Some kind of light to use as beacon on runways
-Four-engine bombers (Hali, Lan, B-17, B-24, B-29, He-177)
-The Ju88 family (88's fighters, 188, 288, 388.)
-Blohm und Voss BV138, BV222, Arado Ar196, Dornier Do18/2 (yea, more seaplanes!)
-Dornier Do17/217
-Fw200 Kondor
-He219
-More trasports (C-47, C-46, Li2, Ju53, Me323...)
-P-61 Black Widow
-More types of Mosquitos, B-25, Bf109, He111...

and some others crazy ideas, but i now that my wishlist is really to much.

Thanks in advance

[AndyJWest]

I'd imagine that 4.10 will only work over 4.09m. In any case, no patch will work over a modded install - not that we are supposed to help with mods on this forum anyway.

As for runway lights, there are static objects that will do for this. I doubt if you'll see much else from your wishlist from TD, though strange rumours circulate from time to time...

[Huor]

Thanks Andy for your aswer.

The UP2 mencion its only for reference, really i dont like it very much (but my friends did like it -for the "korean war fighters"- and its Me against the world...)

Well, I download the 4.10 and test over the 4.09b1m and hope its work, if no... 4.09m (bye bye bombers!).
And for the lights: i always use the light/s in the FMB, I "wanted" a light with a 3D model, like real one... but is only a wish.

Thanks again

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Maybe it's just a case that no one wan't to answer if they don't know the answer to the question. In a team situation you may not know what other people are working on.

Has TD released any 3 or 4 engined bombers? If not you many need to go to the mod sites that released them and ask the question.


Right...

I'm not responsible for this develoment, thus I don't know exactly, if 4x throttle supports also 3 engine planes. But I would expect this, as its the way we work.
EDIT: I just saw, that Viikate answered this already. So I did expect correctly.

... and yes!

We released SM.79 with 4.09. ;)

[Sita]

where i live already is thursday ... :D

[Avimimus]

I was thinking it might be ideal to move the 4.10 updates to early on Thursday or to Wednesday (or perhaps even post them later during the weekend).

Right now we get a double hit -thursday night 4.10 updates- and -friday morning SoW:BoB updates- which I'm sure isn't healthy for those of use easily excited ;)

[TheGrunch]

Well, I download the 4.10 and test over the 4.09b1m and hope its work, if no... 4.09m (bye bye bombers!).\

[Avimimus]

Well if airspeed is anything to go by I assumed the extra 2 engines were constantly in reverse on the TB-3!

In fact I distinctly remember a mission on SOV where a person drove his TB-3 overland across the map and parked it on the enemy airfield and swapped to the gunner positions.

In the chat I think he said it was faster that way! Anyway I thought it was an excelent ploy and he got 100% for creativity!

Cheers and thanks, I'ld completely forgotten.

...And to think that fighter/attack variants were proposed - including one prototype built with three 76mm cannons (forward firing).

[Avimimus]

I was thinking it might be ideal to move the 4.10 updates to early on Thursday or to Wednesday (or perhaps even post them later during the weekend).

Right now we get a double hit -thursday night 4.10 updates- and -friday morning SoW:BoB updates- which I'm sure isn't healthy for those of use easily excited ;)

Gee ...I hope you guys didn't take my advice ;) :D

regret

[AndyJWest]

Going by the published schedule, the next patch is due in less than two weeks, so any 'updates' would be rather late, I'd have thought - they've told us what to expect by now.

At least, that's what I'm hoping. I could be wrong, and they are currently adding a Lancaster, a Whirlwind, another 57 versions of the Bf 109, a fully-animated dog for 'Dam Busters' missions (though they will have to rename it;) ), a 'Gremlin' option that recalibrates your altimeter while you aren't looking, and an option to go online with Silent Hunter 5 players so you can drop bombs on their U-boats while they run around trying to get the crew to do something useful (this last option will probably be scrapped as nobody can get SH5 to work anyway).

[daidalos.team]

Hopefully still a Thursday somewhere in the Pacific. Today update posted on first page.

[Sita]

"We are entering the beta phase of the 4.10 patch, so we will reduce the quantity of development updates and focus on the testing of the patch."

We understand
but your updates are similar to a drug :D !!!

[MikkOwl]

Ah yes, I was certain there would be delays (history is often an indicator of the future, after all :) ). The large amounts of great things to come in 4.10 is bitter sweet: the awesome parts are, well, awesome, but it makes the wait more of a tease than if it was a minor patch.

Only yesterday did I see the update about radio navigation and major upgrades to cockpit instruments regarding navigation. I found the 500mb version video showcasing those functions too. This is the most exciting thing to come, with the new chassi stress and individual propeller pitch on axis (aaand radiator on a single axis).

Navigation improvements will make it both easier yet more complicated to navigate on full realism settings. Since most flying, even online, is not being engaged in combat but just getting from A to B, this should make those journeys so much more interesting. Interesting to learn that the German heavy fighters actually get a radio compass with moving AF Antenna (not sure where that antenna is located on the aircraft) which the single engined fighters have to do without.

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

A delay .. who cares .. quality need it`s time.. and those pics are damn great.. never expectect
TD to appear and give il2 new life.. so do what you want and how long you want just keep it coming !

Thank you very much!!!!!
:grin:

[Viikate]

Interesting to learn that the German heavy fighters actually get a radio compass with moving AF Antenna (not sure where that antenna is located on the aircraft) which the single engined fighters have to do without.

Well the antenna movement isn't animated. Probably not worth the effort.

Bf-110 has a rotating D/F-loop at the bottom of fuselage behind the wings
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/fighters/messerschmitt-bf-110/messerschmitt-me-110-08.jpg
http://download.softclub.ru/pub/il2pict/Bf-110C-4_09.jpg

In early variants, the loop antenna had to be manually rotated with this thing:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/instrumente/katalog/Funk/gross/Me110-3.gif
I recall that Ju-52 and other older twin engine planes had also manually rotated D/F-loops.

Later Bf-110 G-2 what we have already flyable has automatically rotating antenna and even later G-4 has this replaced by iron ferrite coil which is inside the fuselage like in Ju-88.

Many allied bombers have rotating D/F-loop inside a teardrop shaped cover. Check for example B-25s in game.

Some smaller planes have fixed small iron ferrite coils which work like loop antenna. Almost all LW late war single engined planes have either small fixed loop or ferrite coil. The idea of D/F-loop antenna is that when is facing directly towards (or away) from the radiating source like NDB, the induced current going through the antenna is zero.
http://files.homepagemodules.de/b208090/f16t50p137n1.png

So instead of rotating the antenna itself, plane must turn directly towards/away from beacon and then AFN gauge shows no deviation (needle centered). Getting a triangulated position from two beacons requires more effort with fixed antenna.

[TheGrunch]

I think it's good that there's a delay, because between this and the Mount&Blade Warband addon, I would probably have had a heart-attack. :)

[Insuber]

DT's,

Take your time guys, all your great work is a real gift to the community !

But don't forget the heavy MG issue (SAFAT 12.7 and others ...) :)

Insuber