Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[MikkOwl]

Thanks for the excellent information (even illustrated with pictures). So that's what the round coil below the fuselage is for - believe it or not but I have been trying to find that out through google for about two months (every week or two I'd go hunting). At first I thought maybe it was ordnance related, but later realized it could not be that.

I did not expect the model itself to be animated :) I meant that I never realized there were directional antennas & how radio compasses work, and was surprised to find out that the Bf 110 was 'getting it' (full radio compass) while all the other fighters don't. Would be nice to be able to have it shot off or damaged, it would make navigation a bit more challenging unexpectedly. But that is unlikely as well.

One thing is unclear to me - while I understand the reason, the usefulness of being able to have the antenna turn and the way that antennas transmit differently depending on angle to source - how does the 'auto' G-2 antenna work compared to the manually turned? Do we use buttons to electrically move it, and it then automatically turns itself when the aircraft turns, or does it home in on the strongest signal, or on a selected frequency-signal? Or does it actually keep spinning around at a set rate and some kind of electronics make the radio compass point to the strongest signal in the frqeuency?

[Viikate]

Automatically motor driven loop will try to turn and stay at the direction which gives null signal or no signal. Operator would tune the receiver to the frequency of certain beacon, but we have simplified this and selection is based on beacon ID.

I'm pretty sure that all war time automatic D/F-equipment had a manual mode too because of meaconing. Meaconing will get the automatic mode confused. But we haven't planned any manual mode even simple meaconing is possible now.

Google is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_direction_finder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_navigation

And the most epic navigation document ever which makes you appreciate the Art of Navigation.
http://aafcollection.info/items/documents/view.php?file=000198-01-00.pdf

[MikkOwl]

Automatically motor driven loop will try to turn and stay at the direction which gives null signal or no signal. Operator would tune the receiver to the frequency of certain beacon, but we have simplified this and selection is based on beacon ID.

I'm pretty sure that all war time automatic D/F-equipment had a manual mode too because of meaconing. Meaconing will get the automatic mode confused. But we haven't planned any manual mode even simple meaconing is possible now.

Google is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_direction_finder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_navigation

And the most epic navigation document ever which makes you appreciate the Art of Navigation.
http://aafcollection.info/items/documents/view.php?file=000198-01-00.pdf
Understood. Thanks again for the additional links and information :) The last link is a forbidden hotlink, but I'll dig it up (and other things) from the website it resides on.

The AF Loop antenna would still have to deal with figuring out which 180 degree direction is the actual heading of the beacon, but I read on wiki just now that modern systems have an auxilliary "sense antenna" to solve that problem. Navigation in those auto AF planes must be a lot more convenient than flying the fighters for sure.. The 110 seems to be stuffed with various navigational aids, with redundant functions if any other fails. But there's never been any use of either of these things until TD and 4.10. :) Going to be fun exploring a whole new side (area) of the airplane (instrument panel).

There's a few more strange antennas sticking out from the 110 G-2, and I have been unable to identify any of them. Maybe the manuals I found today from WW2 will shed light on that. One of them is bound to be the sense antenna.

[Blackdog_kt]

From my limited experience on a friend's FSX installation and payware WWII 3rd party add-on aircraft, the process goes something like this.

First, you tune the nav radio to the frequency of the beacon you want to use. The radio panel had various controls for com radios and nav radios. At the time, there were no VOR beacons like we have today to supply information of your course's track relative to the beacon, so all you had were the so called NDBs (Non Directional Beacons). These can tell you the beacon's bearing relative to your aircraft, but not on which track radial you are flying on.

That means they are fine for flying directly to and from a beacon, but they can't be used for more complex navigation. For example a modern VOR beacon can indicate to you when you intersect a certain radial (imagine a top-down map view with the VOR beacon and 360 lines extending away from it, one for every degree of the compass). This way, you can use VORs even if you are not flying directly to and from them.
For example, let's say you need to exit the airway you are flying on at a predetermined point and then make your approach to the airport. If there's a VOR with sufficient range nearby, the navigation documents published for air traffic control and navigation would clearly mark the exit point with the VOR frequency and intersecting radial.

To keep it simple, let's say that the exit point lies due east of the VOR beacon. So, instead of having to estimate/calculate your exact position and distance from the airport to begin your approach, you would simply keep flying on your course (usually with the aid of another VOR you fly directly to on a certain radial) and tune the 2nd nav radio to the other VOR. On the 2nd VOR instrument, you would choose radial 90 or radial 270 (it's the same, all it changes is the to/from setting on the instrument) and when the line was centered you would know you are intersecting the selected radial. That means you're due east of the beacon and it's time to exit the airway.

Of course, in WWII they didn't have such advanced beacons or the instruments to go along with them. These are all advancements that were made after the war, because of the increased civilian air traffic and the need to to be able to fly blind (at night or with bad weather), which is what gave rise to the IFR (instrument flying rules) specified by the international ICAO organization.

However, WWII-style NDBs are still used today because they are simple to work with and much of the aviation traffic in the 50s relied on them for navigation. You can still deduce radials and precise fixed with NDBs, it's just that it's more difficult and takes more time, that's why VORs took the lead.

So, in a WWII aircraft's radio panel you would have a 2-3 position switch to select the frequency band and then you would turn a smaller crank to fine-tune the exact frequency of the NDB. After that, you would turn another knob while watching the reception signal strength on an indicator in the panel. I think what that knob does is rotate that circular antenna you see in the belly of the 110. As you rotate it, the signal strength will rise, peak and then start falling, so you rotate it back and forth until you get the peak value.

Depending on the angle of the antenna, the electronics can deduce the bearing of the beacon relative to your aircraft. So, when the navigator is finished tuning it, the pilot looks at his instrument panel and watches what was then called a radio compass (now it's referred to as ADF-Automatic Direction Finder). That gauge has a compass rose (actually it's bearings and not compass headings) along the rim, with a needle in the middle that points directly to the beacon, so just by looking at it the pilot knows where to turn to fly to the beacon. I guess there is some sensing mechanism to deduce if you are flying towards or away from it, because the needle always points to the beacon without ever getting confused, no matter what heading you turn to.

So, in a hypothetical B17 mission the heavies would climb out to a certain rally point marked by a beacon, assemble the formation from the different bomb groups and head out towards the target.
Take off, tune the nav radio to the appropriate NDB (things like that go in the mission briefing) and the pilot flies the plane in a heading that results in the of the needle in the ADF showing a bearing of zero/360 (directly to the beacon).

They know from the briefing that they have to turn south-east to find the target (it's a short-range raid to occupied France today), let's say to a heading of 120 degrees. Here's the neat part now. When you are directly over the beacon, headings and bearings coincide. North of the beacon means north for you as well since you are directly over it. However, the moment you pass the beacon headings and bearings are reversed, because you are now flying away from it.

So, if you want to fly a track of 120 degrees TOWARDS the target, you can simply fly a track of 120 degrees FROM the beacon. That means the reciprocal track/radial if you want to convert it to read towards the beacon, which is: 120+180=300 degrees, however we can't fly precise tracks without a VOR.
What we do is, the moment we are over the NDB (the ADF needle will flip from zero to 180 degrees when you overfly it) we turn southeast until our compass shows 120. Our ADF will read 180 and not 300, because the ADF always displays bearings to the tuned beacon and not tracks in relation to them. Since the beacon is now behind us, it reads 180.

After the bomb run, the heavies are going back home. This time they need to fly the reverse course, so they are flying a heading to 300 directly to the beacon and the ADF should show a bearing of zero. Here comes the reason VORs are better than NDBs now...i could have explained it on the route to target leg, but it would be more confusing because of flying away from the NDB during that leg. It's easier to explain when we are flying towards it because we don't need to calculate reciprocal tracks and so on.

Let's say a wind is blowing from the west and it moves the bombers off course. How can they correct for it? If the beacon was a VOR, they would calibrate their instruments to fly on the 300 radial directly to the beacon. If the western wing is blowing you off course to the east, you would see the VOR needle moving left and be able to correct for it...the needle is the chose track in relation to your airplane, so it if moves left it means you are to the right of the correct course.

But how do we do it with a simple NDB beacon and an ADF gauge? Ideally, in a no wind situation we would be flying a heading of 300 back to friendly airspace and since that is the direct course to the beacon from our position over the target, the ADF needle (which shows the bearing to the beacon and not our compass heading) would read zero. Now that the wind is blowing from the west, we are drifting away from our chosen track to the east. Well, our compass still reads 300, but our ADF needle doesn't read zero anymore. Actually, it's a bit to the left, reading a bearing of 330 degrees. This way we realize that while we are pointing the right way, there is a wind that's blowing us off course.

To establish the correct track once again, we would need to turn left by a few degrees (as much as 30-45 for nimble fighters, but maybe no more than 15 for bombers in formation), then return to our original heading of 300. This results in a zig-zag pattern until we finally reach the coast and have some landmarks to navigate with.

Better yet, we could turn the aircraft into the wind and neutralize it if it's coming from our forward quarter. So, let's say the western wind has stopped and we now have a wind that's coming from a mere 10 degrees left of our heading (we are flying 300, the wind blows from 290).

It takes some experimentation to discover the correct offset, but it's simple. Turn into the wind in steps of 10 degrees and wait a bit, watching how the needles move. If the wind keeps blowing us off course to the right, the ADF needle will keep moving to the left. If however we manage to turn into the wind, the ADF needle will be stable. So, by making a small turn from 300 to 290, we can neutralize the wind component. Our aircraft flies a little sideways relative to the earth (it's NOT sideslip, that one is relative to the air while in this case we are talking relative to the ground) and our ground speed will be a bit reduced by flying into the wind, but we won't have to make constant corrections.

Behold my supreme MSPaint skills for a visual explanation :lol:

Also, screenshot of a WWII era radio panel included. The ADF gauges are similar to those found on the pilot's instrument panel.

Where it gets really weird though is how fighters did it. German fighters have a similar installation, but allied fighters usually navigated by listening to some kind of morse code. Not having a dedicated ADF gauge meant that the pilot would enable the voice output of the nav radio from time to time and listen in to the tones. For example, if he was to the left of his chosen course he would hear dots and if he was to the right he would hear dashes in morse code (or vice versa, don't exactly remember), or it could be any other kind of tone. For sure, not as accurate or easy as having an ADF gauge.

[Azimech]

And the most epic navigation document ever which makes you appreciate the Art of Navigation.
http://aafcollection.info/items/documents/view.php?file=000198-01-00.pdf

What a great site! This gives me many hours of fun! Especially the calendar with pin-ups XD

[Flying_Nutcase]

The addition of realistic structural damage & failure will be a real game-changer. Thx for all the good work Team Daidalos. You guys are awesome.

[MBot]

First, you tune the nav radio to the frequency of the beacon you want to use. The radio panel had various controls for com radios and nav radios. At the time, there were no VOR beacons like we have today to supply information of your course's track relative to the beacon, so all you had were the so called NDBs (Non Directional Beacons). These can tell you the beacon's bearing relative to your aircraft, but not on which track radial you are flying on.



Wouldn't determine the radial of a NDB be fairly simple? NDB bearing -180° = radial. You want to catch a 120° radial, fly until your bearing to the NDB bearing shows 300°. Or not?

[slipper]

If you are interested in the history ofNavigation tecniques and equipment in general there are a few books i can recommend.

http://www.woodfieldpublishing.co.uk/contents/en-uk/p177.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quest-All-weather-Flight-Tom-Morrison/dp/1840372591

I have both, and they have really helped me understand navigation in ww2. also from time to time on e-bay you can get RAF navigation manual 1941 or 1944, i have the 1944 version picked it up (original copy, hardback) for about £10.00, its very comprehensive, although does not go into radio navigation much.

regards

slipper

p.s almost forgot some free downloads here for radio nav systems in ww2

http://www.radarworld.org/books.html

[Blackdog_kt]

Take a look at the first MSPaint picture and note the enroute leg to target (the green arrow).

Bearing to the NDB is 180 degrees. Doing as you suggest, NDB bearing-180=180-180=0, so we should be on the 0/180 radial. However the bomber in the example is flying on the 120/300 radial.

The thing with radials is that they are relative to the beacon's position. A 90/270 radial relative to one beacon is a totally different course than the same radial relative to another beacon.

There still is a way to fly radials without use of a VOR beacon and the required gauges.You can still follow the ADF on a direct course to the beacon, but the reason radials are useful is because you can fly along a narrow corridor. So, let's say we want to fly the 300 TO/120 FROM radial to a beacon.

In order to be on the 300 TO radial, the ADF should read zero bearing to beacon when the compass reads a heading of 300. That is, if when flying the radial's heading (300) the station is straight ahead (ADF shows zero bearing) we are on the correct radial. If the ADF drifts to one side then we know we are moving away from the radial and we can turn into it to intercept and track it again. It's just a bit harder to do with an NDB beacon than it is with a VOR, but it's certainly possible.

I've done it on a friend's PC in FSX. We flew from Greece to London in a 1950s airliner that didn't have modern instruments. When all you have is ADF gauges, even if you tune a VOR station the extra information can't be displayed, so it was like flying exclusively on NDBs. Now i'm not very experienced in civilian flying. I only fly FSX on my buddy's PC every now and then, we schedule a trip of a few hours on an evening, order some pizzas and beers and take turns flying the route while watching a movie. What i mean is that if i can do it via ADF alone, then i'm sure everyone can.

It will be real nice to be able to schedule missions online with some precision thanks to the NDBs. For example people will be able to fly indirect routes in their bombers and come in from unexpected directions, without having to rely on visual cues all the time. You could fly out over the sea for longer distances without fear of getting lost.

[MikkOwl]

Isn't it possible to just do triangulation from a single beacon to know one's position? Taking two measurements from the same beacon at an interval instead of using the bearing from two different beacons.

1. Fly a steady heading
2. Measure bearing to beacon
3. Take that bearing minus 180 degrees, and draw a line on the map from the beacon outwards.
4. Fly for a determined while longer (maybe 3 minutes and 15 seconds - knowing exactly how far we have traveled in our straight line).
5. Repeat steps 2 and 3.
6. We now know three angles (all). First is our heading and the bearing to the beacon at the time of measurement one. Second is the same but at measurement two. Third is the two different bearings from the beacon to our positions of the two measurements. And we also know the length of one side of the triangle - our own distance traveled between measurement one and two.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trig-solving-asa-triangles.html

We can use the law of sines to find out the lengths (distance) between our aircraft and the beacon at measurement one and two), which are the two missing sides of the triangle.

When those are revealed, we have our triangle drawn on the map, showing our distance from the beacon at the two measurements and the path our aircraft flew.

[Asheshouse]

"Fly a steady heading" --- not so easy.

Depends on prevailing wind strength and direction, both of which may be variable.

The actual heading of the aircraft may not be the same as the resultant course flown.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Isn't it possible to just do triangulation from a single beacon to know one's position? Taking two measurements from the same beacon at an interval instead of using the bearing from two different beacons.

1. Fly a steady heading
2. Measure bearing to beacon
3. Take that bearing minus 180 degrees, and draw a line on the map from the beacon outwards.
4. Fly for a determined while longer (maybe 3 minutes and 15 seconds - knowing exactly how far we have traveled in our straight line).
5. Repeat steps 2 and 3.
6. We now know three angles (all). First is our heading and the bearing to the beacon at the time of measurement one. Second is the same but at measurement two. Third is the two different bearings from the beacon to our positions of the two measurements. And we also know the length of one side of the triangle - our own distance traveled between measurement one and two.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/trig-solving-asa-triangles.html

We can use the law of sines to find out the lengths (distance) between our aircraft and the beacon at measurement one and two), which are the two missing sides of the triangle.

When those are revealed, we have our triangle drawn on the map, showing our distance from the beacon at the two measurements and the path our aircraft flew.

What your suggesting is not "triangulation". You still don't know the distance you are from the beacon. Also even though you have your airspeed with dymamic weather modling you don't know your ground speed (or as AshesHouse has pointed out) any effects of drift. To determine that you'ld probably have to use visual reference to land marks (unless you have a Nordon bomb site of course) in which case your using good old map and compas and dead reconing to determine your location.

If you have visual references you'ld be quicker ploting your bearing from the NDB onto your map and looking for landmarks along that line.

Using dead reconing you should have some idea where abouts ont the map you are (unless you get caught up in a furball and get completely lost.

Of course you could always get your longitude using your aviation sextant and see where that intersects your bearing from the NDB. Though it depends how accurate you want to be.

Cheers

[ElAurens]

You guys are really trying to take all the fun out of this aren't you?

:rolleyes:



:grin:

[MikkOwl]

"Fly a steady heading" --- not so easy.

Depends on prevailing wind strength and direction, both of which may be variable.

The actual heading of the aircraft may not be the same as the resultant course flown.
That is correct. For decent accuracy, wind speed needs to be taken into account (and the pilot needs to compensate accordingly in his heading). No one said it was easy :-P

What your suggesting is not "triangulation". You still don't know the distance you are from the beacon.
It is triangulation :) "triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by measuring angles to it from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly. The point can then be fixed as the third point of a triangle with one known side and two known angles."

The range from aircraft to beacon (at both points of measurement) becomes known by using the law of sines. We have all three angles known in the triangle and we know one side (the distance traveled between the measurements).

even though you have your airspeed with dymamic weather modling you don't know your ground speed (or as AshesHouse has pointed out) any effects of drift. To determine that you'ld probably have to use visual reference to land marks (unless you have a Nordon bomb site of course) in which case your using good old map and compas and dead reconing to determine your location.
As I mentioned above in my reply to him, of course these things must be known to some degree. The accuracy of the method depends on getting those tricky variables right. There's no wind in IL-2 which is a shame. Maybe those wind and turbulence mods work, have to check it out.

If you have visual references you'ld be quicker ploting your bearing from the NDB onto your map and looking for landmarks along that line.
I would agree with that :) Though if can't see landmarks for whatever reason, or just don't have visual references, maybe it's worth a shot.

The lower the wind and the higher the aircraft speed, the more accurate it should be, right? Because the ratio will determine how much movement was from aircraft and how much was wind affected. Assuming we don't have a grip on the wind.[/QUOTE]

You guys are really trying to take all the fun out of this aren't you?

:rolleyes:
:grin:
Oh but this IS the fun! We're pouring fun INTO it :grin:


Question to all - is there any way of seeing how the wind is blowing relative to the aircraft? Both when seeing the ground (not having a map to compare to) and when flying without any visual on the ground. How did people figure this out in flight way up there?

[Insuber]

Question to all - is there any way of seeing how the wind is blowing relative to the aircraft? Both when seeing the ground (not having a map to compare to) and when flying without any visual on the ground. How did people figure this out in flight way up there?


If one sees the ground normally one can use landmarks to estimate position. No ground visibility = no landmarks and no way to determine the drift.
Over the sea at night, if visibility was good, bomber crews used to launch a flare with the rear gunner aiming at it from a distance.

Regards,
Insuber

[AndyJWest]

MikkOwl wrote
There's no wind in IL-2 which is a shame
Not true. If you select the rougher weather conditions on the FMB/QMB, there is definitely a wind - so much so that taking off crosswind can be impossible in some aircraft as they pivit into the wind before you even get moving. The wind seems to stop above a certain altitude, as can be shown by using 'wonder-woman' view to compare airspeed and groundspeed in different directions.

[Viikate]

MikkOwl is on right track here, but I think that normal triangulation procedure with single NDB would be following:

1. turn so that your plane is perpendicular to NDB. (NDB is at 270 or 90).
2. start watch and fly at constant speed maintaining the current heading.
3. stop watch when NDB bearing has changed 5 dec.
3. calculate distance flown during this time.
4. calculate distance to beacon. (distance flown/sin 5)

For example if we fly at 300km/h TAS for 135 seconds.

((300/3.6)x135)/sin5) = 129km. So the beacon is 129 km away.

I'm not 100% sure about the formula. I just did a quick scribbling on pen & paper. And this is without any wing correction.

[Blackdog_kt]

A lot of things are possible, but unless you're flying as a dedicated navigator you probably won't use most of it. It's not wrong, it's just not practical enough.

Whenever i dabble into stuff like that, i never do trigonometry. If i need to fly perpendicular to the beacon to obtain a distance fix, then it's clear i'm going off course to get a fix. Much better and faster to tune a second beacon and see where the lines intersect on the map, presto, you have a precise fix of your position.

Even if your plane doesn't have a second nav radio and a second ADF, you can tune the first beacon and draw the line, then tune the second one and do the same on your single radio. Unless you are very close to the beacon (where the bearing changes fast), it will be accurate enough.

There's lots of quick and dirty methods that give you enough accuracy without having to go all mathematical about it. For me, being able to obtain an accuracy equal to the visual range is good enough. For example, if the visibility at my current altitude and weather conditions is 10 miles, i won't mind at all if my radio navigation gives me a 5 mile error margin (it's actually lower than that most of the times, think 2-3 miles). And if flying at night, most aircraft that historically did it were better equipped to deal with it.

Tuning 2 beacons and getting the respective bearings can also help you determine wind drift. See where the bearing lines cross and that's your position, wait (the 3m 15sec rule from silent hunter is good here) and get a new fix. Connect them on the map and it you used a 3m15s interval, the amount of kms travelled times 10 will give you your ground speed in knots. For example, if you've travelled 10km then your ground speed is 100 knots. Compare the heading of the line connecting the two fixes on the map with your actuall compass readout and you can also see the amount of wind drift involved.

Some aircraft might also have specialized equipment. In B17 the mighty 8th, the navigator had a scope that looked down towards the ground. It had some continuous horizontal lines running across the scope view, as well as dotted lines that could be rotated. The idea was to rotate the dotted line lens until the view seemed to be moving without any drift (it's been a few years, don't remember it exactly), then you could read out the drift from the markings on the wheel that turned the dotted lines.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

MikkOwl is on right track here, but I think that normal triangulation procedure with single NDB would be following:

1. turn so that your plane is perpendicular to NDB. (NDB is at 270 or 90).
2. start watch and fly at constant speed maintaining the current heading.
3. stop watch when NDB bearing has changed 5 dec.
3. calculate distance flown during this time.
4. calculate distance to beacon. (distance flown/sin 5)

For example if we fly at 300km/h TAS for 135 seconds.

((300/3.6)x135)/sin5) = 129km. So the beacon is 129 km away.

I'm not 100% sure about the formula. I just did a quick scribbling on pen & paper. And this is without any wing correction.

Equation is correct except that it needs a 3600 instead of 3.6 to have kilometers per second, 3.6 is to convert to meter per second. Reassuming:

d_NDB = (v_TAS * t_flight) / (3600 * sin( delta_angle ) )

where:

d_NDB = distance to the beacon;
v_TAS = true air speed (as Viikate said, not corrected for wind);
t_flight = time in second;
delta_angle = variation of heading;

This formula is valid also for non metric units;

[Hoverbug]

Some aircraft might also have specialized equipment. In B17 the mighty 8th, the navigator had a scope that looked down towards the ground. It had some continuous horizontal lines running across the scope view, as well as dotted lines that could be rotated. The idea was to rotate the dotted line lens until the view seemed to be moving without any drift (it's been a few years, don't remember it exactly), then you could read out the drift from the markings on the wheel that turned the dotted lines.

This would have been a B-3 or B-5 drift meter. Pretty much any medium or heavy bomber would have had one. This was direct evolution of Harold Gatty's drift meter of the early 1930s.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?id=A19500075025

Here's one with all the bits:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Bendix-Aviation-Drift-Meter-WWII-Airplane-Bomber-/360240715244


Here's the B-5:

http://www.questmasters.us/sitebuilder/images/B-5_Drift_Meter-423x366.jpg

[Hoverbug]

A lot of things are possible, but unless you're flying as a dedicated navigator you probably won't use most of it. It's not wrong, it's just not practical enough.

Whenever i dabble into stuff like that, i never do trigonometry. If i need to fly perpendicular to the beacon to obtain a distance fix, then it's clear i'm going off course to get a fix. Much better and faster to tune a second beacon and see where the lines intersect on the map, presto, you have a precise fix of your position.

Even if your plane doesn't have a second nav radio and a second ADF, you can tune the first beacon and draw the line, then tune the second one and do the same on your single radio. Unless you are very close to the beacon (where the bearing changes fast), it will be accurate enough.

There's lots of quick and dirty methods that give you enough accuracy without having to go all mathematical about it. For me, being able to obtain an accuracy equal to the visual range is good enough. For example, if the visibility at my current altitude and weather conditions is 10 miles, i won't mind at all if my radio navigation gives me a 5 mile error margin (it's actually lower than that most of the times, think 2-3 miles). And if flying at night, most aircraft that historically did it were better equipped to deal with it.

Tuning 2 beacons and getting the respective bearings can also help you determine wind drift. See where the bearing lines cross and that's your position, wait (the 3m 15sec rule from silent hunter is good here) and get a new fix. Connect them on the map and it you used a 3m15s interval, the amount of kms travelled times 10 will give you your ground speed in knots. For example, if you've travelled 10km then your ground speed is 100 knots. Compare the heading of the line connecting the two fixes on the map with your actuall compass readout and you can also see the amount of wind drift involved.

Some aircraft might also have specialized equipment. In B17 the mighty 8th, the navigator had a scope that looked down towards the ground. It had some continuous horizontal lines running across the scope view, as well as dotted lines that could be rotated. The idea was to rotate the dotted line lens until the view seemed to be moving without any drift (it's been a few years, don't remember it exactly), then you could read out the drift from the markings on the wheel that turned the dotted lines.

I remember my instrument instructor teaching me how to do a DME arc without a DME using a similar procedure. By flying at a standard speed (e.g. 90 kts), one could easily calculate distance by flying at 90 degrees to the VOR and by seeing how long it took between 10 degree increments of radials. Not something I ever used again though.

[lbuchele]

New title:
"SOW:BOB the trigonometry simulator":grin:

[Skoshi Tiger]

Some aircraft might also have specialized equipment. In B17 the mighty 8th, the navigator had a scope that looked down towards the ground. It had some continuous horizontal lines running across the scope view, as well as dotted lines that could be rotated. The idea was to rotate the dotted line lens until the view seemed to be moving without any drift (it's been a few years, don't remember it exactly), then you could read out the drift from the markings on the wheel that turned the dotted lines.

The Norden Bomb sight also allowed you to measure your ground speed as well, which is aways useful.

It has been a long time since I used trig tables to do any calculations but as it was the technology of the day yould have to make sure you had a copy on board (as well as your slide rule - though you'ld definately have a dead reconing computer on hand). I wonder if they were standard equipment?

[Viikate]

Much better and faster to tune a second beacon and see where the lines intersect on the map, presto, you have a precise fix of your position.

Of course this is better and faster. My point was just to show that it's also posible to get a rough position fix from single beacon (in case there isn't a 2nd beacon available).

BTW: the horizontal needle of AFN-1 & AFN-2 shows the signal strength, which roughly correlates with range to beacon. I suppose an experienced pilot could interpret the range from this info. Although the signal strength varies a lot because of radio horizon, land formations and time of day.

[KWM_Rammbock]

Hello all.
I would like to ask if the 109g6 FM and armour performances have been decreased in 4.09m, and if German FMs and armour will again be decreased in 4.10m.
Indeed it appears that 109 pilots get easily killed in their cockpit, much more frequently than with the previous versions.

Yours.
KWM_Rammbock

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Hello all.
I would like to ask if the 109g6 FM and armour performances have been decreased in 4.09m, and if German FMs and armour will again be decreased in 4.10m.
Indeed it appears that 109 pilots get easily killed in their cockpit, much more frequently than with the previous versions.

Yours.
KWM_Rammbock

Placebo effect? the FM is the same of 4.08...

[Flanker35M]

S!

Bf109 has always been the glass jawed fighter in IL-2 ;) It was far worse in the beginning whn a single ping from even the small caliber MG's from any angle from even 1km away would spill oil on your screen. It changed, but there are still a lot of things in DM that leave things to be desired.

As a real life comparison Finns removed the pilot armor from the Curtiss 75A Hawk as it was incapable of stopping even a 7.7mm bullet from close range. The reduced weight gave some extra, not much but anyway, climb to the plane. Again on the Bf109 there were many occasions the plane came back after being hit by a Yak or LA and the pilot armor had stopped the 20mm bullet from coming through.

But the root of the problem is that we can shoot and fly better VIRTUALLY than the real pilots. Our accuracy is better, we have this idiotic zoom feature etc. In real life kills were harder to get and in most of cases bounces. So this just shows the flaws in game engine more clearly, and it can be in any game really, not just IL-2. All we do is learn to game the game to survive a tad longer, sad but true.

[ZaltysZ]

Placebo effect? the FM is the same of 4.08...

Or effect of misfortune. :grin:

[KWM_Rammbock]

thank you for your swift replies!
Then it seems that even if the fms are the same, the damage models have changed, pilots are more vulnerable within their cockpits. Or is there a difference in armour between the "Bf-109G-6_Erla" and the "Bf-109G-6Erla"

Eventhough i am complaining about certain details, i think daidalos team is doing some great work. can not wait for the 4.10 new features.

Yours
KWM_Rammbock

[AndyJWest]

is there a difference in armour between the "Bf-109G-6_Erla" and the "Bf-109G-6Erla"

No idea. They are mod aircraft (or at least not names from unmodded IL-2). Stock Bf 109 Gs:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/il2fb2010-03-2415-30-46-45.jpg
Since you are talking about mods, the DM, FM and who knows what else might be different. TD are upgrading stock IL-2, not modded versions.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Andy, the FM's have been changed, to the better from stock hands down in most cases. Ironically Bf109G-2 got least modification as it actually is closest to RL data. Biggest changes were in FW190, there was a lot done as the Kommandogerät was basically non-existent in stock FM etc. It should be remembered that the modded planes are in new slots, stock ones are not touched. And in a server with modded planes they are pitted against modded ones to keep the balance. Look at 1940 BoB servers, damn fun fights with a Bf109E that actually can fight a Spitfire Mk.I and not just be the caly pigeon ;) It is about looking at the whole picture, not just at one plane ;)

DM's are stock, nothing done there. The 3D models have been fixed from the legoblocks to look like a Bf109 or the cowling and other things fixed in the FW190 and also allied planes have got lot of new stuff. Look at the P38F and G for example ;) Brilliant planes. And as of modders..look what is coming to 4.10..a mod called MDS ;) So the co-operation is already there to implement the best of them to official releases, which is like in the old days. Certified by Oleg so to say.

[Aviar]

But the root of the problem is that we can shoot and fly better VIRTUALLY than the real pilots. Our accuracy is better, we have this idiotic zoom feature etc.

Concerning "...this idiotic zoom feature...". Oleg himself has stated that the zoomed-in view (in-game 'Gunsight View') is the most realistic perspective view compared to what a pilot would see in real life.

Aviar

[MikkOwl]

I used to agree with Flanker (Moi moi) that the zoom was unreal. Buuut, have come to discover that it is dependant on the display size, view distance from display, and the resolution of display.

It is true that for most larger modern monitors (24" 16:10 1920x1200 viewed from 50cm distance) the scale is too large - objects appear larger than they would in reality to our actual eyes. But the resolution is lacking. As a consequence, when using the smallest available FOV (gunsight) in IL-2:


Objects are larger than reality.
Objects appear closer than reality.
Movement is easier to detect than reality (not significant as view field is tiny).
Objects are considerably less detailed than reality, appearing smudged (pixellated) - not only for the larger scale that the zoom in view shows, but even compared to real eyes, real cockpit, real FOV.

It is a compromise, trading distorted scale and peripheral vision for more object detail (and even then it is not enough compared to reality). This is no doubt what Oleg was trying to communicate.

If we used real FOV (number dependant on user display size, resolution and distance from view screen. Fov 55 at the example specs given above at 50cm from screen), scale and distance would be correct but objects would be 'blurred' with pixellation, severely impairing gunnery.

I do wish that Team Daidalos could include a FOV calculator with a patch :) but I don't think that will happen.

I use max FOV (WIDE) for general flying despite feeling the pain of distorted scale and pixellation. FOV 55 (surprise!) for looking at instruments, non-distant gunnery and looking around. And min FOV (Gunsight) for viewing objects at a distance, trying to ID objects and medium/long range gunnery. All three controlled by a single button.

Not one of the three are in any way as good as the constant real FOV of reality would have offered in the real aircraft. Better than reality will only occur with LARGE view screens together with HIIIIGH resolution. As hardware improves, minimum FOV in games will become cheaty in that it will be possible to gun more accurately and most of all, identify friend or foe from further out than reality. But apart from moving from crappier than reality to better than reality, the impact will be no different to the disparity already exists because of hardware differences between users.

Armed with this knowledge, IL-2 hardcore pilots with more flight time, more training, extreeemely much more air combat experience and possibly thousands of kills more than any WW2 pilot; having access to 70 years of collective recorded analysis and knowledge since the war began, being able to experiment in ways that no pilots have been able to in reality in putting their aircraft and lives in harms way... these guys posess unbelievable marksmanship and piloting skills and would become legendary aces had they gone back in time to fly in WW2 (not counting the other real strains of war). The superior in quality and quantity Allied pilots in Western Europe in the late war fighting few and poorly trained Axis pilots made the American aircraft used historically seem better than they were, and the Axis aircraft worse. Our hardened IL-2 virtual veterans have a similar effect on ahistorical outcomes of air combat.

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

Armed with this knowledge, IL-2 hardcore pilots with more flight time, more training, extreeemely much more air combat experience and possibly thousands of kills more than any WW2 pilot; having access to 70 years of collective recorded analysis and knowledge since the war began, being able to experiment in ways that no pilots have been able to in reality in putting their aircraft and lives in harms way... these guys posess unbelievable marksmanship and piloting skills and would become legendary aces had they gone back in time to fly in WW2 (not counting the other real strains of war). The superior in quality and quantity Allied pilots in Western Europe in the late war fighting few and poorly trained Axis pilots made the American aircraft used historically seem better than they were, and the Axis aircraft worse. Our hardened IL-2 virtual veterans have a similar effect on ahistorical outcomes of air combat.

Spot on. Can't wait to read the maddened reactions of the masses when Project Galba is released and every online Mig-15 driver is a honcho. Those F-86A jocks will be crying FM fouls to no end...

[IceFire]

Spot on. Can't wait to read the maddened reactions of the masses when Project Galba is released and every online Mig-15 driver is a honcho. Those F-86A jocks will be crying FM fouls to no end...

So true!

I think I'm going to find myself flying a Meteor (hopefully :)) and sidestep that argument :)

[Feathered_IV]

Very sorry to hear that the patch has been delayed and won't be out for Easter. I'd forgotten my usual scepticism about release dates this time. :(

[_RAAF_Smouch]

I'll bet it's an Oleg two weeks....

http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/bwahaharoll.gif

[KG26_Alpha]

If you were paying for it then you would have something to moan about................as your are getting it all for free..................... a long walk on a short pier might be in order :)

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Sorry if I offended you Alpha, my post was meant to be a fun post, just my Aussie sense of humour.

I can assure that I am eagerly awaiting the release of the next patch.

Again I apologise if I offended you, or anyone else with my post, :(

[KG26_Alpha]

Didn't offend me m8

I was poking some fun back at you and the other moaning git :)

PS: if yer gonna quote Oleg get it right it's "2 weeks......be sure"

Now get back to your Barbie ;)

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Roger mate

~S~ http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/icon_jook.gif

[kancerosik]

thanks daidalos for such amount of improvements. Your team is #1

But... some of us got a question for you:

why all the gunnery and loads improvement goes to axis models? no body heard about the field mods of the russian p40, hurry, p39 and so?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

why all the gunnery and loads improvement goes to axis models? no body heard about the field mods of the russian p40, hurry, p39 and so?


You answered half of it yourself. If you start to compare a nations most build standard plane type with its missing standard loadouts to single field mod types, you can clearly see why there might be some priority. Plus - the Bf109 in fact is one of the oldest type in the game - underdeveloped since 7 years.

Beside that, noone said, that we won't care for equal gasps in allied fighter lines (i.e. Spit, Mustang, to name just the classics).

Some voices have come up, that we might be 'Blue' orientated, but there is completely no Blue/Red thinking in our development or intern dicussions. In most cases, someone in our team has an idea for a future patch (like to rework the Bf109 line) and if the team decides, that it is worth the effort, he and/or someone else starts this project. And believe me: We will never tell anyone in our team to quit a promising idea, just because it might let people think, we would support only axis or allied.

For us, its all a whole box of content, and each part that is worth to be added, will be, no matter if its a german plane or a russian.

If something is worth it, is judged by a few factors:

- historical relevance
- gameplay relevance
- work ammount
- connection to SoW:BoB content

Sometimes someone amongst us does something rather historical unimportant, but ignited from his own personel (fanatic) enjoyment. If its done well and not inflicting TD's workflow, noone will blame him.

But thats all... and I repeat... no Red/Blue thing here.
We know we cannot please everyone, but we try to please as much as we can.

[ElAurens]

Your thoughts and those of TD are much appreciated Caspar.

I really wonder if most people understand the monumental scope of just one little change? I did some small amount of beta testing for one of the mod packs, and let me tell you that just changing one thing often affects every other thing it comes in contact with.

I am also familiar with some of the Team Pacific crew, and I know what it takes to make just one high quality map.

That we get any improvements to the sim at all, and for free no less, is very much a miracle.

S!

[Ernst]

Was patch release delayed? Last info i heard stated that it ll be in easter, and now? :confused:Any new date? I must admit that i am anxious for this new patch and how new gs loadings features ll affect piloting and the pilots!

I hope not to wait for a long time until this patch!
:evil::-x

[_1SMV_Gitano]

1. 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.
2. We are in a time delay and we will inform you about the new patch release date and update the schedule accordingly.

From last dev update...

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Take your time, your team is doing more than I could expect from il2!!! even the last 4.09m patch was the end for me and il2 but TD .. damn have no words thank you so much guys!!

[_RAAF_Smouch]

We know we cannot please everyone, but we try to please as much as we can.

Looking forward to when the patch is released. Your teams hard work I'm sure will be very much appreciated.

~S~ to TD

[Skoshi Tiger]

thanks daidalos for such amount of improvements. Your team is #1

But... some of us got a question for you:

why all the gunnery and loads improvement goes to axis models? no body heard about the field mods of the russian p40, hurry, p39 and so?

[TROLL MODE=ON]
The Spitfire is perfect! It needs no improvement. Now we just have to get rid of all the models after the MKII and kick some Blue Butt!
[TROLL MODE=OFF]

[IceFire]

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
If a few of us mission builders were brought in with sufficient time we could definitely produce something pre-patch release. If not... I think I'd like to do a few single missions for the Hs-129. I even considered building the missions now and use the current AI Hs-129 as a stand in until the patch came out but that may be problematic so I'll wait.

People who are looking for campaigns that use the latest stuff should keep an eye on Mission4Today. It takes a lot of dedicated time to put together a good campaign based on historical research. It takes me months to do something, plus get the skins in place, plus all of the mission building, testing, and final release. You can pump stuff out but if you want it to be good and play well... it takes time. So us mission builders will always lag a bit... but I think I've already seen some campaigns make use of the latest materials available in 4.09.

[nearmiss]

You are right, but then you might regret it. Sometimes beta is really beta.
I've seen pages of fixed issues during beta testings. If you look at all the changes in the coming 4.1 release IMO as a mission builder it would make sense to wait.

[FVV190]

Again thanks very much for the fabulous work you have already done and your effort to keep on updating il-2.
I would like to suggest the development team to include some new aircrafts proven to be popular in the MODs?

I recently became interested in F8F bearcat, and found that a mod team is probably doing that aircraft.
http://www.allaircraftarcade.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23793
I also found this from this forum, post number 777, which seems to me that the development team is not yet going to do that model.(my English reading is poor, so correct me if I am wrong…)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=127023


However, in my opinion, some models is very likely to be super popular in online godfighting servers(the ultimate prop fighters, F8F, sea Fury...) so i will be happy if these models are included in the official update, even no mission is included for that aircraft.
And as f8f is in actual service, finding data is probably easier, say,
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/f8f-bearcat-8251.html

I believe a lot of fans are looking for their favorite plane being included in the official release, not only MODs, as the official releases hold very good reputation for honest and precise modeling.

This will also probably help the official version to gain a larger market share.


So I am suggesting that the DT including some of the popular models, especially F8F:

Being the successor of hellcat, Having the best of FW190, Excellent reputation for ease of handling, The favorite of Neil Armstrong,

THE ULTIMATE prop. fighting machine, you can’t miss it ^_^

[FVV190]

by the way the chinese version. feel free to repost it given that you stating the origin and author.

http://www.insky.cn/bbs/thread-47209-1-1.html

[csThor]

The F8F is a Grumman crate so Daidalos won't touch it with a ten-meter force-pike. Sorry.

[FVV190]

sorry my English is poor.

Daidalos team is not doing Grumman aircrafts? or is this related to Don Quixote?

[TheGrunch]

Daidalos team is not doing Grumman aircrafts?
There are legal issues associated with adding Grumman aircraft to the game, unfortunately. :(

[FVV190]

There are legal issues associated with adding Grumman aircraft to the game, unfortunately. :(
Oh i am sorry to hear that. But thanks so much for your work and I will continue supporting your products:).

[FVV190]

I read english very slow but i begin to know about it a bit....

i am not a legal profession but i think you are doing the right thing. "leave it alone".

1 if you want to win the case, hire good lawyers...cost a lot. N-G and MS are both obvirously extremely rich.

2 these money will help more if spent on development, marketing, etc. and now developing the BOB need plenty of resources.

3 there are still plenty aircrafts to work on, even high performance prop. ones. For example the sea fury, which is included in the "untrapack" MOD.

4 things will change when 1c dominant the whole FS bussiness.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

In fact it is said, that we could do 'as if' like planes.... differing in details and carrying wrong names (like 'FAF8 Beartrap' or so), as a possible workaround, but 1st: Its not sure, Grumman will inflict anyway and 2nd: we just don't want to make mockups, but real stuff.

EDIT: This is not only affecting planes, but also alot additional american stuff, like battleships for instance. :(

[ramstein]

There are legal issues associated with adding Grumman aircraft to the game, unfortunately. :(

since the addons are not official and are by a non-profit party, the legal bs doesn't count,, and no one cares, it's only when there are deep pockets.. then the slimy scumbags lawyers come crawling, so do as you wish..

[MBot]

EDIT: This is not only affecting planes, but also alot additional american stuff, like battleships for instance. :(


Out of pure interest, how exactly does it affect battleships? It is my understanding that the battleships were designed by the Navy and then contracted to yards. With most BB actually being build in the Navys own yards. Or did I get that wrong?

[Insuber]

This grummann story pi**ed off the entire community, also because it was not properly handled by UBI according to the available information. Frankly speaking there are so many non-grummann planes yet to model that I don't regret too much the lack of a Beartrap :D.

Bye,
Insuber

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Out of pure interest, how exactly does it affect battleships? It is my understanding that the battleships were designed by the Navy and then contracted to yards. With most BB actually being build in the Navys own yards. Or did I get that wrong?


I'm not much into the liscence details and I'm no lawer, but AFAIK Grumman owns the rights on the ships designs and names too. Much properly they bought it later or ate another company who owned the rights before.

[Sita]

'FAF8 Beartrap
or BeerTrap ...
any way, Beartrap from DT will be much better than "FrankePlane" ... like Avenger with cockpit from SBD... or other mutation...

[ramstein]

or BeerTrap ...
any way, Beartrap from DT will be much better than "FrankePlane" ... like Avenger with cockpit from SBD... or other mutation...

the avenger and tbf do have an abortion for an FM..

[IceFire]

since the addons are not official and are by a non-profit party, the legal bs doesn't count,, and no one cares, it's only when there are deep pockets.. then the slimy scumbags lawyers come crawling, so do as you wish..

If lawyers will sue 90 year old grannies (or a scenario very similar) over copyright infringement of a couple of MP3s you can bet they will go after others over money they think is theirs.

Its still a stupid situation. I know.

At the very least there are other fun aircraft that we can still simulate that deserve some attention as well that aren't bound by such a stupid legal problem.

[Faust]

At the very least there are other fun aircraft that we can still simulate that deserve some attention as well that aren't bound by such a stupid legal problem.The B5N Kate for example! :grin:

Thanks to Team Daidalos for all you do!

[Hunger]

I salute thee again

A sad situation, yet be it Grumman's jingoism or mismanagement by Ubi, whatever the cause, lets look at what can be done an try to make the best out of it.

Luckily the "PTO problem" does not take Japanese planes nor ships into account (And there are quite a lot of them to choose from) yet I also understand that cockpit information on the later is rather scarce.

I also guess that your selection of indigenous British aircraft and ships are limited by their proximity to SOW,because it would be unproductive to start a "competition with" Maddox Games, or am I mistaken in my interpretation of that topic?.

Anyway keep up the good work

Kind Regards
Hunger

[IceFire]

The B5N Kate for example! :grin:

Thanks to Team Daidalos for all you do!

Alright... I said to myself I wasn't going to do a list again... but you made me do it :)

Typhoon Mark IB (perfect fit for Normandy BTW)
Spitfire XIV
Fairey Firefly
Fairey Barracuda
Lancaster
Halifax
B5N "Kate"
B6N "Jill"
D4Y "Judy"
Ki-44
Ki-45 "Nick"
Hs123
Me410

I could probably go on if I thought about it for long enough :)

[nearmiss]

Since the BOB SOW will be open for modifications it would seem that Grumman may have problems enforcing their limitations on "home" plane builders as they have with every other air combat or flight simulation game.

They might be able to prevent Oleg or MSFT, but just like youtube trying to keep all the media from broadcasters off the site. It is just too much work to try to enforce against the average "john doe".

[IceFire]

Since the BOB SOW will be open for modifications it would seem that Grumman may have problems enforcing their limitations on "home" plane builders as they have with every other air combat or flight simulation game.

They might be able to prevent Oleg or MSFT, but just like youtube trying to keep all the media from broadcasters off the site. It is just too much work to try to enforce against the average "john doe".

It's a bit more complicated than that apparently... if my understanding is correct the legal issues are surrounding the Pacific Fighters game and all related materials. Storm of War apparently will have no such issues.

[ElAurens]

The Curtiss Helldiver is good to go.

As is the Curtuss SOC "Seagull" float plane.

Both were widely used.

[AndyJWest]

This forum is getting more like the AAA 'requests' topic every day. You know - think of a plane you'd like to see, post it on the forum, and expect it to happen. It doesn't work like that. Adding a new plane will need (a) information, (b) incentive, and (c) hard work. To see why just asking for your favourite plane isn't much help, let's consider these points in turn.

(a) Information. TD have standards, they need to have sufficient detail available on a plane to make it look right, fly right etc. A blurry photo isn't sufficient.

(b) Incentive. I'd like to have a flyable Supermarine Walrus, but I doubt if this is a major priority for most IL-2 players, so TD meeting my wishes is unlikely.

(c) Hard work: the key issue. TD are doing this for free. It is a lot easier to ask for a Lancaster than it is to actually make one. It is probably easier to make three single-seater fighters than a Lancaster - and given the limitations of the game, a Lanc will always be compromised anyway. If someone from TD is really keen, or someone from outside is willing to meet their standards, we may see a Lanc one day, but it will be down to those making the effort. If the response to every new plane is 'why didn't you do an X', rather than appreciating what you are given (for free), I don't think it is reasonable to expect TD to take too much notice of requests.

On the other hand, if you 'must' have a particular plane, there is a solution. Learn how to do it yourself. As far as I'm aware, TD is not an exclusive club.

[kancerosik]

You answered half of it yourself. If you start to compare a nations most build standard plane type with its missing standard loadouts to single field mod types, you can clearly see why there might be some priority. Plus - the Bf109 in fact is one of the oldest type in the game - underdeveloped since 7 years.

Beside that, noone said, that we won't care for equal gasps in allied fighter lines (i.e. Spit, Mustang, to name just the classics).

Some voices have come up, that we might be 'Blue' orientated, but there is completely no Blue/Red thinking in our development or intern dicussions. In most cases, someone in our team has an idea for a future patch (like to rework the Bf109 line) and if the team decides, that it is worth the effort, he and/or someone else starts this project. And believe me: We will never tell anyone in our team to quit a promising idea, just because it might let people think, we would support only axis or allied.

For us, its all a whole box of content, and each part that is worth to be added, will be, no matter if its a german plane or a russian.

If something is worth it, is judged by a few factors:

- historical relevance
- gameplay relevance
- work ammount
- connection to SoW:BoB content

Sometimes someone amongst us does something rather historical unimportant, but ignited from his own personel (fanatic) enjoyment. If its done well and not inflicting TD's workflow, noone will blame him.

But thats all... and I repeat... no Red/Blue thing here.
We know we cannot please everyone, but we try to please as much as we can.

thank for the response mate:

I really dont want to start another nasty discussion about Blue/Red.

But if you say the word "historical or game relevance" I must say:

Historical relevance:
p39 "aircobra" never flew on Ostfron with the original gunnery (except cannons). The wing gunnery were removed (good idea to avoid a crack on a 109E on high G turns, as Historically was) All the machine guns where replaced by sovietic models before first engine start. I dont think that this "small" detail is out of the historical context. But I´m not a fanatic of that plane in any case, this is only an example.
In any case your answer confirm that the only historical relevance that counts is the "bf109 historical relevance".

Game play relevance: the 109 is the most used plane in Il2?, of course. Allies have more variety of models. If someone fly Red online regulary, is imposible to fly two planes form the same designer ;)
The western front come to Il2 a "little bit" late compare with the eastern front. In fact, in most of international competitions, the Eastfront (and its planesets) got specific weight.


Amount of work: is related to the amount of Fw/Bf mods?

conection with SoW:BoB : perhaps the only answer that is clear for me.

[Asheshouse]

(b) Incentive. I'd like to have a flyable Supermarine Walrus, but I doubt if this is a major priority for most IL-2 players, so TD meeting my wishes is unlikely.

Funny. I was think along the same lines a few months back. :wink:

[SaQSoN]

Historical relevance:
p39 "aircobra" never flew on Ostfron with the original gunnery (except cannons). The wing gunnery were removed (good idea to avoid a crack on a 109E on high G turns, as Historically was) All the machine guns where replaced by sovietic models before first engine start. I dont think that this "small" detail is out of the historical context. But I´m not a fanatic of that plane in any case, this is only an example.


You should learn the subject better. Because your "only example" simply isn't true. It's just partially correct.

The original .50 cal machine guns on P-39 were never replaced. The wing mounted .30 cal guns were removed in some regiments to save weight. But again, it wasn't done mandatory on all aircraft. It was left to regiment command discretion.

Also, the first engine start was done in the USA, in case, you don't know. ;)

[IceFire]

This forum is getting more like the AAA 'requests' topic every day. You know - think of a plane you'd like to see, post it on the forum, and expect it to happen. It doesn't work like that. Adding a new plane will need (a) information, (b) incentive, and (c) hard work. To see why just asking for your favourite plane isn't much help, let's consider these points in turn.

(a) Information. TD have standards, they need to have sufficient detail available on a plane to make it look right, fly right etc. A blurry photo isn't sufficient.

(b) Incentive. I'd like to have a flyable Supermarine Walrus, but I doubt if this is a major priority for most IL-2 players, so TD meeting my wishes is unlikely.

(c) Hard work: the key issue. TD are doing this for free. It is a lot easier to ask for a Lancaster than it is to actually make one. It is probably easier to make three single-seater fighters than a Lancaster - and given the limitations of the game, a Lanc will always be compromised anyway. If someone from TD is really keen, or someone from outside is willing to meet their standards, we may see a Lanc one day, but it will be down to those making the effort. If the response to every new plane is 'why didn't you do an X', rather than appreciating what you are given (for free), I don't think it is reasonable to expect TD to take too much notice of requests.

On the other hand, if you 'must' have a particular plane, there is a solution. Learn how to do it yourself. As far as I'm aware, TD is not an exclusive club.
If you're referring to my list ... I did that for fun mostly.

Also although I have only extremely poor 3D modeling capabilities myself... I was a minor contributor on the old Netwings forum where some of the 3rd party modeling efforts came from that are in the official IL-2 today. I know all of the hard work and long hours involved in making many of these aircraft a reality. I even did some research when I could find resources.

I'm painfully aware how much effort is involved. Making a list doesn't mean I'm demanding of or even necessarily expecting anything to happen. It is fun to dream.

[AndyJWest]

Yeah, IceFire, I wasn't trying to suggest you were being serious. I do get the impression that some 'requests' are though. Many of the suggestions have been made before, and I doubt that TD will suddenly decide to make a B-26 or whatever just because someone asks for it. They have all been involved with IL-2 for years, as far as I can tell, and have a pretty good idea what the community would like. They also understand the limitations and practicalities of adding new aircraft better than most.

THere is no harm in dreaming, but I think realistically we are unlikely to see more than say 8 or 10 new aircraft per year, at the outside, unless more people get involved. I'd like to help myself, but although I have some computing skills I'm in no position to commit to anything as long-term as these projects. Probably there aren't that many of us who can, so the rest of us will have to accept what we're given. So far, I have no complaints, far from it.

It will be interesting to see how involved adding new aircraft to SoW:BoB will be - I suspect this will be even more complex, if done properly.

[IceFire]

Yeah, IceFire, I wasn't trying to suggest you were being serious. I do get the impression that some 'requests' are though. Many of the suggestions have been made before, and I doubt that TD will suddenly decide to make a B-26 or whatever just because someone asks for it. They have all been involved with IL-2 for years, as far as I can tell, and have a pretty good idea what the community would like. They also understand the limitations and practicalities of adding new aircraft better than most.

THere is no harm in dreaming, but I think realistically we are unlikely to see more than say 8 or 10 new aircraft per year, at the outside, unless more people get involved. I'd like to help myself, but although I have some computing skills I'm in no position to commit to anything as long-term as these projects. Probably there aren't that many of us who can, so the rest of us will have to accept what we're given. So far, I have no complaints, far from it.

It will be interesting to see how involved adding new aircraft to SoW:BoB will be - I suspect this will be even more complex, if done properly.
I see where you're coming from for sure. Even 8 to 10 would be impressive and I hope that everyone takes a realistic view on this. We're lucky to get what we are and it is truly fantastic.

Many of the aircraft showing up now were being worked on years ago and they have resurfaced. Which is great! Lots of work was put in then but there just wasn't time to make them a reality at the time.

Storm of War aircraft appear to be much more labour intensive. That said at least being able to import them into the game using provided tools will give some added incentive to work on them. They will definitely be multi-year projects in many cases.

[daidalos.team]

Dev. update posted at first page.

[FrankB]

Thanks for the update!

Could you also update the schedule? I need to plan my vacations and I do not want to get stuck with 4.09 for the whole week :cool:

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Great!!!

[Sita]

Bravo!!!

[DK-nme]

Wauw!

[MBot]

Wonderful aircraft!

[Flanker35M]

S!

Indeed a great improvement over the original model :) Great work.

[kancerosik]

You should learn the subject better. Because your "only example" simply isn't true. It's just partially correct.

The original .50 cal machine guns on P-39 were never replaced. The wing mounted .30 cal guns were removed in some regiments to save weight. But again, it wasn't done mandatory on all aircraft. It was left to regiment command discretion.

Also, the first engine start was done in the USA, in case, you don't know. ;)

you say "in some regiments" but I must say again in "most" regiments. I never said that was an Stalin direct order. This Mod was the common proceed... most of the Field MOds works in that way (you know). Sometimes to fix factory malfunction (standard on CCCP first years production), MOST of them to put new technologies on old Planes but In our case is a Weight reduction(fighting capabilities) and a fix to the fighting proposal (gunnery). It was the sense of that Field mod.

By contract of on-loan planes they cant change any part of the given Planes so this Fields Moddification were made undercover, by the mechanics of the regiment (field mod... again).In fact the russian pilots love this plane, that was superb compare to factory models used by US pilots. That was the general opinion of P39 CCCP's pilots.

About the first engine start I would like to say "first engine start on soviet territory" or "first action before take the plane out from the container" or "before first flight on regiment", now is clear, isn't it? ;)

but definitly I was wrong about the nose guns of aircobra, they used to change the 37mm cannon by a 20mm not the cal.50. In any case the nose MOd was less important to russian pilots compare to weght reduccion an wing strenght gained with the wing armament removal. THX for the correction!!!

[Oktoberfest]

Impressed by the big gun droping. Could this be done to all the Wfgr 21 German fighters can carry ? This would help a lot !

Thx !

[Fafnir_6]

Thanks for the great update! I look forward to the Hs129 with great eagerness. I have one question concerning the Hs129B-3 gunsight. I have seen pictures of the B-3 with a combined reflector/telescopic gunsight (I can't remember the designation of it). Are there any plans to implement that with DT's Hs129B-3?

Thanks,

Fafnir_6

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Thanks for the great update! I look forward to the Hs129 with great eagerness. I have one question concerning the Hs129B-3 gunsight. I have seen pictures of the B-3 with a combined reflector/telescopic gunsight (I can't remember the designation of it). Are there any plans to implement that with DT's Hs129B-3?

Thanks,

Fafnir_6


This have been discussed alot. References show following situation:

Half of the few B-3 version, that saw action (~40 total) were refit B-2's, carrying their old ReVi, for the other half real B-3 there is not one reliable photograph, that shows any periscope sight (ZFR-3A)... in fact we found no photograph of a B-3, just manual drawings.

So the knwoledge situation about the use of the periscope sight is very unsure (we welcome any further reference, if you have) and because we are not able to 100% correctly simulate the look of a zoomed reticle outside the canopy (the pilot probably wasn't able to press his eye on the lense), we decided to skip this for now and stick with the ReVi12C, simulating only converted B-2's.

[CRO_Adriatic]

Your work looks excelent! (all updates)

[IceFire]

Thanks for the video! I really can't wait to do some mud moving with the Hs129! Looks really exciting!

[Hunger]

An amazing show of virtual airpower!!!

Kudos to your comendable work.

Regards
Hunger

[ElAurens]

Thanks for the video! I really can't wait to do some mud moving with the Hs129! Looks really exciting!


It will be even more exciting when the Yaks show up.


;)


:grin:

[LukeFF]

in fact we found no photograph of a B-3, just manual drawings.

I might have a photo of one. Will check.

[IceFire]

It will be even more exciting when the Yaks show up.


;)


:grin:

Haha absolutely :D That is part of the fun of mud moving :)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I might have a photo of one. Will check.

You gave me all your Hs129 collection long time ago, Luke (dunno if you remember). So that this cockpit could be realized, is also because of your efforts. Good to see you around. ;)

[LukeFF]

You gave me all your Hs129 collection long time ago, Luke (dunno if you remember). So that this cockpit could be realized, is also because of your efforts. Good to see you around. ;)

Ah yes, now I remember. It was always that one German plane I wanted to see flyable in the IL-2 series. Glad to see TD doing such a great job with making this plane flyable.

Anyways, I checked my resources. In Denes Bernad's book on the Hs 129 (one of the Military Aircraft in Detail series books) are the only two known pics of an Hs 129 B-3. The aircraft in question (W.Nr. 162052) was abandoned in the area south of Koenigsberg in the winter of 44-45. However, there is no sign that the aircraft was fitted with a telescopic gunsight.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I think there are some references to using the telescopic gunsight in Martin Pegg's book on the Hs 129. I'll look it up and see when I get the chance.

[Romanator21]

That Bk.75 is modeled beautifully! Full recoil animation too! ahh!

[Lemmi]

This video is just amazing. Thanks for Your work TD.

[LukeFF]

So the knwoledge situation about the use of the periscope sight is very unsure (we welcome any further reference, if you have)

The only reference I can find to the use of the telescopic sight is this reference from page 294 in Martin Pegg's book on the Hs 129:

When the cannon was fired, the muzzle blast and recoil caused a momentary loss of speed in the order of 10kph, but the few Hs 129 B-3s which were used in combat generally created a very favorable impression with the pilots who flew them. However, one criticism made by Franz Oswald, who flew a machine delivered to 13.(Pz)/SG 9, was that the ZFR 3 B telescopic gunsight made target acquisition difficult.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

TD.... great vid guys. I'd hate to see a bad one from you guys :-P:-P:-P

Keep up the great guys ~S~

[steeldelete]

Why do we need Sow Bob? Not that I wont buy it, I will but I'll always come back to IL2. It is a real pleasure to see what you guys are doing.

[Eldur]

Impressed by the big gun droping. Could this be done to all the Wfgr 21 German fighters can carry ? This would help a lot !

Thx !

Oh yes, PLEASE!

But without score penalty... :D

€dit: I love those AB23! Will they be available for other planes, too? :)

[IceFire]

Why do we need Sow Bob? Not that I wont buy it, I will but I'll always come back to IL2. It is a real pleasure to see what you guys are doing.

There are cool things that Storm of War will be able to do, things that Oleg has already showed us or talked about, that IL-2 simply can't. You probably know that but others may ask too :) That said Team Daidalos is doing a stunning job with keeping us busy and adding some great new content in the meantime.

[anikollag]

Your 129 is really beautiful. Great job!:)

[ElAurens]

There are cool things that Storm of War will be able to do, things that Oleg has already showed us or talked about, that IL-2 simply can't. You probably know that but others may ask too :) That said Team Daidalos is doing a stunning job with keeping us busy and adding some great new content in the meantime.

Indeed.

I know some of you will get all upset when I say it, but frankly, SOW is going to make IL2 look horribly dated (it is you know), and it will have all of (or most of ) the uber realism features that you all clamour for that cannot be added on to IL2's dated engine. It's been an amazing run, no game has ever been on my machines as long as IL2 has, but the end is near.

The King is dead, long live the King...

:cool:

[Avimimus]

In our case is a Weight reduction(fighting capabilities) and a fix to the fighting proposal (gunnery). It was the sense of that Field mod.


It'd be nice to have some more of these options. Soviet service Tomahawks and Kittyhawks often had the wing guns removed.

If there were as widespread field-modifications of Mig-3s to use the AM-38 as some people think than it is quite likely there were some which had the full air-to-ground armament (unlike our version in Il-2).

[Avimimus]

This have been discussed alot. References show following situation:

Half of the few B-3 version, that saw action (~40 total) were refit B-2's, carrying their old ReVi, for the other half real B-3 there is not one reliable photograph, that shows any periscope sight (ZFR-3A)... in fact we found no photograph of a B-3, just manual drawings.

So the knwoledge situation about the use of the periscope sight is very unsure (we welcome any further reference, if you have) and because we are not able to 100% correctly simulate the look of a zoomed reticle outside the canopy (the pilot probably wasn't able to press his eye on the lense), we decided to skip this for now and stick with the ReVi12C, simulating only converted B-2's.

I was thinking about the tube sights in general. I've always avoided using them because I've felt that it is unrealistic to be able to keep the eye lined up properly while pulling Gs.

Here is a suggestion for TD:
- Why not increase the sensitivity to blacking out for pilots using the telescopic sight? The blackout effect would simulate the eye moving out of alignment (as often happens with binoculars) and would be tied to manoeuvering. If the pilot wanted to pull tight turns they could switch out of gunsight view.

Ideally, there would be some dirt on the lense as well as distortion and vibrations. Unfortunately, there is limited time. However, there should also be at least some limitation on how these sights are used.

[DiO]

Ещё раз привет.;)
Очень порадовал Hs.
У меня назрел такой вопрос:
Расширите ли вы список подразделений в меню - Полк ?
Говорю про Люфтваффе. У них было огромное количество разных подразделений. В каждой группе три штаффеля. А в игре можно выбрать только группу. Можно ли сделать что бы при выборе группы взять и штаффель находившийся в данной группе?
Например взять I/JG52 и выбрать первый штаффель 1.JG52 ? Это не одно и тоже.
И пожелание - очень хотелось бы увидеть разнообразные опозновательные знаки. Различные стрелки : адьютанта, механика, и тому подобное.

Google translate:
Hello again.
Very pleased Hs.
I've matured a question:
Expand Have you a list of divisions in the menu - Polk?
Speaking of the Luftwaffe. They had a huge number of different units. In each group, three shtaffelya. And in a game you can only select group. Can I do that would be the choice of taking and shtaffel was in this group?
For example take I/JG52 and choose the first shtaffel 1.JG52? This is not the same thing.
And wishes - very much like to see a variety of opoznovatelnye signs. Different arrows: aide, mechanics, and so forth.


This is an English only forums. Please post English

[csThor]

DIO

Unfortunately Il-2 doesn't allow for proper simulation of individual Staffeln/Squadrons since the basic level is the Group/Regiment. And it doesn't know a Stab at all ... not in the correct way. Not to mention that markings and emblems changed often and sometimes drastically. That is just impossible to depict accurately.

[LukeFF]

One important note about the Hs 129 B-3's 75mm cannon: while the magazine was designed to hold 12 rounds, a 13th round was loaded directly into the breech by the armorers when the aircraft was being armed.

Source: Hs 129 Panzerjaeger, by Martin Pegg

[SUP_Trok]

Very good work! When will released this patch? :-D tanks again for the hard work

[Viikate]

I have the Pegg's book too and BK7.5 already holds 13 rounds. The new Mk103 has 80 rounds, even Pegg & many other sources claims that it had 30 like Mk101. Manual of Mk103 says that the box could hold 100 rounds but we put there only 80 since this was normally used to prevent jammings.

[CKY_86]

Great Update! :grin:

That video has got me really pumped up for the hs 129.

Looking forward to doing a little bit of tank busting with this one :)

[KWM_Schnaps]

Just a quick question.
What kind of ammo did you model with Mk101?
As far as I've read, the AP round could penetrate something like 15cm RHAE.

[JG53Frankyboy]

i am building already missions for an online war that sometimes will have flyable Hs129.
my question is now will the new 3D modell of the Hs129 just replace the actual one or will it be a totaly new planeslot - i think about the Mc202 example in the past.

it would be nice to know if i can finish the missions and upload them on the server (VOW "R") or if i have to wait till 4.10 release.
thanks a lot in advance !!

[Ernst]

Any info about new release dates? :confused:

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

i am building already missions for an online war that sometimes will have flyable Hs129.
my question is now will the new 3D modell of the Hs129 just replace the actual one or will it be a totaly new planeslot - i think about the Mc202 example in the past.

it would be nice to know if i can finish the missions and upload them on the server (VOW "R") or if i have to wait till 4.10 release.
thanks a lot in advance !!

New models for same slots.

Hs-129B-2
Hs-129B-3Wa

[Feathered_IV]

Any info about new release dates? :confused:

Not sure. I suspect it might be a fair while yet. If it were close, DT members would have probably addressed some of the inquiries about it between page 55 and here. I guess the beta testing is still in progress and release is very much unknown for those involved until a list of revisions can be made of the results. Best to sit tight a bit longer. Rest assured though, no one is looking forward to the Hs129 more than me ;)

[csThor]

In fact for most of us Real Life (TM) has struck. We do have a life of our own, you know. :mrgreen:

[Flanker35M]

S!

Yep so true csThor. RL just owns you sometimes ;) Waiting for a patch like this sure is hard, but it is done when done..:cool:

[jeanba]

In fact for most of us Real Life (TM) has struck. We do have a life of our own, you know. :mrgreen:
This is not acceptable, you MUST work all the time for us and for free and accept our bashings with a smile.
Our only reward should be a "thank you" but only if you reach perfection and if we are in a good mood, we may accept to think it (or even write it)

:) :)
:exit:

[Feathered_IV]

Good luck with RL. Hope you all get a high score. :-D

[Oktoberfest]

RL is overmodelled ! Tune down RL's FM !

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

RL is overmodelled ! Tune down RL's FM !

Its the LM in fact...
:rolleyes:

[TheGrunch]

I hear real life has a very sensitive damage model as well. :o

[major_setback]

I hear real life has a very sensitive damage model as well. :o

...and I'm still waiting for the patch!! :-(

:-)

[Oktoberfest]

I hear real life has a very sensitive damage model as well. :o

Got figures ? :P

[Feuerfalke]

The performance is much worse, once you upgraded from Girlfriend 3.0 to Wife 1.0. Especially since Wife-Software tends to create subprocesses called K.I.D.S.! Boy, they eat up performance drastically.... :rolleyes:

[_RAAF_Smouch]

The performance is much worse, once you upgraded from Girlfriend 3.0 to Wife 1.0. Especially since Wife-Software tends to create subprocesses called K.I.D.S.! Boy, they eat up performance drastically.... :rolleyes:

Or in my case a 7 week old Border Collie x Smithfield pup :grin:

[jeanba]

The performance is much worse, once you upgraded from Girlfriend 3.0 to Wife 1.0. Especially since Wife-Software tends to create subprocesses called K.I.D.S.! Boy, they eat up performance drastically.... :rolleyes:
You can upgrade your system with DIVORCE.exe, but this require a reinstall and you may lose data, especially in the "happyness" directory

[Baron]

Allways use spam filter

[TheGrunch]

Got figures ? :P
Yeah, it never takes more than about 2 .303s before you need to refly. :(

[Ernst]

You can upgrade your system with DIVORCE.exe, but this require a reinstall and you may lose data, especially in the "happyness" directory

This creates subprocesses too, called "alimony".

[daidalos.team]

Update posted at first page. Video is still "fresh" so the quality is bad and it's not available yet as HD.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Interesting stuff. Is there new view, like binoculars for the Ju88 with torpedos as seen at some point in the video? Would feel more "realistic" than the zoom :) Thanks for the update!

[daidalos.team]

Is there new view, like binoculars for the Ju88 with torpedos as seen at some point in the video?

Luetaanpas niitä tekstejäkin välillä, ettei ihan turhaan tarvise kirjoitella. ;)

Translation: yes.

[philip.ed]

Nice video, shows great potential for future deveopments.

One thing though, with all these great effects mods for Il-2, do you ever plan on including them in the update? As since using them, I just cannot fly Il-2 without them and I think it would really be great if the work could be made official ;)

[AndyJWest]

Circular running torpedoes! 8) They look like fun, though if they can take half an hour to run out of oomph I think some of us will be back at base before we hear the bang!

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the allies had developed air-launched accoustic homing torpedoes at some point during the war - for anti-submarine use I think. A nice loadout for a Beufighter or A-20? :twisted: Perhaps one for the next patch...

Anyway, glad to see things are progressing.

[CKY_86]

Loving the new Ju88 varients :)

Do you plan on adding any other varients, like the ones Jippo(?) made?

[robtek]

Fantastic, funtastic, whatever.
Can't wait for this patch!
Please don't torture us so long with waiting!

[RabidSquirrel]

:shock: <----- The face of that lucky destroyer Captain after he clears all the torpedoes!

hahahaha

[Qpassa]

Incredible Bombs

INCREDIBLE WORK

[mazex]

Motobombas ftw!

Love your work guys, if you can do stuff like this - lot's of things are possible :)

[CRO_Adriatic]

O really nice! And it is also nice to be lucky... I hope testing is going smooth :)

[Fltlt_HardBall]

Nice video, shows great potential for future deveopments.

One thing though, with all these great effects mods for Il-2, do you ever plan on including them in the update? As since using them, I just cannot fly Il-2 without them and I think it would really be great if the work could be made official ;)

It looks like some of the mods are already being incorporated into 4.10- such as the fantastic Slot maps and a couple of non-flyables such as the Swordfish and the Fulmar. Hopefully we'll see some more in due course if they are up to Daidalos's quality standards. Some of the effects may be up to a player's personal taste, though, so it may cause some argument if an effect is included that some people don't like?

-----

A question: That Ju-88 A4 torp looks like its packing a hefty gun in that gondola under the nose - what is it?

[caprera]

I think parachute falling is too slow btw awesome!

[DiO]

Extremely! Thanks you for it.
Bombing sight in the form of the field-glass it is excellent!

I have noticed on 1 minute to 34 second that glasses in a cabin as-as if vanish.... You eliminate it?

[robtek]

The 88 Torp has a 20mm MG-FF-M in the nose for ground attack.

[OberstDanjeje]

Thanks, the Ju88 was one of the worst aircraft in IL2

[Flanker35M]

S!

One mod that could be added as an official add-on is C6_Claymore's Fw190A-series cockpit repaints. They are a true piece of art and a lot of features added that are missing from the originals: ammo counters for MG FF, fuel low lamp corrected, pump lights, texts corrected etc. He has finished Fw190A-4, working on Fw190A-3 at the moment. Just a suggestion :)

[Flying_Nutcase]

Really amazing work with the circular torps. I'd never heard of them before now. A pretty good idea!

BTW Is there any chance of having ships respond with some kind of manoeuvre, based on probability, to simulate the chance of seeing, tracking and responding to a torpedo (straight or circular)? For example, speed increase or reduction, evasive turn or a 360. Similiar for when under attack by dive-bombers. I'm sure it's been raised already but I've been out of the loop for a bit.

Anyway, all that you're doing for IL2 is tops. Many thanks!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

S!

One mod that could be added as an official add-on is C6_Claymore's Fw190A-series cockpit repaints. They are a true piece of art and a lot of features added that are missing from the originals: ammo counters for MG FF, fuel low lamp corrected, pump lights, texts corrected etc. He has finished Fw190A-4, working on Fw190A-3 at the moment. Just a suggestion :)


Shortly: never!
I do not say, it isn't looking good or that he doesn't care for details. But he is using textures sizes way out of allowed IL-2 standard (which obviously make it easy to let it look good). And I bet, if that all will be reworked to standards, it doesn't look good anymore... at least not better, than what is in game already.
Unfortunately it is the way with almost all repaint efforts in the modding scene.
This is something for FSX or SoW, but not for IL-2.

[Flanker35M]

S!

If Claymore can do a high res version like now I bet he can do a low res version fitting IL-2 "standard" as well ;) And for sure would look better than the original cockpit. So we will never see an updated Bf109 cockpit either? It looks like shinola compared to new planes.

Anyways, keep up the good work :) Mods will compliment your work to bring details in that stock lacks.

[Viikate]

Caspar is right. I have to say that I like the looks of these pit repaints but the video memory consumed by the textures is really overkill. Specification limit is 8Mb (excluding damage & night tgas). For example Caspar's Hs-129 pit uses 7,5Mb and I wouldn't call that ugly.

Some of the pit repaints that I've checked use 100Mb or even 200Mb of textures and cause a serious FPS drop with older PCs. Backside of the DVD box says that minimum of 64Mb video memory is needed for this game.

Pit repaints could be optimized lot. There's lost of unused space (when the tgas & parts are taken from other pits and only small part is used), obsolete alpha channels, etc. Something like 16Mb-32Mb would be ok for me.

[philip.ed]

Some of the effects may be up to a player's personal taste, though, so it may cause some argument if an effect is included that some people don't like?



Like the stock effects?! :grin: LOL :cool:

[Flanker35M]

S!

As I said Viikate, these guys can for sure work on it :) CirX did a lite version of DW's excellent Bf109 cockpits for example. And the Hs129 pit is a new one, like Bf110 is. So why can not Bf109 be updated to that standard at least? As it now plain sucks compared to Tempest, Bf110, Hs129 etc. And how about adding those details or correcting the bugs C6 Claymore for example has done? He has good material as reference so he is not making the pits out of his hat ;) As of the perfromance hit, I notice none. If someone uses a 64Mb gfx card today to play :shock:

[csThor]

We've had a similar discussion before, Flanker. It was, IIRC, on loadout polygon limits and the answer was the same: We stick to official Maddox Games standards 'cause they fit the environment of the game engine. Claymore is of course free to rework his textures to standards (Caspar and Viikate know the limits) and apply for cooperation via the usual way (email).

[Flanker35M]

S!

That's the key, to KNOW the limits IL-2 has. Like secret club information ;) :D This info is not floating around anywhere, there is no guide or tutorial posted. But good thing is that TD is ready to work with these talented guys. Given them the standards, parameters or whatever, they will for sure make things within them :)

And had to check the minimum requirements of IL2, having the boxes on the shelf, I bet no-one has a setup like that anymore except the OS (WinXP) ;) Anyone with a computer like that can not play anything these days, merely a paperweight :D

But..not dissing or bitching TD's work here. Just threw in suggestions, got answers and happy with that :) Thanks.

[Viikate]

If someone uses a 64Mb gfx card today to play :shock:

You mean like Caspar and his ATI Radeon Mobility 9700 64MB? :-P

[Flanker35M]

S!

He plays on a laptop? IMO laptop is not for gaming and e decent one suitable for it costs more than my desktop machine so..laptops are good for warming your legs or be shot with shotgun :D

[philip.ed]

We've had a similar discussion before, Flanker. It was, IIRC, on loadout polygon limits and the answer was the same: We stick to official Maddox Games standards 'cause they fit the environment of the game engine. Claymore is of course free to rework his textures to standards (Caspar and Viikate know the limits) and apply for cooperation via the usual way (email).

Does the same account for any mod? eg, effects mods? ;)

[IceFire]

S!

He plays on a laptop? IMO laptop is not for gaming and e decent one suitable for it costs more than my desktop machine so..laptops are good for warming your legs or be shot with shotgun :D
If I may, I think he means that there ARE people who do play with that kind of equipment... the game works fine right now for them so why screw them over?

[daidalos.team]

This info is not floating around anywhere, there is no guide or tutorial posted.

Sorry, but not true at all, Flanker. One of the main modding sites has a full tutorial posted on IL-2 modelling specs. This tutorial was originally made by 1C as well as 3rd party modelers and was available for a long time on Netwings.org forum. In addition, since the file encryption of IL-2 was broken and the files are accessible, there are plenty of "sample" models. It is only up to the modelers to follow them.

[Flanker35M]

S!

IceFire, I know there might be some people around with very dated computers. But when SoW comes..what then? ;) There is no progress without some compromises or even sacrifices.

And again if the new additions, be it effects or cockpits or whatever, are done within the limits of the IL-2 specs/parameters/whatever they should not suffer that much. And IMO if someone with a computer barely meeting the minimum specs can NOT wait to get an experience seen in the screenies or videos nor demand it. It will be low resolution, minimum effects/eye candy to keep the frames at some playable level and even then a lot of AAA etc. will slow this minimum machine down.

This can be seen in many games, not only IL-2. Minimums are to please the crowd but in no way meaning the game is at it's best then nor one should expect that either.

TD..modding sites have a wealth of information yes, but is it all 100% accurate? What about an user that wants to approach MG/TD instead of going to these sites? Wouldn't it be a good sign if the official source had all the needed on their official pages for the aspiring new content maker? He comes to IL-2 forum with an idea/concept etc. and finds a FAQ or similar answering most of his questions, rest he could ask from the official forum and get the info from there. All would be good.

Now the situation is that there are modders of many kind, like web pages too. Better and less good ones. Even they have a lot of info, not all of it is from MG but gathered in other ways, by trials and testing etc. Modding sites can not claim, and do not claim, that their info is what is the IL-2 standard. Some mods surpass the IL-2 standard visually or otherwise, some not. The variety is big. So as stated above, info from the official source would give everyone wanting to create something for IL-2 a solid base to start from..released in official patch or not. Agree?

Now this derailed the whole thread I think. But as a bottom line the co-operation between the community and TD/MG is the key to get new content released in official patches when all had the EXACT and OFFICIAL information how to make it meet these requirements :)

Enough of this..now back to waiting for 4.10.

[IceFire]

S!

IceFire, I know there might be some people around with very dated computers. But when SoW comes..what then? ;) There is no progress without some compromises or even sacrifices.

Oh SoW should definitely require a completely different set of hardware specifications. That is even expected. So those people if they want to upgrade to the new software will also need to upgrade their hardware. Many even have been saving up for that day :)

But IL-2 is already out. I don't think it'd be very fair for Daidalos to suddenly make the game inaccessible to them. I'm glad that they aren't.

Next time around (SoW) it will be a totally different ballgame :)

[kendo65]

Caspar's Hs-129 pit uses 7,5Mb and I wouldn't call that ugly.

Some of the pit repaints that I've checked use 100Mb or even 200Mb of textures and cause a serious FPS drop with older PCs.

Pit repaints could be optimized lot. There's lots of unused space (when the tgas & parts are taken from other pits and only small part is used), obsolete alpha channels, etc. Something like 16Mb-32Mb would be ok for me.

I'd like to second the idea of officially re-doing pits for the 109 series, but I completely take on board what is said above regarding the mods.

I've tried the modded 109 cockpits and while they look great they are the only mod out of the many that I've used that really overwhelms my computer (not bleeding edge, but a solid system nonetheless Core 2 E8200, 4GB ram, gtx260).

Astounded to read above that a great looking cockpit can be made using only 7.5MB!!!

I'm also expecting my current system to be adequate for my early experiences with SOW (albeit with lowered settings), so, in contrast to Flanker I really wouldn't want to consider upgrading in order to run a 'heavy' official il2.

Looking forward to 4.10. Thanks to daidalos team for the great work.

[Hawker17]

Well, about progression... Newer (SOW) isn't always better. Graphically SOW looks nice, for sure, just like my IL2 1946 install does. Although my specs are high enough for SOW, i will surely stick to IL2 1946, if playability isn't improved in SOW. By the way, as soon as SOW is released, we have so much more modded aircraft in IL2, we don't play SOW anyway! :-P

Team Daidalos, thanks for making this sim even better after all those years!

[philip.ed]

Well, about progression... Newer (SOW) isn't always better. Graphically SOW looks nice, for sure, just like my IL2 1946 install does. Although my specs are high enough for SOW, i will surely stick to IL2 1946, if playability isn't improved in SOW. By the way, as soon as SOW is released, we have so much more modded aircraft in IL2, we don't play SOW anyway! :-P

Team Daidalos, thanks for making this sim even better after all those years!

With regards to your last point I highly disagree. For one, the only decent BoB sim out at the moment is Wings of Vistory (Il-2 just can't capture the same feelings of battle as WoV does) and that is itself dated. SoW should be the numero-uno of flight sims, and if it does the BoB the justice it deserves, then it will be the best flight-sim for BoB fans like me.
However, modded Il-2 is timeless, and I think I will always be playing it until SoW has all the planes that Il-2 has ;)

[robtek]

i really hope that the change from il2 to SoW is the change from a simulation game to a simulation!

[Hawker17]

With regards to your last point I highly disagree. For one, the only decent BoB sim out at the moment is Wings of Vistory (Il-2 just can't capture the same feelings of battle as WoV does) and that is itself dated. SoW should be the numero-uno of flight sims, and if it does the BoB the justice it deserves, then it will be the best flight-sim for BoB fans like me.
However, modded Il-2 is timeless, and I think I will always be playing it until SoW has all the planes that Il-2 has ;)

Sure, i see your point Philip. You are more focussed on the BOB era. I like the different aircraft and the many maps better. I hope for BOB fans, that SOW will be a great release. Time will tell, about playability.

What i didn't liked about BoB II - Wov, were the crash landings and the spinning screen. I liked the atmophere in Jane's WWII fighters very much, maybe you know that (early) game?

[philip.ed]

I haven't played Jane's game, but I am aware of the features that BoB2 lacks. Il-2 damage model is beautiful and if paired with BoB2 could make one great sim. I am looking at SoW as being the start of something great ;)

[Zorin]

I have to thank TD for taking on the issue of the Ju88. It was in dire need and you guys delivered. Hats up to you.

[Fafnir_6]

I'd like to second the idea of officially re-doing pits for the 109 series, but I completely take on board what is said above regarding the mods.

I've tried the modded 109 cockpits and while they look great they are the only mod out of the many that I've used that really overwhelms my computer (not bleeding edge, but a solid system nonetheless Core 2 E8200, 4GB ram, gtx260).

Astounded to read above that a great looking cockpit can be made using only 7.5MB!!!

I'm also expecting my current system to be adequate for my early experiences with SOW (albeit with lowered settings), so, in contrast to Flanker I really wouldn't want to consider upgrading in order to run a 'heavy' official il2.

Looking forward to 4.10. Thanks to daidalos team for the great work.

I was in the same boat (Bf109 repaints)with my old computer. I found some repaints that used the redone structure of the high-detail repaints but substituted low detail textures for use on older computers. They ran just fine on my trusty old Athlon XP1800 w/ 3GB RAM and the after-burning Geforce6200 :P. I agree that 7.5MB for the Hs129B cockpit is impressive. If someone makes the Bf109s like that in an official patch it would rule.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Fafnir_6]

I have to thank TD for taking on the issue of the Ju88. It was in dire need and you guys delivered. Hats up to you.

Seconded. Great work, TD.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

S!

He plays on a laptop? IMO laptop is not for gaming and e decent one suitable for it costs more than my desktop machine so..laptops are good for warming your legs or be shot with shotgun :D


Well... I have a decent desktop system to play games, but in fact I could play IL-2 on my notebook, yes.
And currently I do have to, because by desktop PC is broken. However, I also use the notebook for working in 3DSmax and in 1C's maptools (which is the game engine indeed), so it just has to run it.

IceFire, I know there might be some people around with very dated computers. But when SoW comes..what then? There is no progress without some compromises or even sacrifices.

Well, thats the attitude, that hardware producers wish for. You would be surprised, what in fact would be possible, if games were well programmed like in 1990. Worst example today is FSX. Contrary, good examples are maybe GuildWars (slighly outdated yet) and the Medieval: Total War series. These can be played on a medium system with full settings, AF, AA, whatever.
I cannot speak about actual games (DirecX10 or higher) on most modern systems, but I think most people in the world just still have medium systems (as the actuality of a system just change every day).
I think, hardware developer as NVidia and game developer go hand in hand to get their profit as high as possible.

I remember a competition a few years ago, where people were asked to build games with only 16bit size in total. It was astonishing, what they were able to do. Now if I render this up to the today games size (3-5GB and more), I really wish, developer would care for good programming.

So back topic... we do not have anything against cockpit repaints, as long as they are well made. But Bf109s as example need more than just repainting, remapping, remodeling is needed as well. And others are the same (i.e. P-47). As its already said, the specs are available, still you can ask us for. Generally for cockpits, stick to 256x256pxl textures, fill them well and you will stay inside the limits.
For Hs129 I even used 2-3 textures with size of 512x512pxl, which are exceptions. I decided so, because due to the shape of the cockpit, the pilots eyes are very near to some parts of it (i.e. the armor glas frame and leather protection). Modelers can do such (streching the limits), if its logical and to prefer for a decent result.

Additionally any artist should not only care for the project itself, but also for the question, how well is it matching within the game - is it still a homogeneous part of the game, or does it look rather like an exception? As example... if a player uses a repainted Fw190 cockpit, and right after he landed, he uses... stock Ju88 cockpit.. he will feel some inhomogenity.
So overdone repaints would break the games unique appearience and atmosphere.

[JG53Frankyboy]

The 88 Torp has a 20mm MG-FF-M in the nose for ground attack.

i hope for such an armament in a "normal" bomber Ju88 in some future gameversion.
if the ship damagemodel will not change drasticaly i see only small sense in thes weapon in both torpedo versions.

i know such a Ju88 bomber would loose its horizontal bombing ability, because the MG-FF/M replaces the LOTFE bombsight.

[T}{OR]

Well, about progression... Newer (SOW) isn't always better. Graphically SOW looks nice, for sure, just like my IL2 1946 install does. Although my specs are high enough for SOW, i will surely stick to IL2 1946, if playability isn't improved in SOW. By the way, as soon as SOW is released, we have so much more modded aircraft in IL2, we don't play SOW anyway! :-P

Team Daidalos, thanks for making this sim even better after all those years!


I for one can not wait till SOW comes out, because mods have killed the online community. Maybe 'killed' isn't the right word, but changed it dramatically from what it once was. With SOW we will once again have a single game version for all to fly on.


i really hope that the change from il2 to SoW is the change from a simulation game to a simulation!

That is an excellent statement!



Overall, hats off to TD for bringing us the long overdue fixes. Now if only the AI team killing gunners fix gets included in the 4.10... :-P

[ElAurens]

I for one can not wait till SOW comes out, because mods have killed the online community. Maybe 'killed' isn't the right word, but changed it dramatically from what it once was. With SOW we will once again have a single game version for all to fly on.



This, many times over.

And I really believe that once we see SoW, that IL2/46 will look and feel like the old, outdated, game it really is now.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Caspar, I understand the spirit of consistency in the cockpits. But even in the stock game there is so much difference between them. Take Tempest which is a true work of art and then for example Bf109 or Mig-3 or IL-2. They are old and it shows, in fact they have not changed since beginning. So a souping up would do fine don't you think..and of course done within the IL-2 parameters.

As of games being sloppily programmed and using more resources and all that is a trend. Why bother optimizing when people can buy relatively cheap new hardware? And it is not very cost effective for a company to invest too much time in this kind of stuff. Oleg might be one of the few doing so, but he is in the toughest of all genres IMO: flight sims.

Realistically thinking you can not cater for everyone. An average computer today is above the minimum specs of IL-2. The very small minority might be in the low end just at the edge of running it. Again the superduper computers some enthusiasts have do not make IL-2 any better than it is..so seeing your point in this ;)

Thanks for the replies TD, very much appreciated :)

[constant]

Kudos to the great developments, I love everything I've seen especially navigation as I have turned to flying without map icons.

However I have one or two requests/questions and it's about the P40's, will they be updated?

Their cockpits are EXTREMELY low-detail as compared to alot of the other planes and well, I love flying the Allison but she's ugly as dirt from the pilots view in IL2.

Any chance these awesome planes can get a facelift?

Also the p40's fuel gauge (on the floor near the right rudder) doesn't work, so you never really know how much fuel you have unless you actually see the low fuel light turn on. Tho, I'm not even sure if its possible to get an entire view of the fuel gauge.

They're great planes if you know how to fly 'em, heck I could outdance 4 zeros while the aaa at my base shot them down for me, and with the right apporach, piss off 109 pilots.

I know these planes seem like trash at first glance, but they're powerful fighters and I can't help but find myself in one each time I load IL2.

Let me know.

Go Team Daidalos

[Daniël]

Kudos to the great developments, I love everything I've seen especially navigation as I have turned to flying without map icons.

However I have one or two requests/questions and it's about the P40's, will they be updated?

Their cockpits are EXTREMELY low-detail as compared to alot of the other planes and well, I love flying the Allison but she's ugly as dirt from the pilots view in IL2.

Any chance these awesome planes can get a facelift?

Also the p40's fuel gauge (on the floor near the right rudder) doesn't work, so you never really know how much fuel you have unless you actually see the low fuel light turn on. Tho, I'm not even sure if its possible to get an entire view of the fuel gauge.

They're great planes if you know how to fly 'em, heck I could outdance 4 zeros while the aaa at my base shot them down for me, and with the right apporach, piss off 109 pilots.

I know these planes seem like trash at first glance, but they're powerful fighters and I can't help but find myself in one each time I load IL2.

Let me know.

Go Team Daidalos

Some droptanks can also be improved. Like the droptank of the P-40 E and the P-51.

[Fafnir_6]

The P-40 exterior model is also in need of an update (Incorrect fuselage dimensions, exaggerated dihedral in the wings and duck-toe main landing gear). Perhaps DT can address this in a later patch, when their busy schedule allows.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[ElAurens]

I wish the E and M were as well done as the Hawk 81s are.

Also a P 40 N is desperately needed. It was the highest performing version, and the most produced, and was the mainstay of P40 strength in the Pacific and China.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Look at ordnance Zorin made for IL-2, both axis and allied stuff. They are a vast improvement over IL-2 stock to put it mildly. The drop tanks, pylons etc.

[constant]

I wish the E and M were as well done as the Hawk 81s are.

Also a P 40 N is desperately needed. It was the highest performing version, and the most produced, and was the mainstay of P40 strength in the Pacific and China.

I was a little confused about that too, why there is no p40n when it was the most produced of them all!

To make sure everyone knows -- I was talking about the p40e.

[Erkki]

Werent, of the Warhawks, the L and F the ones that saw most action?

[constant]

I see that in Tunisia F's and L's saw action, but from what I've been reading it seems the earliest versions were the most used (because they were the most available)

It really depends on which air force you are talking about.. Apparently, almost everybody had some version of a p40 in ww2. :)

Anyone notice the p40e m-105 field mod pulls so hard to the right that it is impossible to fight with? You can't _ever_ hit 30,000 rpms level, even in a dive it took awhile to get there. Take-off is also really scarey when it just shoots right -- like full rudder.

I thought it was the wind for a second, but i flipped direction and it still pulled hard right. I double-checked and triple-checked my rudder, dead-even.

I flew other p40s on the same map, different maps, then the modded on other maps, none of the other ones pulled so hard, yet the modded always pulled right.


EDIT: Found this: The P-40F/L was extensively used by U.S. fighter groups operating in the Mediterranian Theater.
Can anybody else confirm this?

(sorry for being off-topic)

[Erkki]

The field mod torques to the right because it has Klimov M105 engine, same with Jak-1 and early LaGGs. ;)

I should have mentioned that with Warhawks I ment the P40E+.

[constant]

The field mod torques to the right because it has Klimov M105 engine, same with Jak-1 and early LaGGs. ;)


Ahh yes, I understand torque here --- but the m105 is not more powerful than the allison, in-fact I believe it is slightly less powered by like 5 hp, or vice versa.

Besides, torque never pulls so hard the plane greatly loses performance! I'm talking so hard the little ball is all the way to the left the entire flight.

In the view objects section it explains the m105 was nearly identical to the replaced allison and was used not because of performance, but simply because of parts/maintanence.

[BadAim]

The field mod has a definite hard pull to the right on takeoff, but this is common to most of the Russian planes in the game, and it doesn't seem any worse, more or less than the other planes (the Russian ones). The pull to the right is definitely much stronger in the field mod than the left pull of the Allison, and while I suspect it's entirely because of the game engine, I would not be surprised in an airframe that was designed and "tuned" around a right turning engine, a left turning engine might cause some handling anomalies.

As for level flight, she does pull to the right a bit, but no more than any other single engine plane, and it's easily countered with some trim. I wonder if you don't have some controller trouble that's being exasperated by the M105's "backward" pull?

[JG52Karaya]

The answer to the P-40E field mod torque issue is that both aircraft have identical trim settings in their flight models. So although the field mod version has a right turning M-105 engine it is still trimmed for the left turning Allison.

Nuff said

[Mysticpuma]

Just wondering if it is possible in Patch 4.10, to have AI aircraft be able to fly at low altitude without crashing into the deck?

Set up a mission in FMB and have the aircraft at 50m or 100m. Mission starts and various aircraft collide and crash, or just drop into the ground.

Wondering if this is possible to fix?

Cheers, MP.

[constant]

@ BadAim: I'm beleiving more than normal something is messed up, but I don't think it is my joystick, or it would affect other planes/games/sims as well.

It looks like I need a fresh install of il2. Easy enough.

Thanks for the feedback!

Anyway @ Karaya, yes yes, moving on..

[bf-110]

Only now I saw,Fritz-X and Hs-293!
OMG,you gonna kill me that way.

But,weren´t these lauched by FW-200?

[IceFire]

Just wondering if it is possible in Patch 4.10, to have AI aircraft be able to fly at low altitude without crashing into the deck?

Set up a mission in FMB and have the aircraft at 50m or 100m. Mission starts and various aircraft collide and crash, or just drop into the ground.

Wondering if this is possible to fix?

Cheers, MP.
Start them at 250m and then drop them down to 50m for the next waypoint. The AI takes a few seconds to get accustomed to the situation they are in (almost like a human pilot) and 50 meters is a bit too much. Also I think it sets off a near ground routine in the AI. Just play with the initial altitude settings and then drop them down after that.

Not that I'm saying that they shouldn't try to fix things where possible but AI can be tricky and there are ways to work around. Might have consequences elsewhere?

[FrankB]

It's Thursday! ...and last week we saw no news...

What about small status update along the lines: "all features are implemented, we are now quality testing the whole thing and if nothing happens, we will release next week. Moving dogfight server was too buggy, so we will postpone it until 4.11"?

I will die from the uncertainty.

[robday]

It's Thursday! ...and last week we saw no news...

What about small status update along the lines: "all features are implemented, we are now quality testing the whole thing and if nothing happens, we will release next week. Moving dogfight server was too buggy, so we will postpone it until 4.11"?

I will die from the uncertainty.

We're all impatient for 4.10 to be released but TD are doing this all in their spare time and for no other reward than the satisfaction of our gratitude.
I'm certain it will be worth the wait

[daidalos.team]

Yes, it's STILL Thursday and update posted on the first page. Enjoy.

There is no need to panic regarding patch release. Thank you.

[SUP_Trok]

is there a date of release for 4.10 patch, or is still secret :-D

[brando]

It's great to read the latest update and realise that we are close to having this long-awaited gift from Daidalos Team.

Thank you all for your hard work and dedication.

B.

[BadAim]

Nice! Both the 217 and the Cant are big surprises, and welcomed ones. Attaboys.

[OberstDanjeje]

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Great news!!!!

[Flanker35M]

S!

Looks good! Thanks for the update.

[Fafnir_6]

Great update, guys! The Z.1007 is quite a welcome surprise. Which variants of this plane are you developing? Also, are there any plans for a Z.1007 cockpit down the road?

Fafnir_6

[AndyJWest]

The Cant Z.1007 looks a real beauty. Great work with the Dornier too, I look forward to ruining their paintwork with .303s, though no doubt those darned AI gunners will have other ideas.

The Z.1007 fuselage cutaway sure looks to me like work on a cockpit, can we expect the Dornier to be flyable at some point? I know, patience, patience...

[CKY_86]

GREAT update!

That Do 217 is a very very nice suprise and has got me blowing wolf whistles:grin:

[Zorin]

Nice Update.

Though I have to ask, why did you build the Do217K-1?

The K-2 was the version to carry the guided bombs, that is why it got extended wings for example. Additionally it had reward armament of a MG 81Z in the tail that was aimed via a telescopic gunsight like on the Ar234.

On another note, why is the MG in the A-Stand a single MG 81, while it actually was a MG 81Z on both K versions?

[daidalos.team]

There will be 2 versions including K-2. That's why we have called it only "Do 217" in the update.

[Zorin]

There will be 2 versions including K-2. That's why we have called it only "Do 217" in the update.

Fantastic news! Thanks TD. :)

[anikollag]

Wow! Splendid! 217 is fantastic! I'll be patient for sure! Thanks for update

[bf-110]

Great!It´s not the Do-17Z,but still a Do-17.
Cant 1007 looks gorgeous too.

[FrankB]

Thank you for the update! Exactly what I was looking for!

There is no need to panic regarding patch release. Thank you.

My question was not raised due to the panic, but due to the uncertainty. Are we there yet? Three more months? Now I can see from the schedule that it will take at least month from now, therefore I do not need to nervously check the page every half an hour or so.

[rga]

If you have a look at the schedule picture, it's quite clear: the delay time is about 1,5 months (means: it would be probably realeased in June). Regarding so many revolutionary contents in this patch, I wouldn't be surprised (and wouldn't mind too) when it takes so long.
A (nasty) joke: Do you think it's purely coincidence that so many MTO aircrafts are included in this patch. There's a rumor that 4.10 will be called "IL-2 Sturmovik: bloody sand of Sicilly" and will be realesed at the 67th anniversary of Operation Husky (10.7.2010)

[anikollag]

We’re all looking forward for 4.10!! But give them time to make their job properly… I don’t think you would be happy if they would be missing planes or non working objects in 4.10?!?
Agree with rga, let’s go for 4.10 "IL-2 Sturmovik: bloody sand of Sicilly" ;-)

[Untamo]

Whoa, the update's gonna be huge! You have to release it now or you'll have no ideas for 4.11 ;)

[robday]

Great update with the Dornier and the Cant. I'm just wondering what other surprises we may get before the ultimate release of 4.10

[Majo]

Surprises!!!

What about the basics...?

6DoF
ZUTI's

;) just keeping the pressure.

[Ernst]

I would not be anxious for any other patch, but this particullary is awaited a lot cause I would like to experience the new Gs loading and bust tanks in Hs. :twisted:

[Daniël]

I would not be anxious for any other patch, but this particullary is awaited a lot cause I would like to experience the new Gs loading and bust tanks in Hs. :twisted:

There are hard times coming for the tanks:evil:

[bf-110]

We’re all looking forward for 4.10!! But give them time to make their job properly… I don’t think you would be happy if they would be missing planes or non working objects in 4.10?!?
Agree with rga, let’s go for 4.10 "IL-2 Sturmovik: bloody sand of Sicilly" ;-)

At last Italy is standing a chance in a WWII game...
I hope they also add italian tanks,the Carros Armatos,some ships like Vittorio Veneto,Roma,Andrea Doria,,Aquila,the Maiales.

[Mysticpuma]

In which case, and repeating a question in another thread here, will there be a chance of seeing a B-17 or B-24 flyable in one of the future patches, as the addition of a flyable our engine bomber (proven online in some servers) would be a fantastic addition?

Loving the work you are doing for the community, cheers, MP.

[T}{OR]

In which case, and repeating a question in another thread here, will there be a chance of seeing a B-17 or B-24 flyable in one of the future patches, as the addition of a flyable our engine bomber (proven online in some servers) would be a fantastic addition?

Loving the work you are doing for the community, cheers, MP.

In addition to that - proper 3D models of B-17s and B-24s, and the late G models with Cheyenne tail gunner's position?

[robday]

Surprises!!!

What about the basics...?

6DoF
ZUTI's

;) just keeping the pressure.

Please forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what these two terms actually mean. Enlightenment as to what they are and how they can enhance my gaming experience would be appreciated

[Red Dragon-DK]

I think the ZUTI's is in. But we still need the 6 DOF and propper sounds. ;)


But what happent to the tricker effefkt? Is that still on, but in a later patch?


Cheers

[CKY_86]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what these two terms actually mean. Enlightenment as to what they are and how they can enhance my gaming experience would be appreciated

6DOF = Six Degrees of Freedom. It's a mod avalable to enable six degrees of freedom in Track Ir

ZUTI = ZUTI's moving dogfight server

[IceFire]

Thanks for the update Team Daidalos! No panicking here... just patient waiting and hoping for the best time for the team. The work is truly fantastic! I'll keep saying it because it's true. Really thankful for it!

[bf-110]

In which case, and repeating a question in another thread here, will there be a chance of seeing a B-17 or B-24 flyable in one of the future patches, as the addition of a flyable our engine bomber (proven online in some servers) would be a fantastic addition?

Loving the work you are doing for the community, cheers, MP.

That would be nice for a Call of Duty United Offensive like mission.
Also,with the multi-position system in multiplayer,flying B-17s against hordes of fighters would be simply awesome.

[robday]

Thanks for the reply CKY 86. I sort of knew what 6DOF meant, but not that it related to TrackIr.

[csThor]

Disclaimer: Please ignore the Daidalos signature for this post for what I'm going to say is my very personal opinion.

Before anyone should waste a thought about a flyable B-17 or B-24 he should spend them either on a few other types which would be a lot more benfitial to gameplay as a whole (i.e. Blenheim Mk I and Mk IV, Ki-21 and/or Ki-48, B-25C, B-26 or Il-4) or on the right environmental factors that would make such strategic bomber types useful for any player and not just for the DF servers online (such as viewing distances, target categories the engine will understand, AI command and control and AI as a whole) for nothing of that is presently possible in the game. And if you look at what I posted you'll surely see that the latter option is a lot more work than the former, and that is without taking the workload for such a large plane as a B-17 or B-24 into the consideration.

[Red Dragon-DK]

Disclaimer: Please ignore the Daidalos signature for this post for what I'm going to say is my very personal opinion.

Before anyone should waste a thought about a flyable B-17 or B-24 he should spend them either on a few other types which would be a lot more benfitial to gameplay as a whole (i.e. Blenheim Mk I and Mk IV, Ki-21 and/or Ki-48, B-25C, B-26 or Il-4) or on the right environmental factors that would make such strategic bomber types useful for any player and not just for the DF servers online (such as viewing distances, target categories the engine will understand, AI command and control and AI as a whole) for nothing of that is presently possible in the game. And if you look at what I posted you'll surely see that the latter option is a lot more work than the former, and that is without taking the workload for such a large plane as a B-17 or B-24 into the consideration.

Salute csThor.

Im both a fighter and a bomber pilot. Im aware that a lot of guys are only flying to get a fast and easy kill - like the missions you can get on M4T "2 min to target" But in the same time you are using time and effort to make slow It plane and biplane that have the same effekt. No one fly them. They are fun to try out and are very well done - no quistion there.
What Im asking, when you brought it up yourself is. Why not make those high altitude bombers we have been asking for year after year. Is it becarse you dont want to fly them yourself, or what are holdong you (speaking at the team) back?

We are some (actually a lot)who at least try to do it in a way, the bombers did it. I have been taken Joint Obs ABS3 (Advanced Bomber School) with some realy talent pilots and learned a lot. Good instruktors that have provide us a lot of very usefull knowledge. And Im greatfull for that. But this SIM need high altitude bombers. We have medium and low altitude bombers, but not realy any for high altitude.

Please take this in your thoughts. We actually like flying. Even if it is over a longer stretch.

Cheers

[csThor]

As I said: I do not speak for Daidalos when I say this and I have said this for far longer than Daidalos exists.
I see what is there in Il-2, I see what the engine can and what it can't and I am firmly of the opinion that strategic bombers are better off in the hands of the AI and not worth the considerable effort which could be directed into one or even two projects for tactical bombers. Simply for the fact that we have an engine that lives and breathes for low-altitude frontline air support, which has an issue with map size and viewing distances (both graphics-wise and AI-can-notice-things-wise) and doesn't know fixed structures as targets. There are a lot of things that would have to be redone before high-altitude bombing could be a viable thing in this engine - and I don't mean just online. Offline is as important as online and ignoring the issues an offline player couldn't evade isn't particularly smart in my book.

[Feathered_IV]

Before anyone should waste a thought about a flyable B-17 or B-24 he should spend them either on a few other types which would be a lot more benfitial to gameplay as a whole (i.e. Blenheim Mk I and Mk IV....

Please don't tease me with suggestions of the Blenheim... unless you know something we don't. :-P

[csThor]

No, I don't know more. Just my personal opinion.

[IceFire]

Salute csThor.

Im both a fighter and a bomber pilot. Im aware that a lot of guys are only flying to get a fast and easy kill - like the missions you can get on M4T "2 min to target" But in the same time you are using time and effort to make slow It plane and biplane that have the same effekt. No one fly them. They are fun to try out and are very well done - no quistion there.
What Im asking, when you brought it up yourself is. Why not make those high altitude bombers we have been asking for year after year. Is it becarse you dont want to fly them yourself, or what are holdong you (speaking at the team) back?

We are some (actually a lot)who at least try to do it in a way, the bombers did it. I have been taken Joint Obs ABS3 (Advanced Bomber School) with some realy talent pilots and learned a lot. Good instruktors that have provide us a lot of very usefull knowledge. And Im greatfull for that. But this SIM need high altitude bombers. We have medium and low altitude bombers, but not realy any for high altitude.

Please take this in your thoughts. We actually like flying. Even if it is over a longer stretch.

Cheers
I fly bombers more than I fly fighters these days... especially online... but csThor makes some extremely valid points that a lot of people like to wave off. The game engine wasn't designed for a great high altitude strategic bombing type of experience. If you wanted to simulate a proper strategic bombing raid from start to finish then there are problems with maps that are too small, fundamental engine issues that make identifying targets at high altitude impossible, and a simple MASSIVE amount of work required to build the internal guts of just one heavy bomber.

Compare a A-20C:
- Pilot position
- Bomb sight position in nose
- Top rear flexible .30cal
- Bomb rear flexible .30cal

So that is four positions that have to be modeled with accuracy.

With a B-17G:
- Pilot position
- Bomb sight position
- Forward turret
- Top turret
- Ball turret
- Rear turret
- Waste positions (2)

Pretty much double the work. Now... I would still LOVE to see a heavy bomber as it would be fun. But the simulation aspect would be somewhat limited by some limitations that cannot be overcome.

I would be perfectly content with some more usable and practical medium bombers. There are great aircraft like the B-25, A-20, G4M, He-111, Ju-88A-4, and Ar-234 which are all great bombers to use and more practical in an online tactical environment. I'm not saying that everyone is like this but I've had some conversations with people who are "demanding" a B-17 but in the meantime refuse to fly great medium bombers on level bombing runs... I don't really get it.

I suppose the solution is this. If someone wants to organize a third party team that would build a B-17 interior to IL-2 specifications I seriously doubt that Team Daidalos would reject such an effort. But in 10 years nobody has done that... not beyond the starting stages anyways. Everyone who has tried has found that the effort is significant.

[CKY_86]

Thanks for the reply CKY 86. I sort of knew what 6DOF meant, but not that it related to TrackIr.

No prob :)

[Avimimus]

There are also the basic issues with map size and the altitude cap - which make it hard to simulate late war bombing tactics.

I'd personally love an Il-4. I hadn't taken much notice of it until it was made flyable with a hack and then my opinion of it changed completely.
- It has adequate performance, good handling and the the dorsal and ventral gunners have very good fields of fire (making them among the most effective pre-1942 defensive positions).
- It was also mass produced and has a diverse bombload that is considerably larger than the Pe-2. This adds a lot of capability to the RKKA pilots (as the Pe-2 can't carry much more than an Il-2 in overload).

So, I hope that cockpit gets finished...

[ElAurens]

With the upcoming intoduction of "The Slot" map being made an official part of IL2/46 we will have a map of the proper proportions to support large bombers. I have been flying on this map for some time using a mod pack and it will change the way people see the sim. Or it should anyway. I have flown multi hour missions on this map in the mod B-17 and H8K "Emily" flying boat. It is a different, and rewarding way to fly.

CS_Thor, overall I agree with you, the smaller and medium bombers should take priority, but the Japanese in particular are very short on bombers of any kind. Making the H8K a flyable would be a good thing for the sim, as it was uesd in every operational area of the Pacifc war, and would help "flesh out" a rather week Imperial Japanese plane set.

The Slot map is a work of art, those of you that have yet to see it will be gob struck.

[Billfish]

Well, for as long as I can remember I've been stating how heavy bombers have little place in the sim. IL2, ground attack.....Yet more so in that quite frankly most don't want to fly them as a heavy in that they get flown as strafers or stuka's, and for every 1 person who likes to take the time to get to altitude, fly to the target and saturation bomb, 10 people will take that same aircraft and try to fly it like an IL2.

There comes a point where though every aircraft would be welcome, you need to say "what do we have time for, what fits, and what will mess up the works"......Though heavies would be great, fact of the matter is most simply will not fly them as intended. So it becomes a wasted effort, in fact even harmful to grant the very few what they would make "good" use of.

K2

p.s.....No more fighters.....ground attack is what is needed so the sim can get back to its intentions.

[nearmiss]

The slot will be a welcome addition to IL2. The way the maps are broken down by time periods during the war is a very excellent idea.

The Navy Seabees were building airbases at a very fast pace. The bases weren't there one day and 40 days later there were huge airbases in place.

I always felt it was so unrealistic flying over airbases that you knew historically did not exist during the time period of your missions.

It's going to be a fun couple months flying the slot and using the nav tools in 4.10.

[T}{OR]

Disclaimer: Please ignore the Daidalos signature for this post for what I'm going to say is my very personal opinion.

Before anyone should waste a thought about a flyable B-17 or B-24 he should spend them either on a few other types which would be a lot more benfitial to gameplay as a whole (i.e. Blenheim Mk I and Mk IV, Ki-21 and/or Ki-48, B-25C, B-26 or Il-4) or on the right environmental factors that would make such strategic bomber types useful for any player and not just for the DF servers online (such as viewing distances, target categories the engine will understand, AI command and control and AI as a whole) for nothing of that is presently possible in the game. And if you look at what I posted you'll surely see that the latter option is a lot more work than the former, and that is without taking the workload for such a large plane as a B-17 or B-24 into the consideration.


Although I am a HC bomber pilot and having flyable B-17 in this game would be a blessing, there are several problems with IL2 engine as you say. Having those bombers you mentioned as flyable would be a smart idea to start from if one is to add new planes to the game.

-edited-

[robday]

At last Italy is standing a chance in a WWII game...
I hope they also add italian tanks,the Carros Armatos,some ships like Vittorio Veneto,Roma,Andrea Doria,,Aquila,the Maiales.

Yeah! With some Italian ships and a decent MTO map we could recreate the raid on Tarranto

[Avimimus]

Yeah! With some Italian ships and a decent MTO map we could recreate the raid on Tarranto

Fortunately/Unfortunately releasing proper MTO maps is reserved for the first sequel to SoW:BoB.

[Faust]

The slot will be a welcome addition to IL2. The way the maps are broken down by time periods during the war is a very excellent idea.

Dear Team Daidalos,
Will the Slot map included in 4.10 be a series of maps or a single representative map? The first post in this thread has an image showing what I believe to be the Jan '44 version. In my opinion that is the most logical and most versatile of the set if one is to be chosen. I had assumed there would be one Slot map but Nearmiss got me wondering if there is one Slot map or a set broken down by time period?

[Zorin]

Dear Team Daidalos,
Will the Slot map included in 4.10 be a series of maps or a single representative map? The first post in this thread has an image showing what I believe to be the Jan '44 version. In my opinion that is the most logical and most versatile of the set if one is to be chosen. I had assumed there would be one Slot map but Nearmiss got me wondering if there is one Slot map or a set broken down by time period?

All maps versions will be included.

[MicroWave]

Dear Team Daidalos,
Will the Slot map included in 4.10 be a series of maps or a single representative map? The first post in this thread has an image showing what I believe to be the Jan '44 version. In my opinion that is the most logical and most versatile of the set if one is to be chosen. I had assumed there would be one Slot map but Nearmiss got me wondering if there is one Slot map or a set broken down by time period?

Most likely there will be six different versions from Aug '42 to Jan '44.

[Faust]

That was a fast reply. Thank you.

[bf-110]

Fortunately/Unfortunately releasing proper MTO maps is reserved for the first sequel to SoW:BoB.

But the game focus isn´t only on Battle of Britain?

[IceFire]

But the game focus isn´t only on Battle of Britain?
No and this has been known for at least a couple of years. After Storm of War (which is focused on the Battle of Britain) is finished they will be working on a content package for North Africa and presumably beyond that. It can't stay at the Battle of Britain for too long or people will probably start to get bored... introduce something that has never been properly done like North Africa into the mix and things get interesting.

I'm also looking forward to more high fidelity East and West fronts later on.