Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Ernst]

I would like to ask a question about new g loading limits in 4.10: All fighters with no bombs, no rockets and no fuel tank ll have the same structural g loading in service limits, i mean 8G? Or this structural limit ll vary from aircraft to aircraft based on its project? For example, russian and japanese fighters wooden builded ll have minor structural in service limits?

There ll be some kind of reference where i ll known about my aircraft limits? Thank you!

[AndyJWest]

I would like to ask a question about new g loading limits in 4.10: All fighters with no bombs, no rockets and no fuel tank ll have the same structural g loading in service limits, i mean 8G? Or this structural limit ll vary from aircraft to aircraft based on its project? For example, russian and japanese fighters wooden builded ll have minor structural in service limits?

There ll be some kind of reference where i ll known about my aircraft limits? Thank you!

Were many WWII Japanese aircraft of wooden construction?

In any case, aircraft are designed to known G limits, and I know of no evidence that these G limits were typically different for wooden aircraft than for metal ones of a similar type. Ideally, TD should probably work with the known G limits for a type, but this may not always be available. Where they aren't, suggesting that 'it's wooden, so it must be weaker' is based on a dubious premise at best.

[Adwark]

Can you support your claim?

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

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

So, now I was can support more correctly my claim about wood and metal construction difference. I was find in the Internet the reference book by plane calculation on strength. This book is in Russian ( I was hope you can translate it ;)) printed at 1954 the state publishing house of the defensive industry, Moscow and called "Plane calculation on strength". Here is a link to this book http://www.vokb-la.spb.ru/contents/46/index.html . Book included tons of formulas for plane metal and wood constructions calculation and have a strength tables of different materials used in aviation industry. Of course all this formulas isn't real using in game, but may be you can find here some interesting features, what can be included in future patches. And thank DT for yours fantastic work.

[bf-110]

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.

Well,except from the maps,can we still have a taste of Italy in IL2?

[Ernst]

Were many WWII Japanese aircraft of wooden construction?

In any case, aircraft are designed to known G limits, and I know of no evidence that these G limits were typically different for wooden aircraft than for metal ones of a similar type. Ideally, TD should probably work with the known G limits for a type, but this may not always be available. Where they aren't, suggesting that 'it's wooden, so it must be weaker' is based on a dubious premise at best.

Some Metal plates, like an aluminium plate has more ductility than wood. Ductility is a mechanical property used to describe the extent to which materials can be deformed plastically without fracture. Ductility is especially important in metalworking, as materials that crack or break under stress cannot be manipulated using metal forming processes

If aluminium plates deforms due to excessive forms it returns to its natural position in most times or smashes. Wood not, it brokes.

[Ernst]

If aluminium is not better, what was the advantage to use expensive aluminium plates instead wood? Was better to build wooden aircraft if aluminium was not expensive?

They used wood cause aluminium was expensive or not available in quantity in some countries.

[AndyJWest]

Simply referring to 'wood' or 'metal' is almost meaningless. Aircraft are bulit out of specified materials, not vague descriptions. Which would work better, a longbow built out of yew, or one made out of cast iron?

If metal plates deforms due to excessive forms it returns to its natural position in most times. Wood not, it brokes.
If you deform a material beyond its elastic limit, it deforms. Aircraft designers know this, and design accordingly.

I suggest you do a little research into structual engineering in general, and aircraft design in particular, before you make any more sweeping statements of the relative benefits of wood vs metal construction.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Mosquito_600pix.jpg

[Ernst]

Ok mr. knowns all, may it is better to build in wood. Aluminium has no advantage and is expesinve...:rolleyes: and mosquisto was not made for hard manouvering or high gs, but for speed.

It is certain that wooden construction is lighter, and allows more acelleration. But linear acellaration or level speed has nothing with structural resistance.

Post this photo is the same to say, in actual context, that mosquito wooden construction allowed it hard manouvering. May you ll post a Zero photo. Yes Zero wooden construction allowed it good manouvering, but only at lower speeds, this mean less gs. All question is about gs.

Yes i ll study more about structural resistance, and you? There is a great chance that both are wrong. Hehe...

And i asked to TEAM Daidalos guys not you, they are studying to model the planes. If they say that i am completely wrong i accept.

[AndyJWest]

I'm not saying that 'metal' or 'wood' are better, I'm saying that you need to be specific about the materials you are talking about before you can make comparisons. You also need to undertand that aircraft are designed to withstand known loads, not thrown together with whatever material is available. I'm sure TD know this, and don't need vague generalisations to decide on structural strength modelling and G limits.

Do you have any evidence that the DH Mosquito was designed to lower G-loading standards than similar metal-construction aircraft? If you do, I'd like to see it.

[nearmiss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cb6SmK_c2g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIbcU8CNY90


If you double click on the 2nd video it will take you to the videos. I only posted a link to the 1 of 5

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

Nice vids.

[ElAurens]

An airccraft built to an 8 G structural limit is built to take that amount of stress, no matter if it is wood, aluminum or paper.

A wooden aircraft can be built to take the same G loading as a metal one, but typically the metal (aluminum) one will be of lighter weight, and have better protection from environmentl degredation.

But like I said, an 8 G airplane is an 8 G airplane, regardless of construction material.

And no, the Japanese did not build many wooden combat aircraft at all.

None of the major types were.

[BadAim]

One must, it appears, use caution in disparaging wooden aircraft when there are Brits around. :)

I must point out also that the Zero did have a wooden radio mast.

[BadAim]

Nice Vids Nearmiss. There is little doubt that the Mossie is one of the most beautiful and versatile aircraft to come out of WWII, unless of course your a WWII German intent an a nice quiet unmolested occupation of Europe. It might not be so impressive then.

[TheGrunch]

If you want to see an excellent fighter made of wood... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Hornet)note the sentence where it says "The two wing spars were redesigned to withstand a higher safety factor of 10 versus 8."
Or from the fantastic Hornet & Sea Hornet construction website (http://users.skynet.be/BAMRS/dh103/dh103.htm):
"The difficulty was increased by the fact that a safety factor of 10 was needed, a requirement that could not be met by the construction used in the Mosquito (which had a factor of 8 ) owing to the bulk of the additional material that would be needed to give the greater strength. At the same time, in order to avoid a complete changeover of production technique with consequent reorganization and inevitable delays in the shops, it was desired to make use of the Mosquito type of construction to as great an extent as possible.
The outcome of these conflicting requirements is a wing structure based upon the general principle of using metal to carry tensile loads and wood for compression and shear stresses."
Aircraft are designed to meet a particular safety factor, it's not that one material is better or worse, it's just a matter of finding the right materials for the right areas. Wood is better at compressive and aluminium better at tensile loads. Note how the lower wing and aileron skins are made of Alclad and how the tail section is all-metal, yet the remainder of the aircraft is largely of balsa-plywood sandwich construction.

[Adwark]

An airccraft built to an 8 G structural limit is built to take that amount of stress, no matter if it is wood, aluminum or paper.

A wooden aircraft can be built to take the same G loading as a metal one, but typically the metal (aluminum) one will be of lighter weight, and have better protection from environmentl degredation.

But like I said, an 8 G airplane is an 8 G airplane, regardless of construction material.

You are right. 8G plane is 8G plane and not important is it a wood or metal, if you flying with recommended limitation. But situation was changed, if you for example, drop bombs in diving or have a bullet damages. In this case your plane material of strengths is very important, because earlier collapsed wood construction. Wood is fragile material and under overpressure it breaking. Metal is a viscous material and it was deformed, but not breaking. For example, Ju-88 has a full metal construction, but in real life doesn't used like a diving bomber, because its construction deformed after short time. If Ju-88 has a wood construction, he was be a single time diving bomber :D.

[Ernst]

Ok. Reformulating question! Will it all fighter aircraft with standard loadouts have the same g loading limits or will it differ based in its "overall" structure and construction in new 4.10?

I not sayed nothing about materials anymore.

[AndyJWest]

Wood is fragile material and under overpressure it breaking. Metal is a viscous material and it was deformed, but not breaking.
This simply isn't true, Adwark. Or at least, it isn't true in the context of aircraft construction. If you overstress an airframe it may deform, or it may break up, depending on the particular circumstances, but there is nothing inherent in the properties of a properly-designed wooden structure that makes break-up more likely. In fact a properly-bonded wooden structure may do better than a rivited metal airframe in this context.

Modern aircraft construction is making increasing use of composites, which have more in common with wood in terms of structural properties than they do with metals - wood is a 'natural composite', the result of millions of years of natural selection.

As for wood being 'a fragile material', have you ever seen what happens if you drive a car into a tree?

[robday]

Ok. Reformulating question! Will it all fighter aircraft with standard loadouts have the same g loading limits or will it differ based in its "overall" structure and construction in new 4.10?

I not sayed nothing about materials anymore.

It seems to me, from all the posts on this subject that I have seen, that each aircraft will have it's own unique G limit, based upon it's real life value, and that this limit will vary according to wether the aircraft is loaded with various amounts of ordnance or is unloaded

[Adwark]

This simply isn't true, Adwark. Or at least, it isn't true in the context of aircraft construction. If you overstress an airframe it may deform, or it may break up, depending on the particular circumstances, but there is nothing inherent in the properties of a properly-designed wooden structure that makes break-up more likely. In fact a properly-bonded wooden structure may do better than a rivited metal airframe in this context.

Can you show me please source where this is written?

Modern aircraft construction is making increasing use of composites, which have more in common with wood in terms of structural properties than they do with metals - wood is a 'natural composite', the result of millions of years of natural selection.

You was right about present time composite materials. But I was speaking about WW2 aircrafts and materials. Please read my post #774. I was only doesn't know is exist equal book in English.

As for wood being 'a fragile material', have you ever seen what happens if you drive a car into a tree?

Aircrafts wasn't a trees. They are flying. :)

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Adwark
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
This simply isn't true, Adwark. Or at least, it isn't true in the context of aircraft construction. If you overstress an airframe it may deform, or it may break up, depending on the particular circumstances, but there is nothing inherent in the properties of a properly-designed wooden structure that makes break-up more likely. In fact a properly-bonded wooden structure may do better than a rivited metal airframe in this context.
Can you show me please source where this is written?


It is you that is making a claim about the relative structural properties of materials, Adwark, so the burden of proof is really on you. I realise you have given us a link to a Russian source, but without being able to read it, I can't really comment on what it says - in any case, a debate like this is unlikely to be settled by reference to a single source.

Aircraft design is a complex process, and involves amongst other things a good understanding of the properties of the particular materials involved. Simply comparing 'wood' to 'metal' and making statements about how 'fragile' they are is pointless in this context - you need to refer to particular materials, in the situation they are being used. Generalisations tell us little.

[Adwark]

It is you that is making a claim about the relative structural properties of materials, Adwark, so the burden of proof is really on you. I realise you have given us a link to a Russian source, but without being able to read it, I can't really comment on what it says - in any case, a debate like this is unlikely to be settled by reference to a single source.

Yes this is Russian aviation engineers handbook printed at 1954. I was written about it. I agree, if you can't read it, our debate about this book is pointless and we are return to our old positions. Sorry, but I hasn't equal source in English. If I was find something like this in English, I was be glad continue or debate.

[AndyJWest]

I've had a quick look at what Google Translate makes of the book, and it may at least give me an idea of what it is saying. I'm sure there must be other sources for information like this, written in English - I'll see what I can find.

EDIT-------
Unfortunately, on downloading the book I find that it is a scanned image, rather than text, so Google Translate is no help. The file also seems to be corrupted, rendering many pages unreadable. :(

[Ernst]

Ok... But, where are the DT guys to anwser my last question about in game g loadings? :evil:

Please, call them to answer!

[IceFire]

Ok... But, where are the DT guys to anwser my last question about in game g loadings? :evil:

Please, call them to answer!

Hopefully busy testing :)

[AndyJWest]

Ok... But, where are the DT guys to anwser my last question about in game g loadings? :evil:

Please, call them to answer!
I think they have probably answered your question already, at the beginning of this thread:
Development Update - 2010-03-04

Structural G Limits & Multiple Joystick Profiles (internal DT development)

At present all aircraft in IL2 have a single fixed Structural G limit of +13G. It only really becomes an issue with aircraft with exceptionally light elevators such as the P51. Pull more than +13G and you loose your wings. The real life situation is a little more complicated. Real aircraft are designed with an Ultimate load and In Service design load. Both are for a defined configuration and weight.

The in Service load is the typical G available to the pilot. As long as this the G is not exceeded then no aircraft damage will occur. Exceed the In service G limit then damage of varying degrees may occur .. like bent airframes etc. Exceed the Ultimate load then severe damage will occur typically resulting in structural failure ... like wings coming off etc.Typically a safety factor of 1.5 is used. So an Fighter aeroplane with a design In service G limit of say +8G will have an Ultimate load of +12G. As external stores and or weight is increased above the design weight both G limits reduce accordingly. Reduce weight (by dropping bombs or burning fuel etc) and your G limits increase. Bomber and Transport aircraft have G limits much lower than fighters.
So if you abuse the limits you damage the aircraft. Once damaged then its structural integrity is reduced so the ultimate load reduces as well. In other words keep bending the airframe and you will eventually weaken it to the point that very little extra G is required to induce structural failure. A bent airframe wont perform as well either.

The DT team have now simulated this for the first time in IL2. Each aircraft has been given a unique Structural G profile for Ultimate load, In service limit, and dynamic Weight based limits . In addition this is dynamically modified with its own G induced damage profile. The basic Design Ultimate load configuration and weight has been defined as Default load + 100% Fuel. The actual Ultimate design load has been based on Historical values where they are known and guesstimation where they are not known. In broad brush terms for fighters have an Ultimate design load of +12G with an In service limit of +8G. Lets abbreviate this to 8G/12G

How does this work in game ? You take your stock standard Fighter MK 1 with Default armament +100% Fuel your limits are +8G/+12G. You add 2 x 500lbs bombs. your limits now reduce to 5G/8G. So prior to the target you need to be a little more careful with your aeroplane. Lets say pre target you pull + 6G, you have exceeded the In service limit, you will hear a damage sound cue and suffer a slight aerodynamic penalty. In addition your G limits have now reduced to say 4G/6G. (Bust these again and further aerodynamic penalties and further reductions will apply). You progress to the target and release your bombs. Since the weight is reduced your limits will increase but since you already bent the airframe you wont get back your original limits. You might then get say +6G/+9G. As you can see if you keep abusing the limits you will end with a very weakened airframe.

In the case of heavy bombers G limits will prevent any real aerobatic manoeuvers. You will still be able to evade quite well but you wont be able to BFM with aeroplanes like the A20 anymore. Bombers will be just that: Bombers. G limits will be applicable to AI planes as well and they will fly in a more realistic way too.

Is G displayed? Unless the aircraft in game is equipped with a G meter then no. So you will need to re think how you fly. Random snatches particularly at high speeds are going to hurt .... just as they do in real life. You will need to be aware of Corner speeds because any time you are faster than Corner speed you run the risk of an Over G event. (We are yet to finalise the display side of things)

"Each aircraft has been given a unique Structural G profile for Ultimate load, In service limit, and dynamic Weight based limits "

[bf-110]

Is Daidalos Team only working on planes,physics and maps are you planning to add ground objects and vehicles?

[WTE_Galway]

wow ... do the threads here get off topic or what :D Maybe start a new topic to avoid the thread getting hijacked guys.

Aside from anything else their may be other people with knowledge on specialized topics that would contribute if it was a separate thread :D


Not to matter ... one question i have ... when/where can we get a hold of the voids or skin templates for the new aircraft ?

[Adwark]

Do you have any evidence that the DH Mosquito was designed to lower G-loading standards than similar metal-construction aircraft? If you do, I'd like to see it.

Here is two links http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Mosquito/MosquitoFB6Manual.pdf see chapter 52.

Second http://books.google.lv/books?id=SfwqCTY9I6MC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=P-51+flying+limitations&source=bl&ots=hNLDZtYMJ3&sig=hdIhOJM4UYY98W6aO7nIGLkGugo&hl=lv&ei=dJjaS8uaIdOgOL3r8PoP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=P-51%20flying%20limitations&f=false .

Both in English.

[Hawker17]

Team Daidalos, will the trigger functionality be available in patch 4.10 or in future patches?

Thanks for your hard work.

[MrBaato]

Hi, will the multi crew option also make it possible for players to join an other player in a single seat aircraft?
(with the joining player only being able to view)

[AndyJWest]

Here is two links http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Mosquito/MosquitoFB6Manual.pdf see chapter 52.

Second http://books.google.lv/books?id=SfwqCTY9I6MC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=P-51+flying+limitations&source=bl&ots=hNLDZtYMJ3&sig=hdIhOJM4UYY98W6aO7nIGLkGugo&hl=lv&ei=dJjaS8uaIdOgOL3r8PoP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=P-51%20flying%20limitations&f=false .

Both in English.
Yes, but you are comparing the P-51 to the Mosquito. I Asked for "evidence that the DH Mosquito was designed to lower G-loading standards than similar metal-construction aircraft". I don't see how a single seater fighter can be 'similar" to a twin engined bomber/night fighter in this context.

I can't see any stated G-load limitations in the Mosquito document anyway, so this doesn't really help.

[Ernst]

May you have to post a P-38 or ME-110 manual to solve the match. I think P-38 "twin tailed devil" it is a superb twin engine fighter, and i guess it is mainly metal construction. I guess that it would not fly as it flied if it was mainly wood construction.

Take a P-38 Manual and post here guys. I did not read it before, take a look friends:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/p-38-erection-maintenance-pages-20445.html

[Erkki]

What makes you think using wood results in lower performance? Why do you think its worse? FW190, late Bf109s as well as most Russian aircraft, including IL-2s, had wood in them. So did the Mosquito. Ta-154, He-162, La-7, anyone?

If an aircraft can tolerate 8G then it can tolerate the 8G no matter what its constructed of.

[robtek]

Also if a wooden construction is slightly overstressed it bends and gets back to its original form.
A metal structure, connected by rivets, starts to bend and by that the rivets become a bit more loose.
That weakens the construction quite a bit! A metal construction doesn't forget stresses!

[MD_Titus]

more knowledge than the aircraft engineers that made these things?

[AndyJWest]

Ernst, I can see no point in even attempting to correct your misunderstanding of what is under discussion here. If you want to contribute anything useful, I suggest you study a little about the subject first, rather than making ridiculous claims based on balsa-wood and the carbon content of aluminium alloys.

As far as I'm concerned, unless somone can come up with meaningful comparative G-load figures, the topic is closed.

[Friendly_flyer]

I really, really like the personal plane lists idea! I really only fly a small subset of planes, and most of them are far down the list (i.e. Hurricane Mk.I). This is going to make my life a lot simpler!

[AndyJWest]

Would like to see this comparative g-loads figures too. Its difficult to find, if you known please post. Take a look here:

http://faa-engineers.com/~mjgundry/blog/images/V-nCalculation.pdf

What do you say about? Can this procedure give us a clue?

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-appA.html

http://faa-engineers.com/~mjgundry/blog/images/V-nCalculation.pdf
"V Speed Determination for RW-11" The RW-11 seems to be an "Easy to build replica of the [Piper] Vagabond." What has this got to do with anything? No mention of G limits anyway.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-appA.html
Modern FAA regulations for a particular class of light aircraft - no mention of materials used - irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Posting random off-topic articles is no way to settle anything. I'm going to ignore any further comments/links from you, unless someone else thinks they are worth considering.

[MD_Titus]

doubtful. i know near bugger all about that kind of stuff, and his posts read like nonsense.

[Adwark]

Yes, but you are comparing the P-51 to the Mosquito. I Asked for "evidence that the DH Mosquito was designed to lower G-loading standards than similar metal-construction aircraft". I don't see how a single seater fighter can be 'similar" to a twin engined bomber/night fighter in this context.

I can't see any stated G-load limitations in the Mosquito document anyway, so this doesn't really help.

AndyJWest you was misunderstand me. I wasn't compared P-51 and DH Mosquito. You was right, it isn't similar. I was only illustrated a metal and a wood constructions limitations. G limit is a "IL-2 Sturmovik" game feature, who simplify simulated a forces has affected flying aircraft. The game wood construction strengthen can be stronger like metal. Flaying limitations in P-51 and Mosquito pilot manuals is a G limit. Sorry, but I hasn't real aircrafts G limit comparison tables. We can compared only flaying limitations in pilots manuals or calculate and compared aircraft strength in different flying modes, but this is a hard work.:) So, let's look in pilot manual, Mosquito hasn't a diving limitation. P-51 has and can diving beyond 75% of the speed of sound.
Question: Is it meaning, Mosquito is stronger like P-51? Why DH Mosquito hasn't diving limitation, but P-51 has? Is it meaning, fully loaded real DH Mosquito can diving without limits?
The game Mosquito can. Is it right?

[Adwark]

Also if a wooden construction is slightly overstressed it bends and gets back to its original form.
A metal structure, connected by rivets, starts to bend and by that the rivets become a bit more loose.
That weakens the construction quite a bit! A metal construction doesn't forget stresses!

Huh. You know some builders in my town thinking like you. You know what happened with them? They are in jail now. They took off ceiling general support pylons and wood covering little bit overstressed and broken down. 3 peoples was killed. Is ceiling has a metal rails covering 3 peoples doesn't die. Its only sagging, but not breaking. That is wood and metal constructions difference. Wood is wood, metal is metal. Thats not important where are you used it.

[robtek]

In the context where i posted this its meant a SLIGHT overstress, say 5 to 10 %, for a short period of time, say 5 to 10 seconds,
as one might expect in a break turn or a pull-out.
That is a unintentional overstressing.
I believe what you wanted to say is that someone was building a roof not acoording to the expected loads,
well, thats intentional and really doesn't reflect the situation that i pictured.
Anyway, that a metal construction only sags if overstressed to the same degree as a wooden construction is very hypothetical and hard to prove.

[SaQSoN]

To stop this pointless discussion about wood vs metal:

For any mechanical engineer it is absolutely obvious, that if an object is properly designed to withstand a certain load, it will withstand it, no matter which material it was designed and built from - wood, steel, aluminum or even $hit. Offcourse, each material has it's limits and for certain tasks some of them aren't applicable at all. Like, you can build a plane from wood or metal, but you can not build it from a $hit, though you can build, say, a house from any of the listed materials.

So, the final point is, if, for instance, we have two wing spars, one of them was designed and built from wood and the other one - from a metal and both are supposed to withstand 8G, they both will do it absolutely equally. Period, nothing to talk about any longer.

About fatigue. Again, no reason to even take it into account, because material fatigue is a rather continuous process, it is generally impossible to reach a dangerous level of it during one mission, unless the airframe does not experience flatter (damage from which is modeled in the game). And, as we all know, the every next mission we fly in a factory-new airplane, which does not have any fatigue or other damage accumulated yet - that's the game limitation. It does not have any mean to transfer your plane state from mission to mission. Hence, no reason to model fatigue. And discuss it in relation to the IL-2 either.

That's all, folks.

[T}{OR]

To stop this pointless discussion about wood vs metal:

For any mechanical engineer it is absolutely obvious, that if an object is properly designed to withstand a certain load, it will withstand it, no matter which material it was designed and built from - wood, steel, aluminum or even $hit. Offcourse, each material has it's limits and for certain tasks some of them aren't applicable at all. Like, you can build a plane from wood or metal, but you can not build it from a $hit, though you can build, say, a house from any of the listed materials.

So, the final point is, if, for instance, we have two wing spars, one of them was designed and built from wood and the other one - from a metal and both are supposed to withstand 8G, they both will do it absolutely equally. Period, nothing to talk about any longer.

About fatigue. Again, no reason to even take it into account, because material fatigue is a rather continuous process, it is generally impossible to reach a dangerous level of it during one mission, unless the airframe does not experience flatter (damage from which is modeled in the game). And, as we all know, the every next mission we fly in a factory-new airplane, which does not have any fatigue or other damage accumulated yet - that's the game limitation. It does not have any mean to transfer your plane state from mission to mission. Hence, no reason to model fatigue. And discuss it in relation to the IL-2 either.

That's all, folks.

Well said. I would have posted something like that myself but I just didn't bother. People posting incorrect stuff about that lack technical education IMO.

Maybe SoW will have such a feature, to simulate fatigue over continuous period of missions...

[Zorin]

I have a question regarding the G limit, too. Nothing technical in nature though, rather something to ease tensions with this new feature.

Will there be a HUD message that will display current Gs? I think this would help people a great deal to adjust their flying accordingly. If I'm not mistaken something like that could be seen in the video that came with the dev. update for the G limitations.

[OberstDanjeje]

I have a question regarding the G limit, too. Nothing technical in nature though, rather something to ease tensions with this new feature.

Will there be a HUD message that will display current Gs? I think this would help people a great deal to adjust their flying accordingly. If I'm not mistaken something like that could be seen in the video that came with the dev. update for the G limitations.


Good point and good idea!!
HUD G meter will be needed

[ElAurens]

You already have two G meters on either side of the cockpit.

Just ask any P51 pilot.

[AndyJWest]

Offline, you can get 'G' via DeviceLink with external software (the documentation calls it 'overload', but it definitely correlates with G).

Other than that, you'll have to rely on experience, like real pilots of the time did - though they probably only got it wrong once...

[OberstDanjeje]

Other than that, you'll have to rely on experience, like real pilots of the time did - though they probably only got it wrong once...

Agreed with you but it's just to familiarize with this new feature and to understand the new aircraft's limits

[IceFire]

Didn't they say there would be sound effects to give you an audio clue that your plane was experiencing airframe stress?

[BadAim]

Offline, you can get 'G' via DeviceLink with external software (the documentation calls it 'overload', but it definitely correlates with G).

Other than that, you'll have to rely on experience, like real pilots of the time did - though they probably only got it wrong once...

LOL. Good point. If the guys who ACTUALLY did this stuff were able to fly 134,316 hours and survive 34,945 deaths, then they would have 47,892 kills too.

[TheDawg]

Didn't they say there would be sound effects to give you an audio clue that your plane was experiencing airframe stress?

yup!

[Skoshi Tiger]

Just a question, can you actually hear stuff when your blacking out or does the lack of blood to the brain deaden the auditory sense too?

cheers!

[Azimech]

As far as I can remember first you lose sight, then hearing. Hearing even works after loss of consciousness.

[RAF74_Winger]

My own experience has been that I tend to lose vision first (grey out), then hearing. I've never blacked out (unconscious), but if hearing worked after loss of consciousness, how on earth would you know?

It would be nice if DT could get rid of the red hue when flying at -1 or -2G, not realistic at all for a pilot accustomed to flying inverted.

Didn't they say there would be sound effects to give you an audio clue that your plane was experiencing airframe stress?

If you heard anything, I suspect that it would be at the very last moment as the spar cap buckled, i.e: too late.

W.

[bf-110]

I guess you can hear things,but can´t remember of that?

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

They are right with black out, first vision, don`t compare it with a knock out.. all at the same time... bye bye ;)

[rollnloop]

My own experience has been that I tend to lose vision first (grey out), then hearing. I've never blacked out (unconscious), but if hearing worked after loss of consciousness, how on earth would you know?

It would be nice if DT could get rid of the red hue when flying at -1 or -2G, not realistic at all for a pilot accustomed to flying inverted.



If you heard anything, I suspect that it would be at the very last moment as the spar cap buckled, i.e: too late.

W.

Mine was to lose color first (see the world in grey and white), then peripheral sight. Didn't go further. +1 for the -1G/2G red.

[Icewolf]

I have only one question
which will be released first
SOW or patch 4.10 ??

[nearmiss]

Patch 4.10 will be released first:grin:

[Aty2]

two weeks:grin:

[ElAurens]

Be sure!!!!

:)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Guess we deserved that one... :)

[Romanator21]

How is the beta testing doing at least? :)

[daidalos.team]

We are going to explain the current status of patch development most likely within the next week.

[Daniël]

Can the Bv 246 "Hagelkorn" gliding bomb be added to 4.10, or is it too late for 4.10?
I would appreciate that very much if it could be added to 4.10.
A few pictures:
http://users.atw.hu/priskos/Alakulatok-Hadseregek/Specialis/Nemet/hagelkorn/bv246_hagelkorn_350.jpg

http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.luft46.com/missile/bv246-3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.luft46.com/missile/bv246.html&usg=__pPuStJdh8ZNdGVIeOgwiBXahqeQ=&h=241&w=390&sz=20&hl=nl&start=12&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=DTnKksLvWtlenM:&tbnh=76&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBv%2B246%2B%2522Hagelkorn%2522%26um%3 D1%26hl%3Dnl%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4ADBR_nlNL247NL247 %26tbs%3Disch:1

[robtek]

@Daniel

it seems to me that there will be NO additions to something thats already in the beta-testing phase!!!

sometimes wishes have to regard reality.

[heywooood]

We are going to explain the current status of patch development most likely within the next week.


this last post was in January....?

is 4.10 going to happen before SoW - and are there any updates / screenshots ?

will there be new Pacific content in 4.10 - carriers, Avengers etc...

[AndyJWest]

will there be new Pacific content in 4.10 - carriers, Avengers etc...
Have you read what TD say is going to be in the next patch? Are you expecting them to include stuff they haven't already told us about? Do you actually expect after the endless discussion of the 'Grumman issue' and TD saying they can't risk getting involved, that they are going to give us a flyable Avenger?

Just what exactly about TD is it that people don't understand? It is quite simple: (a) they are doing this in their spare time, with limited resources, (b) they hoped to have the next patch released by now, but are still beta-testing, and (c) YOU CAN'T ADD NEW THINGS TO A BETA TEST - if you do, it isn't beta testing at all. First, you design and test components seperately, and when they are ready, you beta-test to ensure they all work together. If you add something new you have to restart beta-testing from scratch.

To summarise: (A) Is 'x' included? - No, unless either they have already said it is, or they are planning to surprise us (in which case they won't let on now), and (B) 'Can you include 'y'? - No, not unless they already have.

[Fafnir_6]

this last post was in January....?

is 4.10 going to happen before SoW - and are there any updates / screenshots ?

will there be new Pacific content in 4.10 - carriers, Avengers etc...

See page one for the latest update and a list of announced upgrades in the 4.10 patch.

SoW is rumored to be out in Oct?? and 4.10 was expected by easter prior to the delay in beta testing. If you look on the last page, you'll see that DT is planning to issue an announcement concerning the delay. Patience :)

No carriers or flyable Avengers have been announced (you never know) for 4.10. You could go here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=8815&page=122 and request those things..respectfully...and perhaps you will be rewarded.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[SPITACE]

how many updates is team daidalos going to do for IL2? and when are they going to stop? when will it all end.

[Hawker17]

The planning goes to patch 4.13 (june 2011). See 4.10 patch overview first picture at the beginning of this topic.

[csThor]

Again (for the umpteenth time):

There won't be a flyable Avenger from Daidalos for we are subject to the same limitations as Maddox Games WRT to "the Grumman incident". We can modify what is there - texture, FM, probably weapons package etc - but we will not make a type flyable that is touched by "the Grumman incident".

[Furio]

Thank you for your patience, Thor.:-)

I think that we have enough flyable planes to make any conceivable campaign or mission, save for the heavy bomber, that are ill suited for the game engine. I feel that we actually need some more AI types. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but AI types are much less complicated to do than flyable ones. If – just an educated guess – four AI types require as much work as a single flyable, I would surely choose the four AIs. An example: instead of the G**m**n A**n**r, I would prefer the complete series of Navy types on carrier deck: Devastator and Vindicator for early war years (needed to recreate Midway) and Helldiver for late war years (needed to recreate the Leyte Gulf battle). I repeat: AI only!

But, of course, to ask is easy, and we must be grateful to DT for anything they had done and will do in future!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

will there be new Pacific content in 4.10 - carriers, Avengers etc...

Leaving the NG planes outside, there is still enough room for pacific content.
There will be nothing in 4.10 though, but DT is aware and has the oppinion, that the PTO is underdeveloped, compared to other theatres in game. We already are working on such content, there is no defined content list yet.

I think this will get interesting after 4.10 release.

[bf-110]

Damn,chill out.
You don´t need to harass new members because they don´t know what´s happening here.

[robtek]

@bf-110

Nobody has to feel harassed, but any new member should be so polite and read the thread before asking questions already answered or self-explanatory.

[ElAurens]

Thank you Caspar for mentioning the Pacific.

There is a wealth of things that could be done in this theater that won't touch the Grumman problem.

Mostly maps. I know the wonderful Slot map is coming. A good start as it is a beautiful map. I'm sure you are aware of the NGNB map that is in process. Another beautiful piece of work. Hopefully it too will make some future official release.

Another suggestion is a map of operations in China. An almost totally forgotten battle. It would fill a huge gap in combat simulation.

I will only suggest two aircraft for the Allies and the Imperial Japanese. All of which present no corporate issues.

Curtiss P40 N Warhawk. The highest performing, most produced version of the Hawk 87 series. It was widely used throughout the Pacific/CBI areas of operation.

Curtiss Helldiver. Though much maligned early on, it became a workhorse of the USN.

Nakajima Ki44 Shoki. Seen thoughout the Western areas and in China. A bit of variety for the middle war period.

Mitsubishi Ki51 "Sonia". A very widely used single engne, fixed gear, Army two seat attack aircraft. Seen anywhere the Imperial Army operated. Would give the IJA a much needed attack type.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for all your hard work.

[IceFire]

Thank you Caspar for mentioning the Pacific.

There is a wealth of things that could be done in this theater that won't touch the Grumman problem.

Mostly maps. I know the wonderful Slot map is coming. A good start as it is a beautiful map. I'm sure you are aware of the NGNB map that is in process. Another beautiful piece of work. Hopefully it too will make some future official release.

Another suggestion is a map of operations in China. An almost totally forgotten battle. It would fill a huge gap in combat simulation.

I will only suggest two aircraft for the Allies and the Imperial Japanese. All of which present no corporate issues.

Curtiss P40 N Warhawk. The highest performing, most produced version of the Hawk 87 series. It was widely used throughout the Pacific/CBI areas of operation.

Curtiss Helldiver. Though much maligned early on, it became a workhorse of the USN.

Nakajima Ki44 Shoki. Seen thoughout the Western areas and in China. A bit of variety for the middle war period.

Mitsubishi Ki51 "Sonia". A very widely used single engne, fixed gear, Army two seat attack aircraft. Seen anywhere the Imperial Army operated. Would give the IJA a much needed attack type.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for all your hard work.
I'd love to see that happen. CBI theater has so little representation anywhere and it would be fairly "easy" to set something up there and expand the gameplay area significantly.

[bf-110]

Thank you Caspar for mentioning the Pacific.

There is a wealth of things that could be done in this theater that won't touch the Grumman problem.

Mostly maps. I know the wonderful Slot map is coming. A good start as it is a beautiful map. I'm sure you are aware of the NGNB map that is in process. Another beautiful piece of work. Hopefully it too will make some future official release.

Another suggestion is a map of operations in China. An almost totally forgotten battle. It would fill a huge gap in combat simulation.

I will only suggest two aircraft for the Allies and the Imperial Japanese. All of which present no corporate issues.

Curtiss P40 N Warhawk. The highest performing, most produced version of the Hawk 87 series. It was widely used throughout the Pacific/CBI areas of operation.

Curtiss Helldiver. Though much maligned early on, it became a workhorse of the USN.

Nakajima Ki44 Shoki. Seen thoughout the Western areas and in China. A bit of variety for the middle war period.

Mitsubishi Ki51 "Sonia". A very widely used single engne, fixed gear, Army two seat attack aircraft. Seen anywhere the Imperial Army operated. Would give the IJA a much needed attack type.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for all your hard work.

Agree,along Ki-67,D4Y,G3M and Ki-45.For China,P-43 would come in handy.

[Mysticpuma]

Hello TD. I have eagerly watched the news re. patch 4.10. I saw that there was to be an update to QMB which is great news.

Can I ask, will it be possible to choose any map that is available in FMB, as a map to use in QMB?

So, in the drop-down which currently has about 5 maps (ish) Crimea, Moscow, Okinawa, etc,etc, will it be possible to choose any map?

Secondly, are there any new maps being added in patch 4.10 that are currently not available in 4.09m (official).

Cheers, MP

[JG53Frankyboy]

to add a map available in the FMB to the QMB templates for the quickmissions have to be made...........................................its not only copy and paste.

as already mentioned in the updates, in 4.10 a "Slot" map(from Guadalcanal up to Bougainville)will be included.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Thank you Caspar for mentioning the Pacific.

There is a wealth of things that could be done in this theater that won't touch the Grumman problem.

Mostly maps. I know the wonderful Slot map is coming. A good start as it is a beautiful map. I'm sure you are aware of the NGNB map that is in process. Another beautiful piece of work. Hopefully it too will make some future official release.

Another suggestion is a map of operations in China. An almost totally forgotten battle. It would fill a huge gap in combat simulation.

I will only suggest two aircraft for the Allies and the Imperial Japanese. All of which present no corporate issues.

Curtiss P40 N Warhawk. The highest performing, most produced version of the Hawk 87 series. It was widely used throughout the Pacific/CBI areas of operation.

Curtiss Helldiver. Though much maligned early on, it became a workhorse of the USN.

Nakajima Ki44 Shoki. Seen thoughout the Western areas and in China. A bit of variety for the middle war period.

Mitsubishi Ki51 "Sonia". A very widely used single engne, fixed gear, Army two seat attack aircraft. Seen anywhere the Imperial Army operated. Would give the IJA a much needed attack type.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for all your hard work.

a flyable D4Y2 would be my favorite , that the japanese Navy would get a little bit more punch (AFAIK able to carry a 500kg bomb....) in the 1944 marianes campaign launched from carriers :D

the Heldiver would be a locigal AdOn, so both Navies would have the early war Divebomber and the late war divebomber as flyable - but actually not soo much needed as the USN has their heavy loaded fighterbombers available ;)

as the Avenger will never be flyable :( , the japanese B5N&B6N also should stay AI - unfortunatly

my late war favorite would be a flyable Ki-67 bomber, usefull for Okinawa, Kyushu and Manchirua maps :)

[Furio]

Looks like we can sum up all request easily to DT: would you please add all aircraft flown operationally in WWII? All flyable, of course...:rolleyes:

In my opinion, the problem is on carrier deck. As you fly missions from any land base, it’s not an historical issue if some type is missing. I like the B26, but if I’m operating from an MTO airfield and I’m escorting (or attacking) B25 only, well, it can be. But on the confined space of any US carrier the situation is different. In the early war years, you should always see Devastators, and Vindicators in many cases. In late war years you’ll always see Helldivers. Of course, the same can be said for IJN carriers. Here you should see B6N, D4Y and late type Vals.

Daidalus Team is doing a tremendous amount of work, but we should be realistic in our requests. In my opinion, an effort in updating Pacific Theatre should concentrate on carriers. Six new aircraft types are a lot of work, and I believe that accepting these as AI only could reduce the workload to a manageable level and deliver a complete package for very interesting mission building based on historical battles.

So, this is my question for DT: generally speaking, how an AI aircraft compares to a flyable one in time to completion? I understand that there are many variables, but a good cockpit is a complex thing, perhaps more than a whole new aircraft, to say nothing of the necessary research in performances and handling.

[JG53Frankyboy]

you need for a cockpit 2-3 times the time as for the external 3D/texture modell.....in general.

and making the external is much more fun i guess ;)


any wish for a flyable multicrew bomber, like my dream of a Ki-67 , is a pure dream and will most propably stay one - i know that.


a "carrier concentrated" update in 4.11 or even 4.12 ( :D ) would be realy nice , not only for the USN and IJN, also for the RN - having the AIs Swordfish and Fulamr of 4.10 in my mind.


and not to forgett , TD is thinking about to overwork the midwar channel fighters series - the Spit V, IX, 109 and 190.
IF they dont stop the work for IL2 and wont change to SoW too fast they are SURE not out of ideas for the il2 future.
anyway, its true, this topic is about 4.10 - so any further speculation should stop. they already claimed a lot of changes comming in 4.10 :)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

So, this is my question for DT: generally speaking, how an AI aircraft compares to a flyable one in time to completion? I understand that there are many variables, but a good cockpit is a complex thing, perhaps more than a whole new aircraft, to say nothing of the necessary research in performances and handling.

I never made an complete external model yet, I just made cockpits. I could easily do a cockpit in 4 weeks. But in the current status of my life I need ~3 months for one for DT.

From what I saw about externals I indeed think, that both is quite equal in work ammount, but different in kind of work. And I also think, that most of the external work (namely everything else than LoD00) is quite boring and sometimes annoying to do, while a cockpit stays intersting as you get it to know with each part you add. :)

Of course I would be interested in doing an external too, but for now I started with a ship external. ;D

[JG53Frankyboy]

true, i forgott the LODs - indeed , THAT most be a annoying work......................

[Furio]

Thank you, Caspar and Frankyboy for your reply. And you’re right: this is now off topic. My mistake. Next post will be in the proper thread (funny: it was started by me six months ago...). Since I have more curiosity on the flyable-AI matter, I’ll go on there.

A p.s. for moderators: perhaps these last posts may be moved in the other thread...

[Ernst]

May 10, will you need more " Olegian two weeks" for release?;) No problem, our friends here are patient. Are not, folks? Hehehe... :twisted:

[JG53Frankyboy]

well, Oleg and team got money for their work, TD not...........................................

[Romanator21]

There must be some way to bypass this rule. Maybe alter the code to accept just one specific "unofficial" add-on? Can we have Grumman Avengers if they are not called by that name, but rather something similar like "Gorman Attackers"? If I'm not mistaken, the Brits called it "Tarpon" and were modified by the Blackburn company, which may be an adequate change. (ie "Blackburn Tarpon"). What about examples produced by GM (General Motors)? They are currently used as fire-fighting aircraft in Canada, which may provide some loophole? Is a written petition asking for permission to add pits still out of the question?

I'm just throwing some ideas up here, don't take it the wrong way :-P


As the Avenger will never be flyable :(, the Japanese B5N&B6N also should stay AI - unfortunately

That's a terrible idea! :eek: The aircraft are totally different anyway! The Japanese currently don't have anything comparable to the Beaufighter for instance. I'm glad that didn't have to stay AI.

[AndyJWest]

There must be some way to bypass this rule.
As I understand it, there is no 'rule'. It seems quite likely that if it ever came to court, Grumman would lose. That isn't the problem though. Grumman threatened to sue, and Ubi/1C:Maddox couldn't afford to take the risk, so they apparently came to an agreement with Grumman. Since this agreement presumably still stands, trying to find a way around it risks ending up back in the original situation, and it makes no business sense at all to take the risk now if it wasn't worth taking to start with.

Without knowing exactly what was agreed, speculating about ways around it is fairly pointless. Both 1C:Maddox and TD have made their positions clear though - no new Grumman products in the sim.

[bf-110]

Hum,perharps,a naval update (what if Graf Zeppelin and Bf-109T would be added?),a night fighters update (planes with radar,P-61,british medium and heavy bombers,like Wellinton,Lancaster) and an early war update (France and Poland),and maybe a ground objets update (ships,tanks,arty,maps).

[ElAurens]

No P61 is possible, it's part of Northrop Grumman you know.

[bf-110]

Sh...you right...
Is there any other similar fighter for USAF?

[Xilon_x]

YES i like much the P61 is multirole airplane bomber-recognition-fighter anti sommerigible FANTASTICK the p61.
P61 BLACK WIDOW is good NIGHT FIGHTER.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtom7c1rkn8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny-fr3l4T_g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhxfuLSVgoo&feature=related

[Fearfactor]

You guys should get paid for this sh**!! It takes a lot of dedication to come up with all of this.

[nearmiss]

Fearfactor

Speculating and ranting about money for addons and stuff is just so much more of what we have all read 1,000s of times in previoius postings.

Remember, Ubisoft is still in the loop for IL2 distribution and there might not be a workaround for add-ons without Ubisoft participation.

Afterall, paid for add-ons were retail shelf items for IL2 as it progressed over the years.

Patches were free download items

[JG53Frankyboy]

Sh...you right...
Is there any other similar fighter for USAF?


P-70 :

"In October 1940, the USAAC felt a need for long-range fighters more than attack bombers, so some of the production run of A-20s were converted to P-70 and P-70A night-fighters. They were equipped with SCR-540 radar (a copy of British AI Mk IV), the glazed nose often painted black to reduce glare and hide the details of the radar set, and had four 20 mm (.79 in) forward-firing cannon in a ventral bomb bay tray. Further P-70 variants were produced from A-20C, G and J variants. The singular airframe P-70B-1 (converted from an A-20G) and subsequent P-70B-2s (converted from A-20Gs and Js) had American centimetric radar (SCR-720 or SCR-729) fitted. The P-70s and P-70As saw combat ONLY in the Pacific during World War II and only with the USAAF. The P-70B-1 and P-70B-2 aircraft never saw combat but served as night fighter aircrew trainers in the US in Florida and later in California. All P-70s were retired from service by 1945."

[kancerosik]

Hi all!!!
in reference to G structural limits modded in 4.10m, I understand that each plane got his own... or is a generic value for bombers/heavy fighters/fighters?.

In my opinion, will be great if we can see in advance one list with all the planes and its structural G limits, becouse this factor will change the way of fight of all IL2 pilots

thanks Daidalos for such ammount of work :)

[jermin]

TD, do find a way to lock the stock FM, if not the entire game. That's my only request for 4.10 now.

[FrankB]

Hi all!!!
in reference to G structural limits modded in 4.10m, I understand that each plane got his own... or is a generic value for bombers/heavy fighters/fighters?.

Which part of: "Each aircraft has been given a unique Structural G profile for Ultimate load, In service limit, and dynamic Weight based limits." you do not understand?

[kancerosik]

Which part of: "Each aircraft has been given a unique Structural G profile for Ultimate load, In service limit, and dynamic Weight based limits." you do not understand?

plz read my post to the end before reply. Im asking for a list of Il2 planes with the structural limits

[FrankB]

plz read my post to the end before reply. Im asking for a list of Il2 planes with the structural limits

In my part of the world questions usually end with a question mark.
1. You have asked whether the limits are individual or not - this I have answered.
2. Then you have expressed a wish about having the list - this is something for TD to answer.

[JG53Frankyboy]

perhaps wait for the 4.10 readme ...............

[capitalist pig]

I just registered on this site today and found this site from MT4,
Without having to read the some 86 pages of threads, does anyone on this forum have any clue as to what month 4.10 will be ready for download?

Looking the patch release schedule calendar I found on M4T 4.10 patch update thread - the team working on the update patches should be half way into the 4.11 by now.

I see threads about "money for add-ons" Is team daidalos short of funds?

If that's the case something could be arranged.

thanks very much

[JG53Frankyboy]

We are going to explain the current status of patch development most likely within the next week.

<-

[bf-110]

Well,I don´t understand either the common rants like contributions for TD,G limits,wood planes...

[Romanator21]

:rolleyes:

i hope no

I hope you've heard of something called "difficulty option". It lets the player choose certain features to be on or off to change the difficulty and tailor the playing experience to his own wishes.

[Xilon_x]

DEDICATED TO DAIDALOS TEAM, AND 1C COMPANY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSItvCvQQ2Y

NOTE: in this list missing ITALIAN HEAVY BOMBER PIAGGIO P 108.

[Furio]

The list is both interesting and funny.

The Avro Manchester is listed as a medium bomber (it was dimensionally identical to the Lancaster and employed in the strategic bomber role, as the Wellington and Whitley). The FW200 is listed as a strategic bomber (it was a reconnaissance and patrol bomber).

Many types were never used operationally (like the He100) or were used only as second line types (like the He51). The American list includes the YP59 (never operational) but lacks the P35 and P43 (briefly operational).

Twin-engined Whirlwind is correctly listed as “fighter”, but Me262 and Meteor are oddly in the “heavy fighters” list, which includes a pure bomber like the Breguet 693 (695 actually portrayed)... The American torpedo bombers list includes the SBC (second line only) and lacks the Devastator...

A Latecoere floatplane is included in the attack-light bomber list, while the Blenheim, Pe2 and Wellesley are listed as medium bombers, alongside the Albemarle glider tug.

The Focke Wulf FW58 trainer is listed as a transport, while the Norseman transport is listed as a reconnaissance type...:)
The Andrews sister are great, of course!

[Furio]

I don’t want to appear rude with Xilon, and apologize for any involuntary sarcasm. His list has surely a merit: it helps visualize easily the raw number of aircraft operated by the combatants in WWII. Now, there’s nothing wrong in asking for a Meteor, and even less if a member of Daidalos Team has his own favourite plane and makes it a flyable addition even if it’s a minor or irrelevant type. But when we talk of the whole Il2 as a WWII sim, we should consider the whole picture.

American bombers in the Pacific offer a classic example: two types were used operationally against Japan, the B29 and the B32, but 99,999% of sorties were flown by B29, the B32 contribution to war effort being absolutely irrelevant. Now, look at the list of planes presently available, both AI and flyable. I don’t have precise numbers (probably nobody can have them), but my feeling is that our available planes cover more than 70% of total combat missions flown, and most of the remaining were probably flown by British night bombers. So, if we look at the relevant combat planes only, the list of types needed is really short (in my opinion).
American types: B26 Marauder and SB2C Helldiver.
British types: Lancaster and Wellington, possibly Halifax.
German types: He177.

As you can see, all are bombers, and some big ones. It would be wise to ask for them in AI only version.

[Mysticpuma]

Just wondering in a future patch if it may be possible to tweak the take-off positions of the aircraft so that we could at-least have aircraft taking off in pairs side-by-side?

I managed to do this the other evening by setting up two aircraft on the runway in FMB. I was Aircraft position two. I then started the engine, pulled alongside the first aircraft and matched it as it took off. Was long winded, and sometimes it appeared as though the breaks were permanently on as I couldn't exceed 50 k/mh, but eventually I made a synchronised take-off with another aircraft.

Is there any possibility of this in IL2 so that two aircraft can be placed side-by-side so they take-off under manual or AI flight?

Cheers, MP

[JG53Frankyboy]

we all should use this topic for 4.10 related stuff again.

for "wishes" after 4.10 use this topic
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=8815

otherwise this 4.10 topic is fading away, actually it is almost already.

[bf-110]

Boulton Paul Defiant was considered a fighter?

[robtek]

But of course!
The turret was meant as an offensive Weapon!!
Just fly along side by side with an enemy aircraft and blast away.

[koivis]

Boulton Paul Defiant was considered a fighter?
:confused:
It was a fighter. Used as day fighter before and during BoB, afterwards used as a night fighter and target tug.

[Jack_Aubrey]

With the multi throller/radiator/prop pitch the radiator would be another axis or it keep to key stroke?? the same goes for the mixture, i supposed that it would be keep as key stroke but maybe it goes to axis ten it would be a lot more axis than ever :D
Thanks
PD---> Sorry if this it's been asked before but the search don't find it and already are 88 pages...

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Dear Santa... I mean, Daidalos Team... I just bought a brand new Saitek x65f. Double throttle... waiting for you.:-P

[bf-110]

So Defiant would be a good plane to "fly" in IL2.
4 MGs in back...poor germans.

[Igo kyu]

So Defiant would be a good plane to "fly" in IL2.
4 MGs in back...poor germans.
Not one mg in front. Poor aircrew once the Germans figured that out. With a couple of forward firing 0.50s or so, it might have been very good, though it would have been even slower than it was, and it wasn't as fast as the Hurricane.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

....actually it is almost already.

Do you know something Franky????:eek:

[Sita]

We are going to explain the current status of patch development most likely within the next week.

today is thursday? or some mistake in my calendar...

With Respect to DT :)

[Romanator21]

It's 12:30. DT doesn't usually post until the afternoon or evening, in my time zone. Patience ;)

[daidalos.team]

Sorry guys, busy with RL. No update today. We are busy with programming.

Martin

[Sita]

ok ...
we understand ...
good luck ... :)

with Respect to DT :)

[Ernst]

Update? I expect no update but release. :evil: One month and a half delay, more two weeks?

[Insuber]

Update? I expect no update but release. :evil: One month and a half delay, more two weeks?

Ernst,

Please be more respectful towards people doing 4.10 for free on their spare time, and bear in mind the complexity of testing and debugging so many new features.

Cheers,
Insuber

[Sita]

Cool down :) let work to itself in pleasure :)

or you made a PreOrder this patch? :)

[Ernst]

Ernst,

Please be more respectful towards people doing 4.10 for free on their spare time, and bear in mind the complexity of testing and debugging so many new features.

Cheers,
Insuber

Ok. I am just anxious for this patch. And this unpredictable release date "kills" me. Its frustrating... Always ll be people complaining, its part of the challenge.

I offer myself as beta-tester, give me a pay pal account and i ll make a contribution, but do not last much longer. Please!!! :rolleyes:

You must understand all previous frustrating experiences, waiting news for long years.

[Qpassa]

be patient people

[CKY_86]

Real life must come first :)

Also the longer the wait, the more rewarding the patch will be.

[bf-110]

What kind of update they mean?New content or a note of how the work is going?

[IceFire]

Quick notes always work for me. Something along the lines of ... "hey folks we're still doing some work on the patch."

Remember... we aren't paying... they are doing this for the good of everyone. Be patient... not the end of the world here :)

I'm sure all of your respective wives/girlfriends would love to have some of your time right about now because when 4.10 comes out they will have less :D

[Romanator21]

Everyone needs to chill. These guys are putting their sweat into their work, and all you can say is "faster" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

[kancerosik]

I don’t want to appear rude with Xilon, and apologize for any involuntary sarcasm. His list has surely a merit: it helps visualize easily the raw number of aircraft operated by the combatants in WWII. Now, there’s nothing wrong in asking for a Meteor, and even less if a member of Daidalos Team has his own favourite plane and makes it a flyable addition even if it’s a minor or irrelevant type. But when we talk of the whole Il2 as a WWII sim, we should consider the whole picture.

American bombers in the Pacific offer a classic example: two types were used operationally against Japan, the B29 and the B32, but 99,999% of sorties were flown by B29, the B32 contribution to war effort being absolutely irrelevant. Now, look at the list of planes presently available, both AI and flyable. I don’t have precise numbers (probably nobody can have them), but my feeling is that our available planes cover more than 70% of total combat missions flown, and most of the remaining were probably flown by British night bombers. So, if we look at the relevant combat planes only, the list of types needed is really short (in my opinion).
American types: B26 Marauder and SB2C Helldiver.
British types: Lancaster and Wellington, possibly Halifax.
German types: He177.

As you can see, all are bombers, and some big ones. It would be wise to ask for them in AI only version.

BRAVO!!!!!!!!! someone expressing the dissapointment to a non historical implementation of new models

[bf-110]

Everyone needs to chill. These guys are putting their sweat into their work, and all you can say is "faster" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

But is like being father.The woman is doing the hard part while you wait,but you can´t hold yourself,you want to see your son.

[AndyJWest]

But is like being father.The woman is doing the hard part while you wait,but you can´t hold yourself,you want to see your son.
What makes you think you are the father, Bf-110? ;)

It appears that possibly either TD misjudged the time necessary for beta testing, or they have discovered significant problems in the process. Either way, I'd give them due credit for the work they've put in, and accept that we will have to wait - I think that their attitude, that it needs sorting out before release, rather than rushing to meet a deadline, is one that commercial developers should take heed of. The very fact that they aren't subject to commercial pressures may result in a better patch. If you'd rather have it now than have it fixed, have a look at what happened with Silent Hunter 5 - a promised patch delivered late, that doesn't fix half the issues. :(

[indy]

TD: We all understand the amount of work you need to do and respect your work. But could you respect us as users and give us at least just information, no pictures no video, just the state of the 4.10 patch. WHat is already done what is in progress and what is left to do. Just a few rows of text.
Thank you.

[Avimimus]

I figure that there were some bugs which lead to further delays (or some compatibility issue among the features) and the decision was taken to unfreeze the version. So my guess is that we'd be getting 4.105

I am quite curious about how things are progressing though...

[KG26_Alpha]

I would speculate the Zuti MDS is taking most of TD's time to get right.

[Azimech]

I was astonished by the big list of new functions and modifications, it feels larger than any previous patch. Maybe a smaller patch is easier to complete? I'm not telling anyone how to work though.

[JtD]

It's just a lot of work with the new patch, that's it. We're seeing new functions that effect all planes, for instance the new g limit, the MDS, several new planes...I wouldn't be the one to notice that a certain plane accidentally can only take 01 instead of 10 g's or to get a return-to-desktop-immediately ticket when I spawn at an airfield that's just been changing sides on the MDS. All that needs to be tested, if possible by several people several times to make sure all bugs are found. I don't think it is a problem eliminating bugs, the problem is to find them all in order to deliver a good product. And then, of course, there is the work where you have to put all the developments, fixes, adjustments together into one single patch. And these guys are not all sitting in the same office 8-10 hours a day. So that's going to take a while, too.

From a short message on the German ubi board I know that there is progress. That's what we have to be happy with, at the moment.

[ElAurens]

I would speculate the Zuti MDS is taking most of TD's time to get right.

This. Times one hundred.

Zuti is great when it works, but when it doesn't it's a nightmare.

[Avimimus]

That's not surprising considering how ambitious the new system is. I can say I was truly surprised on several occasions by the extent of what is planned.

I'd only expect something like the updated bridges, two cockpits and one AI... needless to say I'm grateful for whatever is produced.

[IceFire]

That's not surprising considering how ambitious the new system is. I can say I was truly surprised on several occasions by the extent of what is planned.

I'd only expect something like the updated bridges, two cockpits and one AI... needless to say I'm grateful for whatever is produced.

Likewise. Any addition or improvement is a fantastic thing and I'd rather them spend some serious time and get it right. Patience :)

[Flying_Nutcase]

4.10 will move Sturmi a long way from a 'serious game' towards a true 'sim'. If it takes another month or two then so be it. I hope they provide a PayPal address for donations though because I really don't want to take it for free. TD will deserve more than a pat on the back for what they're bringing us, IMHO.

Kudos and take your time fellas. :-)

[nearmiss]

4.10 will move Sturmi a long way from a 'serious game' towards a true 'sim'. If it takes another month or two then so be it. I hope they provide a PayPal address for donations though because I really don't want to take it for free. TD will deserve more than a pat on the back for what they're bringing us, IMHO.

Kudos and take your time fellas. :-)

The TD is probably not permitted to accept any monies or donatons as a condition of working with the IL2 source code. Usually, accepting money on a product created by someone else can lead to liability issues for the original developer and distributor, especially if any money changes hands.

I'd almost be willing to bet that UbiSoft has distribution rights with very tight contract terms associated with any money transactions on anything pertaining to IL2.

I suiggest thinking about letting this one go, and just be glad TD is interested to do a great service to the community.

If you are just compelled beyond reason to pay for something you might get the name of one of the members of TD with his Paypal account infromation and send some money on the "keep your mouth shut basis".

[Novotny]

I can appreciate nearmiss's point (should that be nearmissus? How does one represent the possessive noun here? English can be so complicated)

Anyways, back on track: what about a nice stuffed badger? In my limited research I have yet to discover the Meles Meles being used as a formal currency anywhere in the world and each and every person to whom I have gifted one of these noble beasts has expressed nothing but the most gracious thanks.

Prince Philip keeps his on the bedside table, and I an given to understand that Sarkozy cannot perform without his badger keeping a watchful eye upon proceedings.

Just a suggestion - we may not pay them, but surely we can bestow wondrous gifts upon the good folk of TD.

[Avimimus]

4.10 will move Sturmi a long way from a 'serious game' towards a true 'sim'.

*cough*
(looking bewildered)

[bf-110]

4.10 will move Sturmi a long way from a 'serious game' towards a true 'sim'.

But IL2 is already a true sim!
What I believe is that Oleg created it,Oleg made the game 90%,TD will reach 102%

[Flying_Nutcase]

But IL2 is already a true sim!

Avimimus, '110,

Dudes, with all-seeing AI? Fixing that and adding structural integrity brings our much beloved Sturmi much closer to a true sim, I'm sure we all agree. It's a pity that wind still requires mods, but maybe for future TD work.

Flying Nutcase

[capitalist pig]

So 4.10 will move il21946/4.09 toward a true Sim, that's great ! I guess,
so what is IL2 1946/4.09M not if it is not a Sim? still half PC Game and half Flight Sim?


well what ever, so I'm taking it that we should all conclude from the latest threads that 4.10 is another month or two away from being released.

That's fine just wanted to know.

how many people are on the 4.10 patch team?

[nearmiss]

So 4.10 will move il21946/4.09 toward a true Sim, that's great ! I guess,
so what is IL2 1946/4.09M not if it is not a Sim? still half PC Game and half Flight Sim?


well what ever, so I'm taking it that we should all conclude from the latest threads that 4.10 is another month or two away from being released.

That's fine just wanted to know.

how many people are on the 4.10 patch team?

You can go through threads on this posting and count individual TD members, because at one time or another they have all posted in this thread.

The patch is very close to release.. in beta now.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=8815

[bf-110]

The patch is very close to release.. in beta now.



Great.Thought they were still having trouble with the Re 2000 cockpit.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Great.Thought they were still having trouble with the Re 2000 cockpit.

Not really trouble - its just late and not implemented yet. :)
But such additions as adding a cockpit is comparibly easy to do (with quite low chances for producing a bug), as soon as its ready modeling wise.

The cockpit model is shortly before completition, also by the community's help.

There are also other (positive I think) reasons for the delay and the missing updates... which I hope will soon be clearified by the responsible member amongst us. :rolleyes:

EDIT: without having counted them now, I guess, we are ~10 - 15 core members. Some of them do not post in forums or at least, not here. :)

[Insuber]

Not really trouble - its just late and not implemented yet. :)
But such additions as adding a cockpit is comparibly easy to do (with quite low chances for producing a bug), as soon as its ready modeling wise.

The cockpit model is shortly before completition, also by the community's help.

There are also other (positive I think) reasons for the delay and the missing updates... which I hope will soon be clearified by the responsible member amongst us. :rolleyes:

EDIT: without having counted them now, I guess, we are ~10 - 15 core members. Some of them do not post in forums or at least, not here. :)

WOW! Good news, maybe another flyable? :D

[flying]

Two months for test gone! How long will we wait for yet?

[flying]

Two months for test gone! How long will we wait for?

[Hunger]

Not really trouble - its just late and not implemented yet. :)
But such additions as adding a cockpit is comparibly easy to do (with quite low chances for producing a bug), as soon as its ready modeling wise.

The cockpit model is shortly before completition, also by the community's help.

There are also other (positive I think) reasons for the delay and the missing updates... which I hope will soon be clearified by the responsible member amongst us. :rolleyes:

EDIT: without having counted them now, I guess, we are ~10 - 15 core members. Some of them do not post in forums or at least, not here. :)

My wild guess is that the positive reasons for the delay have something to do with SOW.

Am I Wrong ?.

Regards

Hunger.

[Insuber]

My wild guess is that the positive reasons for the delay have something to do with SOW.

Am I Wrong ?.

Regards

Hunger.


OMG! That's an exciting idea!

[ZaltysZ]

Two months for test gone! How long will we wait for?

2 weeks. :grin:

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I should have known, that such information would spread rumors.

No. You are all wrong. :-P

[bf-110]

New plane?
New flyable?
New engine change?

[Daniël]

Always first obediently wait. Then play;)

[nearmiss]

I should have known, that such information would spread rumors.

No. You are all wrong. :-P

Oleg has learned.. Promise absolutely nothing or it will be used against you all over the forums.

[daidalos.team]

Very true. And if you say nothing it will be used against you as well. :cool: Now, take a decision. We can never win. :!: :cool:

Anyway, there will be a development update tomorrow.

[AndyJWest]

...there will be a development update tomorrow.:mrgreen:

[Insuber]

Very true. And if you say nothing it will be used against you as well. :cool: Now, take a decision. We can never win. :!: :cool:

Anyway, there will be a development update tomorrow.

Say nothing, people here are the top of the cream of the elite of the best of the world champions of nitpicking and bad faith ... except me of course :D.

Insuber

[Qpassa]

take your time TD!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

take your time TD!


Alright then...

http://www.gregstevenson.com.au/galleries/gallery1/images/taking_time_2.jpg

:cool:

[daidalos.team]

Update posted. Check first page.

[robday]

Thanks for the update. Looking awesome

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Looking good TD ~S~ and a very big thank you!!!

http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/10.gif

[_RAAF_Stupot]

Wow!

Dunno why, but the music selection was <almost> perfect. Just needed a few more moonlight shots in the footage.

Thanks for keeping these little gems under wraps - I really dig getting surprised by the things you have been up to.

[anikollag]

Such good news! Good you obtained this agreement :) This reflects the quality of your work. This, and real life, are good reasons for delays. Thanks for your work TD!

[ECV56_Guevara]

Great news DT!! Congratulations!!!!!!
You really deserve it.

PS: airborne radar??? :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

[daidalos.team]

Not in 4.10. It will be finished and released in a complex scenario which will make it more useful.

Great news DT!! Congratulations!!!!!!
You really deserve it.

PS: airborne radar??? :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

[F19_lacrits]

For a second there when looking at the change of gun sights on the I-15bis I thought TD were using 6DOF.. But looking at it again it seems looking at a certain angle it's possible to change between the three gun sights..right?
(I'll have to continue dreaming of official 6DOF capability in IL2 I guess *sigh*)

[SaQSoN]

For a second there when looking at the change of gun sights on the I-15bis I thought TD were using 6DOF.. But looking at it again it seems looking at a certain angle it's possible to change between the three gun sights..right?
(I'll have to continue dreaming of official 6DOF capability in IL2 I guess *sigh*)

Those are just 3 different predefined camera positions for each gunsight. No 6DOF. I-15bis cockpit was modeled with this feature in mind, so it doesn't have holes and gaps, unlike virtually all pre-4.09 cockpits do. And that is the reason, why 6DOF haven't been yet implemented officially.

[OberstDanjeje]

Thanks guys, great work!!!
Glad to see some facelift for the Bf110, hope more Bf110 will come.

[daidalos.team]

We have been looking thoroughly into 6DoF capability, but given the current limitations, we will not introduce full 6DoF unless two conditions are met/solved:

1. Cockpit 3D modelling is repaired for those cockpits that are not 6DoF compatible (= huge rework)
2. The 6DoF is enabled for all players, even for those without TrackIR to keep fair situational awarness conditions for everyone.

At the moment 6DoF development is on hold. We may take a second look after 4.10.

[Centauro]

Good news!!! This means that you will have more easily for future changes, right? There are many changes in mods encotramos that many of us would like to see in an official patch, 6DOF, new sounds, graphic effects, new texture maps...

(I'll have to continue dreaming of official 6DOF capability in IL2 I guess *sigh*)

+1

[Dano]

That's excellent news, would just like to thank you all and Oleg for making it all possible :D

[Sita]

Congratulations!!!!!! :)
thanks for the update!!! :)

[Qpassa]

I hope the menus of wide resolution will be fixed in some version ( in the video their arent fixed)

[csThor]

Good news!!! This means that you will have more easily for future changes, right? There are many changes in mods encotramos that many of us would like to see in an official patch, 6DOF, new sounds, graphic effects, new texture maps...


I think you're simply misunderstanding what was posted. Any Daidalos work is still subject to Oleg's aproval (which means no objects touched by the Grumman thingy, no Channel map etc) plus there are a few things which remain highly unlikely (sound - we won't use any of the "soundpacks" out there since we can never be sure there aren't copyright infringements in them, not to mention that we don't know if they 're really compatible with the Il-2 sound engine). And pls read what Martin wrote in regards to 6DOF - it's on hold, we may look into it again but there are two hurdles as high as the Himalaya (cockpit rework, similar system for non-users of TIR). Neither hurdle is easy to overcome so don't get your hopes up.

[Majo]

6DOF - it's on hold, we may look into it again but there are two hurdles as high as the Himalaya (cockpit rework, similar system for non-users of TIR). Neither hurdle is easy to overcome so don't get your hopes up.

It seems like you still want to leave some room for the "others" on the basics...

Good!

Another one... could someone explain me why there are still some people thanking the 1C Company staff for the TD´s work?

Salutes.

[F19_lacrits]

We have been looking thoroughly into 6DoF capability, but given the current limitations, we will not introduce full 6DoF unless two conditions are met/solved:

1. Cockpit 3D modelling is repaired for those cockpits that are not 6DoF compatible (= huge rework)
2. The 6DoF is enabled for all players, even for those without TrackIR to keep fair situational awarness conditions for everyone.

At the moment 6DoF development is on hold. We may take a second look after 4.10.

First, I didn't mean as sounding negative with my comment. I am very very excited and happy for all the work TD is and have been putting out for IL2! :)

I very much understand point no 1. There are alot of glitches in the 3D models from a 6DOF point of view.. Just look back over the tail of a Ki-61 Hei with modded 6DOF.. there is none! ;)
I don't understand point no 2. You must mean ".. is available for all players"? It can't be that you won't release 6DOF capability until all and every one has head tracking as standard equipment.. ! If though that is the intention, then we are already off on the wrong foot; not all have head tracking gear, not all has HOTAS controls, not all has PC hardware to maintain a smooth game play at all levels and detail of grafix.. etc.. It's up to the "user" to make use of features IMO.

[jermin]

This update made my day. Congrats, TD!

Does it mean that you can rework (not repaint) the cockpits models of some early planes like Bf-109 and P-47 which have ugly interiors in the future?

[Viikate]

I don't understand point no 2. You must mean ".. is available for all players"? It can't be that you won't release 6DOF capability until all and every one has head tracking as standard equipment..

No no... More like there needs to be a way to achieve 6DoF features with mouse for example. This shouldn't be the hard part IMHO.

[daidalos.team]

@Lacrits: Hello, I didn't take it as negative comment, no worries. Just wanted to answer briefly.

Some graphical glitches are minor, some are more serious as you have pointed out. Some may not give you a visual advantage, some may.

As for the second point, in my opinion 6DoF view (in any sim not just IL-2) should be available to everyone through some alternative hardware control - either TrackIR, mouse, keyboard. It should not be only limited to TrackIR 6DoF device. In other words, in case someone doesn't have TIR, he should be able to make the same head movements (though not as easily and comfortably as with TIR) through another input device.

Martin

EDIT: Viikate was faster. :)

First, I didn't mean as sounding negative with my comment. I am very very excited and happy for all the work TD is and have been putting out for IL2! :)

I very much understand point no 1. There are alot of glitches in the 3D models from a 6DOF point of view.. Just look back over the tail of a Ki-61 Hei with modded 6DOF.. there is none! ;)
I don't understand point no 2. You must mean ".. is available for all players"? It can't be that you won't release 6DOF capability until all and every one has head tracking as standard equipment.. ! If though that is the intention, then we are already off on the wrong foot; not all have head tracking gear, not all has HOTAS controls, not all has PC hardware to maintain a smooth game play at all levels and detail of grafix.. etc.. It's up to the "user" to make use of features IMO.

[Zorin]

Seeing that you replaced the ETC50 rack on the Bf109 appropriately, what are the chances that you extend this effort to further racks, which are lacking in accuracy as well?

Additionally, will you consider adding a rack to the Fw190D series?

[JG53Frankyboy]

i personally would put the labour needed to implement 6DOF in this game in other things....................

[Fafnir_6]

Thanks guys, great work!!!
Glad to see some facelift for the Bf110, hope more Bf110 will come.

+1

[Romanator21]

Great update DT! Thanks for your hard work.

[JG53Frankyboy]

+1

let me guess, a flyable Bf110C is off limits for IL2 because of SoW , like Spit I, flyable Blenheim, "real" MTO maps, Channel map....................................
even as the Bf110 units, small in numbers, were so important 1941-42 in their groundattack role at the easternfront

[BadAim]

Nice work guys, I can't wait.

[bf-110]

DT,what exactly of Italy is going to be exclusive to SoW?
Maps,tanks,BR 20,ships?

[Ernst]

Future patches could include a HARDCORE level that does not allow pilot adjust joy and had to fly with 100% joy sensitivity for each aircraft, suffering from its vices and advantages.

[Romanator21]

The problem with that has to do with the vast multitude of controllers out there, each with its own inherent sensitivity and stability.

For my Logetech attack 3 I use 1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81,100

For the Saitek AV8R I use the default, 10,20,30...100

The full 100 across the board is not realistic unless your stick is two feet long, bolted to the floor, and requires at least 40 lbs of force to move the handle. Using these inputs on an average flight stick turns your plane into an fly-by-wire F-16, which is far from "hardcore" in a WWII scenario.

[tityus]

A few months ago Oleg answered that some sort of DeviceLink functionality that works online is planned for SoW:BoB and that's very nice... I'll be content with that.

However, regarding the next patches, is anything planned in an official patch that would provide DeviceLink with online capabilities?

I think the Multiple controls and Navigation TD is implementing is a big step towards "simulation" and it will be very well received by the "full switch" members of the community. I was afraid next patches would be only more planes, more skins, more textures...

Congrats and thank you!

té mais
tityus

[robday]

Not in 4.10. It will be finished and released in a complex scenario which will make it more useful.

Now that sounds interesting, and I'm sure it will cause quite a bit of speculation!

[ZaltysZ]

The full 100 across the board is not realistic unless your stick is two feet long, bolted to the floor, and requires at least 40 lbs of force to move the handle. Using these inputs on an average flight stick turns your plane into an fly-by-wire F-16, which is far from "hardcore" in a WWII scenario.

So, if player sets 100 across the board, his plane will auto compensate the unwanted slip (plane will center the ball by itself), input will be limited and corrected according to current flight situation (no accelerated stalls, no wing snaps due to over G, no spins)? ;)

[Romanator21]

Yeah that's exactly what I mean smart-ass.

[Sprain]

Including the "CW-21" in 4.10 seems like nothing but an intentional insult.

Less than 100 were ever made and it was barely even a trivial footnote in WW2. Yet there are so many important American built planes that are glaringly absent. Planes that were built by the 1000's and participated in the most notable battles in history.

If Daidalos Team were releasing no new planes at all I could understand. But for them to put energy into creating a CW-21 looks like just a way of saying "We want to prove that we refuse to include American built planes".

For simmers who enjoy the Allied side of the Japan/America conflict, Daidalos Team is clearly running a biased show.

[FC99]

If Daidalos Team were releasing no new planes at all I could understand. But for them to put energy into creating a CW-21 looks like just a way of saying "We want to prove that we refuse to include American built planes".

CW-21 is American built plane :lol:

[CKY_86]

CW-21 is American built plane :lol:

Oh the irony:lol:

Thanks for the update guys. The work you are doing is truely amazing.

[bf-110]

And CW-21 was used by two AFs.NEI and China.
Wonder if someone can make a "what if" CW-21 USAAF skin.

The planes I guess Sprain mean might be the P-35 and P-43.

[AndyJWest]

Including the "CW-21" in 4.10 seems like nothing but an intentional insult.

Less than 100 were ever made and it was barely even a trivial footnote in WW2. Yet there are so many important American built planes that are glaringly absent. Planes that were built by the 1000's and participated in the most notable battles in history.

If Daidalos Team were releasing no new planes at all I could understand. But for them to put energy into creating a CW-21 looks like just a way of saying "We want to prove that we refuse to include American built planes".

For simmers who enjoy the Allied side of the Japan/America conflict, Daidalos Team is clearly running a biased show.
Have you bothered to find out why 'so many important American built planes .... are glaringly absent'? And why just American planes? WE all have our favourite planes we'd like to see added. The only thing that is clear here is your own obnoxious attitude. These guys are doing it for free remember.

Carry on TD. Even if you only release planes I've never heard of from now on, I'll still enjoy flying them.;)

[IceFire]

Including the "CW-21" in 4.10 seems like nothing but an intentional insult.

Less than 100 were ever made and it was barely even a trivial footnote in WW2. Yet there are so many important American built planes that are glaringly absent. Planes that were built by the 1000's and participated in the most notable battles in history.

If Daidalos Team were releasing no new planes at all I could understand. But for them to put energy into creating a CW-21 looks like just a way of saying "We want to prove that we refuse to include American built planes".

For simmers who enjoy the Allied side of the Japan/America conflict, Daidalos Team is clearly running a biased show.
Third party modelers get to do whatever they want to do... Daidalos is just doing us a favour by including some additional community work that is out there.

[IceFire]

Enjoyed the video and the update. Thanks team! I love all of the little fixes and updates going into this as well. New bombrack for the 109 is one of those little things but it's really nice to see updated... tweaks to the 110 is great too... that plane sees heavy usage. Great :)

[Flying_Nutcase]

Congrats on the deal, and thanks for another tantalising vid. After a long absence, this sure is a great time to be getting back into Sturmi. :-)

[Old_Canuck]

Thanks for the update TD and WTG on the contract. Feels like its almost time to take the new throttle quadrant out of the box :grin:

[Sprain]

Have you bothered to find out why 'so many important American built planes .... are glaringly absent'? And why just American planes? WE all have our favourite planes we'd like to see added. The only thing that is clear here is your own obnoxious attitude. These guys are doing it for free remember.

Carry on TD. Even if you only release planes I've never heard of from now on, I'll still enjoy flying them.;)

It's worth noting that you didn't at all disagree with my principle claim. But you did bother to include a personal attack.

[AndyJWest]

It's worth noting that you didn't at all disagree with my principle claim. But you did bother to include a personal attack.
I'd say that "nothing but an intentional insult" looks like a personal attack on the TD team. Or have you got any evidence to back this up?

Yes, you claim that "important American built planes ... are glaringly absent", but you give no evidence that they were excluded because they were American. We know that there is a specific issue over Grumman aircraft, but that isn't TD's fault. Beyond this, which aircraft are you suggesting have been intentionally ignored?

In any case, TD are volunteers. They can model whatever they chose, within the limits imposed by the historical context and any contractual constraints they have with 1C:Maddox. It is open to anyone with the appropriate level of expertise to work with them, and I'm sure they will welcome new input.

[nearmiss]

The CW-21 stands for Curtis Wright US aircraft manufacturer.

There are so many aircraft now for IL2 I am amazed when people keep asking for more.

No one flys the odd-ball aircraft online, and I don't know of many that are interested to fly them in Offline in missions either. The IL2 is an air combat simulation genre, which means everything is about combat and mostly aircraft vs aircraft. In other words, if you fly all the weird stuff people are always asking for... you would be asking to just get shot down all the time.

If we could get an honest poll for online or offline aircraft; the same aircraft choices would probably prevail across the board for most everyone... especially if they want to survive in the missions.

[AndyJWest]

No one flys the odd-ball aircraft online, and I don't know of many that are interested to fly them in Offline in missions either
I'd have to disagree, Nearmiss. A section of the online community is content endlessly reenacting the same dogfights, but other IL-2 gamers like to explore new aircraft, new maps, new weapon systems and the rest. All credit to TD for feeding our addictions...

[csThor]

Sprain

The CW-21 is not a Daidalos in-house development but was a 3rd Party Project that just missed the deadline for the Pacific Fighters release and then fell through the floor. DT simply picked up the pieces and finished it as we were given the model. Nothing sinister about that.

[nearmiss]

I'd have to disagree, Nearmiss. A section of the online community is content endlessly reenacting the same dogfights, but other IL-2 gamers like to explore new aircraft, new maps, new weapon systems and the rest. All credit to TD for feeding our addictions...

Since I don't fly coops I don't see much of that.

[AndyJWest]

csThor, thanks for that - as good a response to Sprain's silliness as we could reasonably expect.

Nearmiss - I think the IL-2 online dogfight community probably underestimate how many people enjoy IL-2 in other ways. They tend to be the most vocal, and the most partisan, but they are very much a minority. The continuing sales of IL-2, and the interest of newcomers on the various forums, seem to indicate that there is still a broad base of interest, and relatively few of the noobs will ever fly online - it is actualy a rather hostile environment for the inexperienced.

As for not flying coops, why not? Even if you don't want to make a serious commitment, dropping in on the Ubizoo Saturday coop once or twice might broaden your horizons - we do this for fun, remember.:-D

[dl-3b]

Sprain,

Crawl back to your cave and stay there.

[Roblex]

Personally I fly IL2 purely for the chance to fly Co-ops and I despair of the kiddies who get a kick out of fly-die-fly-die arenas. I would rather fly one 90 minute co-op and park up on the apron at the end alive than fly 9 ten minute deathmatch missions.

As for flying outmoded aircraft; I can see that trying to sink the Tirpitz with a Swordfish is suicidal in a dogfight server that has 10 FW190s hovering over it but when you are flying a Co-op re-enactment of the attack on Taranto then doing it in a low slow outdated biplane just adds to the experience.

[_RAAF_Stupot]

csThor, thanks for that - as good a response to Sprain's silliness as we could reasonably expect.

Nearmiss - I think the IL-2 online dogfight community probably underestimate how many people enjoy IL-2 in other ways. They tend to be the most vocal, and the most partisan, but they are very much a minority. The continuing sales of IL-2, and the interest of newcomers on the various forums, seem to indicate that there is still a broad base of interest, and relatively few of the noobs will ever fly online - it is actualy a rather hostile environment for the inexperienced.

As for not flying coops, why not? Even if you don't want to make a serious commitment, dropping in on the Ubizoo Saturday coop once or twice might broaden your horizons - we do this for fun, remember.:-D

As a way of illustration - there is a New Zealand squad that fly coops almost exclusively, in sorties lasting up to an hour* - and they don't even have a presence on Hyperlobby.

That's a way of enjoying the game that I think the 'online dogfighting community' probably never even knew existed.

*Imagine crashing on takeoff on that sortie.......

[_RAAF_Stupot]

Personally I fly IL2 purely for the chance to fly Co-ops and I despair of the kiddies who get a kick out of fly-die-fly-die arenas. I would rather fly one 90 minute co-op and park up on the apron at the end alive than fly 9 ten minute deathmatch missions.

As for flying outmoded aircraft; I can see that trying to sink the Tirpitz with a Swordfish is suicidal in a dogfight server that has 10 FW190s hovering over it but when you are flying a Co-op re-enactment of the attack on Taranto then doing it in a low slow outdated biplane just adds to the experience.

+1

I have to admit that I am pretty much done with flying on dogfight servers. This game has always been a simulation for me - so I like to simulate flying, and surviving, a sortie.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

As for flying outmoded aircraft; I can see that trying to sink the Tirpitz with a Swordfish is suicidal in a dogfight server that has 10 FW190s hovering over it...

Think to those Swordfish pilots who attacked the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen during the Channel Dash, all shot down by FW190s... the leading pilot got a Victoria Cross for the action (posthumous)

:)

[JG53Frankyboy]

it all depends on the missionbuilder, dogfight and coop, if such "crap" planes are usefull or not.

[F19_lacrits]

.. And some off us love to fly the cr@p plane (in formation and applying team work) against hot pants opponents like Spits, Mustangs, FW190's or 109's on dogfight servers.

[Sita]

.. And some off us love to fly the cr@p plane (in formation and applying team work)
+1
or without team ...
like a Hero :)

[Wolkenbeisser]

it all depends on the missionbuilder, dogfight and coop, if such "crap" planes are usefull or not.

Exactly! In our squadron we mostly fly coops. Sometimes it's really cool to have "crap" planes in a Mission. When? An example:

3 players are forced to fly "crap" planes with bombs. Their goal is to bomb an enemy Airbase, which is defended by enemy planes (KI) and AAA. The bombers only have a chance to get to this base, if other players support them. So the missionbuilder builds other player-flights as well:

- 4 players with planes that carry rockets - goal is AAA
- 6 players with agile fighters - goal is clearence of airspace over enemy base

This way the groups have to play as a team (ok teamspeak is a must for this) to fullfill the main goal - destroy the enemy airbase.

Btw: We have many pilots, who WANT to fly the crap planes, because it's a special challenge to fullfill the goal with limited capabilities.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Yes... its all about a challenge! :D

[CKY_86]

With all IL2 has to offer, and with all the options of playability, it just goes to show that IL2 has something for everyone.

I love how when I have time I can fly a mission built by myself or someone else lasting an hour, or longer and when I feel like just a quick burst I can just set up a simple dogfight in QMB That would proberly only last 5-10 miniutes.

As for cr@p planes, I love 'em. Nothing better than having an all bi-plane dogfight, or a convoy/train busting mission in the Avia, I-153, or the I-16. Another fun one is Ki-27's V Fokker D.XXI ;)

[Feathered_IV]

Often it isn't just about winning, but rather losing in style.

Why not give yourself a glimpse of what it was like to go up against the best the Luftwaffe had, in outdated Soviet equipment? Or the hoplessness of a Japanese low level attack into the teeth of a US carrier fleet? There are plenty of other examples of this. It doesn't always have to be bleeding edge late-war types and arcade killing streaks.

[CRO_Adriatic]

Excelent news!
Your work is tremendous!

[Bearcat]

Keep up the great work.. just get it done!! ;)

I am looking forward to the integrated Zuti with triggers..

This is the only sim that I know of with great FMs, an incredible planeset spanning almost 3 decades.. and graphics that are just stellar.. even if they are getting long in the tooth... This sim is the standard by which all others will be measured for some time... and SoW will do the same.

[CKY_86]

Often it isn't just about winning, but rather losing in style.

Why not give yourself a glimpse of what it was like to go up against the best the Luftwaffe had, in outdated Soviet equipment? Or the hoplessness of a Japanese low level attack into the teeth of a US carrier fleet? There are plenty of other examples of this. It doesn't always have to be bleeding edge late-war types and arcade killing streaks.

There was a full real dogfight server that I used to be in almost every night a few years ago that had many differnt eastern front 1941 scenarios where if you flew the Russian side you were at a disadvantage. The best thing about the server was lots of ground targets and there used to be swarms of IL2's all in formation heading to the target and attacking it together, often resulting in being downed by flak, or shot down by fighters. It was great fun. I saved a few tracks but i'm not sure where they are now.

[bf-110]

And why just American planes?




There are so many aircraft now for IL2 I am amazed when people keep asking for more.

No one flys the odd-ball aircraft online, and I don't know of many that are interested to fly them in Offline in missions either. The IL2 is an air combat simulation genre, which means everything is about combat and mostly aircraft vs aircraft. In other words, if you fly all the weird stuff people are always asking for... you would be asking to just get shot down all the time.

If we could get an honest poll for online or offline aircraft; the same aircraft choices would probably prevail across the board for most everyone... especially if they want to survive in the missions.

So why is TD working?
Really,I don´t give a sh... to the famous dogfights.FW-190 x P-51 in Normandy,P-47 x tanks in Bulge.
In the world of WWII games (all kinds) nobody want to explore Italy,France or Poland.All you see is Germany x US.It´s the Saving Private Ryan or Medal of Honor Allied Assault syndrome.
If you want to fly the most famous WWII planes,you can play any s#itty WWII sim,because surely you will find them there.Now if you want to fly those and the "other planes",IL2 is the best choice till now.
It´s like having a library.You don´t want just the books from the most notorious authors.You want to fill the library so it can be the most complete of the world.

About the cr@p planes.War doen´t mean hi-tech everytime and in both times.
Even USAAF was considered outdated when the war broke.

[MrBaato]

No one flys the odd-ball aircraft online, and I don't know of many that are interested to fly them in Offline in missions either. The IL2 is an air combat simulation genre, which means everything is about combat and mostly aircraft vs aircraft. In other words, if you fly all the weird stuff people are always asking for... you would be asking to just get shot down all the time.


The CW21 looks like a very competitive plane, with superb climb, good speed and maneuverability and not to forget the machine guns concentrated in the nose.
It will be a online killing machine if you ask me;)

Thanks TD for adding it!

(oh and a ki44 would be nice too =P)

[Avimimus]

Mind you the CW-21's climb rate is generally considered to have been doctored (the only sources come from public marketing campaigns for the aircraft). It was still probably a very could climber though.

The bomb jettison is a neat idea - although shouldn't the bombs have a probability of skipping? Right now bombs can skip off runways (or even roads if they land tail first). These are bombs without time delays btw.

A tiny cloud of impact dust might cover up the fact that they vanish on impact.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The CW21 looks like a very competitive plane, with superb climb, good speed and maneuverability and not to forget the machine guns concentrated in the nose.
It will be a online killing machine if you ask me;)




Its indeed somewhat dangerous for Zero's. Nimble and fast, compared to it.
You can really close-fight it - different than P-40s. Its a fun to fly.
But you better do not get hit.

[Avimimus]

It is an interesting plane no doubt and I've been looking forward to it since Gibbage first posted on the project. I found that my main problem with the Avia was the low speed and very vulnerable engine (making attacks on bombers incredibly difficult). I assume the situation will be similar?

[IceFire]

Just to throw my hat in the ring...

I LOVE the obscure aircraft and I love spending some time flying the stuff that other people have disregarded. For a while a lot of dogfight servers made available the Ki-100 or the Ki-61 and I loved flying the Ki-100 especially against planes like the Spitfire IX +25lb and the La-7 and the Ki-84s that tended to dominate those types of servers. I was often shot down but I had a ton of fun because when I did shoot them down it was in a plane with much more limited performance AND in some rare cases I was able to do things they didn't know I could do or not because in some instances they had never even SEEN a Ki-100 before.

That's just an example. I've flown just about everything the game has to offer and even the obscure types can be a ton of fun in the right instances.

[Romanator21]

The Fokker D.XXI and the SM.79 are probably some of the most obscure, yet most fun to fly in the Il-2 collection. Spits are boooooring :grin:

[BadAim]

Good grief mate, be careful of speaking such blasphemy in public. That kind of talk could get you burned at the stake. ;)

[ElAurens]

I have always been a proponent of the more obscure aircraft.

Always will be.

That said, one real thing the sim needs for us onliners that fly long missions is a fix for the "Transferring Mission Bug".

It's maddening. Fly for half an hour or 45 minutes on the way to a distant target. Have the bay doors open and skimming the water for a skip bombing run. The flak from the escorting destroyer is bursting around you as you press on. Your finger moves to the bomb release, and...

BOINK!

Dropped to the "Transferring Mission" screen.

Please, can this be fixed?

[csThor]

First step to fixing it is identifying what's causing it - and up to this point any ideas the coders had turned out to be a dead end. You know the saying: "Bad weeds grow tall." :roll:

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Which doesn't mean, we give up. ;-)

[ElAurens]

Thanks for the quick reply Gentlemen.

I know it is a difficult problem. I can't even imagine going through all those lines of code to find the thing that is causing this.

I know that more than a few talented folks in the mod side have beat their heads against the stone wall trying to fix this as well.

All the best to you on all your efforts, from myself, and all the BlitzPigs.

;)