Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[Sita]

Very Nice Plane!!! :D!

[Fafnir_6]

Great Re.2000 shots, Caspar! I can't wait to fly the "chubby" plane as you put it :).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I had to change links, so our server will not be stressed too much. Tell me please if it doesn't work for you.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Nice shots mate http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/woo.gif

Hope all is going well with the testing.

~S~

[Tempest123]

Excellent! Thanks for the update!

[TheDawg]

New wars ll come at release of 4.10, cause that i could not wait anymore.

huh?

[anikollag]

Hey update!!! :)
Thanks!
Nice little plane over a nice map :)

[Friendly_flyer]

Thanks!

Are those new buildings I see in the backround?

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Are those new buildings I see in the backround?

Slovakia map, 4.09m

;)

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Hi, I can remember some Nightfighter videos you have posted a while ago, and everybody knows there is the Grumman incident, but how is it with the P-61, it was build by Northrop.
Today it`s one company, but they don`t own the military designation for their birds. Do I see it right and would be the 61 a nice lady for pacific theaters Nighthunting scenarios?

[bf-110]

Can´t wait to fly the Re.2000. (want to fly the 2002 too,and maybe more than the 2000).

Gonna see the Hs-129.Can it be used for heavy fighter role?

[csThor]

P-61 is subject to "the Grumman thingy". Which means it's not for TD.

[Tempest123]

Why are FsX developers allowed to use "Grumman" ect. trademarks? Shame for Il2

[Friendly_flyer]

P-61 is subject to "the Grumman thingy". Which means it's not for TD.

Aw, too bad.

[DanLewis]

Are we getting the Italian or Hungarian versions of the RE2000? As I remember it, the Italians weren't fond of it so it mainly went to Hungary and Sweden - with Hungary changing out the engine and armament. It's the latter I'm interested in - an RE2000 without the Breda popguns.

[DanLewis]

with Hungary changing out the engine and armament. It's the latter I'm interested in - an RE2000 without the Breda popguns.

Damnation - they changed the gun but kept the cartridge (if indeed it can be called that).

[FlyingShark]

P-61 is subject to "the Grumman thingy". Which means it's not for TD.
Sorry if this has been covered before but what exactly is "the Grumman thingy"?

~S~

[brando]

Sorry if this has been covered before but what exactly is "the Grumman thingy"?

~S~

A copyright issue which reared its head quite a few years ago. Discussion and speculation about it are not encouraged, 'nuff said.

B

[swiss]

A copyright issue which reared its head quite a few years ago. Discussion and speculation about it are not encouraged, 'nuff said.

B

Maybe it's time to discuss it again?

It seems they changed their Trademark Licensing Policy

Trademark Licensing Policy

TRADEMARK LICENSE
FOR USE WITH PHOTOGRAPHS, ILLUSTRATIONS AND PAINTINGS
NOT OWNED BY NORTHROP GRUMMAN

Background: Northrop Grumman Corporation recognizes that the copyright in a photograph, illustration or painting of a vehicle is owned by the photographer, illustrator or artist, respectively (absent a contractual arrangement otherwise). At the same time, Northrop Grumman, as the manufacturer, owns the trademarks (e.g. "F-14", "Corsair," "Enterprise") in the vehicles it makes. Under the trademark laws of the United States and other countries, a trademark owner risks losing trademark rights if others use those trademarks without permission.

Purpose: Northrop Grumman respects and appreciates the creative talents of the photographic and artistic communities. Northrop Grumman desires to promote the use of its trademarks with photographs, illustrations and paintings by granting a free license to photographers and artists so that Northrop Grumman can maintain its trademark rights while at the same time being minimally intrusive.

License Terms:

1. Northrop Grumman hereby grants a free license to photographers and artists to use Northrop Grumman’s trademarks with his/her photographs, illustrations or paintings, including with any that are sold.
2. The photographer or artist agrees that the quality of his/her photographs, illustrations or paintings that use Northrop Grumman trademarks will: (a) be at least equal to the standards commonly used by the professional artistic and photographic community for illustrations, paintings, and photographs, (b) display the correct name of the Northrop Grumman vehicle(s), and (c) not disparage the name or reputation of Northrop Grumman or violate any laws.
3. The free license does not apply to the use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks in books, posters or calendars in runs that exceed 5,000. Likewise, the free license does not apply to use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks for any form of merchandise such as toys, models, clothing, coffee cups, notebooks, electronic or video games, etc. Licenses for such uses are available from

Director, Intellectual Asset Management
Northrop Grumman Corporation
1840 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067

http://www.northropgrumman.com/ipm/tmpolicy.html

:cool:

[AndyJWest]

The free license does not apply to the use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks in books, posters or calendars in runs that exceed 5,000. Likewise, the free license does not apply to use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks for any form of merchandise such as toys, models, clothing, coffee cups, notebooks, electronic or video games, etc.
It doesn't look like the situation has changed. Northrop Grumman is still claiming to hold copyrights relating to 'electronic or video games'. In any case, as I understand it there was a legally-binding settlement reached, which presumably still stands.

Personally, I have serious doubts that Northrop Grumman's claims would stand up in court, but since it isn't my money to risk, I can't blame software developers for not taking them on. If NG want to erase themselves from history, that is their problem...

[SaQSoN]

Background: Northrop Grumman Corporation recognizes that the copyright in a photograph, illustration or painting of a vehicle is owned by the photographer, illustrator or artist, respectively (absent a contractual arrangement otherwise).

NG forced Ubi and 1C to sign a contract, which prohibits them from using images of vehicles to which NG owns copyright in the IL-2 game and it's add-ons.

Which means, 1C still can not use them in the game.

Plus, what AndyJWest said.

[Mysticpuma]

What aircraft did Northrop Grumman manufacture that may not show themselves in SoW updates?

That's a little forward thinking I know, but once the SoW simulation engine is released to third-parties (already has been I think), what aircraft will they not be able to have in SoW expansion packs for fear of treading on toes and being sued?

Just wondering how this may/could affect future developments?

Cheers, MP

[ElAurens]

Anything made by Northrop, Grumman, or any company they have acquired, ever. This takes in most of the US ship building business, so it would include a very large number of suface ships used by the US Navy in the second world war.

This was discussed at length when the issue first raised it's head at the release of Pacific Fighters. Following the NG corporate family tree would also mean that many ships used by the US in World War One would also be off limits.

Just invetigate N-G's website and trace the corporate history.

It will be a serious dent in the Korean war as well.

[swiss]

It doesn't look like the situation has changed. Northrop Grumman is still claiming to hold copyrights relating to 'electronic or video games'. In any case, as I understand it there was a legally-binding settlement reached, which presumably still stands.

Personally, I have serious doubts that Northrop Grumman's claims would stand up in court, but since it isn't my money to risk, I can't blame software developers for not taking them on. If NG want to erase themselves from history, that is their problem...

Read again, it's about:

Likewise, the free license does not apply to use of Northrop Grumman’s trademarks for any form of merchandise such as toys, models, clothing, coffee cups, notebooks, electronic or video games, etc.

Ubi and 1C sold a commercial product - TD is not.
Pretty much changes everything.

[PilotError]

What aircraft did Northrop Grumman manufacture that may not show themselves in SoW updates?

That's a little forward thinking I know, but once the SoW simulation engine is released to third-parties (already has been I think), what aircraft will they not be able to have in SoW expansion packs for fear of treading on toes and being sued?

Just wondering how this may/could affect future developments?

Cheers, MP


I thought the N-G issue only applied to IL-2 and it's add ons.
Unfortunately this seems to include TD work as well.:(

But SoW is a totally new product, so hopefully it will not be included in the N-G legal contract.
Maybe just a lot of wishfull thinking on my part.:confused:

[swiss]

Jeez - is it so hard to understand?

If you make money using their some of their intellectual property, they want their fair share aka royalties.
Not more, not less.

Well, TD does not, that's why I think they could get NG's ok.

[csThor]

You have a few hundred thousand $$$ ready just in case NG doesn't follow your argument? No? We don't, either. As such it is simple - let sleeping dogs lie. TD won't touch anything NG-related as Oleg specifically asked us not to. End of discussion.

[Romanator21]

Soooo, do the Grumman Wildcat and Hellcat not apply to the copyright issue? How were they incorporated into the game, but not some battleships, and other aircraft?

[JG53Frankyboy]

but TD is making official patches for a 1C game.

i would not risk any money for lawyers !!!

Grumman stuff is dead................. blame them , not the gamedevelopers.
and true, for future PTO and Korean stuff i have no good hopes because of that !


what a 3.party modeller will bring in the game, without making money, THAT is another story i guess. but TD is in the sence of Law no 3.party.

[csThor]

Aircraft as Wildcat and Hellcat were what Ubi and Oleg had to pay for ... Any other NG-related item (such as the battleships) means NG will hold out its hand and wait for Oleg to shove some cash their way.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Soooo, do the Grumman Wildcat and Hellcat not apply to the copyright issue? How were they incorporated into the game, but not some battleships, and other aircraft?

man, because there was a secret agreement between UBI, 1C and NG, means most propably NG got already money for the already in PF existing NG stuff !!!
hence the delay of the PacificFighters release - and if there would have not been an agreement , it would have benn never released....................
but sure, UBI and 1C dont want pay more money to put more NG stuff in its game.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Damnation - they changed the gun but kept the cartridge (if indeed it can be called that).

anyone has some datas about this Gebauer MG ?
as it used the same 12,7mm SAFAT round it most propably had the same V0 put it had perhaps a higher rate of fire - as it was driven by the engine crankshaft.............

[swiss]

You have a few hundred thousand $$$ ready just in case NG doesn't follow your argument? No? We don't, either. As such it is simple - let sleeping dogs lie. TD won't touch anything NG-related as Oleg specifically asked us not to. End of discussion.

No I just thought, maybe, someone could ask.

If there already are violations - then we better don't.

[Romanator21]

Ok, thanks for clearing that one up - Such a shame really. So, did the boys at Microsoft also pay up?

[SaQSoN]

but TD is making official patches for a 1C game.

Exactly the point. This patches are still released under 1C logo, copyright and supervision, which makes them subject of the agreement between 1C and NG. Agreement includes both paid and free add-ons.

man, because there was a secret agreement between UBI, 1C and NG, means most propably NG got already money for the already in PF existing NG stuff!!!

Most definitely they did. The amount, they demanded and received is something like 6 digit sum. Which was sliced from 1C share (Ubi escaped unhurt, as far, as I heard, so don't quote me on that ;) ).

hence the delay of the PacificFighters release - and if there would have not been an agreement , it would have benn never released....................
... At least in US.

but sure, UBI and 1C dont want pay more money to put more NG stuff in its game.

Exactly.

How does it affects SoW and it's possible future add-ons is still unclear. We will see later.

[SaQSoN]

Ok, thanks for clearing that one up - Such a shame really. So, did the boys at Microsoft also pay up?

Apparently, one of the NG chairman was also a Microsoft higher authority at the time. Don't know, if it connected in any way. :rolleyes:

And I don't really know, if IL-2 success really had any affect on CFS-3 sales... :rolleyes:

Most probably this things are totally unrelated. :grin:

[swiss]

patches are still released under 1C logo, copyright and supervision


Is that true?

[JG53Frankyboy]

sure !!

[Mysticpuma]

Okay TD, stepping away from N-G issues, here's a question I hope you may me able to answer.

Is there an easy way to add an option in FMB, that allows users to add custom skins to static aircraft? I say that as I mean without cheating?

To be able to put aircraft on a base and then just 'skin' them as you do with flyable and AI aircraft would be a huge advantage. Is this possible for 4.11 if not already considered for 4.10?

Secondly, is there a list yet (I'm sure there is) of additions that are expected to be in 4.10? I do try and keep up with the updates, but sometimes I miss some.

Cheers, MP

[TedStryker]

Is there an easy way to add an option in FMB, that allows users to add custom skins to static aircraft? I say that as I mean without cheating?

To be able to put aircraft on a base and then just 'skin' them as you do with flyable and AI aircraft would be a huge advantange

+a million

This would be massive for mission builders.

Thanks for the update TD-R.E.2000 looking great!

[FAE_Cazador]

NG forced Ubi and 1C to sign a contract, which prohibits them from using images of vehicles to which NG owns copyright in the IL-2 game and it's add-ons.

Which means, 1C still can not use them in the game.

Plus, what AndyJWest said.

Shame on N-G !!

N-G would deserve that 1C had undermodeled FM/DM of all NG planes in this Sim so no virtual pilots would fly them, as word of being a piece of crap or flying bricks would spread across the SIM community. :)

May be this could help NG to change their mind and let Wildcats and Hellcats to play their historical relevant role in our virtual air wars, once this bloody agreement had been erased and FM and DM had been restored to the original one.

But as someone said, this is an old history. Let the sleeping "cats" to sleep :)

[bf-110]

Aircraft as Wildcat and Hellcat were what Ubi and Oleg had to pay for ... Any other NG-related item (such as the battleships) means NG will hold out its hand and wait for Oleg to shove some cash their way.

They produced ships too???

Shame on N-G !!

N-G would deserve that 1C had undermodeled FM/DM of all NG planes in this Sim so no virtual pilots would fly them, as word of being a piece of crap or flying bricks would spread across the SIM community. :)

May be this could help NG to change their mind and let Wildcats and Hellcats to play their historical relevant role in our virtual air wars, once this bloody agreement had been erased and FM and DM had been restored to the original one.

But as someone said, this is an old history. Let the sleeping "cats" to sleep :)

Nah,I like the F4F.Both to fly and to shoot down.

[LukeFF]

Gonna see the Hs-129.Can it be used for heavy fighter role?

Not a chance.

[WTE_Galway]

Shame on N-G !!

N-G would deserve that 1C had undermodeled FM/DM of all NG planes in this Sim so no virtual pilots would fly them, as word of being a piece of crap or flying bricks would spread across the SIM community. :)

May be this could help NG to change their mind and let Wildcats and Hellcats to play their historical relevant role in our virtual air wars, once this bloody agreement had been erased and FM and DM had been restored to the original one.

But as someone said, this is an old history. Let the sleeping "cats" to sleep :)

Northrop Grumman is a company that has been fined at various times for:
- faking cruise missile test results to gain sales
- illegally selling proscribed high tech nav equipment to small Asian states as well as Angola, China and Ukraine and Yeman
- fabricated test results for electronic parts used in navigation systems for military planes, helicopters and submarines,
- currently being sued for knowingly selling faulty aircraft tot eh USN in the 1990's
- fined for overcharging for products purchased by the US Space program in the 1990's
- amusingly was fined for providing portions of the computer source code of Air Force One to a company in Russia in 1998 :D
- has on numerous occasions been fined for blackmail/bribery of political figures and foreign nationals in an effort to secure sales

Northrop Grumman REALLY REALLY do not care if the upset a few software companies and computer gamers.

[SaQSoN]

Northrop Grumman REALLY REALLY do not care if the upset a few software companies and computer gamers.

Actually, any corporation of such size wouldn't care about that. :) And there really is no reason to deliberately make performance of their planes different from RL because of their behavior.

[Avimimus]

Not a chance.

I don't know. I remember I was on my third flight with the Hs-129 (using mods). I was attacked by three Yak-1s and I shot them all down. The Hs-129 can't make a fully 360 degree turn without losing its airspeed (drag+underpowered).

The upshot of this is that it loses so much speed in a 90 degree turn that it ends up behind/beside its attacker and a quick burst of Mg-151 can easily be issued. So it can be used in a "mouse trap" type of manoeuvre/fight.


Northrop Grumman REALLY REALLY do not care if the upset a few software companies and computer gamers.

True enough.

However, they need sales to government. Governments which are elected. Which means that contracts can become political.

I don't know why you guys don't mobilise your veterans associations. These aircraft were paid for with tax money and the history they participated in was paid for in the blood of citizens.

A distant descendent of a company is allowed to prevent depictions of history where U.S. soldiers died? I find the idea offensive in the extreme.

Unfortunately, I am a Canadian and I have no right to tell you Yanks what to do. But I wouldn't put up with it for a minute, and the Vet lobby can produce bad PR for a company with military contracts.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Gonna see the Hs-129.Can it be used for heavy fighter role?

Not a chance.

It can shoot quite violently at anything, that comes in front of it. So why not? :grin:

Of course its not a nimble or fast plane and will have a hard time against almost every opponent. Even most bombers can fly away from it.
On the other side its slowness and stable flightbehaviour is perfect for poundering ground units - to this will be its main role (as it was).

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Are we getting the Italian or Hungarian versions of the RE2000? As I remember it, the Italians weren't fond of it so it mainly went to Hungary and Sweden - with Hungary changing out the engine and armament. It's the latter I'm interested in - an RE2000 without the Breda popguns.

For now it will be only the Series I Falco, displaying the export version (as it served in Hungary, Sweden and also Italy in small numbers).
There is an option for the hungarian 'Heija' with different engine/guns and maybe the 'hunchback'ed G.A. (series III - long range). Nothing to be promised now, but will be thought over and decided later.

[Mysticpuma]

Okay TD, stepping away from N-G issues, here's a question I hope you may me able to answer.

Is there an easy way to add an option in FMB, that allows users to add custom skins to static aircraft? I say that as I mean without cheating?

To be able to put aircraft on a base and then just 'skin' them as you do with flyable and AI aircraft would be a huge advantage. Is this possible for 4.11 if not already considered for 4.10?

Secondly, is there a list yet (I'm sure there is) of additions that are expected to be in 4.10? I do try and keep up with the updates, but sometimes I miss some.

Cheers, MP

JUst in-case this was a thread about patch 4.10?

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Dear TEam Daidalos.

As I'm starting my holydays today and because I will be without conection or computer for a month I humbly request NOT TO RELEASE 4.10 at least until september.

THanks (I'm sure you will grant my wish)

[Hawker17]

Please release Storm of War to keep us busy in the meantime, while we wait for your great 4.10 patch.

Enjoy the sun everybody! :)

[Ernst]

Please release Storm of War to keep us busy in the meantime, while we wait for your great 4.10 patch.

Enjoy the sun everybody! :)

+1 ;-)

[Ernst]

Guys, you are too busy i decided to help. Be sportsmanship!:eek:

New update! :twisted:

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6007/delayq.jpg

[Mysticpuma]

What is "The Slot"?

and thanks for the info.....still hope one day to be able to skin static aircraft ;)

Cheers, MP

[AndyJWest]

What is "The Slot"?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/New_georgia_pol89.jpg
New Georgia Sound is the body of water that runs approximately through the middle of the Solomon Islands...
During World War II the Sound was known as "the Slot" by Allied combatants due to its geographical shape and the amount of warship traffic that traversed it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slot

[ElAurens]

Team Pacific's Slot map has been available as a mod for quite some time.

It is an excellent map, that has several versions depicting different time periods. It was exhaustively researched and is one of the best maps in the game. Bougainville to Guadalcanal is a very long flight.

Team Pacific is currently working on a New Guinea/New Britain map that is very pretty too. Because of the immense size of the area, and owning to limitations of this old game engine it is rendered at 80% scale.

[nearmiss]

Team Pacific's Slot map has been available as a mod for quite some time.

It is an excellent map, that has several versions depicting different time periods. It was exhaustively researched and is one of the best maps in the game. Bougainville to Guadalcanal is a very long flight.

Team Pacific is currently working on a New Guinea/New Britain map that is very pretty too. Because of the immense size of the area, and owning to limitations of this old game engine it is rendered at 80% scale.

I read somewhere from one of "THE SLOT" developers that tne NG map is a possible for inclusion in the upcoming 4.10 version of TD's release as well. The SLOT is an exceptional addition and I have it on good authority that the New Guinea is even more exceptional.

he New Guinea at 80% reduced size will NOT make MUCH difference to IL2 users, unless of course the 80% applies to objects and airbases.

Most player users on missions hit 8X right after takeoff to get to the action waypoints quickly, which makes actual distances non-important.

It might be worth discussion. In my opinion any map at over 80% for large areas doesn't make alot of sense in the IL2 maps.

Yes, I appreciate realism like the next person. In a situation... like the MSFT CFS2 where real satellite data is often used for terrain, landscapes, etc. then full size is the only recourse. Then again, the old CFS2 allows users to fly across map areas (borderless).

If Oleg is using satellite real world data for his maps in BOB SOW I suspect he'll need to make it possible to fly across map areas. This would be a great improvement. Also, it would probably mean that third party maps would be playing an important part in the the BOB SOW very quickly.

The prospects for BOB SOW are exciting.

[ElAurens]

All objects and bases, etc... are the correct size. Just the map itself is 80%.

It's absolutely stunning.

[IceFire]

All objects and bases, etc... are the correct size. Just the map itself is 80%.

It's absolutely stunning.

Are there any images available? I'd love to see the progress on that map.

80% of real size sounds just fine to me. It'd be a very valuable map historically with so much of the air war fought over this area. If it's scaled down a bit to make it work... so be it. I'd just love to have some more Pacific territory to cover.

[bf-110]

Sorry to ask,that might drive some mad,but,what of so exciting that Slot Map have?

[IceFire]

Sorry to ask,that might drive some mad,but,what of so exciting that Slot Map have?

Umm... well.. it's one of the most historically significant areas in the central Pacific. Quite a bit of air combat (and otherwise) happened in this area. It'd be like the Eastern Front maps missing Kursk or Stalingrad.

[nearmiss]

The scenery in the Slot maps is fabulous and the multiple maps of the area are supplied in many date ranges. You do not fly over 1945 airbases unless you choose 1945 maps of the region. You don't have to overlook airbases that didn't exist at the time of your missions.

The aircraft in the Pacific were hot performers after 1943.

The carrier takeoffs and landings is also a big part of Pacific operations.

[BadAim]

The Slot is also where the IJN's air service was defeated. It would never recover from Guadalcanal. Japan's fate was sealed in the waters of and skies over the "slot". The rest of the pacific war was a very bloody, very costly mopping up operation. So, yeah it's important.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

The Slot is also where the IJN's air service was defeated. It would never recover from Guadalcanal. Japan's fate was sealed in the waters of and skies over the "slot". The rest of the pacific war was a very bloody, very costly mopping up operation. So, yeah it's important.

It's pity that we won't have full range of pacific theatre A/C (ie Grumman) at our map/mission making disposal

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

[nozedyve]

Yep, the Solomons and New Guinea campaigns from mid 1942-early 1944 was where the IJN and IJA air arms were chewed up and destroyed in a battle of attrition. One of the best periods for IL2 campaigns, as the opposing forces are pretty evenly matched and you have to make the best use of the aircraft that you fly (although shame about the FMs and DMs currently in the game) to survive.
The Slot map together with Lowengrin's DCG are a great combination to recreate this struggle. The New Guinea map will be a fantastic addition to the game and open lots of new possibilities.
Almost obligatory reading for anyone interested in aerial warfare in the SW Pacific during this period, and anybody else who likes reading a well written history of aerial warfare in general, is "Fire In The Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific" by Eric M. Bergerud (2000). Its a fantastic read, and I highly recommend it. Great sections on the aircraft involved, tactics, and interesting pilot interviews. Actually I just noticed that you can read the entire book on line at http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=82355094!!

[albx]

Hi Daidalos Team, my first post here, sorry if it have been asked before, i would know if in the next patch will be a better widescreen support. thanks ;)

[FlyingShark]

Hmm,...I don't think it will be in 4.10 yet but maybe in one of the next updates, who knows.
For now what you can do (if you haven't already), is opening your confini file and copy the following:

width=1680
height=1050
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=1
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=0
EnableResize=0
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=0
Use3Renders=0

In the first lines set your desired screenresolution.

~S~

[albx]

Hmm,...I don't think it will be in 4.10 yet but maybe in one of the next updates, who knows.
For now what you can do (if you haven't already), is opening your confini file and copy the following:

width=1680
height=1050
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=1
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=0
EnableResize=0
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=0
Use3Renders=0

In the first lines set your desired screenresolution.

~S~

thanks FlyingShark, already done that, but i noticed is just a 4:3 cropped view.. i lose my artificial horizont and other instruments... hope TD will address this soon

regards

[jermin]

The LOD issue should as well be fixed along with the widescreen bug. I'm still using 800x600 resolution on my 19" 5:4 LCD online in order to see the dots.

[Ernst]

Hi Daidalos Team, my first post here, sorry if it have been asked before, i would know if in the next patch will be a better widescreen support. thanks ;)

Try this! IL2FOVCHANGER (http://il2fovchanger.byethost7.com/)

[Eldur]

The LOD issue should as well be fixed along with the widescreen bug. I'm still using 800x600 resolution on my 19" 5:4 LCD online in order to see the dots.

Oh yes. I used to use (:D) 1024x768 on my 22" CRT. Now with Vista 64, I can't get around the 60Hz bug anymore (probably because M$ thinks everybody has a TFT anyway, there aren't even CRTs on the market anymore). This issue is solvable for DirectX by setting a complete refresh force for all resolutions, but this doesn't kill the bug for OpenGL renderer. Tools like RefreshForce or the override function of ATi Tray Tools that worked like charm in XP or Vista 32 don't work with 64bit anymore... bummer.

So I have to use my desktop resolution which is 1280x960 - well, I had it set at 1600x1200 in the past, but I want to save some lifetime of my CRT, it's getting blurry there, but it's still 100% fine at 1280. But I can't see shit with those little dots now... only 109s, Las, Stukas etc which have those 5 times bigger LOD models :cool:

It's also extremely hard to spot ships... usually I see their fire before I can find the dot... it's too late already when the whole ship pop out of nowhere :D

[albx]

Try this! IL2FOVCHANGER (http://il2fovchanger.byethost7.com/)

tried this also... but it's me or it only change the FOV not adding the missed lateral parts of screen?

[Novotny]

I'd really appreciate it if TD could comment on the aspect ratio/fov issue and whether or not it's something they can fix.

Thanks in advance.

[ZaltysZ]

I don't think it is hard to change the FOV (i.e. allow more degrees for widescreens). However, wider FOV may reveal "holes" in planes, so this can be an obstacle for fixing wide screen. The same is for 6DOF - reworking lots of planes needs too much work.

[nearmiss]

I have 1920 x 1200 24" monitor

I gave up on all the widescreen stuff.

The standard IL2 factor for resolution is the best go, even if you have black sections on the left and right of the screen.

Elongated aircraft, crazy looking wingspreads, etc. just turn the IL2 into some kind of distorted mess.

SOW may be different I don't recall Oleg saying anything specific about how screen resolutions will be handled in SOW

[robtek]

This "distortion mess"happens only when saveaspectratio is set!

[Tempest123]

Yeah, I use 1400 X 900 no problem, saveaspectratio should be zero not 1, and juts enter your resolution. This is how you get widescreen.

[nearmiss]

I gave up on the widescreen couple years ago.

As I recall, even when I got it to work it chopped off the top and bottom. Actually, I was seeing less of the air battle area.

So... are you saying with widescreen you can see everything you can see that is available in IL2 views.

[albx]

Yeah, I use 1400 X 900 no problem, saveaspectratio should be zero not 1, and juts enter your resolution. This is how you get widescreen.

yes but you will lose the upper and lower part of screen... what you will have is a cropped visual.. and you will lost the rear mirror and the artificial horizont and other instruments... have you noticed that? try with saveaspectratio=0 and you'll see that you'll have the same horizontal view, not a pixel less, but more vertical view...

[robtek]

Of course with a widescreen resolution a bit of the top and bottom picture is missing in comparision with 5 to 4, but with a TrackIr or a similar device you don't feel it as you field of view is restricted anyway in any resolution.

[jermin]

I doubt it. large FOV will certainly help in high deflection shooting senarios, where your eyes should concentrate on the reticle and enemy.

Just imagine shooting with an uncropped widescreen in my signature.

[albx]

i think that given a data width the software crop the height to maintain aspect ratio... but what if you give an height and expand the width? i don't know if it will be simple to implement but i think that today that widescreens are most used it is a must have for a full immersion. I LOVE IL-2, and i think this should have implemented ASAP instead of new flying planes or other stuff (don't throw flames now please :-) ) Right now i'm flying with the 2 black lateral bars, i found it that i have more visual than expanding it...

[Borsch]

i think that given a data width the software crop the height to maintain aspect ratio... But what if you give an height and expand the width? I don't know if it will be simple to implement but i think that today that widescreens are most used it is a must have for a full immersion. I love il-2, and i think this should have implemented asap instead of new flying planes or other stuff (don't throw flames now please :-) ) right now i'm flying with the 2 black lateral bars, i found it that i have more visual than expanding it...

+100000000000000000000000:-)

[Kwiatek]

I don't think it is hard to change the FOV (i.e. allow more degrees for widescreens). However, wider FOV may reveal "holes" in planes, so this can be an obstacle for fixing wide screen. The same is for 6DOF - reworking lots of planes needs too much work.


I think more FOV for Widescreen is a must. I used FOV changer with maximum FOV= 100 ( stock is 90) and i have no problem with any plane ( no holes etc).

I got the same size of view in my Widescreen ( 16:10) with FOV=100 like in 4:3 ascpect ratio and FOV=90 - so i used 1440x900 with full screen ratio and i dont loose any part of view.

So im sure that making maxium FOV=100 for Widescreen users is not so hard task and bug free. It would be nice if TD would make such.

[Tempest123]

yes but you will lose the upper and lower part of screen... what you will have is a cropped visual.. and you will lost the rear mirror and the artificial horizont and other instruments... have you noticed that? try with saveaspectratio=0 and you'll see that you'll have the same horizontal view, not a pixel less, but more vertical view...

I haven't compared the two directly but I usually fly with a wide FOV so I didn't notice that the mirrors or guages where being cropped out. It depends on which aircraft too, some of the "newer" aircraft (PF and beyond I guess) have a nice range of FOV, whereas some older aircraft have a FOV that is too close to the instrument panel, so its like flying with tunnel vision.

[Avimimus]

There is a difference between field of view (number of degrees encompassed in the image) and field of view (number of degrees not obscured by the cockpit). Il-2 actually lets one distort the image so as to see more degrees than a screen's width alone would allow.

I'm guessing that what you're most likely seeing with the Pacific theatre aircraft are simply better cockpit designs intended for visibility during carrier landings.

[albx]

i did some tests, i mapped 2 keys in IL-2 "increase FOV" and "decrease FOV", and here is the result. the screenshots are taken with the black bars and standard FOV, the sovrimpressed screenshot is taken with SaveAspect=0 and i pressed 2 times the increase FOV key. it looks identical.. with no distortion... can somebody confirm that? if this is true than we just need to map the 2 keys and tap increase FOV 2 times every time we start a new flight... i'm using 1440x900 i don't know with other resolutions if it is the same.. :)

[FlyingShark]

Like Kwiatek said, it can't be that hard. I play a lot of old games like the first Rainbow six games, Ghost Recon, In Cold Blood, Deus Ex,... at my job on my labtop and they can be set at 1440 X 900 resolution. Those do have the option ingame and they just look a bit nicer. So, if I can play those old titles at widescreen resolution, I'm sure Il2 should have the possibility to.

~S~

[Kwiatek]

As i said implement FOV=100 ( stock is 90) in game would change thing a lot. Actually there is a need to used external soft FOV changer to have real Widescreen view in game without losing any part of view ( like in 4:3). SO implement FOV=100 and also some things from Widescreen Mod ( like new map, menu etc) will give us real widescreen option. I think it shouldn't be so hard if it was alread done by some moders.

[28_Condor]

S!

Interesting subject, but I expect to hear on the 4.10 news here :!:


It would be time we have any probable date of release :(

[AndyJWest]

It would be time we have any probable date of release
TD will probably release it when it's ready. They probably shouldn't have given an expected release date in the first place. They probably won't make the same mistake again...

[rjhill899]

They probably should release it if they said they would. Project management would PROBABLY help on the next release. Free time or not, if you say your going to do it then do it. it is called accountability.

l

[AndyJWest]

...it is called accountability
And who exactly are TD accountable to?

Given the attitude of some people, I could understand it if they said '*** the lot of you, if you can't do anything but moan, we'll find something else to do with our free time'...

[BadAim]

Accountability is probably the first and foremost reason that this project is running late. These men are accountable to their families, their jobs, and to their real world commitments as well as their own desire to put out a top quality product well before any need to pacify entitlement age twits who need to have everything they want immediately.

[bf-110]

So,because of that,I can give a suggestion.

Call me anything for saying this,but an open Beta would be the solution.
We get what we want,and we report any problem if we find them.
Hundreds of people looking for bugs in a world (literaly) looks more eficcient than a few dozens that unfortunately doesn´t have enough time.

BTW,say anything,but not that I mean TD is incompetent and useless.

[nzwilliam]

So,because of that,I can give a suggestion.

Call me anything for saying this,but an open Beta would be the solution.
We get what we want,and we report any problem if we find them.
Hundreds of people looking for bugs in a world (literaly) looks more efficient than a few dozens that unfortunately doesn´t have enough time.

BTW,say anything,but not that I mean TD is incompetent and useless.

IMHO - the type of bugs they're probably trying to identify and solve are the type of bugs that are deal breaker types that lock up your machine, drag your performance down to unflyable frame rates or conflicts that corrupt your install and generally bugger up everything. There would be allot of variables they need to test before they can be confident it won't be unstable.

I'm sure the last thing they or you want is to release an unstable beta patch that is not everything they were intending it to be, undoes all their hard work and requires a rushed fixer patch for those that rushed to install it can fly again - or a complete re-install, which would unnecessarily annoy allot of people.

It's in everyone's best interest to let TD do their thing, for as long as it takes, it's up to them when they think it's safe for general community download. It might seem that a dozen or more beta testers wouldn't be as fast as 100 or more but in reality trying to sift through all the complaints and error reports to get to the bottom of 1000 problems in a forum style feedback system would be an absolute nightmare. It would be much better to have a small group with direct contact with those developing it...as they have now.

Just my opinion ;)

[LukeFF]

Accountability is probably the first and foremost reason that this project is running late. These men are accountable to their families, their jobs, and to their real world commitments as well as their own desire to put out a top quality product well before any need to pacify entitlement age twits who need to have everything they want immediately.

Amen

[jermin]

I think you are just overexaggerating a little bit. There are many people in the world who provide free softwares (including games, and big ones in our genres) or other stuffs. They also have their daily obssession. But once they made a promise, they would try their best to fulfill it. It is called responsibility, which has nothing to do with money. One should be responsible to what he/she said. They should try hard to live up to their promise. Just imagine how the world will become if everyone doesn't care about what he/she said.

Making promise gives other people hope, which is also a pleasure. Fullfilling it will greatly delight yourself and those people even more. So don't give people pleasure and then destroy it.

Make a promise, and live up to it. Or don't make any at all.

[AndyJWest]

Make a promise, and live up to it. Or don't make any at all.
So you are telling TD not to release the patch?

Exactly what 'promise' did anyone make anyway? Look at the original posting:
4.10 Patch Overview - updated weekly
- all listed planning and content is subject to change by DT or 1C/MG
It was only ever provisional, and has since been substantially revised by (amongst other things) 1C/MG giving access to development software that TD didn't have - in the short term, this obviously slowed things down.

Can I suggest that anyone who feels 'let down' by TD stops complaining, unless they have something constructive to add. Endless whining isn't going to make anything happen quicker...

[WTE_Galway]

So,because of that,I can give a suggestion.

Call me anything for saying this,but an open Beta would be the solution.



The open Beta for 4.09 just generated a heap of whining about "make it official".

People will whine and whinge no matter what you do.

Hopefully TD are aware that the majority of players are extremely grateful for their hard and free work and patiently await the next exciting update :D

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Can I suggest that anyone who feels 'let down' by TD stops complaining, unless they have something constructive to add. Endless whining isn't going to make anything happen quicker...

+1

TD can always say "bugger it" and stop any further production and not release anything at all.

I too, am anxiously waiting for this patch to be released, however I would want it working properly and have than riddled with bugs and get turned off this great game.

[IceFire]

So,because of that,I can give a suggestion.

Call me anything for saying this,but an open Beta would be the solution.
We get what we want,and we report any problem if we find them.
Hundreds of people looking for bugs in a world (literaly) looks more eficcient than a few dozens that unfortunately doesn´t have enough time.

BTW,say anything,but not that I mean TD is incompetent and useless.

Then we would trade release whining for "OMG it doesn't work... TD suxxxx0rs" whining.

[Avimimus]

Well at least it would be a change then ;)

They say a change is as good as a rest - might get us 4.11 faster? Or maybe we should buy some machines for TD members that make whining noises? I'd pitch in.

[bf-110]

Then we would trade release whining for "OMG it doesn't work... TD suxxxx0rs" whining.

Lol?
Thought by the SSs everything was going well,no major bugs,at least.
Wanted to help,since till august I have plenty free time.

[Ernst]

At less i would like to known what is happening. No respect at all with IL2 fans.

[Majo]

Just maybe we forgot that this people have been able to make things work not too long ago.

These people, and yes I mean the TD team members, didn’t start just now to deliver value to this sim.
As individuals, they have been doing so for quite a while and the community has been able to appreciate it.

With some perspective, most of us have a clear idea of how this sim has evolved in the last year and a half.
How things have change in the virtual skies and how our own expectations have also change.

Does anyone know where the limit is…?

When things have become formal, when the team signs some kind of agreement, when 4.10 cohabitates
(competes?¿) with the SoW updates, only then… things seem to be getting confusing and maybe difficult
to explain or understand.

I am sure, almost, that this is a matter of “management of expectations”. We see ourselves as clients but
also as members of a community.
As clients “WE WANT” as members of the community “WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND”.

Salutes Majo.

[daidalos.team]

Accountability is probably the first and foremost reason that this project is running late. These men are accountable to their families, their jobs, and to their real world commitments as well as their own desire to put out a top quality product well before any need to pacify entitlement age twits who need to have everything they want immediately.

Thank you, I wouldn't say it better myself. Also as we tried to explain several times, the schedule posted was provisional and yes, we have changed too many things compared to the original intended content for 4.10.

Open beta - no added value for TD or IL-2 fans. We are aware of the issues, it takes time to polish/fix them. Minor bugs we may not catch will be addressed via dedicated bug reporting thread and fixed in 4.11.

I guess it will need to be repeated on weekly basis and even though it has been said in this thread already:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=168033&postcount=1208

Lesson learned from 4.10 development however: To release much smaller and less complex patches with small content in the future = less complaining and less work for us. :cool:

4.10 Update: We have initiated another round of beta testing last week. Still things to do, but it's another step closer.

Thanks for patience and do enjoy the summer till it lasts.

Martin

[albx]

thank you Martin... you guys always do a great job!! thumbs up!!

Alberto

[BSS_Vidar]

Great to see the emplimentation of additional inputs/axis for multi-engine aircraft. Can we see this happen with wheel brakes in future patches as well?
As a real pilot using rudder peddals in-game, a single-axis for wheel braking has always bugged me about this sim series.

\/

[Fafnir_6]

Thanks for the update, Martin! It is much appreciated.

Thanks,

Fafnir_6

[Viikate]

Great to see the emplimentation of additional inputs/axis for multi-engine aircraft. Can we see this happen with wheel brakes in future patches as well?
As a real pilot using rudder peddals in-game, a single-axis for wheel braking has always bugged me about this sim series.

\/

Most of the planes in game have this kind of "single-axis" system. There's usually a brake lever and rudders just control how the pressure is distributed between gears. If you check the D.XXI, you can see the whole valve system and how rudder pedals move the brake pressure valve.

We probably could do a the dual brake axis system, but it would need to function side by side with the old (current) system.

[BadAim]

The existing system could probably use a bit of "tuning" as it is, perhaps it's just me but the differential brakes only seem to kick in at full rudder. It makes planes with quirky ground handling just impossible (like the He111). To have pedal actuated differential braking on the appropriate planes would be a great bonus. That's a small issue though compared to all the other stuff going on with 4.10.

Oh, yeah. Thanks Martin!

[bf-110]

Thank you, I wouldn't say it better myself. Also as we tried to explain several times, the schedule posted was provisional and yes, we have changed too many things compared to the original intended content for 4.10.



Things not mentioned before?

[WTE_Galway]

Great to see the emplimentation of additional inputs/axis for multi-engine aircraft. Can we see this happen with wheel brakes in future patches as well?
As a real pilot using rudder peddals in-game, a single-axis for wheel braking has always bugged me about this sim series.

\/

Its historically correct and what you would have to put up with if you flew one of these old aircraft in real life :D

Some of the planes in the sim had toe brakes but not many.

You can still map the brake axis in the game to one of the toe brakes for proportional brake control but need to move the rudder for differential braking.

The existing system could probably use a bit of "tuning" as it is, perhaps it's just me but the differential brakes only seem to kick in at full rudder. It makes planes with quirky ground handling just impossible (like the He111). To have pedal actuated differential braking on the appropriate planes would be a great bonus.

Works fine for me (CH PRO Pedals) ... BTW the Dunlop Triple Brake Gauge in the lower right of the B534 cockpit is fully functional and is a great way of checking your brake setup. It displays exactly how much pressure is going to left and right wheels.

[Viikate]

Things not mentioned before?

Our "things not mentioned before" list is longer than "things mentioned" list :-P Lots of small improvements and fixed like that strange He-111 ground handling for example.

Few pics... Lets call it dev update ;) I'm not going to explain these. You need to figure it out yourself what's going on here.


Edit: changing pics to thumbnails

[Viikate]

...

[Viikate]

...more...

[Viikate]

.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Nice updates Viikate. Thanks for sharing.

[Tbag]

Thanks Viikate, amazing stuff! Love the map annotations. And the radar towers! :)

[Viikate]

Love the map annotations. And the radar towers! :)

No radars here. First one is allied YG beacon. The antenna part at the top of the mast rotates at 2 RPM. Any plane capable of listening YE transmissions (coming from carriers) can listen YG too.
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/ecat/img/cat-1301.jpg

Second one is normal AM radio tower. For example it could be "Radio Honolulu" at Pearl Harbor. Mission builders can create very specific radio broadcasts with sound clips and players can use radio stations for navigation or just to keep boredom away on long flights. For Pearl Harbor attack, mission builder could put sound clips to folder "samples\radio\RadioHonolulu\19411207". These could be heard only when mission date matches the folder. For any other dates, the samples would be played from the "RadioHonolulu" folder.

[anikollag]

Tanks!
Broken airscrews of the 88 are real great!:)

[Fafnir_6]

Awesome update Viikate! I'm especially happy to see both the G.50 with a proper spinner for Med operations as well as the Bf110 with corrected engine nacelles. I requested both of those a long while back and I'm absolutely delighted that they will be in 4.10. The redone Ju88 looks great too.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Awesome shots ViiKate,

Thanks very much for the update http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/041.gifhttp://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/041.gifhttp://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/041.gif

[Sita]

Nice!!! :d

[albx]

i want it! i want it! :D
Thanks for the great update!

[Tempest123]

Wow! Excellent update, Looks fantastic, can't wait now. The radio broadcasts are fascinating, and the new "night" with runway lights and ILS, wasn't expecting that!

[ElAurens]

The guided bombs dropping from the B-29 raise as many questions as they answer...


:cool:

[Ian Boys]

Amazing work TD! I can see why it is taking so long - there is so much new stuff here and the new nav aids alone are such a huge step!

Have you heard of the "Schwan" floating radio beacon the Germans developed? It could be laid in a line across large areas of water by pathfinders to allow following bombers to navigate exactly to the target. It was to have been used in a Mistel attack on Scapa Flow for example. But after the Tirpitz was sunk our big ships went east to fight the Japanese so it never happened.

Anyway, the beacons etc are so welcome. Thanks a lot and keep going :)

[stugumby]

I gathered the following from those pics
1. a parachute droppable torpedo, possibly circling/homing from a A-20G
2. underwing werfer rockets jettisonable for the bf-110 and bf-109 series
3. guided bombs dropped from b-29
4. cockpit of some type of la-7 / la-9 judging from the nose air scoop
5. very handy map with waypoints and distances in degrees and km
6. nite cockpit shot of some type of nav aid in use
7. some type of superimposed reticle on a i-153 telescope
8. damage model improvements for the wooden propellor and the under cabin escape hatch on a ju-88 torp plane

i stand impressed and awaiting the new patch quite eagerly, im itching to build a hs-129 campaign.
Does anyone know if the rear of the ju-88 rudder has been tweaked to remove the interior view??

[Viikate]

Have you heard of the "Schwan" floating radio beacon the Germans developed?

First time I'm hearing about this. Any info about this is greatly appreciated. I couldn't find anything with Google.

However we do have option to have submarine or destroyer working as a floating NDB. For example sub could be shadowing a convoy and guiding bombers to the convoy.

[Ernst]

Nice pictures and news. Thanks for the update.

[Viikate]

1. a parachute droppable torpedo, possibly circling/homing from a A-20G
2. underwing werfer rockets jettisonable for the bf-110 and bf-109 series
3. guided bombs dropped from b-29
4. cockpit of some type of la-7 / la-9 judging from the nose air scoop
5. very handy map with waypoints and distances in degrees and km
6. nite cockpit shot of some type of nav aid in use
7. some type of superimposed reticle on a i-153 telescope
8. damage model improvements for the wooden propellor and the under cabin escape hatch on a ju-88 torp plane


1. Yes it's Russian circling torp. Similar like the FFF/LT350 already shown in the video.
2. Correct. Mesh is new because the old one was way too small. Thanks to Zorin for pointing this out.
3. Yes. Razon.
4. Old La-5 pit but showing that RDF instruments (РПК-2 or РПК-10) are removed when the new navigation option is enabled. Most of the early Russian fighters didn't have needed equipment/antennas installed.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4485/076rp.jpg
5. Yes and distances are available as nautical miles for players that have set imperial units in speedbar.
6. It's B-25 pit. Only flyable in game which as more advanced ILS instrument. It's showing the glide path. Pilot with good instrument flying skills can land it in total darkness without any runway lights.
7. Bad screenshot actually :grin: Just a small fix so that the reticle doesn't overlap the ironsight bead.
8. Nothing new about the prop damages. Two pics was just to show that crew ejects from bottom hatch when plane is in air, but for obvious reason they need to eject the top blister after belly landing.

So nobody can guess what the two Hs-129 shots mean?

[Zorin]

Hs-129 got a rear view mirror.

As for the Bf-110, will there be a GM-1 system option available?

[stugumby]

hmm, mirror but both shots show muzzle flashes, maybe no more blinding yellow light in the cabin while firing?? and the paint scheme looks different as well.

[Avimimus]

Yes, it looks like the muzzle flashes are suppressed enough that they aren't substantially larger at night.

The G.50 is a bit of a mystery for me. I'd always wanted one with bomb racks, but the change seems to be possibly some tweaks to the model and a mysterious modification of the gunsight...?

[Viikate]

The yellow light that muzzle flashes emit to model surfaces is now changing dynamically. More ambient light -> less visible yellow flash on model surfaces.

[bf-110]

Our "things not mentioned before" list is longer than "things mentioned" list :-P Lots of small improvements and fixed like that strange He-111 ground handling for example.

Few pics... Lets call it dev update ;) I'm not going to explain these. You need to figure it out yourself what's going on here.


Edit: changing pics to thumbnails

Ah,I knew it.Only good surprises!

[Ian Boys]

First time I'm hearing about this. Any info about this is greatly appreciated. I couldn't find anything with Google.

However we do have option to have submarine or destroyer working as a floating NDB. For example sub could be shadowing a convoy and guiding bombers to the convoy.

I'm off on holiday now but it's mentioned by Dr Alfred Price in "Last Year of the Luftwaffe" and by Capt Eric Brown DSO RN in "Wings of the Luftwaffe", where he shows the Schwan launching tube in the rear of the Kondor Fw-200. As he both flew the Kondor and shot two down he'll know his stuff :)

He also mentions the Kondor transmitting D/F signals itself that subs would home in on.

Can a DF beacon be placed on open water? So Mistels (for example) could track it like a Schwan on the way to Scotland.

[Fearless_1]

.

Is it possible to include ALTITUDE as well as the waypoint distance and heading? That would be ultimately helpful....

[Ian Boys]

4. Old La-5 pit but showing that RDF instruments (РПК-2 or РПК-10) are removed when the new navigation option is enabled. Most of the early Russian fighters didn't have needed equipment/antennas installed.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4485/076rp.jpg

I would be careful about complete removal. I think some planes per regiment would have them. The Russian regiments had people with titles like Regimental Navigation Officer and I cannot be sure but I would think a few planes would have them fitted and others would follow them.

Can't they be a loadout option please?

Some planes definitely had them - the Pe-2 springs to mind. The IL-10 should also have them fitted.

[Viikate]

Pe-2 & Il-10 have RDF instruments always. Also one La-7 variant, since it had a D/F-loop antenna. I've never seen a Lagg-3 with one. But if it's really needed we'll have to figure out something. I think that binding to loadout wouldn't be very graceful solution.

BTW: googling FuG 302 "Schwan-See" gives better results.

[Viikate]

As for the Bf-110, will there be a GM-1 system option available?

Not planned yet. It would be possible to add as a loadout but it would need few extra tricks. This was R2 right? I'm not sure if this would be worth the effort. It seem that LW pilots were not too happy with this rüstsatz because it removed the rear gunner and shifted CoG too much rearwards. So I'm guessing that it wasn't used much. Or do you have other info?

[Tempest123]

Is it possible to include ALTITUDE as well as the waypoint distance and heading? That would be ultimately helpful....

Yes, having the altitude on the map is critical, requesting altitude from ground control is not very accurate I find as they say "Altitude 01, or 03" or something equally cryptic. If ground control would say "3000 metres" or 3000 feet or something that would be better.

[CKY_86]

No radars here. First one is allied YG beacon. The antenna part at the top of the mast rotates at 2 RPM. Any plane capable of listening YE transmissions (coming from carriers) can listen YG too.
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/ecat/img/cat-1301.jpg

Second one is normal AM radio tower. For example it could be "Radio Honolulu" at Pearl Harbor. Mission builders can create very specific radio broadcasts with sound clips and players can use radio stations for navigation or just to keep boredom away on long flights. For Pearl Harbor attack, mission builder could put sound clips to folder "samples\radio\RadioHonolulu\19411207". These could be heard only when mission date matches the folder. For any other dates, the samples would be played from the "RadioHonolulu" folder.

This is great news! :grin:

Will the transmissions stop once the radio tower has been destroyed?

[PilotError]

Is it possible to include ALTITUDE as well as the waypoint distance and heading? That would be ultimately helpful....

+1

Yes, this would be very helpful.
When flying offline missions the mission briefing quite often fails to mention what altitude to fly or patrol at.
Even when the briefing does mention an altitude you are still left to wonder if you have to achieve that height by waypoint 3 or 4 or 5 .......:confused:

As TD are well into beta testing I would think that it is too late to add this detail to 4.10 , but perhaps it could be added to 4.11?

Very nice update though. The drool glands have kicked in again.:grin:

[felix_the_fat]

Dear Viikate and the TD team:
fantastic stuff! you guys are the greatest - as is your detailed knowledge of all & sundry concerning WW2 aircraft.
yours, Felix

[GF_Mastiff]

when droping the weapons from the wings like the mortors wfr. does it effect the drag?

also dito for the fuel tanks.

[Avimimus]

I'm more curious to see if fuel tanks have an impact effect (or even do small amounts of damage). Just vanishing is a little creepy...

[_RAAF_Stupot]

6. It's B-25 pit. Only flyable in game which as more advanced ILS instrument. It's showing the glide path. Pilot with good instrument flying skills can land it in total darkness without any runway lights.

YES! That's going to be the very first thing I'm going to try and do.

So nobody can guess what the two Hs-129 shots mean?

Something to do with the muzzle flash?

[swiss]

So nobody can guess what the two Hs-129 shots mean?

The 129 wasn't available with stock 4.09, but... - no idea.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

when droping the weapons from the wings like the mortors wfr. does it effect the drag?

also dito for the fuel tanks.

Yes

[felix_the_fat]

Viikate:
So nobody can guess what the two Hs-129 shots mean?[/QUOTE]

hmm I'll have a go at this one:
the Hs-129 pics show aircraft with direction-finding aerials

felix

[JG53Frankyboy]

I'm more curious to see if fuel tanks have an impact effect (or even do small amounts of damage). Just vanishing is a little creepy...

but very helpfull in case with the F4U armed with TinyTims starting from a carrier !!
as these heavy rockets are only available with a Droptank, you can release the droptank ostill standing on deck before the launch without harming yourself or the ship :)

[BadAim]

Tanks for the update Vikate. Definitely a lot of features to wrangle, its no small miracle the whole lot of you hasn't gone stark raving mad yet! :)

[Zorin]

Viikate:
So nobody can guess what the two Hs-129 shots mean?

hmm I'll have a go at this one:
the Hs-129 pics show aircraft with direction-finding aerials

felix

He already explained what is it with the Hs129 pics:

"The yellow light that muzzle flashes emit to model surfaces is now changing dynamically. More ambient light -> less visible yellow flash on model surfaces. "

[d165w3ll]

Hi folks. I've been away for two weeks. Is the patch ready yet? ;-)

Not a whine - looks like 4.10 is going to be an astonishing product. :-)

[Friendly_flyer]

Hi folks. I've been away for two weeks. Is the patch ready yet? ;-)

I'm afraid not. Currently 2nd round of beta-testing.

[swiss]

Hi folks. I've been away for two weeks. Is the patch ready yet? ;-)


Yea, and they released SOW too - unfortunately it's already sold out.
Sux for u, sorry.

;)

[Flying_Nutcase]

Yea, and they released SOW too - unfortunately it's already sold out.
Sux for u, sorry.

;)

I couldn't help but laugh at that. Cute humour.

[PE_Tigar]

5. Yes and distances are available as nautical miles for players that have set imperial units in speedbar.


Will we have the minimap path without the little GPS-type airplane for full real?

[Viikate]

Will we have the minimap path without the little GPS-type airplane for full real?

Yes.

[CKY_86]

Viikate, you said about being able to have a sound file play when an AM tower is placed.

Will the sound file stop playing once the tower has been destroyed?

[PE_Tigar]

Yes.

Great - thanks!

[Viikate]

Viikate, you said about being able to have a sound file play when an AM tower is placed.

Will the sound file stop playing once the tower has been destroyed?

Yes it stops. All navigation related objects stop working if they are destroyed.

[CKY_86]

Yes it stops. All navigation related objects stop working if they are destroyed.

Thats brilliant news :grin: Thank you!

[TedStryker]

Great update, thanks TD.

More incredible looking stuff. The radio/nav beacon implementation sounds very cool- you've really gone the extra mile as usual.

Nice one!

[Flying_Nutcase]

Yes.

A map with no daft little plane. Fan-bloody-tastic. Thank you!!!

[WWFlybert]

A map with no daft little plane. Fan-bloody-tastic. Thank you!!!

huh ? .. I fly full real online scenarios now that do not have your plane on the map .. maybe it's a mod / server mod :confused:

[PE_Tigar]

huh ? .. I fly full real online scenarios now that do not have your plane on the map .. maybe it's a mod / server mod :confused:

We will have the path, headings and distances, but no little plane on the map. Just like you have it in RL (TM), with a prepared map when flying VFR.

[Pyskiper]

When the patch is now? I'm really excited ^ ^

mfg. Pyskiper

[Avimimus]

Yup, a flight path with a line and some numbers in full-real will do that to you.

[Flying_Nutcase]

huh ? .. I fly full real online scenarios now that do not have your plane on the map .. maybe it's a mod / server mod :confused:

Lol, I haven't used the mini-map in full real for so long I'd kind of forgotten about it. I've always printed out maps and plotted the flight path, heading and distances on it. Now all that info will be available from the annotated mini-map, making it rather more useful in full real and saving all that map work. A real map rocks though.

[Aximand]

Hello dear TD. If its able, can you make a litle perview, what will in 4.10 pach? I think it contains much more than showed (or shown, bad english :)) on the first page of this thread.
Thanks for attention!

[kancerosik]

We need a medium russian bomber!!!! (DB-3 flyable will be great)

greatings from Iran!!!!

[Sita]

We need a medium russian bomber!!!! (DB-3 flyable will be great)


+1 :)

[bf-110]

Or IL-4

[Sita]

Or IL-4
and here +1

[Fall_Pink?]

TD,

Looking forward to the 4.10 ueber-patch :-D

But just out of curiosity, but how's the AI coping with the new visibility model, G-force and navigation changes? Could you perhaps say something about the new AI? For example, what will it do if visibility is poor or there's no line of sight?

Regards,
FP

[Pyskiper]

or Tupolew SB-2. This is also a really good bomber!

Also great is the "Curtiss SB2C Helldiver". It would be great if you can take this into the next patches!

But when will the next patch come? I'am so excited!!!

mfg. Pyskiper

[LukeFF]

Or IL-4

The DB-3 is the Il-4.

[JG53Frankyboy]

The DB-3 is the Il-4.

indeed ! LOL

[Letum]

Things appear to be significantly behind TD's first time plans.
Did a lot of issues crop up in testing?

[JG53Frankyboy]

Things appear to be significantly behind TD's first time plans.
Did a lot of issues crop up in testing?

their firewall doesnt block real live.com ........................

[Avimimus]

Or IL-4

+1

(Bigger bomb-load than Pe-2, Il-2 or SB-2 - even in overload, more survivable and more produced - really opening up a new element of gameplay for RU)

[Sita]

The DB-3 is the Il-4.

DB3f = IL4 ...
all DB3, not F modification ... are differnt plane
+1

(Bigger bomb-load than Pe-2, Il-2 or SB-2 - even in overload, more survivable and more produced - really opening up a new element of gameplay for RU)

almost 2000 kg of bombs ... but more often 1500 or smething like this...
10 - FAB 100 ( in fuselage ) and one 500 FAB or two 250 FAB otside fuselage ...
(sorry for my bad English )

[MD_Titus]

Things appear to be significantly behind TD's first time plans.
Did a lot of issues crop up in testing?

they added significantly more to 4.10 than originally anticipated or planned for. as the code is incestuous and old... i guess it threw up more bugs the more stuff was added.

[kancerosik]

DB3f = IL4 ...
all DB3, not F modification ... are differnt plane


almost 2000 kg of bombs ... but more often 1500 or smething like this...
10 - FAB 100 ( in fuselage ) and one 500 FAB or two 250 FAB otside fuselage ...
(sorry for my bad English )

really thanks, perhaps, with your data, someone think about the real needed of medium bomber on Russian faction).But dont worry, no one cares becouse no one flys russian in a competition. We only fly german planes? (they have 2 great medium bombers) british and Us have few of them , EVEN ITALIANS GOT A great LEVEL BOMBER. Hate to fly an A20 or a B25 on russian planesets when in a competition.

PD: this is only a sugestion to DT for the next patch. not an attack (seriuosly) sorry if I wrote a little bit rude my english is really bad.

salut!!!!

hope the new patch came fast to us, we need it!!!!!

[IceFire]

really thanks, perhaps, with your data, someone think about the real needed of medium bomber on Russian faction).But dont worry, no one cares becouse no one flys russian in a competition. We only fly german planes? (they have 2 great medium bombers) british and Us have few of them , EVEN ITALIANS GOT A great LEVEL BOMBER. Hate to fly an A20 or a B25 on russian planesets when in a competition.

PD: this is only a sugestion to DT for the next patch. not an attack (seriuosly) sorry if I wrote a little bit rude my english is really bad.

salut!!!!

hope the new patch came fast to us, we need it!!!!!

Remember that some/many of these efforts rely on the talents of third party developers. The Ju-88 was a third party development for example that Oleg included later when it was complete. There is currently a Pe-8 project for instance that may show up in a TD release... the work is done initially by a third party developer.

There are other groups out there that have been working on these things for years... It takes time work with bombers particularly due to all of the positions. This has always been an issue.

[Sita]

by the way... IL4 can take more than 2000 kg...
i read in books that one time on IL4 take 2500 kg... 10 fab 100 and 3 fab 500...

Il4 was a medium class bomber... and he is a basic bomber for Army and for ADD ( Soviet Strategic aircraft ) also IL4 can take torpedo... Basic Soviet torpedo bomber

[bf-110]

There are other groups out there that have been working on these things for years... It takes time work with bombers particularly due to all of the positions. This has always been an issue.

I thought TD wasn´t going to take 3rd Party stuff.I mean,more than Fulmar,Swordish and Slot map.

[swiss]

Hate to fly an A20 or a B25 on russian planesets when in a competition.


Main article: List of A-20 Havoc operators
-Soviet Union (ASCC Reporting name 'Box'[7])

B25:
Soviet Air Force received a total of 866 B-25s (of types C/D/S/G/J).[12]


sounds legit to me. :D

[WTE_Galway]

Main article: List of A-20 Havoc operators
-Soviet Union (ASCC Reporting name 'Box'[7])

B25:
Soviet Air Force received a total of 866 B-25s (of types C/D/S/G/J).[12]


sounds legit to me. :D

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/ratkin/index.htm

[Avimimus]

I was wondering where all of this sudden talk about the Il-4 is coming from - then I checked Aviaskins! Vert is back at work again by the looks of it!

Any hints from TD about whether it will be included eventually?

[IceFire]

I thought TD wasn´t going to take 3rd Party stuff.I mean,more than Fulmar,Swordish and Slot map.
When did they say that?

[Blackdog_kt]

I think it's not so much a case of "we won't include stuff from modders" as it is a case of "we won't include your stuff if it's not within specified parameters".

So, if a modded plane is within the acceptable polygon limits, has accurate FM/DM and the modeller wants to share it with TD, it's not impossible to see it appear in an official patch.

At least that's the way i understood things when TD first announced their intention to gather some of the best 3rd party contributors and fuse their work into official updates. I could be wrong of course, in which case by all means correct me ;)

[JG53Frankyboy]

Main article: List of A-20 Havoc operators
-Soviet Union (ASCC Reporting name 'Box'[7])

B25:
Soviet Air Force received a total of 866 B-25s (of types C/D/S/G/J).[12]


sounds legit to me. :D

there are still some flyable variants of the Pe-2 around for the VVS.

[bf-110]

At least that's the way i understood things when TD first announced their intention to gather some of the best 3rd party contributors and fuse their work into official updates. I could be wrong of course, in which case by all means correct me ;)

Great.That spares TD work,and there is quite interesting stuff out there.

[Flying Pencil]

Do 217 - AI - internal DT development

Do 217 will carry Fritz X and Hs 293. Default skin is still WIP.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3184/2010042201.th.jpg (http://img408.imageshack.us/i/2010042201.jpg/)

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/3878/2010042202.th.jpg (http://img541.imageshack.us/i/2010042202.jpg/)

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/6865/2010042203.th.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/i/2010042203.jpg/)

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2492/2010042204.th.jpg (http://img406.imageshack.us/i/2010042204.jpg/)



Looks great! Wonderful to see an ignored aircraft modeled! :D

I do see the counter weight modeled backwards, tho...

[Pyskiper]

When will the Patch come??? I'am sooooo excited^^

Please tell us!

So long
..........Pyskiper

[DD_crash]

When it is ready :)

[1.JaVA_Crusader]

any new Development News!?

last was 28-05 :cool:

[Sita]

any new Development News!?

last was 28-05 :cool:
Wrong )))
last was 07-31-2010 )))

[kancerosik]

Main article: List of A-20 Havoc operators
-Soviet Union (ASCC Reporting name 'Box'[7])

B25:
Soviet Air Force received a total of 866 B-25s (of types C/D/S/G/J).[12]


sounds legit to me. :D

Of course they use that planes (but that numbers are a lettle bit low, compare that with the total ops or the total medium class russian bombers produced)

anyway, 4 me is legit too becouse the only models that we can fly are those....

so.... we need a real and representative russian MEDIUM BOMBER ;)

[kancerosik]

Looks great! Wonderful to see an ignored aircraft modeled! :D

I do see the counter weight modeled backwards, tho...

WOW another german bomber!!!! impresive...

PD:was joking, great work with that Ai plane

[Ernst]

Out for 2 weeks. :twisted:News? This patch is becoming a legend.

[indy]

this patch is becoming a legend.
+100500

[andrewuwe]

HI Team D. ,

I understand your reasons for resisting 6DOF head tracking, but in the meantime could a make a request for 3DOF?

There should be no real glitches, since the viewpoint is the same and I don't see why anyone without head tracking would want to use head roll?

Now for why I need it: I was lucky to get an emagin z800 vr headset from ebay. 3DOF head roll is simply more natural human movement in this case.

Now the good part: A simple program (glovepie) is available that simulates TIR so there is no tricky hardware work to do.

Since there is already a mod for 6DOF (that works great in terms of 3DOF mode) the code should be simple enough? Any chance at all?

[Pyskiper]

Wrong )))
last was 07-31-2010 )))

No, its right. Last was 05-28-2010.

Last edited by daidalos.team; 05-28-2010 at 02:05 PM.

[TheGrunch]

Yeah, but there's been an update since then in the body of the thread. It's just not been moved into the first post.

[nzwilliam]

No, its right. Last was 05-28-2010.

Several update posts with pictures on page 137 of this thread....31st July

[Sita]

Several update posts with pictures on page 137 of this thread....31st July

thats right)

[Pyskiper]

Thanks, didnt see yet. :eek:

[Aximand]

So how many new flyable planes expected?

[JG53Frankyboy]

So how many new flyable planes expected?

5

[bf-110]

Do you think 4.10 will be released till next week?

[BadAim]

I think it will be released next week.......but then again I've been drinking and I'm a happy drunk.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

I think it will be released next week.......but then again I've been drinking and I'm a happy drunk.


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

[Aximand]

I think it will be released next week.......but then again I've been drinking and I'm a happy drunk.


On a next week, somebody say the same, and again, and again..... ;-)

[BadAim]

On a next week, somebody say the same, and again, and again..... ;-)

This is why I drink! Between Oleg and DT, It's all that keeps me going! (That and the regular updates)

[ElAurens]

Cheers BadAim.

What a cracking idea, it's beer thirty somewhere...

:cool:

[Ernst]

One more week! Any news? :(

[Oktoberfest]

Any news ? It's been six month delay now... Please just release what can be released and put some of your wishes for the 4.12.

[flying]

Any news ? It's been six month delay now... Please just release what can be released and put some of your wishes for the 4.12.

I advise you forget it:grin:

[Buzpilot]

Still running beta?

[Avimimus]

90% of the work (from what I hear)

[bf-110]

Thought that it was going to be released today.Good it wasn´t.
Already downloading a huge file,and no,it´s not porn.

[IceFire]

Any news ? It's been six month delay now... Please just release what can be released and put some of your wishes for the 4.12.

Usually the content is not the problem... it's the bug testing. And 4.10 has so many new features that there has been quite a bit of bug testing. So really it's not just a matter of slapping some content in and calling it a day (making it easy to pull stuff out and release). Really have to make sure that all of the ducks are in a row. Nobody wants a buggy release that causes all kinds of problems for lots of people. Then it's just not worth it ... no matter how much everyone wants it right now.

I think people will be quite satisfied when the release finally comes. I'm hoping it's soon... I've got a campaign release that I'm holding off on until some of the new features make a showing.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

I see you have reopened this thread. Would be nice If you accompany this reopening just with a few words like "Do not worry guys, release is coming soon and still working on the beta"... something like that.

[csThor]

Throttle back on the anxiety guys. IceFire said the magic words. We haven't moved to a premature retirement. ;)

[Oktoberfest]

Hope it's gonna be soon... I don't want to be in retirement before it's released :)

Keep the efforts guys, and call for help if needed. You can count on at least 200 geeks to find all the bugs there will be in the patch :)

S.

[F19_lacrits]

Keep the efforts guys, and call for help if needed. You can count on at least 200 geeks to find all the bugs there will be in the patch :)

S.

Oh yes, there are plenty that would happily volunteer to beta test 4.10.. ;)

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Throttle back on the anxiety guys. IceFire said the magic words. We haven't moved to a premature retirement. ;)

Thank you for your post csThor.

[rga]

Oh yes, there are plenty that would happily volunteer to beta test 4.10.. ;)

Yes, there are plenty that want to have 4.10 right now, no matter how buggy it is :evil::evil::evil:

[julien673]

Yes, there are plenty that want to have 4.10 right now, no matter how buggy it is :evil::evil::evil:



:lol:

Tks for the news :)

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Yes, there are plenty that want to have 4.10 right now, no matter how buggy it is :evil::evil::evil:

LOL, and there very sme people would flame DT for the amount of bugs found on their beloved game.

No kidding mate, patience will pay... ;)

[Fafnir_6]

No kidding mate, patience will pay... ;)

Most certainly :). Thanks in advance, DT.

Fafnir_6

[Avimimus]

I think people will be quite satisfied when the release finally comes. I'm hoping it's soon... I've got a campaign release that I'm holding off on until some of the new features make a showing.

You guys really should consider releasing a separate "missions and campaigns" bonus patch with each iteration (4.10, 4.11, 4.12 etc.)

I really liked have the Bi-1 and the I-16 micro-campaigns in the first couple of patches released for Il-2. It really helped you get into the new airplanes. Even if it is just three high-quality missions strung in a row, it is a lot better than the dozen new planes added to QMB (which I generally ignore) and half a dozen missions (which aren't enough to get a feel for the aircraft involved and are thus forgettable) that we got with AEP and PF.

My suggestion: Recruit three or four mission builders to the beta team (maybe it will even speed up the beta to have novel missions focussing on the new features).

Just a plug for a good, old and forgotten feature.

[IceFire]

You guys really should consider releasing a separate "missions and campaigns" bonus patch with each iteration (4.10, 4.11, 4.12 etc.)

I really liked have the Bi-1 and the I-16 micro-campaigns in the first couple of patches released for Il-2. It really helped you get into the new airplanes. Even if it is just three high-quality missions strung in a row, it is a lot better than the dozen new planes added to QMB (which I generally ignore) and half a dozen missions (which aren't enough to get a feel for the aircraft involved and are thus forgettable) that we got with AEP and PF.

My suggestion: Recruit three or four mission builders to the beta team (maybe it will even speed up the beta to have novel missions focussing on the new features).
Sounds like a really good idea! I've been having the same thoughts myself.

[Romanator21]

If I was good at building fun/memorable missions I would totally jump on this :grin:

[Tempest123]

Yeah, I agree with this idea, I would definitely be willing to volunteer my time to make some deomstration missions for new content.

[Fafnir_6]

I'll give a big +1 to Avimimus' suggestion. I really enjoyed the Me163B-1 campaign where you start by doing test and training flights and then progress into interception missions.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Flanker35M]

S!

Nice idea :) I think there will be a ton of missions when 4.10 is released and people get the new toys :D

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

I love seeing this type of post sequence happen repetitively, it really makes me smile:

Poster 1: "Any news? We haven't heard anything for ages!"
Poster 2: "Two weeks! LOL."
Poster 3: "They've told us a million times, they're working on it!"
Poster 4: "Yeah but what could be taking so long?"
Poster 5: "They're doing it in their own time, you should be grateful!"
Poster 6: "Nah, they've given up, the world is ending"
Poster 7: "Yep, give us a Beta, or less content, something, anything!"
Poster 8: "No, take your time, get it right!"
Poster 9: "No, release it now or I'm leaving!!"
TD: "Don't panic, we're working on it."
Poster 9: "Thanks for the update TD!"
Poster 8: "Thanks for the update TD!"
Poster 7: "Thanks for the update TD!"
Poster 6: "Thanks for the update TD!"
Poster 5: "Thanks for the update TD!"
Poster 4: "Thanks for the update TD!"
Poster 3: "Thanks for the update TD!"
Poster 2: "Thanks for the update TD!"
Poster 1: "Thanks for the update TD!"

:grin:

[Flanker35M]

S!

Firestorm, that pretty much sums it up :D Lemmings!

[THE ERASER]

To keep the Humor up of the TD i would like to post some Demands ;) what the Luftwaffle really badly needs in 4.10m....

Its a bit out of date but you know we can't get enough.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E_imfb1cuQ

:wink: :-D

[_RAAF_Smouch]

To keep the Humor up of the TD i would like to post some Demands ;) what the Luftwaffle really badly needs in 4.10m....

Its a bit out of date but you know we can't get enough.....
:wink: :-D

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

As an aside I love "The Big Yin"

[Azimech]

Billy Connolly! Love it!

[SPITACE]

great vid! i am sure 4.10 will be here soon:)

[TozziFan]

14 days ;)