4.10 dev. update 2010-11-06

[daidalos.team]

Hello everyone!

We are still very busy ironing out the last remaining bugs, so not much time for weekly updates. But we decided to make another quick video showing some mixed things. Not much captions this time. Everyone can try to guess what is new and what has changed :grin:

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

[pupo162]

wooot !?

is this christmas? so many updates in one week.... im going nuts


thanks daidalus its looking reeally good.


edit: OMFG RADS IN ROTATARYS!!!

cheers

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

O....m.....g!!!!!

[Qpassa]

full control of radiator? awesome
different skins for pilot and crew
complex torpedos...

[fruitbat]

awesome:cool:

did i spot an early mk9 spit 9!!!

[AndyJWest]

...And noob AI that doesn't allow for crosswinds? I'm still trying to figure out the implications of that one. Does it mean they get lost, or just go via the scenic route? :grin:

Looking better by the minute. Happy bug-hunting, TD :cool:

[IceFire]

awesome:cool:

did i spot an early mk9 spit 9!!!

Yes I believe you did :) Also corrected default RAF markings.

[fruitbat]

Yes I believe you did :) Also corrected default RAF markings.

ooooohh, in my excitement i didn't notice the new markings, and i meant a mk9c spit, ahem, not a mk9 spit 9, lol

[T}{OR]

different skins for pilot and crew

That isn't new.

[Bearcat]

It's about time with the rads on axis.. I remember asking Fireball I think it was about this over at AAA about 18-24 months ago.. He said it was coming.. I think we will also see being able to set up profiles as far as convergence etc for different planes.. I asked him about that too a few years back.. Pretty sure it was Fireball..

So TD.. what about the scoring system? Has that been changed.. ? Will we be able to set differing scoring modes.. like say one that shows individual points and one for teams..

[csThor]

Somebody actually cares about the score? :confused:

No, Bearcat. Scoring wasn't touched. Quite frankly it's not exactly priority, is it?

[Viikate]

However it is possible to hide the score.

[IceFire]

Somebody actually cares about the score? :confused:

No, Bearcat. Scoring wasn't touched. Quite frankly it's not exactly priority, is it?

Some of the kill stealing dweebs online care so much they are willing to risk ramming into friendlies :) Recently I've been taking the approach of totally obliterating my target if possible. Or mud moving - much more satisfying :)

[Qpassa]

I prefer that score dont appear, less stealers

[Sita]

VERY Nice!!!)

[JarheadEd]

Very very nice! I had no idea I would see a Dornier in there. That made my day.

[Romanator21]

I'm not quite sure what we're seeing with the IAR...New skin? And the PZL.11 & Gladiator?

EDIT - just noticed the Gladiator has an opened canopy, nice addition :)

Glad to see that there will also be a revised negative G effect. And it looks like you really are going to take care of the AI. Bravo Team, Bravo!

Now, not to put the cart before the horse, but what are you planning for the future? :cool:

[Viikate]

Not much new about the IAR. New default skins makes it surely look nicer and there was one nasty visual bug with the landing gear that is fixed.

[Avimimus]

Gladiator has new skis (I think).

PZL may have had some model tweaks to clean it up (and Loku's DM improvements?). I'd love to see a 2-gun P.11 (as the majority served in this configuration).

Question: Do the AI improvements extend to B-25 straffers not straffing if their attack waypoint is high enough? Or shallow incline dive bombing rather than stuka style dive bombing for more aircraft (I've seen Ar-234's diving at 80+ degrees :D )

I'm just as excited about this stuff than SoW:WoW (perhaps because it might actually come out sooner - and I won't need a PC, but also because Il-2 is wonderful as is - despite the fact that SoW will be effectively definitive for the WWII combat flight sim genre).

[JG53Frankyboy]

i hope the 4.10 IARs will not have these insane amounts of ammoloadouts (1000rpg in the 80's .303 or 250rpg in the 81c's MG151/20 :( ) anymore and the P.11 will loose its weird DM

this sound more "logical":
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2005/03/stuff_eng_iar80.htm
600rpg in the .303 of IAR 80
400rpg in the .303 of 81a&c
120rpg in the 81c's MG151/20
300rpg in the 81a's heavy machineguns , even if its weird that they are MG131 and not 13mm "Brownings" ;)

oh, and please, give the IARs mirrors a usefull angle please................ this "looking up to spot diving fighters" is rubbish IMHO !

[JG53Frankyboy]

Gladiator has new skis (I think).

Question: Do the AI improvements extend to B-25 straffers not straffing if their attack waypoint is high enough?


thats annyoing like hell , everytime i use the B-25J in a COOP mission for the VOW...........
a new flyable plane, called "Mitchell III", with the AI routine like the AI B-25C would propably help - the rest could be a 100% copy from the actual B-25J (sure if it would loose its four fuselage .50cal too, i would not scream ;) )

and the A-20C is not different ............................. both can hardly be used as "level"-bombers if any enemy target obejct is close to their attackwaypoint.

[dflion]

Thanks daidalos.team for the mixed update. We all needed to hear some news from you.
I have been patiently waiting for your ver. 4.10 to update some of my campaigns and create some new ones. I think this is the reason why things are a bit quiet on the Mission4Today site?

We are all watching Oleg's postings with great anticipation, though I feel his release date is a little bit further away than we think. Of course it will be worth the wait.

In the meantime we all appreciate your hard work and would be very grateful if you could give us all an anticipated release date, hopefully before the end of the year.

DFLion

[csThor]

That MG131 thingy is just one of the many weapons simplifications in the game. There is no such thing as "13mm Browning FN" in Il-2 ... :-?

[150GCT_Veltro]

Guys what do you think about Zorin's bombs 3D model? Would be possibile to add it? It's a top quality work and would be a great addition. He has also corrected the problem with the american shape bombs.

[csThor]

No, since there was a disagreement between Zorin and TD's modellers about modelling specifications way back when he offered his bombs. His work exceeds the official specifications by a considerable margin so they were considered not okay for inclusion while Zorin didn't want to remodel everything. Sorry.

[150GCT_Veltro]

No, since there was a disagreement between Zorin and TD's modellers about modelling specifications way back when he offered his bombs. His work exceeds the official specifications by a considerable margin so they were considered not okay for inclusion while Zorin didn't want to remodel everything. Sorry.

I'm sorry to hear this but we can't ask him to revork everything.

Thank for the info.

[David603]

The Spitfire MkIX Early looks like the one made by GBrutus. If so its based on the better Spitfire MkVIII 3D model, not the older MkIX 3D model, with many changes to turn it into a MkIX.

Can one of the TD members confirm/deny this?

[Viikate]

The Spitfire MkIX Early looks like the one made by GBrutus.

It is not.

[David603]

It is not.
Thanks for the reply.

That is a shame, I was hoping that GBrutus had given his model to you, since I have not heard anything more about it since this picture, which was a while ago.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y2/Grisha7/cb2.jpg

Of course, I'm sure TD's version will also be great ;)

Can I ask which 3D model it is based on (MkVIII or MkIX)?

[Tempest123]

Wow, DT consistently exceeds my expectations, awesome work fellas. I like the new negative G effects, am I correct in saying that carburetted engines will no longer instantly cut out, but there will be a few seconds before fuel starvation?

[IceFire]

Thanks for the reply.

That is a shame, I was hoping that GBrutus had given his model to you, since I have not heard anything more about it since this picture, which was a while ago.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y2/Grisha7/cb2.jpg

Of course, I'm sure TD's version will also be great ;)

Can I ask which 3D model it is based on (MkVIII or MkIX)?

Wow that looks superb! It'd be great to standardize the Spitfire models somehow but I imagine that would cause a nightmare with the skinning.

[David603]

Wow that looks superb! It'd be great to standardize the Spitfire models somehow but I imagine that would cause a nightmare with the skinning.
Unedited screenshot :grin:

However, before this topic becomes too derailed, lets start talking about things TD might be interested in ;)

Of course it would be possible to create other Spitfire versions based on the MkVc/VIII models, indeed I have some partially completed early versions (MkI and MkVc without tropical filter (also a MkIX)) based on these models knocking around, but these would need a fair deal more 3D work to complete and I just don't have the time now (and to be honest, the skill required to meet TD standards).

If these (or versions made by someone else) were completed them they could be added as new slot aircraft, so skins wouldn't really be a problem, since we already have two distinct families of Spitfire models and they would fit into one of the families.

The MkVIII model isn't without its faults though, it may be more detailed and better mapped than the MkIX model but the fusalage is too long, so more work would be required to correct this.

[IceFire]

I'd still like a FR.XIV too. Modeled with all of it's incredible performance and handling penalties.

[Avimimus]

Question, with all this new torpedo bomber detail: Will we see armed merchants?

[Fafnir_6]

Not much new about the IAR. New default skins makes it surely look nicer and there was one nasty visual bug with the landing gear that is fixed.

Great update guys. I fly the IAR a lot offline. The landing gear fix is welcomed and applauded but I am curious as to why DT did not replace the simple cylinder wheels on the IAR. The video footage seems to show that the wheels are unaltered from the originals. The Ju88 has new, high-poly/high resolution textured wheels.

Just curious,

Fafnir_6

[Romanator21]

Time...

I'm not sure what the bug is though - is it the one with the wheels poking through the landing gear covers?

[Fafnir_6]

Time...

I'm not sure what the bug is though - is it the one with the wheels poking through the landing gear covers?

Yeah, they were clipping pretty badly through the wheel covers when you looked at them from certain angles. The 4.10 fix will certianly make that look much better.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Romanator21]

Not to be a nit-picker, but the P-39 has clipping in the nose-gear as well :grin:

Not a big deal though.

[Daniël]

Not to be a nit-picker, but the P-39 has clipping in the nose-gear as well :grin:

Not a big deal though.

With the P-40 landing gear is also a little problem, if I remember it good. When you do the landing gear up you will see a part of the landing gear coming through the upper part af the wing.

[Fafnir_6]

With the P-40 landing gear is also a little problem, if I remember it good. When you do the landing gear up you will see a part of the landing gear coming through the upper part af the wing.

Haha, yeah. Then there's the whole duck-toed main wheels thing.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[daidalos.team]

More video captions added.

[JG53Frankyboy]

actually you added comments in the video - the video itself is still the same :)

lokking forward to the new Spitfires - to see "Miss Shilling's orifice" working in 1941 Spits , i guess the Mk.Vs ...............

[BadAim]

Impressive, very impressive. You guys are really bringing our beloved IL2 into a new era!

[Romanator21]

I don't know how you guys do it. You promise everything, and then deliver 10x more. Just outstanding!

[baronWastelan]

The sheen of AC markings match the rest of the skin in this video, unlike earlier shots of Hs.129. Is this part of the patch or are you using a 3rd party tool to update the markings?

[Friendly_flyer]

I'm so happy that the old P-11 get some love and attention!

[bf-110]

Now we know why TD is taking longer.
It´s not "only" what was officially showed.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

[...]are you using a 3rd party tool to update the markings?

No. ;)

[Romanator21]

A minor point guys, but will the P.11 be able to jettison its fuel tank in this patch, or in the future? :)

[JtD]

Why would it? Do you have some first hand info (say a manual) that states it could drop the fuel tank?

[OberstDanjeje]

Great video, hope this will shut some bad mouths!!!

Thanks and keep with the good work ;)

P.S. why not new texture for bombs, pylons and loadout?

[Oktoberfest]

So great to see so many improvements. I think pilots will have to specialize even more in their aircrafts to be sure to use it at 100%. It'll be crazy just to master the torpedo system or the guided bombs.

By the way, I have a question. Do you guys plan (in future patch ! Don't want to add more delay !!!) to have the ships getting an AI, which means that they can spot the torpedos and try evasive manoeuvres, or make random manoeuvres to try to avoid dive bombing?

Of course, the AI would be scalable and not every crew would be able to do that.

Also please, get the blast effect of near misses to do damage to the hull of the aimed ships if it's close enough.

This would be great and add a lot of immersion in the sea war. Of course it's just a christmas wish, but it would be so great !

[ImpalerNL]

crosswind? :eek:

I saw something about crosswind in the last part of the new video.
There is nothing better than landing your warbird, while you have strong crosswind trying to prefent you from landing.

[Romanator21]

Why would it? Do you have some first hand info (say a manual) that states it could drop the fuel tank?

If it was on fire, for instance.

I realize it would not be an easy thing to do since it would mean making an entirely new 3d model. It wouldn't be unreasonable to simply make a "fire extinguisher" for it.

Beasically, it is a tall cylinder in front of the pilot, and it makes the bottom of the forward fuselage. It simply falls out the bottom of the aircraft, between the gear legs.

The aircraft was conventional in layout, with high wings, all-metal, metal-covered. The cockpit was open. An internal fuel tank in a hull could be dropped in case of fire emergency. The armament was two 7.92 mm machineguns on hull sides, though a third of the P.11cs had two additional machine guns in the wings. The P.11c could carry four small 12.5 kg bombs (P.11a could not). The radial engines used were: P.11a: Bristol Mercury IV S2 (normal: 525 hp (391 kW), maximum: 575 hp); P.11b: Gnome-Rhone 9Krsd (550 hp, max: 595 hp), P.11c: Bristol Mercury V S2 (565 hp, max: 600 hp) or Mercury VI S2 (590 hp, max: 630 hp), P.11f: Gnome-Rhone 9Krse (560 hp, max: 610 hp).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL_P.11

In 1939, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, the PZL P.11 was outclassed in terms of performance by both Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Bf 110 fighters. It also had absolutely inadequate firepower, 70% of the aircraft being equipped only with two 7.9 mm machine guns (and pilots often preferred these over the four-machine gun version, saying that additional weight affected the plane's performance - especially the climb rate!) It was, however, very maneuverable and sturdy airplane, and its short take-off facilitated operations from improvised airfields. A unique feature was its jettisonable fuel tank. However, it had no armor protection for the pilot.

http://avstop.com/history/aroundtheworld/poland/p11.html

I wish I could find some diagrams that I found some time ago...

Will get back to you.

[Avimimus]

If you find any good references for the appearance of the plane without the wing guns you should send them to TD as well... ;)

[Romanator21]

Here's an in-cockpit shot. You can see the fuel tank cylinder plainly. It is not behind any sort of fire-wall, so the pilot is directly exposed in the event of a fire.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2010-3/19/82328.jpg

If you look carefully, you can see a cut-out between the gear legs, and just aft of where the tension cables meet.

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2008-2/29/11303.jpg

It's just a model, but the brass part shows the bottom of the fuel tank, as well as the connection/release straps (also modeled in brass).

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/pzlp11c/underside_unp.jpg

http://hsfeatures.com/features04/images/pzlp11c/plane_underside.jpg

Still trying to get a manual....

[JtD]

Not necessary, got one myself, only forgot about it. Nice pics, though, and interesting feature I didn't realize before.

[bf-110]

P.11 had fuel tank?Where?

[Romanator21]

Every airplane that's not a glider or powered by electricity has a fuel tank ;)

[FAE_Cazador]

It is awesome that such a plane (P-11c) could survive war to be now in a aero museum. Is it original or a replica?

[bf-110]

Every airplane that's not a glider or powered by electricity has a fuel tank ;)

No,wait,you mean plane´s own fuel tank,not the additional fuel tanks.:rolleyes:

[Kwiatek]

It is awesome that such a plane (P-11c) could survive war to be now in a aero museum. Is it original or a replica?

It is the only one original P-11 in the world. And it is in air museum in Kraków in Poland. It engine still work :)

And P-11 had dropable fuel tank IRL. If fuel tank get fire pilot could drop it.


Also there is a project to bulit P-11 flyable replica in Poland. Maby some day we could see it in the air.


In 4.10 patch there will be improved P-11 model with new DM hit boxes and i hope FM also.

[Romanator21]

No,wait,you mean plane´s own fuel tank,not the additional fuel tanks.:rolleyes:

Yes. However, it's not the first with that feature. The Polish PWS-10 also had a drop-able main fuel tank.

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww1/pws10/pws10-4.jpg

Who originally came up with the idea is anyone's guess.

As for the wing guns, it would seem like a relatively easy addition - delete the barrels, flatten the blisters, adjust the skin to reflect the changes (I'm sure the blisters use "lighting" illusion enhancement) and modify the weight/balance of the guns and ammo (I don't know any details there).

[csThor]

To tide you over till we get the go-ahead for posting the full guide here's a part of the documentation for 4.10. Just some historical notes for mission makers who want to make historical missions for the Henschel Hs 129.

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/data/HistNotes_Hs129.pdf

;)

[Azimech]

Thank you very much!

[PilotError]

To tide you over till we get the go-ahead for posting the full guide here's a part of the documentation for 4.10. Just some historical notes for mission makers who want to make historical missions for the Henschel Hs 129.

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/data/HistNotes_Hs129.pdf

;)

I'm not a mission builder but I found it an interesting read just the same.

I did notice however that on two different occasions the document states that Hs 29's flew at 5m or less !:eek:
Surley that is a typo and you must mean 50m.

[JG53Frankyboy]

i will try to follow the instructions in VOW missions - if 4.10 will be released before the VOW timeline reached april 45 :D

interesting that the rumanians didnt had the MKs ! good to know.

[csThor]

No ... 5m is actually right. However we must remember that parts of Tunisia are simply featureless desert which makes such flying possible at all. I'd rather not try that myself, though. :cool:

[PilotError]

No ... 5m is actually right. However we must remember that parts of Tunisia are simply featureless desert which makes such flying possible at all. I'd rather not try that myself, though. :cool:

I stand corrected.
Thanks for clearing that up.

I was thinking 50m was dangerously low, but 5m is just insane!

You have to take your hat off to the pilots who did that for real.
:cool:

[Fafnir_6]

To tide you over till we get the go-ahead for posting the full guide here's a part of the documentation for 4.10. Just some historical notes for mission makers who want to make historical missions for the Henschel Hs 129.

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/data/HistNotes_Hs129.pdf

;)

Awesome! Thanks for posting. There will be a ton of great stuff in 4.10 but I still think the Hs129B will be the highlight for me.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Avimimus]

Q - do the engines still cut under negative G's?

[robtek]

Well, they most certainly should, as they have carburetors and no injection.

[JG53Frankyboy]

well ,does the IAR80s ??
they have the same engines.............................actually, we will see.

[dflion]

To tide you over till we get the go-ahead for posting the full guide here's a part of the documentation for 4.10. Just some historical notes for mission makers who want to make historical missions for the Henschel Hs 129.



;) Thanks csThor for these historical notes on the Hs129. Also the bibliography is handy to have as well.

DFLion

[LukeFF]

To tide you over till we get the go-ahead for posting the full guide here's a part of the documentation for 4.10. Just some historical notes for mission makers who want to make historical missions for the Henschel Hs 129.

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/data/HistNotes_Hs129.pdf

;)

Well done. A good summary, and all of those references are well worth reading.

[Avimimus]

Thanks for the doc. I'm a bit excited by the subject to read it properly - but It'll certainly help me use the plane in a more imaginative, enjoyable and accurate way once it is released.

[Tempest123]

Thanks a lot, dunno about other fellas here, but this is one of my favorite parts about the new patch, that is knowing how and where to place to units in historical context for missions. The guide for 4.09 was excellent and I guess the 4.10 guide will be almost book-sized based on it's content. Thanks for taking the time to write and research all this information, it's much appreciated. I'm currently making some stand alone missions that highlight 4.09 content, but now I will leave room for 4.10 aircraft.


To tide you over till we get the go-ahead for posting the full guide here's a part of the documentation for 4.10. Just some historical notes for mission makers who want to make historical missions for the Henschel Hs 129.

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/data/HistNotes_Hs129.pdf

;)

[addman]

Thanks csThor! The Hs-129 is one of those planes I always wondered why it hasn't been given the old flyable treatment before. Many freak planes I could've lived without if I just got this lovely ground-pounder instead. Really looking forward to 4.10:-)

[llama_thumper]

Also there is a project to bulit P-11 flyable replica in Poland. Maby some day we could see it in the air.


In 4.10 patch there will be improved P-11 model with new DM hit boxes and i hope FM also.

@kwiatek: do you know who is trying to build this replica and whether it's possible to support them?

@TD: you guys are amazing! great to see someone still working on the P.11 - just to be clear, does it also have updated (higher-res) internal cockpit views or is it just external fixes? either way, great that this is being done - look forward to flying it!!!

[d165w3ll]

To tide you over till we get the go-ahead for posting the full guide here's a part of the documentation for 4.10. Just some historical notes for mission makers who want to make historical missions for the Henschel Hs 129.

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/data/HistNotes_Hs129.pdf

;)

Hi Thor - and thanks for this early sight of the documentation. :grin:

A super document it is, too, and if it's representative of the rest of the content, a huge treat is in store for us.

A minor observation, and one which should be relatively easy to sort out with search/replace: German, Soviet, Romanian (etc.) should be capitalised.

Thanks TD!
:)

[IceFire]

Thanks csThor! The Hs-129 is one of those planes I always wondered why it hasn't been given the old flyable treatment before. Many freak planes I could've lived without if I just got this lovely ground-pounder instead. Really looking forward to 4.10:-)

I might be wrong but I believe that when IL-2 was developed there wasn't sufficient Hs129 information recovered to be able to make a flyable version. Now that there is a semi-complete cockpit restoration underway (I forget where - but I do remember the pictures) the information is available and it's possible to make it happen.

Amazing what was once lost is found again... And now in a way... Immortalized in a simulator.

[zipper]

wow - such devotion to fidelity ... and yet the Do335V13 model is so wrong ...

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

wow - such devotion to fidelity ... and yet the Do335V13 model is so wrong ...

In what way?

[Fafnir_6]

In what way?

I'm not sure either. They could have called it the Do335B-2 but other than that I thought the model was pretty decent. I'd be interested to hear some gripes.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Qpassa]

Could we see 4.10 before Christmas? :)

[flying]

Could we see 4.10 before Christmas? :)

You'll see 4.10 at Christmas 2020.:-P

[BadAim]

wow - such devotion to fidelity ... and yet the Do335V13 model is so wrong ...

And what does that have to do with Daidalos?

[bf-110]

Could we see 4.10 before Christmas? :)


I hope that too.The chilean miners got rescued before it.:mrgreen:

[zipper]

I'm not sure either. They could have called it the Do335B-2 but other than that I thought the model was pretty decent. I'd be interested to hear some gripes.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

not griping - not upset. amused. although BadAim brings up a good point, I have forgotten where the V13 came from. maybe Oleg, not Daidalos. sorry, if that is the case.

the V13/B-2 had the armor that wasn't installed in the A-0 (is it included in the game's damage model?). the most obvious was the windscreen. there were also two rear view mirrors, a larger nose wheel that had to rotate 45 degrees to fit in the wheelwell and some minor changes in the cockpit. are these variances important? eh, maybe, or not. what i find amusing is occasionally when people ask if a certain plane can be added or made flyable and the powers that be seem to be not very interested in it they say they can't do it because they don't have precise and accurate references and they don't want to make a mistake. odd, since many of the existing models have mistakes of one sort or another. I don't think a game on this scale can be perfect and i don't care too much, anyway. it is what it is, and i like it. Daidalos is a good outfit and overall seems to put out higher quality work than Oleg's crew, actually. (i am seriously looking forward to 4.10) but, if someone went on an easter egg hunt they could probably find a nitpick or two to at least disagree on with them as well - but i, for one, won't look that close - lol.

example of a stupid nitpick (Oleg): all nosewheels in game are treated as steerable - in RL absolutely non of them were, not even the B-29's, they were all castoring. but, dammit, this ain't a taxiing game. lol

carry on - sorry to have interrupted ...

[=69.GIAP=TOOZ]

not griping - not upset. amused. although BadAim brings up a good point, I have forgotten where the V13 came from. maybe Oleg, not Daidalos. sorry, if that is the case.

the V13/B-2 had the armor that wasn't installed in the A-0 (is it included in the game's damage model?). the most obvious was the windscreen. there were also two rear view mirrors, a larger nose wheel that had to rotate 45 degrees to fit in the wheelwell and some minor changes in the cockpit. are these variances important? eh, maybe, or not. what i find amusing is occasionally when people ask if a certain plane can be added or made flyable and the powers that be seem to be not very interested in it they say they can't do it because they don't have precise and accurate references and they don't want to make a mistake. odd, since many of the existing models have mistakes of one sort or another. I don't think a game on this scale can be perfect and i don't care too much, anyway. it is what it is, and i like it. Daidalos is a good outfit and overall seems to put out higher quality work than Oleg's crew, actually. (i am seriously looking forward to 4.10) but, if someone went on an easter egg hunt they could probably find a nitpick or two to at least disagree on with them as well - but i, for one, won't look that close - lol.

example of a stupid nitpick (Oleg): all nosewheels in game are treated as steerable - in RL absolutely non of them were, not even the B-29's, they were all castoring. but, dammit, this ain't a taxiing game. lol

carry on - sorry to have interrupted ...

Well, I think the Do335 was modelled by someone outside of the Oleg's team, but was released with 1946(?).

From what I understand, the procedure for 3rd party aircraft models being released prior to DT's involvement was that some random guy had a particular aircraft he wanted to have included in the game so he made the model and sent it into Oleg's team who would then give the guy feedback about poly counts, and so on, so he could make corrections. Once all corrections were completed someone at 1C:MG would then look it over and insert it into the game if it met all the criteria, and quite often the models had to be further corrected by one of Oleg's team anyway.

This way of doing things inevitably led to mistakes being made in the way certain aircraft were modelled, and the way certain mechanisms might work on these models, etc, because research was done by people outside of the dev team, and things like the nose wheel of the Do335 having to turn 45 degrees to fit might get missed. That's just how things go unfortunately, but we are fortunate that IL-2 was created by people who were willing to fix mistakes and improve their product continually, and indeed, with DT we have a great group who are doing their best to improve what is already a great product.

Perhaps now that you have highlighted the issue of the Do335 someone might decide to take a look at it and see if it can/needs to be fixed!

[Fafnir_6]

Well, I think the Do335 was modelled by someone outside of the Oleg's team, but was released with 1946(?).

From what I understand, the procedure for 3rd party aircraft models being released prior to DT's involvement was that some random guy had a particular aircraft he wanted to have included in the game so he made the model and sent it into Oleg's team who would then give the guy feedback about poly counts, and so on, so he could make corrections. Once all corrections were completed someone at 1C:MG would then look it over and insert it into the game if it met all the criteria, and quite often the models had to be further corrected by one of Oleg's team anyway.

This way of doing things inevitably led to mistakes being made in the way certain aircraft were modelled, and the way certain mechanisms might work on these models, etc, because research was done by people outside of the dev team, and things like the nose wheel of the Do335 having to turn 45 degrees to fit might get missed. That's just how things go unfortunately, but we are fortunate that IL-2 was created by people who were willing to fix mistakes and improve their product continually, and indeed, with DT we have a great group who are doing their best to improve what is already a great product.

Perhaps now that you have highlighted the issue of the Do335 someone might decide to take a look at it and see if it can/needs to be fixed!

Indeed! Daidlos Team seems to have a knack for doing these sort of fixes (Bf110G-2, Gladiator, Ju88 in the upcoming patch). Show them the references that describe what is needed and I think they will be happy to fix it.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[MrBaato]

It would be great if TD could model an earlier FW190 A8 version, because so many of those were produced.

The early version had a "straight" canopy just like the A 4/5/6 version
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/10/images/detail_fw190a8_02.jpg

Alot better looking in my opinion ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

Pilots would probably prefer the later bubble canopy due to visibility issues, but i agree it looks sleeker and more beautiful with the straight one ;)

[zipper]

oh, while on the subject of the 335 - a fascinating characteristic concerning the flight model: the single engine max speed was about 48mph faster on the rear engine than the front (A-0), in spite of the rear prop being 3 inches smaller diameter (tip speeds on rear prop were excessive while in front prop's wash at speed). Sadly, in game top speed on each engine is exactly the same.


... another day closer ...

[Bolelas]

It was announced before, but because i didnt saw it on your new video: will we have separate axis for eatch engine? Glad to see axis for radiator, tank you!

[janpitor]

I´d like to ask if there is some plan for future griffon engined spitfire. I haven´t found any information yet