4.10 Official Release

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I bet some readers of this thread know more examples of low bombing practises. 4.10m style safety fuse could of course not be used for these bombing styles because it would have prevented the bomb from exploding in target. That is why I would like to ask to please remove the safety fuse from 4.10 patch... :grin:


Regards,

- J. Hartikka -

IL-2 Virtual Bomber Pilot


You are misinformed, or better to say, your information seems to be not very detailed.
Such lowest attacks as your described, happend very seldom, as it was most dangerous for the plane, that did it (i.e.bombs could bounce back from water or surface and hit the plane itself). I think, you overestimate, what you call 'very low'. In a WW2 plane, flying 400km/h and more, even 50m is very low!
Most players used this tactics, because it was too easy. I'm quite glad to see someone addicted to bombing (as most players only seem to be 'fighter jockeys'). The more you should be happy about doing it more the real way.

The 2second fuse arming is a very average number (thats why it was chosen). Most times were larger - depending on bomb size and blast radius.
Its still not a perfect display, its still very abstract, but its much more realistic than before and thus playing will be more realistic. We really digged into that topic, reading and discussion as much information as possible (not just stories). We wouldn't do this only by 'guessing'.

EDIT: BTW - this feature was included by one of your compatriots. :)

[Krt_Bong]

I've already posted about this in the general Forum and in over 20 views not one answer, in trying to set up a server on FBDJ - I and my squadmates cannot find any reference to where the settings for difficulty ie:

difficulty GLimits 1
difficulty Reliability 1
difficulty RealisticPilotVulnerability 1
difficulty RealisticNavigationInstruments 1
difficulty NoPlayerIcon 1
difficulty NoFogOfWarIcons 1

are supposed to go, can someone who is familiar with the FBDJ please provide this information? Without it all these great features are not available. I would have thought that it would be easier to find this..

[csThor]

Posted your question on our board, Krt_Bong. :cool:

[Oktoberfest]

You are misinformed, or better to say, your information seems to be not very detailed.
Such lowest attacks as your described, happend very seldom, as it was most dangerous for the plane, that did it (i.e.bombs could bounce back from water or surface and hit the plane itself). I think, you overestimate, what you call 'very low'. In a WW2 plane, flying 400km/h and more, even 50m is very low!
Most players used this tactics, because it was too easy. I'm quite glad to see someone addicted to bombing (as most players only seem to be 'fighter jockeys'). The more you should be happy about doing it more the real way.

The 2second fuse arming is a very average number (thats why it was chosen). Most times were larger - depending on bomb size and blast radius.
Its still not a perfect display, its still very abstract, but its much more realistic than before and thus playing will be more realistic. We really digged into that topic, reading and discussion as much information as possible (not just stories). We wouldn't do this only by 'guessing'.

EDIT: BTW - this feature was included by one of your compatriots. :)

Your remark would be ok if ships reacted to bombs in a realistic manner. In reality, the blast of a bomb next to a ship would cause a shockwave damaging the integrity of the ship hull, causing the metal to be torn appart, leaks, etc. In IL2, only a bomb that end glued to the hull will cause any damage.

In reality, pilots could suppress the ship AA guns by straffing the crew operating it, and then torpedo bombers or skip bombers could attack the ship with no or less risk to the aircraft, what you can't do in IL2 because the damage model of the ship doesn't include any crew. With your parameters, the attack of ships is way more difficult as it was in the reality because AA can't be suppressed. Flying at 30 - 50 meters to skip bomb while the AA is firing at you (with of course sniper AAA as we have in IL2, which is, like the AI gunners, totally unrealistic) is suicide.

Fuses should be at least settable by the pilot, like convergence.

[TheGrunch]

Don't forget that more extensive changes to ship DMs are already planned for 4.11. Perhaps this fusing feature would have been better left out until these DM changes were added.

[Oktoberfest]

Yep, it should have been done the other way round. And please do the same for tanks. When I drop 1 ton of bomb at 10 meters from a tank, the tank might not be destroyed, but I'm sure the crew is at least wounded by the shockwaves, if the tank is not flipped upside down !

[Tempest123]

Yep, it should have been done the other way round. And please do the same for tanks. When I drop 1 ton of bomb at 10 meters from a tank, the tank might not be destroyed, but I'm sure the crew is at least wounded by the shockwaves, if the tank is not flipped upside down !

Yes, we need better DM modeling for tanks and vehicles, its not realistic to have only 2 damage states, 'undamaged' and 'destroyed'. For example, aircraft in Il2 have to loiter around (esp. if using gunpods) and pick off each individual vehicle until it reaches the destroyed state, same thing with bombs, a near hit does not do much if any damage to tanks.

[Ian Boys]

What about the 2 secs for dive bombers? How is a Stuka or Pe-2 meant to operate?

[JG53Frankyboy]

what should be the proplem with the 2sec fuze and divebombers ????

perhaps you released your bombs much to low in the 4.09 past ?? ;)

[1.JaVA_Sjonnie]

What about the 2 secs for dive bombers? How is a Stuka or Pe-2 meant to operate?

I'd say that they have a minimum safe pull-out altitude which ensures the 2 sec. timeframe for fusing.

[JG53Frankyboy]

even more having the new G limits in mind..................

[JG53Frankyboy]

anyone else has the "proplem" that the "automatic AI" setting (when you swithing between the more seater positions) is not working like in 4.09 anymore ?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

anyone else has the "proplem" that the "automatic AI" setting (when you swithing between the more seater positions) is not working like in 4.09 anymore ?

No its working. You can disable it though.

[JG53Frankyboy]

i dont get it :(

Ju88, automatic switch is ON - switch to gunner, you can aim, but the pilot is going AUTO :(
MOST annoying in a bombrun..

automatic switch OFF, you switch to gunner, you fly the plane, but you can only control the gunner if you manually disable the "autopilot" of the specific gunner station.
when you retrun to pilot the gunner STAIS "autopilot disabled"...........


in 4.09 you had not to switch off (and on before leaving the position !) the AI of the gunnerstations. There was a setting in what you couls change in every gunnerstation, you had instant control of this station and you were still able to control the plane.

i cant manage to get this setting in 4.10 anymore.....
any help , when there were no changes from 4.09 to 4.10 ?

[JG52Uther]

This happened to me with the 4.10 installation!
In your controls section do you have a 'autopilot automation' option (or similar,sorry can't remember the exact wording)
I had to assign a button to it again to make it work.

[JG53Frankyboy]

no, it works online, but not offline out of the easy mission builder at least.....

never flew offline campaigns :D

[JG52Uther]

Pretty sure my problem was with flying in the QMB as well.

[Krt_Bong]

Posted your question on our board, Krt_Bong. :cool:

elsewhere on the forum someone answered my question;
"the simplest way of getting the proper difficulty settings into the dedicated server is to start the game, fly a quick mission with the wanted difficulty, go into "settings.ini" of the user in the /users folder and look for the [difficulty] section. You'll see a line that reads single=xxxxxxxxxx, with xxxxxxxxx being a number. You copy that number and put it into the confs.ini of the dedicated server, under the [NET] section in a line difficulty=xxxxxxxxxx.

Another way is to edit the server.cmd file, where you can list all difficulty settings seperately with for instance "difficulty GLimits 1". If you want to know the names of all settings, enter "difficulty" into the server console."

I relayed this info to the Guys who have access and assuming they understood it properly they made the adjustments and we still can't get the beacons to function, they will if I run the mission from my own PC but not on the dedicated Server.

edit- problem has been solved
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17968

put it in the Users/doe/settings.ini and it works in the server

[Ritchie]

TD, I appreciate your work, and I very much appreciate the effort towards greater realism. As far as I had time to check out, there are so many little improvements... Together, they make up for a clearly improved game play. THANK YOU!!

The only thing that bugs me in the new patch is ...yes, again - the 2 seconds bomb fuse arming time.

I don’t care for my fighter-bombing habits or easy gameplay, all I have in mind is realism.. And there, I do have my doubts about the 2 seconds limit.

You are misinformed, or better to say, your information seems to be not very detailed.
Such lowest attacks as your described, happend very seldom, as it was most dangerous for the plane, that did it (i.e.bombs could bounce back from water or surface and hit the plane itself). I think, you overestimate, what you call 'very low'. In a WW2 plane, flying 400km/h and more, even 50m is very low!
Most players used this tactics, because it was too easy. I'm quite glad to see someone addicted to bombing (as most players only seem to be 'fighter jockeys'). The more you should be happy about doing it more the real way.

The 2second fuse arming is a very average number (thats why it was chosen). Most times were larger - depending on bomb size and blast radius.
Its still not a perfect display, its still very abstract, but its much more realistic than before and thus playing will be more realistic. We really digged into that topic, reading and discussion as much information as possible (not just stories). We wouldn't do this only by 'guessing'.


O.k., now we understand better. You have studied and discussed the matter, and now, for the sake of realism, you don’t want people to bomb from ridiculous heights. This has been a nuisance, I agree. You say that at 400 km/h, even 50 m is very low. Agreed.

You also admit that the 2 seconds fuse arming time is “a very average number”. In other words, it’s a fancy value, a compromise. So your objective is educational rather than strictly historical. Did I get that right? :o

I acknowledge your research work and your good intentions, but mind it’s still a fancy value. You roll over J.Hartikka, a dedicated virtual bomber pilot, who obviously spent some time investigating the subject, without even asking for his credentials or reference material. You just ignore the questions of Ian Boys, a renowned veteran of the sim, not exactly a dumbhead. There was this other guy, Wutz, a real-life EOD expert...
What makes you so sure about this two-second feature?

Let’s take the example of dive bombing and do a bit of physical calculation:
Let’s assume a moderate dive angle of 45° and a speed of 500 km/h.
...Well, if you allow me to skip the mathematical details, here’s the result: 197 meters, roughly 200 meters minimum height for “dropping the egg”.
My in-game tests have confirmed this very limit. Of course it is considerably higher for steeper dive angles and higher speeds, getting close to 500 m for an assumed 90° dive.

It’s similar for another classical tactic, the low-level attack (no matter if it’s skip-bombing, slide-bombing or any other technique of the kind). A minimum drop height of 20 or 25 m would be alright by me, but this turns out to be not enough. Even 50 m are not enough. In IL-2 V 4.10, it’s got to be more to succeed. But then, you’re giving away the advantages of this approach altogether, i.e.
A) high precision on target
B) low vulnerability to enemy flak
C) the element of surprise

From a logical point of view, there’s nothing to gain in such a long fuse arming time if you already have a 1.5 or 2 seconds delay set in the triggering mechanism. At least, this is true for all the examples cited in the 4.10 manual. Same thing for the case of a bomb bouncing back up on you from the ground. If this happens, you have been too low, definitely...
What has all this got to do with the fuse arming time? :???:
Maybe there is something to it that I am not aware of, I don’t know...

Haven’t found sufficient historical evidence yet, it’s not so easy. One or two instances of personal testimony or original film footage won’t do here. I won’t be impressed either with historical instruction manuals or official guidelines.. The really interesting thing here is what was actually done on the front in WW II. So many examples show us that this was two different pair of shoes.
The issue is where the critical downward limit was and whether or not this limit was dictated by a 2 second fuse arming time.

I feel it would be impertinent to make any suggestions here after you spent so much effort and discussion on the subject. If you reconsider the whole thing or not, I’m just confident you know what you do and where you’re driving at.

Let me conclude with my congratulations
:grin:
GREAT WORK!

Ritchie

[JHartikka]

You are misinformed, or better to say, your information seems to be not very detailed...

... I think, you overestimate, what you call 'very low'. In a WW2 plane, flying 400km/h and more, even 50m is very low!

Most players used this tactics, because it was too easy...

The 2second fuse arming is a very average number (thats why it was chosen) ... We really digged into that topic, reading and discussion as much information as possible ...
:)


Thank you for detailed answer Caspar! :)

In average, yes, the 4.10m style 2 sec Safety Fuse may be quite OK and realistic for strategic bombing of cities of the style that major war going nations used to do during war.

It also is considered a fact that vast majority of the air bomb tonnage was dropped in WW II massive strategic city raids during latter part of the war and that these bombs used in strategic bomb raids were equipped with safety delays.

So by this reasoning one could indeed force a 4.10m safety delay as an obligatory 2s bomb delay for all 4.10m players..! ;) However, there was at least one minor war going nation with alternative bomber practise, too...


Lots of Fighter Books - But Where Are Bomber Books?

You and Ritchie are correct also about the difficulty of finding info about the subject. It is very easy to find literature about fighter activities. If one wants to get info about wartime bomber work, it get hard. One really must dig the sources up to find original stories or reports told or reported by bomber crews.

As far as you try find bomber related historical evidence from internet you are left with very little to read. Sometimes one has to go back to an old and almost forgotten source of information: A Book. That, together with magazines, was the information media used before Internet took over as the main information 'Googling' source.

In my country, bomber pilots were in the 1930's trained among other skills for low flying. For example, I have read books about Blenheim crews training low flying in all weather, in rain, in snowfall, even in fog. They trained to read terrain and map by flying low both in luminous summer nights and in ever dark winter days and nights - and there was no GPS in those days!


Bombers Trained Low

They trained flying low over lakes, then over fields and finally low over forests. The altitude limit was clear: As close to treetops as you can get, or preferably below treetops whenever you can get... Even Finnish black and dark green camo painting was optimized to conceal a low flying plane against dark shadows of our spruce forests.

Bomber crews continued practise low flying during war because low flying it was found a good tactic to help keep concealed and even survive enemy fighters by diving to treetops.

Not without casualties, of course - Scattered remains of a Finnish DO-172 bomber lie in the bottom of the nearby lake bay of Kirkkolahti, Liperi. Its props hit surface of lake during a low flying training run and the pilot was forced to emergency landing in water.


Accidents More Dangerous Than Enemy?

However, a lot more bomber crew souls were saved thanks to good low flying skills during actual combat operations than were lost in training. Rather few Blenheims were shot down by enemy fighters and flak. Still more amazing with Finnish JU-88's and SB2's - none of them were lost to Russian fire!

Most bomber accidents were reported due to unreliable wartime engines failing on start or because of other regrettable technical failures related to poor 'Ersatz' building materials of those times of shortage about almost everything. Low flying accidents appear not be significant related to accidents due to the wear and tear of wornout precious planes always too few in number...

Some accidents were of course due to human errors. For example, another of the several plane ruins in my neighbourhood is that of a Ju-88, nr. JK-254, that fell to flat spin because of a fresh pilot inexperience in formation flying and crashed in water in Rauvanlahti, Liperi. That Ju-88 formation was on the way to help stop invading enemy tanks in the Battle of Tali and Ihantala which one of the biggest battles in North Europe. Enemy was stopped with efforts.


Fly and Bomb Low or High?

While Russian bomber groups were usually reported to quickly drop their bombs and turn together to escape at the same altitude as soon as they spotted Finnish fighters, Finnish bombers usually would spread out to try escape with help of clouds or by diving low to mislead enemy interceptors and, if succesful, to regather later or to continue the bombing mission each on its own. Needless to say, the bomber crew decided their bomb SALVO (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=209543#post209543) themselves unlike IL2 allows us do... :cool:

Bomber crews were sometimes practically grown together. For example, reconnaissance specialized bomber pilot Ville Salminen used to fly his hundreds of far reaching flights with his familiar crew whenever possible. His crew was his eyes. They would quickly and exactly tell as well the position of enemy fighters approaching from any direction or the direction of flak for the pilot to decide how to dodge. He was particularly skilled with flying on treetops. He is known to have survived a group of attacking first line Russian fighters merely by dodging them with his twin motor DO-172 bomber - by a tale told after war by a Russian fighter veteran. Salminen is one of the pilots I am interested in and sometimes trying to imitate his flying style, with my far inferior experience and talents of course.

Salminen and other recon pilots used to carry bombs to disturb enemy by bombing emerging targets during their recon missions, too. These surprise raids were usually ex tempore low attacks against enemy supply trains or convoys. He was an expert by good training and hard practise. His superiors would even deny him joining fighters to keep a good bomber pilot. He was awarded a Mannerheim Cross for good reason concerning his reconnaissance flight credits. Many of these flights were so confidential that they were not even recorded into squad flight diary.


Modern Traces of Low Flying Skills

Even in our days I got a comment of a Finnish Air Force trained friend of mine who had witnessed a NATO air excercise: "They flew nothing but high", was his not so admiring comment about the foreign air force flying style. So there appear to be some traces of traditional flying habits of a remote northern country still left even in its safety stressing peacetime air force... ;)



... Together, they make up for a clearly improved game play. THANK YOU!!

The only thing that bugs me in the new patch is ...yes, again - the 2 seconds bomb fuse arming time.
...
Haven’t found sufficient historical evidence yet, it’s not so easy...

GREAT WORK!

Ritchie


Yes Ritchie, there is a vast amount of historical knowledge either lost or forgotten or concealed from our eyes..! Years ago I got a rare glance at an old wartime 'Official-Use-Only' labeled tight print illustrated catalogue of fuses - only fuses and nothing else. My eys opened to see the incredibly numerous selection of these small components of warfare that are normally hidden from our eyesight. Unfortunately, that catalogue has gone lost after its firearms specialist owner departed from this world, but the history still remains as well as my astonishment at it.

The last wars of this country were a shared effort to defend the nation from unwanted liberator takeover. Whole nation did everything it could to keep its way of living. We call that 'Spirit of Winter War'. If there was something needed for defence not available, it was designed or substituted or copied to meet the needs of the fighting young men on the front. Industry made a huge effort to support the battle with its production, not minding expenses, rewards or even getting payments for its bills. The industry provided anything that was desperately needed. Including fuses.

Looking it from this wider perspective, it is ok to permit us the one and the only correct 4.10m 2 s safety fuse that is common for all IL-2 virtual pilots. However, restricting to just one fuse for everyone in the virtual wars will not invalidate the fact that in real world other fuses existed back then and still exist. So let's play the virtual 4.10m wars with the one-for-all 4.10m safety fuse (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=209454&posted=1#post209454) and enjoy - it will anyway not change the reality of vast selection of fuses used by each war going nation back in those days..! ;)


Regards,

- J. Hartikka -

History Addicted Virtual Bomber Pilot

Finland

Photo Appendix: A few bomber related photo copies from the wartime album of my uncle Toivo. He served during war on the nearby airport of Joensuu as a Blenheim mechanician. The cylinder that seven man are cheerfully riding on in one of the photos is a 1000 kg bomb. A taking off Blenheim is equipped with ski landing gear. Dornier DO-172, Nr. DN-55 is in winter camo. Shot down and captured bombers like this DB-3 were repaired and 'recycled' into use to get more desperately needed planes. JU-88 with a curious unknown gun installation pointing from its nose is possibly some special field modification. '

More wartime photos on messages http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=213782#post213782 and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=216588#post216588


P.S. I am still playing with 4.09m to feel more real with fuses... ;)

[He111]

excellent, love the fulmar, didn't realise it was so fast! :grin: well fast compared to my Hs 129.

Realistic torpedos is a real pain though, trying to keep height, speed and aim the aircraft .. toooo hard! :(

He111

[JG53Frankyboy]

......................

Realistic torpedos is a real pain though, trying to keep height, speed and aim the aircraft .. toooo hard! :(

He111

fly the SM79, its performance equals perfect its torpedolimits ;)

[JG53Frankyboy]

......................................JU-88[/I] with a curious unknown gun installation pointing from its nose is possibly some special field modification.
[/COLOR]



its a 20mm MG-FF, a very common modification on Ju88s on the easternfront !
like in the ingame Torpedo Ju88s , very they are unfortunatly almost senseless (in game !) :(

i realy wish for a new Ju88 variant , perhaps called "Ju88A-4 mod", with such a MG-FF in the nose (means also NO Lotfe !) , no divebrakes (they were often removed) and overworked bombloadout options (get rid of these 18 and 28 SC50 loadouts, in game only the second bombbay is working. and that carried 10 SC50).
The Cockpit, if im not totaly wrong, could be the same as the torp Ju88 :)

Such equipted Ju88 were VERY common at the easternfront !

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hi Ritchie!


You also admit that the 2 seconds fuse arming time is “a very average number”. In other words, it’s a fancy value, a compromise. So your objective is educational rather than strictly historical. Did I get that right? :o



A compromise, yes. But the intention wasn't 'to teach them right', or such (to get the bad sound out of 'edjucational'). It was rather a logical step, after torpedos got a rework, closer to their historical equivalents, so did the bombs and first thing, that was noticed, was 'there is not fuse arming delay!'. So it was introduced. Thats simply as it is. We didn't expect a discussion like that, really! In fact, I was personally worried by the outcome it would have regarding the gameplay (mission building) and wanted it to be an option. But it wasn't seen as too critical. So desicion was made to have it like it is now.


I acknowledge your research work and your good intentions, but mind it’s still a fancy value. You roll over J.Hartikka, a dedicated virtual bomber pilot, who obviously spent some time investigating the subject, without even asking for his credentials or reference material.


Oh, we always ask for, better to say demand reference material if someone wants to point us where we went wrong. That was said already often.


You just ignore the questions of Ian Boys, a renowned veteran of the sim, not exactly a dumbhead.


No I didn't. I am just not each day online here. Its not my job. I would go insane, if I read each page myself.
I just try to keep communications up occationally, while most of us are too busy with the interim patch. I just am not very good at it, as I have no clue about most issues.
I try to transport a bit of our intern thinkings/discussions to here. I cannot talk about everything of course.
This discussion is already on three places with voluminous postings and its quite hard to follow.
I know Ian very well (guess he knows me too), I know he is a capable fellow and I didn't meant to ignore him. Even more, as he got an answer by 1.JaVA_Sjonnie, which I find quite adequate.




Let’s take the example of dive bombing and do a bit of physical calculation:
Let’s assume a moderate dive angle of 45° and a speed of 500 km/h.
...Well, if you allow me to skip the mathematical details, here’s the result: 197 meters, roughly 200 meters minimum height for “dropping the egg”.
My in-game tests have confirmed this very limit. Of course it is considerably higher for steeper dive angles and higher speeds, getting close to 500 m for an assumed 90° dive.



That sounds quite realistic. If I remember correctly, dropping height in Ju87 was ~500-1000m. So with 200m you are on the extrem lowest edge of what is possible, but still...





But then, you’re giving away the advantages of this approach altogether, i.e.
A) high precision on target
B) low vulnerability to enemy flak
C) the element of surprise



Sure. Advantages, that real pilots didn't have. Not as it was in game.
I am well aware, why it was so favoured by many virtual pilots. ;)
People were used to be able to sink large ships alone. Its no longer this way.
It wasn't directly intended, but as an automatic result, it is quite good.

Disadvantage now is, that its not correct for a few types of bombs (mostly small and smallest), for some its not historical at all, as there were types, that didn't have the possibility for fuse arming at all.
However, you could have all your mentioned advantages back, if fuse arming times would be correct for indivial bomb types, but still you wouldn't be able to sink ships alone, because they are simply too small to sink them in one run.


From a logical point of view, there’s nothing to gain in such a long fuse arming time if you already have a 1.5 or 2 seconds delay set in the triggering mechanism....
What has all this got to do with the fuse arming time? :???:
Maybe there is something to it that I am not aware of, I don’t know...


Its a security installation. I can imagine more than one situation, where its logical/practical to have. Individual nations wouldn't have invented and used it, if it was for nothing. :)
We didn't invent it for the game, it was already there back then.



The really interesting thing here is what was actually done on the front in WW II. So many examples show us that this was two different pair of shoes.

Thats why we use, what we have. Paper is the best ressource we have, maybe its not THE best, but better than guesses. If there are better ressources, we use them. (BTW: show me a valid photograph of a Hs129B-3 with a ZFR 3 B or test results scans and you'll get one!)


The issue is where the critical downward limit was and whether or not this limit was dictated by a 2 second fuse arming time.


Of course it was not! Its a compromise.
Maybe we will refine it, but thats out of my knowledge currently.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Thank you for detailed answer Caspar! :)




Hi JHartikka!

Thanks for your posting. I do not feel to be able to answer your (long) posting now equally to Ritchie's, but let me say, I have read it all and as I said, I really welcome players, addicted to bombing (not the usual type of player)!

Thanks also for your interesting stories and the pictures!

Please - if you find any reliable ressource for what finnish pilots used regarding fuse arming time, then don't hesitate to share it.
We are not too proud to recieve convincing material and probably be ablte to change things to a more correct way.

C.

[Ventura]

@JHartikka
Thank you for sharing and posting those photos from your Uncle Toivo. Those personal treasures are always appreciated.

[LukeFF]

If there are better ressources, we use them. (BTW: show me a valid photograph of a Hs129B-3 with a ZFR 3 B or test results scans and you'll get one!)

On a related note, is the B-3 cockpit different from the B-2?

(I don't have Il2 installed on my computer).

[Ritchie]

Hi Caspar,

many thanks for your detailed answer. Very much appreciated.
Sorry if I sounded a bit impatient. Of course it’s alright if you take your time, I’d hate to see you go crazy, can understand that... :-x

I gave some points of view on this one 2 seconds issue, I see it’s adressed seriously. Couldn’t demand more.

:idea: We have a huge military history archive here in my home town, one of the biggest in Germany (Militärhistorisches Archiv Freiburg). I’ll go there and see if I can find something relevant about the topic. I don’t promise anything though due to restrictions on my time schedule, and after all, this probably is a case of needles in a haystack.

@J.Hartikka
Thanks for your interesting contribution!

Ave
Ritchie

[MadBlaster]

its a 20mm MG-FF, a very common modification on Ju88s on the easternfront !
like in the ingame Torpedo Ju88s , very they are unfortunatly almost senseless (in game !) :(

i realy wish for a new Ju88 variant , perhaps called "Ju88A-4 mod", with such a MG-FF in the nose (means also NO Lotfe !) , no divebrakes (they were often removed) and overworked bombloadout options (get rid of these 18 and 28 SC50 loadouts, in game only the second bombbay is working. and that carried 10 SC50).
The Cockpit, if im not totaly wrong, could be the same as the torp Ju88 :)

Such equipted Ju88 were VERY common at the easternfront !

I am curious. Given the new torpedo restrictions w/speed, why would it be an "improvement" to have the divebrake removed from the A-17 model? Anybody?

[bf-110]

excellent, love the fulmar, didn't realise it was so fast! :grin: well fast compared to my Hs 129.

Realistic torpedos is a real pain though, trying to keep height, speed and aim the aircraft .. toooo hard! :(

He111

Found that when I was very excited to sink something...NOT anymore!

[JG53Frankyboy]

I am curious. Given the new torpedo restrictions w/speed, why would it be an "improvement" to have the divebrake removed from the A-17 model? Anybody?

Acceleration and deaccelaration in game is not the same as in real.
As example remember how difficult it sometimes is to lose Speed during a landingapproach......

And in a Multicrew torpbomber the Pilot was often supported by a crewman/copilot who told him speed And height!


These Ju88 modifications for "easternfront" Planes were usefull because the Lotfe bombsight And the divebrakes were not needed in the more commen lower level kind of operations they flew. And if there was a mission about Levelbombing the Units always still had some Ju88 without the 20mm canons but with Lotfe that acted as leadbombers than :)
But the time of steap dives was over anyway... the plane got heavier and heavier and the AAA was much to dangerous. Swallow dives were what was used than,and therefor no divebrakes were neide.

[Mysticpuma]

Allow me to sound stupid (I'm good at it). I was looking at the QMB and went straight to the option which I understood was being included, where a player could have 32 v 32 aircraft. I only see 4 aircraft per slot, so a total of 16 v 16, which is what was already there?

Did the feature not get in, or is it still being worked on?

Just asking for clarity, cheers, MP

[MicroWave]

Allow me to sound stupid (I'm good at it). I was looking at the QMB and went straight to the option which I understood was being included, where a player could have 32 v 32 aircraft. I only see 4 aircraft per slot, so a total of 16 v 16, which is what was already there?

Did the feature not get in, or is it still being worked on?

Just asking for clarity, cheers, MP

You should have a Next button in the right bottom corner. It leads to another window where you can set additional 4 flights per each side.

[Sven]

Allow me to sound stupid (I'm good at it). I was looking at the QMB and went straight to the option which I understood was being included, where a player could have 32 v 32 aircraft. I only see 4 aircraft per slot, so a total of 16 v 16, which is what was already there?

Did the feature not get in, or is it still being worked on?

Just asking for clarity, cheers, MP

On the bottom right corner you'll see a button called "Next"

Enjoy

Sven

Edit: Whoops TD was there to save the day before me! Anyway, 4.10 still fascinates me every single time I take to the air, good work!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

On a related note, is the B-3 cockpit different from the B-2?



Yes it is. Mainly differences are in the panel layout and the gunsight.
But they are rather small.

[Mysticpuma]

You should have a Next button in the right bottom corner. It leads to another window where you can set additional 4 flights per each side.

Thank you, I was just expecting a drop-down of 8, not 4....damn that pesky 'Next' button!

Cheers, MP

[LukeFF]

Yes it is. Mainly differences are in the panel layout and the gunsight.
But they are rather small.

Cool, thanks. I'm sure you guys have seen the one (that I know of) cockpit photo of a B-3, so I was wondering if that was taken into account when modeling it.

[Sven]

Flying the HS-129 is some real fun, this evening I noticed something rather funny but at the same time really clever!

I don't know if this was always the case since I don't shoot up trains that much, but have a look. You'll see it soon enough.

[LeLv8_Otto]

Any possibility to get the performance values of 4.10 planes into IL-2 Compare file format? (the same way you provided them for 4.09m)

[Azimech]

I'm not sure why but I finally have the settings I wanted; due to the improved Joystick Screen or if something has changed in the FFB code, but my MS FF2 is more precise and force feedback stronger than ever!

http://www.iamboredr.com/files/e73c2f6cbe9b.jpg

I Love it! Thanks TD!

[Night_Wolves#23]

дорогие друзья, когда планируете следующий патч? уже случится до выхода боб?

с уважением.

[LLv26_Ozy]

Can someone pls tell me what makes FW wing so sensitive for -G?

What is -G level for FW, La and Spit?

[Daniël]

Thanks team Daidalos! I downloaded 4.10 and 4.101 yesterday. Great fun! The Henschel is a rude plane:)

[VT-51_Razor]

Can someone tell me which volume control determines the volume of the radio beacons? I can just barely hear them when even fairly close to the boat. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for a great patch!!

[highmoor]

Perhaps, asking for a 6DOF within a restricted box could reduce some of the developers worries about unfair advantages (and obtain a better realism).

I have my FAA and TC pilot's licenses, I ALMOST finished my Commercial license (but ran out of money), and my best flying buddy got his aerobatic rating because he is crazy.

You can turn your head, you can look behind you, you can move around. I was flying two weeks ago upside-down in a Citabria and tried it. Even checked through an aileron roll. You just don't tighten the shoulder straps as much. I also still retain my hands in flight, so I can tighten and loosen as required. Admittedly, it doesn't feel so good upside-down to be hanging in the seat a little loose, but if my life depended on it I am sure I could deal with it.

I use TrackIR, because it feels like I am really in the plane. Ever try pulling the Johnson-bar flap handle in a Piper Cherokee sitting bolt upright? It's just not realistic to expect that my head won't move around.

[MOG_Hammer]

Il-2 1946 + 4.08 + 4.09 + 4.10
But in some downloads are 4.08 and 4.09 included... I heard so I don't exactly know.

Legit downloads (direct2drive, UbiShop) are 4,08m

[Caveman]

Ok... I've got the original IL-2 1946 in the box. Can I just install from the box then install 4.10, then 4.101?

Or...

Do I need to go back earlier to 4.08, 4.09, 4.10, 4.101?

Looking for the easiest/cleanest way to update...

[Bat*21]

Ok... I've got the original IL-2 1946 in the box. Can I just install from the box then install 4.10, then 4.101?

Or...

Do I need to go back earlier to 4.08, 4.09, 4.10, 4.101?

Looking for the easiest/cleanest way to update...
megapatch over at Mission4Today will do it in one.
Good hunting.

[Artist]

Ok... I've got the original IL-2 1946 in the box. Can I just install from the box then install 4.10, then 4.101?
Or...
Do I need to go back earlier to 4.08, 4.09, 4.10, 4.101?


You need to apply all patches consecutivly (4.08, 4.09, 4.10, 4.101) and make backups in between!


IL-2 1946 in the box is 4.07
The patch 4.08 is on the CD/DVD
Theres a post in another thread with links to 4.09, 4.10, and 4.101 (here (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=308629&postcount=3))

Artist