Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11

[afj_ludacris]

ive been away so pardon the question if it is already included but:


A. is their an official XIV coming to a future patch?
B. a b-17 pit???

thanks

[Rainmaker]

Make FW190 A series have acceleration like in real life... it accelerated like BF109 G series. Simple as that

[Daniël]

You are right, but he didnt mention any specific version.

Yep. But everybody makes sometimes mistakes.:)

[Ronbo]

Hi,

Just installed the IL2_410_1 patch. I think I must have done something wrong because when I try to load the new planes, B17, B24 etc. When I start to fly the program doesn't start in the pilot seat. Instead I get some crazy outside view. The program will not allow me to jump to the pilot seat. All of the planes that are in the 410 patch seem to work fine. Can someone please help me with this issue.

Ron Ronbo82@comcast.net

System, Windows Vista Ultimate
6700@ 2.66GHz
32- bit System

[kennel]

Hi,

Just installed the IL2_410_1 patch. I think I must have done something wrong because when I try to load the new planes, B17, B24 etc. When I start to fly the program doesn't start in the pilot seat. Instead I get some crazy outside view. The program will not allow me to jump to the pilot seat. All of the planes that are in the 410 patch seem to work fine. Can someone please help me with this issue.

Ron Ronbo82@comcast.net

System, Windows Vista Ultimate
6700@ 2.66GHz
32- bit System


You cant fly them because the planes u mention are AI only 4.10 4.10.1 patches are official anything that lets you fly 4 engined bombers is not

[Bionde]

presets for lights on the runway, taxi light too, and most time them are turned on

[NNFFL=YLB=]

The Helldiver will be in the 4.11??:rolleyes:

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/4291/sb2c3norm1bj2.jpg

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/47/sb2c1norm1bg0.jpg

[DD_crash]

No chance unfortunately as it was made by the company who`s name we cant say :(

[dFrog]

What ? Never heard about problems with Curtis...

[Sita]

not Curtis... problem with Gr*mman

[Xilon_x]

because gruman have problem?

[dFrog]

not Curtis... problem with Gr*mman

And Curtis was purchased by Gr...? No. It sold some parts to North American Aviation which ended up as part of Boeing now. So, no crappy Grrrr.. company.

[Xilon_x]

but it is not 'a problem that can' affect IL-2.
I think that the planes gruman can be developed for the il-2 enjine.
I really like the duck.

[Fafnir_6]

Hello all,

I'm not sure if this has been asked/requested before so I'll throw it out there. What are the chances of DT implementing Anto's Bf109 external makeovers into the stock game (not necessarily including any additional variants)? I fly the 109 a lot and feel that this would be worthy addition.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Xilon_x]

i have the document whit all variant bf109 and spitfire after this day i post in this forum also the variant i post of the WF 190

[Stealth_Eagle]

When will you guys add the triggers. I am wanting to have them in IL-2 and please make them work in dogfights to create a better Moving Dogfight server. Thanks.

[Romanator21]

I meant to ask this before, but is there an "Easter Egg" in the 4.10 MDS guide? :)

Or do my eyes deceive me?

[HeavyRaider]

Thanks Team Diadalos, you folks are doing an awesome job. IL2 is my #1 game so your efforts are much appreciated.

I only have one request for you to resolve. I recently purchased a Matrox triplehead2go and have successfully configured IL2 to run across three screens. However, I play almost exclusively with cockpit off and have discovered that the red/blue arrow indicators no longer function correctly and are now useless. Rather than point to the location of other players around the screen edge, only the left hand edge displays the arrows and even then don't seem to indicate player location quite correctly.

I never use padlock but instead always fly in free-view mode with trackir, and rely on the arrows to show player location, a function that is particularly important during close combat when things are changing very quickly. Flying without the arrows is proving to be quite a serious disadvantage....not unlike flying with cockpit on.

Hopefully this enhancement request makes sense. I am happy to provide more information if you need.


Cheers.

[SpecialCake]

I just want to second HeavyRaider's request. However, I just have one widescreen monitor running at 1920x1080 and have issues with the arrows. They only appear at the top and bottom of my screen and in the wrong locations.

Basically, game needs better native widescreen resolution support.

[=WF=RAW]

thats why i never fly on servers, where those arrows are on. because i need to enable cockpit, so other players (with no widescreen monitors) have a big advantage in comparison with me. %)

[bf-110]

I just want to second HeavyRaider's request. However, I just have one widescreen monitor running at 1920x1080 and have issues with the arrows. They only appear at the top and bottom of my screen and in the wrong locations.

Basically, game needs better native widescreen resolution support.

Agree.I lost a bit of interest in playing IL2 since I changed my PC because after all the compatibility tweaks I had to do,now it seems to run like a very oooold game,like Duke Nukem 3d.

[klem]

I just want to second HeavyRaider's request. However, I just have one widescreen monitor running at 1920x1080 and have issues with the arrows. They only appear at the top and bottom of my screen and in the wrong locations.

Basically, game needs better native widescreen resolution support.

Have you seen this?

http://il2fovchanger.byethost7.com/

Works like a charm.


errmmmmm.... Arrows? Bader and Galland never had arrows, why not look around?

[Ltbear]

ello TD :)

Any chanse to get two 200 ltr`s drop tanks for the J2M5??

All reference i have gives a loadout of either 2x60KG bombs or 2x200ltr drop tanks :)

Awsome work you guys are doing

LTbear
:)

[MD_Titus]

not sure if it's been raised before, but a couple of things spring to mind

1. can the MG/cannon buttons be switched for the Ta-152 c and h models? currently if you press the mg only button it fires the 30mm on both planes, and cannon fires the 20mm. would be great if this were switched to match all the other planes in game.

2. the oil splatter on the windscreen of ki-61s. fairly sure i've seen that this would be literally impossible due to the location of the necessary bits in the engine. it'd splatter out of the bottom, not the top and onto the windshield.

cheers

[Gryphon_]

The 'U' variants of the A5 have the outer MGFF removed, but for some reason the weight goes up not down. The 'R' versions have 4 cannon, the 'U' just 2, but loadout for loadout the U is heavier than the R. Would be nice if that was fixed in 4.11.

[Fafnir_6]

Hello everyone,

I have another two VERY SMALL requests for 4.11. First, can the German-operated Fw190F-8 default skin NOT have the Hungarian fin flash on the rudder? Naturally, Hungarian Fw190F-8s can retain the fin flash. This is extremely easy to fix since you can just take the skin of the Fw190F-8(Mistel) and copy it over to the German Fw190F-8. Alternately, you could get the good Capt. Farrel to make a really sexy default skin :). Very little work for big payoff immersion-wise. This has annoyed me since the Fw190F-8 came out with Forgotten Battles to the point that I have yet to do a German Fw190F-8 campaign because of it. Secondly, I have noticed a small bug with the Opel Blitz Ambulance where the Red Cross on the roof changes position based on how far away you are from it. This is likely just a little bug with the UV mapping on the LOD1 of this model (pictures are attached to show this).

Cheers and thanks,

Fafnir_6

[LukeFF]

can the German-operated Fw190F-8 default skin NOT have the Hungarian fin flash on the rudder? Naturally, Hungarian Fw190F-8s can retain the fin flash. This is extremely easy to fix since you can just take the skin of the Fw190F-8(Mistel) and copy it over to the German Fw190F-8. Alternately, you could get the good Capt. Farrel to make a really sexy default skin :). Very little work for big payoff immersion-wise. This has annoyed me since the Fw190F-8 came out with Forgotten Battles to the point that I have yet to do a German Fw190F-8 campaign because of it.

The 4.09 skin pack changes the default skin to a German one.

[Fafnir_6]

The 4.09 skin pack changes the default skin to a German one.

Can the 4.09 skin defaults be applied over top of 4.10.1 without messing anything up? I still think they should just fix it in 4.11 since the skin pack is optional and I feel that this fix shouldn't be (and it would take so little work).

Cheers and thanks for the info,

Fafnir_6

[Fafnir_6]

Update: I have applied the 4.09skins over top of 4.10.1and I haven't seen any issues with it. I backed up the file fb_3do20.sfs just in case any problems arise. I seems that some of the new default skins in the 4.10.1 patch are actually from this pack. I wonder why they didn't just replace them entirely. The new german Fw190F-8 is very nice. Thanks for the info LukeFF, I greatly appreciate it. If I see any problems with this 4.09skins over top of 4.10.1 thing, I'll post them here.

Cheers and thanks,

Fafnir_6

[MD_Titus]

not sure if it's been raised before, but a couple of things spring to mind

1. can the MG/cannon buttons be switched for the Ta-152 c and h models? currently if you press the mg only button it fires the 30mm on both planes, and cannon fires the 20mm. would be great if this were switched to match all the other planes in game.

2. the oil splatter on the windscreen of ki-61s. fairly sure i've seen that this would be literally impossible due to the location of the necessary bits in the engine. it'd splatter out of the bottom, not the top and onto the windshield.

cheers

3. Some kind of indication as to sight range for the k14gyro gunsight would be appreciated as well, to aid in setting at actual convergence rather than just guessing the bandit range

[Kittle]

Have you seen this?

http://il2fovchanger.byethost7.com/

Works like a charm.


errmmmmm.... Arrows? Bader and Galland never had arrows, why not look around?

Bader and Galland also sat in real aircraft, and didn't have their entire world limited to 18 1/2" of screen. I honestly think that without icons or arrows, we are actually making it harder on ourselves then it was in real life. Granted we don't die on shoot down, so I guess it makes it even. :-P In a real aircraft, I can spot others more miles in the air, just by reflection of the sun on windscreens. In IL2, I am lucky if I can tell what I am looking at if I even manage to see anything.

[llama_thumper]

1) possibility to view moving control surfaces on another (not your own) plane in online play (not just flaps like right now? so also rudder and ailerons?). Would add immersion to see the guy kicking his rudder to try and get you off his tail!

2) fix engines being displayed incorrectly, again on other planes in online play - i.e. on multi-engined planes one engine quits but is still shown as working (though streaking smoke).

[Ernst]

TD, please!

Correct the compressibility and elevator heaviness behaviour for all aircraft. Base the calculation in IAS as it should be not TAS. Is this possible?

Thanks.

[Fafnir_6]

1) possibility to view moving control surfaces on another (not your own) plane in online play (not just flaps like right now? so also rudder and ailerons?). Would add immersion to see the guy kicking his rudder to try and get you off his tail!


I believe this has been requested before. The counter argument, IIRC, is that this results in a noticeable increase in network traffic for a given number of players and that it will increase lag. Perhaps it could be implemented as a selectable option for high bandwidth servers or for servers with a limited number of players?

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[JG53Frankyboy]

exactly , to safe network traffic it was soon out-"patched" in theoriginal IL2 game :)
yes, in IL2 release you saw the moving control surfaces online of the other players ;)

[llama_thumper]

sure, that was 10 years ago though! so hopefully by now this might be implementable... does TD have any opinion on how feasible this is? (along with fixing the online display of engines)?

[jeroll3d]

1- English channel map;

2- Option to exit the plane and walk through the scenario (airport) - replacing the animation of the player who runs and falls, but with control over the player;

3- More control over the squadron as altitude, speed, etc.

:rolleyes:

[JG53Frankyboy]

perhaps after CoD release Maddox would give his OK for making the Blenheim IV a flyable bomber in IL2 ??
It would be a so important plane for ealry war missionbuilding, it could be used on so much maps.

the A-20C is just to fast for a lot of early war scenarios.
If the Blenheim will stay out of possibility (because of CoD and too much 3D work), perhaps consider to ad a less powerfull A-20 , the french DB-7 with its much weaker engines ?.

[Bionde]

*bombs, and rockets salvo
*fuel tank selector and their gauges
*full control of engines in all planes
*more damage in systems, pneumatics, hydraulics, etc, and de-ice system
*IFF system (if possible)
*greatly increase the visual of horizont, same as real vision
*some planes, have a onboard cam system on wing, its good to make some tracks :P (ignore)
*dynamic weather
*presets for lights on runways, if possible also taxi lights and less time to turn on
*some reworks on smoke effects
*re-work some reflector gunsights (ex. P38 dont have lens) to more quality and switch to on/off gunsight
Ex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Blem3FlkaMc
improve the bright of reflector (my opnion and if possible)


thanks



and sry for my cr** english.

[LukeFF]

1- English channel map;

Not going to happen.

2- Option to exit the plane and walk through the scenario (airport) - replacing the animation of the player who runs and falls, but with control over the player;

Why?

[tamman40]

Option of torpedo launch parameter (i.e. speed and height for weapon loaded) being displayed along with speed, altitude and heading data.

[Mysticpuma]

Redko Maps

6-DoF

HolyGrail Smoke and Tracers

Updated P=47 cockpit with correct gunsites as the current 'stock' model is truly a shambles! (for the love of God please do this!!!!!!!)

Pretty happy with most of this, but would also add the Slovakia textures to pretty much every Map!

Cheers, MP

[Aardvark892]

I've done a search of this thread and didn't find anything about the speed bar, so I'd like to make a request.

Is it possible to change the default speedbar? I believe it would be helpful if somehow I could choose KPH/KTS/MPH in the config somewhere instead of having to manually change it every flight. Also, the capability to turn the speed bar COMPLETELY off, again without having to hit the appropriate key command three times.

I would also like to ask that if the above is possible, could IAS/TAS be an option for the speedbar? I've never been able to level bomb (because I'm too lazy to do the arithmetic for true airspeed), and if I could have the speed bar show me true airspeed, it would be very helpful.

Regardless, I'm a big fan of Team Daidalos, and what you've brought to IL2. Thank you.

[Oktoberfest]

My request is about the 110 G2 loadout(s).

Currently, you cannot take a loadout with 2 MK108 + 4xWfgr21 WITHOUT having to carry also the fuel tanks.

Can you make a loadout without the fuel tanks ?

Plus, can you make a mixed loadout 2xSC500 + 4xWfgr21 + 2 MK108 ? This would be for ground attack purposes. Thx.

Plus, make that possible again :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BBtN-P0lc&feature=related

At 0.38 and at 2.30. I know it's a hollywood movie, but as you can see, there's no problem dropping a pair of bombs from 5 meters of an aircraft with it having to bounce back to your plane. And time fuses work when bombs are slidding.

[Fighterace]

P-40E,M and field mod 3D model to be fixed plz :)

[Fltlt_HardBall]

One thing I would like to see is paraflares made available to in-game aircraft which had them historically. Now that the S-328 has them as part of their load-out, would it be hard to implement them on other aircraft?

Thanks:)

[McHilt]

Although I hardly play IL-2 anymore due to hardware-failure last year and lack of money to get me a new rig, I for one would kindly like to suggest:

engine/gun-sound overhaul for 4.11

in case I pick up playing sooner or later...:)

[SpecialCake]

You know when you're flying low, right against the ground, and RIGHT BEFORE you slam into the trees, you realize that you've got an entire forest of those 2-d layer trees in front of you? By that time, it is too late of course. Perhaps we can get a fix for that?

[TeeJay82]

You know when you're flying low, right against the ground, and RIGHT BEFORE you slam into the trees, you realize that you've got an entire forest of those 2-d layer trees in front of you? By that time, it is too late of course. Perhaps we can get a fix for that?

oh god yes!!!!!!

[kaix12]

Things I would like in 4.11

1.A6m3 with arrestor hook (because they didn't have the same carrier aircraft for two or three years and then suddenly change to a6m5 without using the a6m3)
2. British channel map (perhaps 3rd party like cannon's)
3. Mig 3 better cockpit(looks like someone copied and pastied images off the internet on it)
4.Mig-15 and sabre (3rd party if you can't do one yourself like peter d's)
5. Some 4 engined RAF bombers
6.eqaul out japanese and american damage take, japanese carriers go down with one batch of two tiny tims america 3.
7.Map of Formosa
8. Better Bf-109 cockpit and jap cockpit (better details)
9. have torpedo unrealistic switch to make it easier for players new to torpedoes to practice and updated orpedo turtorial.

[SpecialCake]

The a6m3 was actually an IJA variant. It historically did not have an arrestor hook.

[SpecialCake]

Also, if you just bookmarked the torpedo drop parameter threat, located here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17909

It's all you really need for quick reference on what speed and altitude to drop.

[oso1983]

leading a bomber formAtion and ai wingmen droping when you do... please, how hard can it be.... i been asking for this since the original il2 came out... please god dam it how hard can it bee..... i feel like if some one is screwing up with me

aswelll there are dificulties when guiding your wingmen into diving bombing and other forms of ground pounding

[kaix12]

The a6m3 was actually an IJA variant. It historically did not have an arrestor hook.

No it actually was used on carriers see this thread http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=3423
It's got historic picture as well.

[JAMF]

Things I would like in 4.11

2. British channel map (perhaps 3rd party like cannon's)

As part of the agreement between DT and Mr. Maddox, no BoB maps are to be included in patches, so as not to conflict with Cliffs of Dover.

[Fighterace]

Can we have a Spitfire XVIe??

[robtek]

Aren't there enough uber-spits there yet???

[DD_crash]

You can never have enough UberSpitz :)

[pateador]

Any chances to depict your "kills" either on the tail, as the german way, or under the cockpit as it was more usual en the allies side?...

Great job by the way

[kancerosik]

A medium RUSSIAN bomber, plz!!!! like DB3

Is the only country that is imcomplete

[bigchump]

The ability to place our own airfields in FMB would be nice.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The ability to place our own airfields in FMB would be nice.

Uhm...thats what the 'testrunway' (i.e.) objects are for.

[Sita]

A medium RUSSIAN bomber, plz!!!! like DB3

Is the only country that is imcomplete
may be would be better SB? :D?

[PatrickRus]

I've noticed that you fixed issue with AI pilots not speaking phrases completely (like saying just "This is number 2!" instead of "This is number 2! Somebody, get him of me!") in 4.10, but in 4.10.1 it was broken once again.
Please, fix it in 4.11.

[Hunger]

Hello TD

Although it is rather inconsequential to the game Itself, I want to know if Il2-1946 database could be brought to include the aircraft and vehicles added subsequently, I noticed that some of TD´s recently included aircraft started to appear in the list, although lacking a descriptive text.

Are there any plans to update this list at all ?
I understand that it is a low priority issue, but it surely would be a nice gimmick.

Looking forward to your fabulous work :grin:

Hunger

[Fighterace]

More single missions plz!!!

[DD_crash]

Not enough for you on mission4today?

[kaix12]

Does any one know when the patch is going to come out?

[MD_Titus]

the large desert airfields should be entirely flat, rather than just having a runway strip somewhere on them, marked with a white T that is nigh on impossible to see unless it has been marked with the fire objects.

[PatrickRus]

Also, it would be great if you updated Dgen and Ngen. Newer planes and more options/variety would be awesome.

[JAMF]

Maybe it would be possible to have a look at the clipping plane from the P-38 cockpit, to see if it could be tweaked? Even a tiny bit would be nice,

[csThor]

Also, it would be great if you updated Dgen and Ngen. Newer planes and more options/variety would be awesome.

DGen and NGen are external developments by Starshoy who hasn't been seen for years now. Nobody else has the source code so Daidalos can't do anything with this program. Sorry.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

the large desert airfields should be entirely flat, rather than just having a runway strip somewhere on them, marked with a white T that is nigh on impossible to see unless it has been marked with the fire objects.

Use the blind landing beacons??

If you know where they are, the relative runway heading, all you need to do is aim to about 1500ft (500m) at the outer marker and 500ft (150m I think) at the inner marker and you can't go wrong.

[MD_Titus]

That's not really a solution tbh. Did gladiators have blind landing systems and would they be used in daylight, or even when you are on the ground trying to find where you can take off from without propping the plane?

[mcmmielli]

My requests:
- MS-506/508 (flyable, we have germans, britshs, americans, japaneses, russians, italians, and other planes, but no franch planes flyables)

- and two more french planes (one fighter and one bomber) for your choice:
Caudron C.714
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ca-01m.jpg
Dewoitine D.520
http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/other/dewoitine_d_520.sized.jpg
Arsenal VG-33
http://www.avionslegendaires.net/Images/Gvg33.jpg
Bloch MB.151/152/155
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/mb155/mb155-3.jpg
Potez 630
http://frenchaces.pagesperso-orange.fr/avions/france/img/pt630_ph.jpg
Amiot 354
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/bww2/leo45/leo45-4.jpg

-Breda Ba.65:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/BredaBa.65.jpg

-More jets:
Gloster Meteor F-1/3 (must needed)
DH.100 Vampire
Nakajima Kikka
Ryan FR-1 Fireball

- IK-3 (I remember the model of this plane made by Zimbouer maked for IL-2)
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/ik3/ik3-3.jpg

- more two or tree early planes for your choice:
IK-2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/IK-2.jpg
P.7
http://fallweiss.fm.interia.pl/pzl%20p.7c.gif
D.500/510
http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/france/dewoitine_d-500_1.jpg
P.24
http://www.haf.gr/el/mission/weapons/historic/images/pzl_p24.jpg

-More germans guiede bombs
Blohm & Voss BV 246
http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/missiles/images/BV246NASM.jpg

-More Germans fighters:
HE-100 (Must needed)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/He_100D_colour.jpg/300px-He_100D_colour.jpg
HS-123
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/hs123-3.jpg

- P-36 (flyable)


Sorry for my english.

[Drakor]

My request is the One thing that would be truly useful for us keyboard nubs...

A scalable input setting for the keyboard- IE:
Let's use the arrow keys as ailerons, and elevator controls for this example.

You press down, and you pull back on the stick- 100%.
You press up, and you push forwards on the stick- 100%
Left, Pull left- 100%.
Right, Pull right- 100%.

What about a control set up like throttle Plus, and Minus?- IE:
Let's use Numpad + and - for this example.

You start at 100% Input.

You tap Numpad - five times- and instead of pulling 100% back on the stick- you pull only 75%.

No 105/110% (So as to not give any advantage to us keyboard nubs) and no 0% (So certain non-attentive ones of us *cough, me* never accidentally disable our controls. xD)

This would allow us keyboard disab- Err 'Dedicated' players a lot more control over our airplanes then the current system- which is flying by Trim, and full stick pulls.

Best of all- if you added this to both this- and later on IL2:CoD, you might be able to add a minor increase to your market for it... *Subtle almost bribing hint* 0:]

[kaix12]

We must have the Gloster Meteor F-1/3 :mad:
we have all these other jets that came after ww2 or didn't take part in it (yp80,mig9 etc) and ones that didn't exist or were prototypes (heinkeil lerche, go-229, me262hgii etc) but not the only allied jet in allied service during he war!

[kennel]

DGen and NGen are external developments by Starshoy who hasn't been seen for years now. Nobody else has the source code so Daidalos can't do anything with this program. Sorry.

So what can be done? & this is a serious topic, developers produced BOE & Ostfront. We have had Italian dgen campaigns produced, third party patches have combined all of the campaigns ect.

Team Daidalos have done brilliant work, the fact that it cant be incorperated into dgen is very disapointing. Paul Lowengrin is still doing amasing work with DCG, has it been considered to use his program instead of Starshoys dgen or maybe look at what Rowans BOB has achieved?

Not everybody likes flying online, not everybody has an internet conection capable of good online play.

So what can be done for the offline simmer?

[csThor]

Disclaimer: The following is my personal opinion. It's not the official stance of Daidalos (if we even have such a thing WRT this problem :oops: ).

I am playing offline, too. Exclusively. I don't like the way online games are set up, their insane fighter fixation and the lack of historical accuracy. Which is why I stick to offline gaming.
Now when it comes to campaigns a lot of people praise DCG. I understand their fascination but I do not join the chorus of praise here. In fact neither DGen nor DCG are what I'd consider a good and accurate campaign within the confines of Il-2. One does too little for immersion and is too clumsy (DGen), the other does too much and and also does things I consider cardinal sins for a historical campaign (DCG). I greatly prefer solid handmade campaigns of short duration, with an adequate storyline and the right details to make them immersive.

But besides that issue (which is totally personal and not representative) it's a little bit tricky in a different way. I am wary of simply exchanging DGen with DCG since I do not know what exactly was the deal between Starshoy and Oleg when DGen was developed. It may be legally questionable to simply remove DGen from the equation ... this is a consideration we have to keep in mind. So what could be done is adding little bits and pieces to make life easier for Paul Lowengrin (if he wishes). I don't know how much time he wishes to spend with Il-2 anymore (now that CoD is close to release, and I remember comments by Paul that he doesn't wish to add much more due to real life issues). I think it should still be up to each player to separately download and install DCG if he wishes ... that option is always available. But to give DCG a major rework, to go over all the campaigns and redo them where necessary is a task that is probably too time consuming (and not really a task for Daidalos, if I may say so) at this point.

[kennel]

What frustrates me is TD creates all these new aircraft & the only way they can be used is either in static campaigns, single missions, DCG once updated or by using "what I must not speak of" in conjunction with Dgen.

Will the new triggers being worked on ad some dynamism to static campaigns?

[csThor]

I must hand that question to our coding gurus since they are the ones who wrote the trigger code and know what they can do and what not.

[PatrickRus]

What about adding some sort of DCG not as a replacement, but as an addition? (of course if authors of it would help you integrating it with Il-2) Would you consider adding it in that case? (not promising anything, I understand)

Also, about my request at page 32, if it can help you: we played coop with my friend online, and noticed that parts of phrase that pilots don't pronounce may differ at different players PCs, like sometimes I don't hear bot speaking, but see his phrase in chat, while the other player does hear it, and vice versa or the same at both players, etc.


P.S.: IMHO, some of you guys are overrequesting with planes, every plane is a huge work, taking a lot of time, and TD are not full time employees and they work on the patch on their free time, they are not paid for it. And probably they already have a set of planes that they are working on, or planning to work. I mean, maybe it's ok to ask if they could make some important or interesting aircraft if they'd have some spare resources, but gee... asking for, like, dosen of planes at the same time, one after another? Meh.

[LukeFF]

My request is the One thing that would be truly useful for us keyboard nubs...

Get a joystick.

[Fafnir_6]

What about adding some sort of DCG not as a replacement, but as an addition? (of course if authors of it would help you integrating it with Il-2) Would you consider adding it in that case? (not promising anything, I understand)

DCG has a DGen/NGen replacement mode where all the old DGen campaigns remain workable (it is really easy to activate -- just check the box). This should alay any legal fears as DGen is basically selectable with this. As for the possibility of adding DCG as the default dynamic campaign engine, I corresponded with Lowengrin prior to DT4.10's release and he stated that he was interested in pursuing this but that he hadn't thought of or spoken to DT about it. Hopefully something will happen soon. The questions CsThor raised concerning what DCG does and doesn't bring to Il-2 are valid but I think the main concerns can be overcome with careful adjustment of the campaign engine's settings. DCG can be set up in a future DT patch with a "default mode" that brings all the immersion goodies of DCG to IL-2 but is adjusted to account for and control the concerns about historical accuracy (please list these, CsThor :) ). The user should still be able to alter the campaign settings to take full advantage of what DCG can do (perhaps with a warning that the selected settings may result in ahistorical results). In conclusion, I think the concerns about DCG have merit but they can worked around/adjusted for and I think that the whole offline IL-2 community will lose out if this isn't at least looked at by DT.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Juri_JS]

DCG has a DGen/NGen replacement mode where all the old DGen campaigns remain workable (it is really easy to activate -- just check the box). This should alay any legal fears as DGen is basically selectable with this. As for the possibility of adding DCG as the default dynamic campaign engine, I corresponded with Lowengrin prior to DT4.10's release and he stated that he was interested in pursuing this but that he hadn't thought of or spoken to DT about it....

It's not that easy. You can play DGen campaigns with DCG, but DCG will use its own custom files for the campaign and not the map template, ops, and plane files in the DGen folder. This means the same campaign will play completely different under DGen and DCG.
I don't like the idea of an official replacement of DGen with DCG by Team Daidalos, because the stock and user made DGen campaigns will no longer work the way they were intended to work. At the moment everyone can decide if he wants to use DGen or DCG and I don't see a reason to change this.

Nonetheless I would like to see updates for both programs that add the contend of the new patches. I hope someone in the community is still in contact with Starshoy and can give TD his e-mail adress.

[csThor]

Like Juri said once you use DCG you go around DGen totally. This is of course fine and well for a private person, but depending on any potential clauses 1C Maddox Games and Starshoy had in their deal it may be troublesome to us now if DCG was included as replacement for DGen now (and a replacement it would be, regardless of any word acrobatics we might try).

As for my personal issues with DCG ... it would be too long to list all of them. So I'm simply stating my two biggest problems:

1.) It allows or even requires far too much influence of player performance on the campaign. I vividly remember a mission when I was tasked to attack a soviet AT gun position in preparation of a ground assault (me flying a Fw 190 A-5 in ground-attack config). Approaching the target zone I saw a long column of Panthers and Panzer IV J and began to wonder what kind of target I'd see. It turned out to be a battery (as in 4 guns) of 76mm guns. Since we were intercepted above the target by soviet fighters we were not able to put the AT guns out of action ... and the tank assault failed. Yep ... some 20 tanks vs 4 guns and they can't manage on their own? :rolleyes:

This is a result of the way the ground war is managed. It is impossible to create a campaign following historical events since both sides are virtually always on the attack.

2.) Supply system. I know it's a difficult thing to model but why on earth did Paul choose to include factories instead of supply dumps? Factories were, in 99% of the cases, outside the scope of the tactical environment Il-2 can simulate and the only exceptions were the Kolpino Tank Factory near Leningrad and the Stalingrad factories in late 1942.

[kennel]

DGEN or DCG, both systems have good points & bad points, the biggest issue we have for the offline community is that DGEN is not being updated with all of the new TD updates because it cant where as DCG can evolve.

However I have seen alot of community dgen campaigns created, you have French wings, Boelckes channel campaigns & RV campaigns. Jumos west front addon & I think Ian Boys did the Nth Wst Europe map campaigns that included the D0-335s as flyable, & I cant forget Amagi`s Disaster on the Frontiers. The list is endless & what this means is there knowledge on how to tweak dgen & get the new maps & planes active within the dgen program.

Is it possible or not?

[Juri_JS]

It is possible to add the new planes to existing DGen campaigns, but most of them only as AI aircraft. I don't know why, but so far I was only able to make the new allied aircraft flyable in Dgen campaigns and only in European scenarios and not in the Pacific. To fly the new axis planes would require an update of the DGen.exe file.

Unfortunatly it is not possible to use the new maps in DGen, because the map data is hard coded in the DGen.exe file.

[PatrickRus]

csThor, isn't TD in contact with Oleg? He should probably remember deals with Starshoy. But anyway, if leaving dgen and ngen still available in game, it wouldn't be some kind of violation of deal, IMHO.

About DCG's issues, it's not necessary to include DCG ASAP, right? It is better to get flaws of it's fixed with your help and guidance. We're patient, we could wait for 2 weeks. :D

Also, sorry for off-topic, is there a thread for 4.11 patch's update news yet?

[kennel]

It is possible to add the new planes to existing DGen campaigns, but most of them only as AI aircraft. I don't know why, but so far I was only able to make the new allied aircraft flyable in Dgen campaigns and only in European scenarios and not in the Pacific. To fly the new axis planes would require an update of the DGen.exe file.

Unfortunatly it is not possible to use the new maps in DGen, because the map data is hard coded in the DGen.exe file.


Yes I found the same issue, I managed to get the TA152C flyable put it into The last Days senarios but found that the HS-129 came up with a red plane classification!? Dunno how dgen interpretes that I mean as AI its definately blue

Starshoy where are you?

[csThor]

I cannot say what is possible and what is not possible. That would be a question of

a) how much time our coders could invest and
b) what Paul has in mind.

Additionally I must (again) stress the fact that all we do as Daidalos is done in our free time. Which means everyone has real life to deal with. And not everyone is able to do everything - I, for example, couldn't code if my life depended on it. So do not expect us to roam the message boards looking at a plethora of stuff and incorporate everything yesterday at the latest. In fact the standard process for cooperation is the other way round - a person who has created a model/map/etc contacts Daidalos and gets a reply. And I have, to this point, not have heard anything WRT a discussion between Paul and Team Daidalos. But then this might be one of these "political decisions". ;)

As for modifying DGen ... Not gonna happen. Unless Starshoy magically reappears and gives us his source code we won't touch it. We simply don't have time to waste on "reverse engineering".

[PatrickRus]

Another request: it net campaign, unlike singleplayer campaign, if you are leader of a flight, you can only choose your own loadout, but not your wingmen's. I understand that players should be free to choose their plane and loadout, but bots do not care, and their default loadout for the mission could make inconvenience.
If ability to change loadout for bots of your wing is possible to implement and wouldn't take much time, it'd be nice to have it.

[kaix12]

What about adding some sort of DCG not as a replacement, but as an addition? (of course if authors of it would help you integrating it with Il-2) Would you consider adding it in that case? (not promising anything, I understand)

Also, about my request at page 32, if it can help you: we played coop with my friend online, and noticed that parts of phrase that pilots don't pronounce may differ at different players PCs, like sometimes I don't hear bot speaking, but see his phrase in chat, while the other player does hear it, and vice versa or the same at both players, etc.


P.S.: IMHO, some of you guys are overrequesting with planes, every plane is a huge work, taking a lot of time, and TD are not full time employees and they work on the patch on their free time, they are not paid for it. And probably they already have a set of planes that they are working on, or planning to work. I mean, maybe it's ok to ask if they could make some important or interesting aircraft if they'd have some spare resources, but gee... asking for, like, dosen of planes at the same time, one after another? Meh.

But the meteor is a incredibly important plane and I don't know why it wasn't included in the game before in any of the patchs since they've managed to do some other new fighters (dxxi for example) to a very high standard but they havn't done the gloster meteor which was the only allied jet in serviice in the war and instead we get prototypes or ones that came after the war (heinkel lerche 3 is one of them which is also impossible to land and fly so no one barely uses it)

[Zorglub5]

IL2 is a fantastic game but despite a large french community, there is not a single pilotable french plane from the 1940 era. Without asking for planes that have served only in France (D520, MB152, Amiot 143, Léo 451, etc.), the following ones would allow great "battle of France and low countries" scenarios and could also be useful to other nationalities:
- P36 Hawk (US service, e.g. Pearl Harbor), H-75 (french service), Mohawk (british service): already available as AI plane.
- MS406 (french service against Germany and Italy, finnish service against Russia): already available as AI plane.
- Potez 631 and 63.11 heavy fighter / reconnaissance plane (a french Bf 110!).

Also, to play the British Air Force in France (BAFF), a Battle would be great (cousin of Fulmar added as AI plane in 4.10 patch).

THANKS!

[PatrickRus]

But the meteor is a incredibly important plane and I don't know why it wasn't included in the game before in any of the patchs since they've managed to do some other new fighters (dxxi for example) to a very high standard but they havn't done the gloster meteor which was the only allied jet in serviice in the war and instead we get prototypes or ones that came after the war (heinkel lerche 3 is one of them which is also impossible to land and fly so no one barely uses it)

Well, I never said anything about Meteor. In fact, personally, I would like to fly it in game, and don't dislike that request, because it's pretty intresting and well known aircraft, even if it didn't fought a lot. But only if TD or someone else would have time and wish to make it.
But some request are just "pffft".

To make this post more useful on topic
Kind of a flaw or mistake. Sight's sun dimmer (I don't know how it's exactly called in english) click on erect or retract is still heard, even if sight don't features dimmer. Not that it's a big deal, just noticing. Also, dimmer is almost useless, sun is darkened just for a little bit, and you still can't see planes that go to the sun.

[csThor]

Hold your horses, fellows. Yammering about this or that type of aircraft having been added or not is pointless. :roll:

First and foremost is the fact that anything Daidalos has added so far was made by somebody in his own spare time. Which means what the modeller made was up to him.
Now you've mentioned the jets and the Lerche. Tough luck - nothing Daidalos did. These were either created by Maddox Games or Luthier's Russian Rocket Games for the 1946 release. You got a complaint that no Meteor was created? Take it up with Maddox Games and Russian Rocket Games.

And lastly about the types Daidalos did add. Most were "leftovers" from the Il-2 and Pacific Fighters development (i.e. the CW-21 was such a case). Others were made by our team members because of their particular interests - the Slovaks had an interest in their Avia and Letov, the Finns wanted their iconic Fokker D.XXI, our italian members wanted some more of their own types and the Henschel Hs 129 was a type the community wanted for years (myself included).

So ... for any type to be created it takes hard work and dedication. Daidalos is a small team and does not have a large number of 3d modellers. There are simply too many types possible and too many theaters to cover to make everyone happy and a lot of groups with particular interests would like nothing better than to monopolize TD for themselves. Which, of course, is simply impossible. And because of that - lots of potential projects, little time and even less manpower - we gotta prioritize our efforts and concentrate on certain areas. If your particular area of interest is not in it ... sorry. We're simple humans and not magicians.

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Absolutly right, I`m a modder in the Strike Fighter 2 comunity and I know the amount of work for a single airplane. So you have my respect.

I`m thankfull an ambitious team took the work over after 10 years of gaming. We flew even this sunday evening one of our events. IT`s still a great game and realy thank you for your hard effort!

[Stealth_Eagle]

How long do you guys think it will take to get the Fulmer, Do-217, Cant Z(forgive me if i am wrong but the aircraft I am trying to refer to is the new Italian bomber), the Swordfish flyable?

I saw a project a while back about making the PE-8 flyable. Is that part of an official patch or just 3rd party things that I don't need to ruin my game?

Your team has shown great dedication to this community however small it may be relative to other games. Thanks for all of your support.

[kennel]

Thanks for your comments csThor, I do understand that Team Daidalos does what they do for free & the love of IL2 & real life must always come first,we are all in the same boat there so thanks for sharing

[Sita]

in DT is somebody from France?
French aircraft missing at all...

but i know few projects, in which people doing arsenal VG33 and Dewoitine D520
and i see somewhere Caudron C.714

would be nice if this planes will be included in patch from DT

[PatrickRus]

Something about radio navigation: ZB/YE is quite a useless, when you fly from the carrie, because you just can ask "ground" for a vector to base. I think, it would be more realistic, if base or carrier could only give you vector to it, when you either in direct sight of it, or near some reference point, like island, or atoll.

[Viikate]

Something about radio navigation: ZB/YE is quite a useless, when you fly from the carrie, because you just can ask "ground" for a vector to base. I think, it would be more realistic, if base or carrier could only give you vector to it, when you either in direct sight of it, or near some reference point, like island, or atoll.

Check the FMB & Misc features. From there it is possible to make "early war" mission and disable the vectoring orders. Also when they are enabled with the new navigation, the vectoring has certain limitations like earth's curvature blocking the signals.

[PatrickRus]

Check the FMB & Misc features. From there it is possible to make "early war" mission and disable the vectoring orders. Also when they are enabled with the new navigation, the vectoring has certain limitations like earth's curvature blocking the signals.

I think, that's not what I am talking about, but anyway, what if I play dgen or already made mission?

[Bearcat]

Could bi directional control for the minimap be added? Is it is in the stock sim you have to L click all the way in and then all the way out.. There was a mod that addressed this.. along with the radiator as well so it is doable.. Now that you guys have finally placed radiator control on an axis (which is something I have been wanting for a long time... thanks) perhaps you can also take a look at that. I know it is not a big fancy feature.. but it is a very functional one that should be relatively easy to add to the next official patch. The way the mod worked L click zoomed in, R click zoomed out, pressing the scroll wheel moved the entire map within the frame (like R click does now I think it is.. ) and of course L&R click moved the entire map across the screen to another location.. Siometimes when trying to navigate it is a pain in the neck when you click one click too may and ten you have to cycle all the way through again to get to the point where the map s sized the way you want it.. a bi directional map would eliminate this.

[Bearcat]

My request is about the 110 G2 loadout(s).

Currently, you cannot take a loadout with 2 MK108 + 4xWfgr21 WITHOUT having to carry also the fuel tanks.

Can you make a loadout without the fuel tanks ?

Plus, can you make a mixed loadout 2xSC500 + 4xWfgr21 + 2 MK108 ? This would be for ground attack purposes. Thx.

Plus, make that possible again :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BBtN-P0lc&feature=related

At 0.38 and at 2.30. I know it's a hollywood movie, but as you can see, there's no problem dropping a pair of bombs from 5 meters of an aircraft with it having to bounce back to your plane. And time fuses work when bombs are slidding.

Man I love that scene.. I didnt realize that kid was Christian Bale until about 6 years ago.. after Batman Begins came out.. I was watching it (Empire of the Sun) on HBO or Showtime or something around Memorial Day.. and I remember saying to myself.. "Wow that kid is a pretty good actor.. I wonder who he is and what became of him..?" so I checked the credits at the end of the film and almost fell out of my chair.

[steeldelete]

Yess loved that movie too. use it in my signature. I'm even a RTA too, fly with the frenchies "GEFUV"

but can't get my signature to show. .-)

[steeldelete]

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/1901/signaturesteeldeletertaql4.png

[kaix12]

Hold your horses, fellows. Yammering about this or that type of aircraft having been added or not is pointless. :roll:

First and foremost is the fact that anything Daidalos has added so far was made by somebody in his own spare time. Which means what the modeller made was up to him.
Now you've mentioned the jets and the Lerche. Tough luck - nothing Daidalos did. These were either created by Maddox Games or Luthier's Russian Rocket Games for the 1946 release. You got a complaint that no Meteor was created? Take it up with Maddox Games and Russian Rocket Games.

And lastly about the types Daidalos did add. Most were "leftovers" from the Il-2 and Pacific Fighters development (i.e. the CW-21 was such a case). Others were made by our team members because of their particular interests - the Slovaks had an interest in their Avia and Letov, the Finns wanted their iconic Fokker D.XXI, our italian members wanted some more of their own types and the Henschel Hs 129 was a type the community wanted for years (myself included).

So ... for any type to be created it takes hard work and dedication. Daidalos is a small team and does not have a large number of 3d modellers. There are simply too many types possible and too many theaters to cover to make everyone happy and a lot of groups with particular interests would like nothing better than to monopolize TD for themselves. Which, of course, is simply impossible. And because of that - lots of potential projects, little time and even less manpower - we gotta prioritize our efforts and concentrate on certain areas. If your particular area of interest is not in it ... sorry. We're simple humans and not magicians.

I totally understand as I know a little bit about 3d moddelling, and I think your team has done amazing work over the years. Could I ask what are the potential projects though like what are you working on or are wanting to work on.

[kaix12]

But if you really can give the Meteor a try ( I know you didn't make any jets) if you can or complete a 3rd partys one then you will hear nothing more from me.:rolleyes:

[JAMF]

Man I love that scene.. I didnt realize that kid was Christian Bale until about 6 years ago.. after Batman Begins came out.. I was watching it (Empire of the Sun) on HBO or Showtime or something around Memorial Day.. and I remember saying to myself.. "Wow that kid is a pretty good actor.. I wonder who he is and what became of him..?" so I checked the credits at the end of the film and almost fell out of my chair.
You'll notice him in Kenneth Branagh's "Henry V" too. :)

[proton45]

Man I love that scene.. I didnt realize that kid was Christian Bale until about 6 years ago.. after Batman Begins came out.. I was watching it (Empire of the Sun) on HBO or Showtime or something around Memorial Day.. and I remember saying to myself.. "Wow that kid is a pretty good actor.. I wonder who he is and what became of him..?" so I checked the credits at the end of the film and almost fell out of my chair.

A little trivia tid-bit, that would only be of interest to P-51 (and movie) fans...

"Most" of the aerial sequences, showing the P-51 and Hayabusa battling, are in fact scale RC aeroplanes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BBtN-P0lc&feature=related

[csThor]

Could I ask what are the potential projects though like what are you working on or are wanting to work on.

Please accept that I will not speak about ongoing projects. That is neither my job nor would it be wise. Like I said we're all doing this in our spare time and sometimes "real life" strikes. One of our members had two very interesting projects running when, about a year ago, real life struck and he had to put his work and his membership on hold (he's still in that limbo BTW). So you see it wouldn't be a good idea to speak in detail about what is going on ATM. But a Meteor is not on the scope ...

[Jack_Aubrey]

I would like to see more flyables heavies, a bigger map for central/western europe (so we could go from North sea to Germany, even with a fake island so you dont need to draw the UK), more japaneses airplanes flyables (or at least IA), i tthink this one is a WIP but it would be great that the IA could get lost if you fly inside a cloud....
And smaller patches.... even size of just one plane.

[PatrickRus]

I would like to see more flyables heavies, a bigger map for central/western europe (so we could go from North sea to Germany, even with a fake island so you dont need to draw the UK), more japaneses airplanes flyables (or at least IA), i tthink this one is a WIP but it would be great that the IA could get lost if you fly inside a cloud....
And smaller patches.... even size of just one plane.
You should read previous page. About new planes. Aslo, it's not "IA", it's "AI", and in already can lost you inside a cloud. And patches "size of just one plane" are unpractical.

[Bearcat]

One thing that really needs to be addressed is the AI.

What I am talking about specifically is the fact that STILL you can set an enemy aircraft on fire.. and he will still fly around.. and in many cases actually engage aircraft ... while smoking.. I don't know how doable this is.. but AI aircraft should do the same thing most live pilots would do when their plane catches fire... bail out. Unless wounded... and they certainly shouldn't keep flying around attacking other aircraft.. This is a real immersion killer.. especially on a coop or MDS server.. Can this be addressed?

I would like some kind of answer from someone please.

I have made posts on other issues in this thread and got no response at all.. I hope someone responds to this one..

[He111]

Flyable Hampden .. and ability to lay mines.

Thanks

He111.

[HARs_ASSOS]

Do we know when 4.11 is going to be released?

P.S Excuse me if already mentioned but couldn't read all the 37 pages...;)

[Bionde]

Server with 128 or more players in big maps, and dynamic MDS generic missions...

[kaix12]

Could you redo the p-47 and mig-3 cockpits. Because they look like someones used paint to colour them and then cut and pasted pictures of 3d switches of the internet and pasted them on a 3d block. Because this has completely put me off the p-47 which would be one of my favruite aircraft and the mig-3.

[Romanator21]

Could you redo the p-47 and mig-3 cockpits. Because they look like someones used paint to colour them and then cut and pasted pictures of 3d switches of the internet and pasted them on a 3d block.

The MiG-3 is one of the oldest models in the game, from the original Il-2. The P-47 model was done as a "gift" by someone so as to make the plane flyable, also very early in the game's development.

One thing that really needs to be addressed is the AI.

What I am talking about specifically is the fact that STILL you can set an enemy aircraft on fire.. and he will still fly around.. and in many cases actually engage aircraft ... while smoking.. I don't know how doable this is.. but AI aircraft should do the same thing most live pilots would do when their plane catches fire... bail out. Unless wounded... and they certainly shouldn't keep flying around attacking other aircraft.. This is a real immersion killer.. especially on a coop or MDS server.. Can this be addressed?

I agree, but maybe DT have their hands tied at the moment. Revamping the AI won't be easy and may cause DGEN to become unusable.

At the moment, I feel, the most pressing issue is "eyes behind the head". You cannot get within 200 meters of the enemy without them rolling away. However, sometimes your AI wingmen totally fail to call out anything (which is realistic, but this double-standard is bad for gameplay).

Another big deal for me would be switch off "Mission Over", "Red Team Won", etc. and to be able to pick and choose which hud logs appear on the side (My preference would be for nothing but bomb-sight controls and power/mix/rad settings).

But I'll take whatever I get. Any update great - and these have been awesome updates :)

[Gloomy_Aristocrat]

I'd like to have more realistic controls and cockpit (open/close) animation of Bf 109s. All Messerscmitt fighters lack for it. Features like firing from both rear MG's of Bf 110 and change position between rear guns in Ju-88 (one of them is always free and unoperable :( ) would be nice, too.

[PatrickRus]

. Features like firing from both rear MG's of Bf 110 and change position between rear guns in Ju-88 (one of them is always free and unoperable :( ) would be nice, too.

That is not supported by the game engine.



TD, I think, there should be a sticky post, where is stated what is not to ask.

[Bearcat]

At this point a simple.. "Yeah we can do that .. look for it in a few patches.." or a "It cant be done now...: would suffice. I dont know the details.. but I think a routine to make the pilot bail after whatever the routine that makes a plane catch fire is initiated would not be too hard to do.

[Fergal69]

As in CoD version, can we have an mg in the upper nose glazing of the HE111?

Also maybe, forward firing 20mm in gondola for when the HE111 was used in the anti shipping role.

[Romanator21]

I was wondering if it would be possible to include a small graphical change:

Currently myself and maybe a few others can only use DX9 mode instead of OpenGL and thus cannot render "perfect" terrain. Besides the neat 3d waves, perfect mode includes reflections on the water by planes, ships, clouds, smoke, etc.

"Excellent" mode has a 2d wave pattern (which is acceptable) and reflections for trees, but without reflections for low altitude clouds, and with highly subdued reflections for high-altitude clouds. The overall effect is seas which look stark blue.

If we take a moment to compare to the original Il-2, we see that it shows much more noticeable reflections of high-altitude clouds (but which should really only be visible at low angles).

So, I was wondering if it would be possible to improve upon the cloud reflections to make them more noticeable and to break up the monotony of the blank ocean? Also, since trees have their own reflections, is it possible for other objects, including low-altitude clouds, to have reflections?

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/il2demo2011-03-2723-37-23-94.jpg

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/il2fb2011-03-2723-45-56-42.jpg


Another thing that would be nice to cover is haze and the appearance of the horizon. In the old Il-2, the horizon appears more subdued, especially when "Haze" is selected in the weather parameter. Would it be possible to maybe increase the level of haziness under certain conditions (customizable by mission builders, for instance)?

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/il2demo2011-03-2723-36-15-90.jpg

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/il2fb2011-03-2723-44-38-84.jpg

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/il2demo2011-03-2723-33-43-39.jpg

EDIT - also note how the color of the water varies with angle. Downwards it is darker, but towards the horizon it becomes lighter.

[kaix12]

Is it possible that you can make possible to add 3rd party aircraft without the need of SAS buttons/modactivator or UP pack because then people without mods (or mods don't work on their computer) and people who don't won't to fill their computer up with say upack then can add the aircraft simple and easily, by placing theplanes folder into Mods and adding the bits of writing into the plane.ru file and air.ru file etc.
That way there will be alot less equest for aircraft due to their being 3rd prty ones already out there which they can't install.

[nearmiss]

A couple things, which I don't know are in the realm of possible with the IL2 or not.

I realize the impetus is upon BOB COD now, but remember it is only one battle that lasted a few months. Addons will come, but I'm not expecting anything for the Pacific for along time.

We need a few things in the IL2 FMB, which I don't know are possible or not.

We need triggers, events, alternate waypoints.

We need better tools for programming missions that save us time. We could really use search and sort tools on the objects list. The sorts should be selectable for country, air groups, squadrons with skins,etc.

We need the ability for player to have some sensible commands. I can name some choices. It would be good to have some tactical commands.
Flight leader for all flights can tell which flights to hold and which groups to attack, then flight leader can call additional flights into the attack as it progresses.

The Quick mission tuner really helps with adding aircraft into WIP missions, but I don't know if it will supported with all the new aircraft.

I do know the QMT is basically just an "ini" text editor for the *.mis files, with some pre-set value choices.

[Blackjack]

At the moment, I feel, the most pressing issue is "eyes behind the head". You cannot get within 200 meters of the enemy without them rolling away. However, sometimes your AI wingmen totally fail to call out anything (which is realistic, but this double-standard is bad for gameplay).

Funny thing is , I think it was mentioned the distance AI gunner shot and the AI rolling away is tied to YOUR gun conv. distance , didnt test that though.

This is so far the offline killer , flying campaigns , getting on 6 of the plane out of sight and "woosh" evasive maneuvers , even if hes flying solo.

Somwhere along the Forgotten Battles Ace expansion or Pacific Fighters release it got more prominent with every patch, when flying online you actually think the other people are blind because you expect them to immediately break away after playing a long time offline....

For me tha AI is broken , because that they break away 100% of the time , and also in the same fashion, seem to have the perfect engine management since some patch and pace away after start, all that was better and was patched to "perfection".

Playing old il2 1.0, you see they make huge loads of funny errors :grin:, and sometimes no evausive maneuvers at all, but it feels more like a human in panic flying the other plane than a robot striving for perfection.

[PatrickRus]

Well, about wingmen's AI, it would be nice, if they wouldn't crash on a perfectly flat ground, if you are flying low.

[Romanator21]

Blackjack, I agree about the AI break being tied to convergence. Mine is at 200 meters though :). I could have been more specific.

And yes, the AI in the demo and my FB game behave much differently. There are loads of other features that were apparently lost or broken over successive fixes that were not noticed. One thing is the lack of appearance of certain radio messages or server status messages, or the fact that if became impossible for AI to attack ships.

I have to wonder what parts of the game are bugged that may be totally invisible to us, but make big differences in the way things play out. One bug I've mentioned before is that if you shoot the wing of the SBD, the oil cooler under the nose starts to smoke. This can totally screw you over on long over-water flights, but you wouldn't necessarily realize that maybe you never really were hit in your oil cooler. (I found this bug out by accident when playing with the rear gunner and shooting at my own plane). What else lurks deep in the code?

[Lagarto]

OK, let me chip in. After years of enjoying this sim, I wish the following issues were addressed (in no particular order):

Widescreen support
New 109 cockpits (esp. F-4 and G-2, please)
Grass fields in Russia. I’d love to see fighters take off en masse side by side, as they used to
Some new engine and gunfire sounds would be nice
Retextured maps (at present the all look very dull and much the same)
Flyable Hawk 75
Disable the lettering ‘mission complete’ flashing across the screen when the ‘instant success’ (in the difficulty settings) is on
Prevent AI from flying at 110% boost without their engines ever overheating (I can’t keep up with my own squad)
Stop pilotless/crewless ‘ghost’ planes flying around – as it is now, planes (often with their control surfaces heavily damaged or even on fire) hang on in the air long after their pilot/crew bailed out, which is totally unrealistic
AI pilots/crews bailing out often fall through the plane (they should at least bounce off it if they can’t bail out properly). Perhaps the AI fighter pilots should roll over their planes before bailing out?
A command that would let my AI mates know that I found some juicy target and want to share it with them. At present, I can only call for help, and they call me back: ‘You’re fine!’ which is quite irritating.
Bombers far too often collide with one another, esp. at the very beginning of a mission.


Anyway, thanks for your work, I much appreciate it

[Bearcat]

Well, about wingmen's AI, it would be nice, if they wouldn't crash on a perfectly flat ground, if you are flying low.

It would be nice if you could tell them to land... Like say if you give them the RTB command within a predetermined distance of a friendly base (Most likely the one you are about to land at..) they will just go into a pattern and land.

[PatrickRus]

It would be nice if you could tell them to land... Like say if you give them the RTB command within a predetermined distance of a friendly base (Most likely the one you are about to land at..) they will just go into a pattern and land.

You can command them "Navigation > Return to base" (I may be wrong, I've got russian version) if you are a flight leader. They'll go to base and land.

[Billfish]

*shrugs*

[Hawker17]

My requests:

- Please revise Spifire FM
- Triggers
- Bomb loadouts Spitfire Mk V

[salmo]

Can we please get more Japanese planes (especially bombers) for the Pacific Theatre. Blue are hopelessly outgunned by red in this department . A propper New Guinea map (correct terrain heights) would be nice too.

[Gloomy_Aristocrat]

It would be nice if you could tell them to land... Like say if you give them the RTB command within a predetermined distance of a friendly base (Most likely the one you are about to land at..) they will just go into a pattern and land.

I was highly frustrated by unrealistic situations with orders to AI. Not being leader of the group, one can't give them all orders, that's OK; but if the leader was KIA and the player had to change him, now being a "temporary" leader, AI controlled planes continue follow his one in stupid way, but all what can be ordered even in this situation is a help request. Even landing now is a trouble, cause AI's without proper order to land most possible would crash into ground, or, what's worse, right into leader's tail.

[iMattheush]

Please add one of the most famous Polish planes - PZL.37 "Łoś-B" It was the best Polish plane in 1939. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.37_%C5%81o%C5%9B)
Polish Air Force was very anachronic, but they fights bravely

[Xilon_x]

Dear Daidalos Team what is your intention? for the future?
you continue whit another patch? 4.12 -- 4.13 -- 4.14.................or
you project the LAST and ULTIMATE PATCH FOR IL-2 4.12 and stop for ever?

IL-2sturmovik 1946 actualy have a good airplane list and missing also another plane



IL-2sturmovik CoD actualy not have good airplane list and is new product.

[Wiskey-Charlie]

I just upgraded my MB, CPU and Graphics card with intentions of playing COD. But something happened that I did not expect. IL2 is running and looking so fantastic now that IL2 feels like a totally new simulation to me. Am thinking I will definitely be leaving IL2-1946 on my PC for a long time to come. Which means that the Diadalos team is my new friend :)

Before I get to my request, let me also say that I am an IL2 home cockpit builder. I do not like the feeling of flying from a desk and keyboard. I prefer flying with physical toggle switches, gauges etc. Therefore I do not use the in-cockpit view, It does not look good to see two cockpits a virtual cockpit and a physical one as well.

Which leads me to my question/request.............

Is it possible to add the prop turning to the no-cockpit view? Would need to see the visible prop turning just above its center or to say it another way the center of the prop would have to be un-seen just out of the picture of the monitor with no down view if that makes since.

When you can see the prop turning, it gives a better since of the feeling of motion.

I know what I am asking is a long shot at best, but this would be huge for pit builders. There are more of us out here than you might think.

PS. Thanks Diadalos Team for keeping IL2 alive and well!

[lomov]

Hello! Now is 2011. Trackir is not a miracle.
May be insert 6DOF mod in 4.11????
Or get to 6DOF official permission to use him?

[PatrickRus]

Hello! Now is 2011. Trackir is not a miracle.
May be insert 6DOF mod in 4.11????
Or get to 6DOF official permission to use him?

Cockpits weren't designed to play with 6DOF (sight mask, for example), so most of the cockpits should be remade then, and it's a lot of a work.

[Seeker]

The 6 DOF that's already available for IL-2 is so much better than that offered in Clod it's just not funny.

6 DOF really can't come quick enough to IL.-2. It's disingeneous to say that it can't be done because the cockpits aren't perfect, as 1C clearly has no issues with releasing very, very imperfect solutions in other areas.

So why not 6DOF?

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Would you understand the way the cockpits are modeled you wouldn`t cry around for 6 DOF :-P

[Lagarto]

Is there a chance for a map of Malta with a bit of Sicily to the north? Has such a map ever been considered by the DT?

[harryRIEDL]

Could I make another request for adding all new planes into the aircraft viewer with the details from the read me so I don't have to quit out to read about the characteristics of the various planes.

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

I use to have a second monitor and have the planes listed on wikipedia ;)

But I don`t know if the amount of work is worth the result ???

[dafat1]

As for my wishes, how about american X-planes like the Vultee XP-54 Swoose Goose and the Curtiss-Wright XP-55 Ascender made for this game!? Would fit all the german 1946 planes! :)
While NDB navigation you put in is brilliant, how about another kind of radionavigation which was used on the western Front in WW2 called Bernhard Funkfeuer, which is today called VOR.

Still one of my favorite addings to the game would be the possibility to land and refuel/rearm my plane!

Cheers

[robday]

Is there a chance for a map of Malta with a bit of Sicily to the north? Has such a map ever been considered by the DT?

If I remember correctly the MTO is reserved for future releases in the new series, (ie after CoD). So I don't think DT are able to include it in any upgrades to IL2. The agreement they have with Oleg prevents them from releasing any content that would encroach on theatres of operations slated for future inclusion in Cod series.
Personally I would like to see the Gloster Meteor in the game and the AI still needs some work.

[lothar29]

I would like to encourage them for their hard work with the best Simulator in the world of the second world war, that they are doing a great job improving the aircraft and so many aspects of this Simulator, every day our beloved IL-2 1946 making more big and beautiful...


I would like to make a request, could improve please the Bf109 meserschmitt in all its versions and the FW190 externally? is that to be the plane more old man of the series and also one of the most widely used, is a bit distressing to see that many aircraft have an image more beautiful and 109 remains as square as always, less the interior that have improved it by putting the morro des internal view...


Thanks and I hope that my request will be fulfilled one day...;):-P

[lothar29]

I just upgraded my MB, CPU and Graphics card with intentions of playing COD. But something happened that I did not expect. IL2 is running and looking so fantastic now that IL2 feels like a totally new simulation to me. Am thinking I will definitely be leaving IL2-1946 on my PC for a long time to come. Which means that the Diadalos team is my new friend :)

Before I get to my request, let me also say that I am an IL2 home cockpit builder. I do not like the feeling of flying from a desk and keyboard. I prefer flying with physical toggle switches, gauges etc. Therefore I do not use the in-cockpit view, It does not look good to see two cockpits a virtual cockpit and a physical one as well.

Which leads me to my question/request.............

Is it possible to add the prop turning to the no-cockpit view? Would need to see the visible prop turning just above its center or to say it another way the center of the prop would have to be un-seen just out of the picture of the monitor with no down view if that makes since.

When you can see the prop turning, it gives a better since of the feeling of motion.

I know what I am asking is a long shot at best, but this would be huge for pit builders. There are more of us out here than you might think.

PS. Thanks Diadalos Team for keeping IL2 alive and well!

don't want to be arrogant, but IL-2 1946 and throughout the series, this intended for people who love the simulation, and the truth go see ho fly des of the external view is a bit out of IL-2, for that you have Wings of prey, fits better with your profile of arcade...


almost all here are people who look the more possible real, and what your ask for is out of the reality... We want things to be real, requests as you make no sense in a simulator... Anyway if you want one thing well, you have the mods, who has one that lets you choose the view you like, even see the plane give in...so please leave the job to the developers for the fans of the flight simulation.

[MrBaato]

A simple "hold your fire" for your gunners would be nice when flying a multicrew plane..

[harryRIEDL]

I don't know if this is possible but a tighterning of radio controls to speed up the process of radio orders such as a Rainbow 6 or SWAT 4 style ring with radio options to make the process a mulipul process to something quicker insted of tab and numbers one button and a few clicks just to speed up the process of orders

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

A simple "hold your fire" for your gunners would be nice when flying a multicrew plane..

Well, there is a hotkey in your key settings, to shut up the gunners.
No reason to make things more complicated. :rolleyes:

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

don't want to be arrogant, but IL-2 1946 and throughout the series, this intended for people who love the simulation, and the truth go see ho fly des of the external view is a bit out of IL-2, for that you have Wings of prey, fits better with your profile of arcade...


almost all here are people who look the more possible real, and what your ask for is out of the reality... We want things to be real, requests as you make no sense in a simulator... Anyway if you want one thing well, you have the mods, who has one that lets you choose the view you like, even see the plane give in...so please leave the job to the developers for the fans of the flight simulation.


Well, thats not entirely true.

1. As developers we have of course take care of every aspect of the game, inlcluding the arcade options.

2. If you look into the Hyperlobby i.e., you will see, that there are always many 'cockpit off' - servers, so it cannot be that unpopular.

3. Especially for new players, the arcade options can be very helpfull.

4. In case of Wiskey-Charlie I can understand it: he wants a propellar, but no struts (which he has as a massive contruction, I guess?). I just wonder, are you playing with lots of monitors, so you do not need to rotate the ingame view?

However, in case of a propellar, visible in so called 'wonderwoman' view, I think it has a low priority, if ever considered, because the use of it is low level (in fact only for such cockpit builders).


EDIT: and at least its a valid request, what in fact this thread is for. ;-)

[Lagarto]

Caspar or anyone from the team, could you possibly specify which areas are off limits for future development of maps? Is it really true that Malta and Sicily are excluded due to some plans of the 1C?

[Pursuivant]

I've asked for these before, perhaps someone will be interested this time around:

1) Improvement to offline AI: a) Smarter dogfighting behavior. b) AI gunners are still too effective, especially when shooting while the plane in maneuvering. c) AI planes don't suffer from engine overheating. d) AI pilots are immune to redout/blackout.

Since there are mods out there which already address many of these issues, I KNOW it's possible to fix them, it's just a matter of making those fixes a priority.

2) The ability to turn realism options on or off from some planes but not others. For example, you could give an advantage to one side by giving them unlimited ammo or unrealistic engine, guns or blackout behavior, or you could make things more challenging for yourself offline by giving AI planes advantages that you don't have.

3) Separate unlimited gun ammo from unlimited rockets/bombs. If you fly with unlimited ammo, it makes some strike fighter campaigns unplayable since you can never jettison your stores when you need to dogfight or run for home.

4) Parachutes and Parachute Behavior. A) Color-coded cargo parachutes. B) Different colored parachutes for different nationalities - as was sometimes the case historically. C) The possibility of aircrew colliding with aircraft parts when bailing out. The bail out animation ignores the aircraft model. D) The possibility of parachute failure, particularly if the crewman is wounded. E) The ability to control the height at which your parachute opens. Realistically, if you open your 'chute at 10 km you'll die of hypoxia before you ever reach the ground.

5) The ability to drop flares for signaling.

6) Allow planes with damage, low fuel or wounded crew to make priority landings.

7) Aircraft fires that spread and which damage surrounding components. I get sick of watching flaming bombers travel for tens of kilometers with no structural damage to the wing or fuselage.

8 ) More intelligent crippled aircraft AI behavior. Crew in burning aircraft should usually try to bail out immediately. Crippled planes close to friendly territory should take slight risks to crash land or bail out over friendly territory. Planes over water should try to ditch close to land or have their crew bail out over water. Planes that can't maintain altitude should try to make a forced landing in the most favorable terrain possible, rather than just flying into a mountain or forest.

9) Chance of "friendly fire" - especially from AAA and bomber gunners, but also possibly fighters from different units or nations. Ideally, some planes would be more immune to friendly fire than others. For example, the P-38 and the big Allied 4 engine bombers were recognizable enough that their own troops generally didn't shoot at them. On the other hand, the P-51 Mustang looked enough like the Bf-109 that it was the victim of numerous "friendly fire" incidents. Chance of mistakenly opening fire could also be based on unit skills - veterans are better at aircraft ID than rookies. Taking this idea further, there could also be a risk of "friendly fire" against allied ground targets.

10) Ground control which allows forward air controllers, radar vectoring, etc. There is a mod which does this already.

11) A change in the way that kills are handled. A) You ought to be credited with shared kills and probable kills. B) Ideally, there would be multiple systems for claiming kills which model historical practices for various nations.
C) User customizable kill markings, which ideally would be automatically applied to your aircraft. D) Different kill/mission markings based on your nationality/theater. If I'm flying for the US or UK I don't want to see little red stars. Likewise, if I'm flying for Japan, I don't want to see German style "hash marks."

12) Fire, Smoke and Fog: A) Ground fires which spread and go out. B) Big user-placeable fires. C) The ability to place burning buildings/objects in the FMB. D) Big user placeable smoke clouds like those seen over burning cities. E) Big user placeable smoke plumes like those generated by burning ships, to simulate things like oil well fires. F) User placeable dust/smoke layers. That would allow you to use the FMB to do things like creating the sort of gigantic dust clouds which obscured visibility during Kursk and similar battles, or the sort of smoke pall which obscured visibility over burning cities. G) User placeable cloud/dust/smoke layers. Ideally, you'd be able to select height, cloud thickness, cloud type, degree of coverage, type of precipitation, cloud size and location. CFS2 had this function 10 years ago. H) Amount of dust/snow generated by planes or vehicles should depend on map, weather and terrain type. Planes using dirt fields in dry, hot conditions should generate masses of dust, planes using concrete fields in damp conditions should generate almost no dust. Vehicles traveling across the dry desert produce huge dust clouds, those traveling on paved roads will produce none.

13) Floating aircrew. A) Create floating aircrew models for nationalities other than the US and Japan. B) Remove the Japanese figure's samurai sword - it's not there in the cockpit or the parachute model! C) Where appropriate, create multi-crew raft objects. D) Allow floating aircrew/raft figures to be placeable objects in the FMB.

14) Add a V-1 interception mission to the QMB option. Allow the user to set the number of missiles they wish to intercept, their height, etc.

15) Loadouts: A) Increase loadouts for planes to cover all/most historical possibilities. This would make a lot of modded aircraft obsolete, since many of them just increase the number of available loadouts. B) Split loadouts for guns from loadouts for bombs/rockets/torpedoes. This would allow theater or unit specific ammo beltings and shut up some of the whining about whether certain weapons are over or under powered. c) In the weapons.ru settings list default armament rather than just stating "default" - it's not that hard to describe "6 .50 caliber MG" or "4 Hispano 20mm cannon".

16) Fuel and Aircraft performance: A) For planes where it was historically available, allow the possibility of 100+ octane fuel with associated performance boost. That would shut up a certain number of "chart wars". B) Have a setting in the QMB or FMB which allows the user to slightly improve or degrade aspects of aircraft performance to simulate worn out, badly maintained or malfunctioning aircraft. This would also shut up a lot of the chart wars and would negate the "need" for a number of FM tweaks. C) Have an option in the FMB which allows the designer to place damaged flying aircraft, or pre-set damage to the aircraft or its systems at some point during the mission. This would be handy for "escort the crippled bomber" or "in flight emergency" missions.

17) New Aircraft: Rather than adding new planes to the sim, why not rework and add important variants of existing craft? That's what people really seem to want. If you look at the modded versions of the game, you'll see loads of variants for the more popular planes - P-38, P-40, P-47, P-51, Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109, Fw-190, Me-262, Yak series and whatnot. These aren't (all) just souped up late war versions, either. Instead, at least some represent downgrades, prototypes or earlier versions. Since they require minimal 3D, FM or DM work, it would be easy to massively increase the number of planes in the game just by adding these variants. For each release, TD could give all the important variants for one popular plane, or part of a series. For example, in one release you could rework all the marks of Bf-109F, after that you could release all the variants of the P-47, and so on.

The Brewster Buffalo series could use a review, since the same model is used for all the variants and the differences between the 239, F2A, Buffalo MkI and 339 variants aren't well modeled. Likewise, the P-40 series needs a fix for the wings, and there are lots of P-40 variants that still aren't in the game. Also, consider that the Soviets and British often had their own Field-Modded or special versions of U.S. Lend-Lease planes. For example, it would be nice to have Soviet versions of the A-20, equipped with Soviet ordinance, guns, fuel and turrets.

Another group of planes which is popular among modders, and which fills a real niche, is carrier-based or seaplane variants of existing planes. It wouldn't be much effort at all to model the Sea Hurricane or Sea Gladiator series, nor would it be hard to add floats to the Swordfish. Likewise, modeling the proposed carrier-borne versions of the Bf-109 and Ju-87, with or without an actual Graf Spee for them to fly off of, would be a real winner.

18 ) Ground Vehicles and Guns: Make it so that guns don't shoot at downed airplanes. Have ground vehicles swerve around disabled vehicles and other obstacles rather than "playing bumper cars".

19) Improved modeling of damage to control surfaces: Instead of just having surfaces "damaged" or shot away, make it so they can be jammed instead. Basically, three failure modes instead of one: missing/partially missing, unresponsive/fluttering, jammed. I'm not sure if it's modeled, but some planes suffered from aileron reversal or control flutter at high speeds.

[Pursuivant]

Interesting suggestions. :)

However, I'm not sure about which planes all have flares... but I know, that at least the Letov biplane has.

Any plane has flares if you carry a flare gun or parachute flares with you.

[Avionsdeguerre]

Kill marking :)

[Romanator21]

Well, there is a hotkey in your key settings, to shut up the gunners.
No reason to make things more complicated.

Do you mean autopilot automation "off"? Or something else?

[kaix12]

If I remember correctly the MTO is reserved for future releases in the new series, (ie after CoD). So I don't think DT are able to include it in any upgrades to IL2. The agreement they have with Oleg prevents them from releasing any content that would encroach on theatres of operations slated for future inclusion in Cod series.
Personally I would like to see the Gloster Meteor in the game and the AI still needs some work.

I've already asked about the meteor... they said no:(

[kaix12]

What about a spitfire 1,2 or Va

[Furio]

Would it be conceivable to enlarge skins, using two 1024 x 1024 instead of one?

It would make a huge difference for surface detail and would maintain a healthy distance from Cliffs of Dover (for commercial reasons).

In terms of plastic models, CoD could be considered as 1/24 scale, forming a collection of few models of the higher quality.

Present day Il2 could be considered 1/72 scale, smaller and less detailed models, but numerous, with the potential for a complete WW2 collection.

With two 1024, Il2 would go to a sort of 1/48 scale, being still manageable for average skinner, and (I believe) no problems for today computers.

[kaix12]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=12568

Are you still doing the ship damage (Life boats come off sinking ship nd send up flares, floating debris) mentioned here.

[kaix12]

Can you make the MiG-9M, which featured an ejection seat and RD-21 engines, the RD-21 being an afterburning variant of the RD-20 / BMW-003. It should be quite easy since you already have the model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-9

[IceFire]

Curious if there are any plans to replace a few horrible or old default skins that are still kicking around? I'm thinking aircraft like the Ju52, Li-2, Po-2, Buffalo Mark I (someone probably put that one together in a real hurry) and the P-47D-10 and D-22 Pacific skin.

Also the Spitfire IX series with clipped wing retain the old default skin while the non-clipped versions have a different one.

[nearmiss]

I've mentioned we need FMB improvements several times.

I don't have the COD yet, but from what I'm reading the Triggers,Events and scripting would be darned awesome tools to have in the IL2 TD versions. The FMB has always been half done in IL2.

I don't know if those tools can be implemented, but Oleg did mention he was staying very close to the IL2 FMB.

The future of IL2 is far from done. The BOB COD is only one battle of a huge war. The IL2 covers a large part of it, and it will take years for COD to approach the same resource levels.

Personally, I enjoy the Pacific war and it maybe at least 3 or more years before COD progresses to that point.

[P-38L]

1. Randomize and variable weather while in a mission or flight. You can take off in a sunny day and finish in a rainy day.

2. Wind is very important. Sometimes when you fly in a sunny day you can be hit by wind and shake the airplane.

3. Torque. The AI airplanes doesn't have torque effect except the TB3-4M (The one with 4 engines). When you see this airplane taking off is beautifull because you can see the realism produced by the torque effect.

4. All the AI airplanes land the same perfect way. Randomize performance and ability should be implemented when AI landing.

5. When in a LAN you cannot see the movement of airplane surfaces of other players. I know is a lot of information but should be implemented in a on or off option in the conf.ini file.

6. No more stationary airplanes. Instead of that use normal airplanes to be placed by the user in FMB, using the livery of your choice. This will add more realism when be attacked. The actual stationary airplane is destroyed inmediately and all the airplanes stayed the same way of destruction. If use normal airplanes the destruction will be different allways.

7. If an AI airplane can land and park, should be start, taxi and take off to help you or to join to attack. This airplane shoul be used the same way in the request number 6 of my list.

8. Vehicles. Actually you must draw the path of the vehicles, when the veiche finish its path, stops forever. What about to implement vehicles that are constantly moving in a path with randomize movement like stop and move. Imagine this in a city.

I hope some of this ideas should be implemented in future updates.

Thank you.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Do you mean autopilot automation "off"? Or something else?

Now you got me by surprise. I was sure, there was an option "Toggle gunners on/off" (I'm even sure I mapped it to Shift+T), but now I cannot find it in the key setup. :confused:
Seems as I gave you a wrong answer. I will doublecheck.

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Is there a plan to correct the angle of the P-40 wings ???

[Wiskey-Charlie]

Originally posted by LOTHAR29>
don't want to be arrogant, but IL-2 1946 and throughout the series, this intended for people who love the simulation, and the truth go see ho fly des of the external view is a bit out of IL-2, for that you have Wings of prey, fits better with your profile of arcade...

almost all here are people who look the more possible real, and what your ask for is out of the reality... We want things to be real, requests as you make no sense in a simulator... Anyway if you want one thing well, you have the mods, who has one that lets you choose the view you like, even see the plane give in...so please leave the job to the developers for the fans of the flight simulation.

I love the sim too. Have spent many hours trying to make IL2 feel as real as is possible. Even took a flight in a WWII trainer last year to find out how it should feel. Pilot let me take the controls for about five minutes. Have been working hard to customize my peripherals to simulate the feeling of these controls and have to say I think I have done a pretty good job of it. Is VERY close indeed.

The virtual pits are very well done (great art no doubt). I have flown many a times using the virtual pit. But to each his own, we pit builders feel that the physical pit is more realistic. If the instrument panel is built correctly and your monitor is at the correct height, the instrument panel blocks out the bottom portion of your view the same as does the virtual pit view, really no difference in view at all.

Am still learning how to make videos, I am not Steven Spielburg but here is a video I made yesterday while flying "Facing into the wind campaign" (excellent campaign thanks icefire). I made it to show my friend across the pond the improvement of gauge needle motion after upgrading PC. Imagine what it would look like seeing the prop turning. Would be better. Note also that this is not the exact view I see, is hard to hold the camera where my head is because of the confined space in the pit. When filming the monitor I have to hold the camera in front of my face vs where my head is.

Pit Builders are IL2 fans too :)

(ooops you tube is restricting viewing outside us because of sound tract copyrights , will try to fix later)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSLLa-aWpF4
Well, thats not entirely true.

1. As developers we have of course take care of every aspect of the game, inlcluding the arcade options.

2. If you look into the Hyperlobby i.e., you will see, that there are always many 'cockpit off' - servers, so it cannot be that unpopular.

3. Especially for new players, the arcade options can be very helpfull.

4. In case of Wiskey-Charlie I can understand it: he wants a propellar, but no struts (which he has as a massive contruction, I guess?). I just wonder, are you playing with lots of monitors, so you do not need to rotate the ingame view?

However, in case of a propellar, visible in so called 'wonderwoman' view, I think it has a low priority, if ever considered, because the use of it is low level (in fact only for such cockpit builders).


EDIT: and at least its a valid request, what in fact this thread is for. ;-)

Hi Casper, thanks for reply. I think many pit-builders myself included fly mostly campaigns offline. Yes, flying with three monitors. I use trackIR sometimes, but do not have to have it. I know we are minority, but can't hurt to ask.

[Lagarto]

Thank you Wiskey-Charlie for sharing this vid, amazing rig and a sense of realism! I guess that other guy, lothar, simply didn't understand your post :)

[bolox]

for those unable to view Whiskey Charlie's vid of his setup, here's an older one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSkWKjp52B0

back to his original idea. yes it's a nice idea, it also could have uses for movie makers and might be useful to those making the transition from 'wonder woman view' to pit on

[lomov]

Cockpits weren't designed to play with 6DOF (sight mask, for example), so most of the cockpits should be remade then, and it's a lot of a work.

Why? Who want Zoom axe - just accept this feature.
In 6DOF is one important thing - zoom in/out. If use only zoom - no changes with cockpits is needed.

[Venatore]

May I request the following be included;

1 x movable navigation degrees protractor.

http://www.bepreparedtosurvive.com/Compass%20Protractor.jpg

[IceFire]

Is there a plan to correct the angle of the P-40 wings ???

I think if the P-40s are going to get corrected then they may as well go whole hog and fix the dihedral problem, the missing internal wing components for when the plane is damaged and maybe a few other small visual issues that the aircraft has. Plus... add a couple more versions :D

[Grach]

Yes, I'd like to see the P-40E, M, & M-105 dihedral and other model issues fixed as well! Possibly loadouts could be considered as well if this can be done at the time. :cool:

The looks of the early P-40 (B, C & Tomahawks etc) put these 'Kittyhawks' to shame! :o

For icing on the cake a couple more P-40 versions F (short fuselage Merlin), K (short fuselage Alison with modified fin), L (long fuselage Merlin) and N ('featherweight' & regular) would all be really nice! ;)

[Pursuivant]

What about a spitfire 1,2 or Va

Spitfire I & II are off-limits because they "compete" against Cliffs of Dover. Later versions of the Spitfire are probably OK. The only real limitation is that there were zillions of different Spitfire variants.

[Pursuivant]

1. Randomize and variable weather while in a mission or flight. You can take off in a sunny day and finish in a rainy day.

2. Wind is very important. Sometimes when you fly in a sunny day you can be hit by wind and shake the airplane.

Dynamic weather might make IL2 "compete" against CoD, so it might be out for that reason. That said, weather in IL2 is something of a weak point. There are sims older than IL2 which have better meteorological effects.

4. All the AI airplanes land the same perfect way. Randomize performance and ability should be implemented when AI landing.

I think that sometimes AI planes do crash, especially if they are flown by rookies. I agree that it would be cool if AI planes came in a bit high, low and/or fast especially under difficult conditions or when flown by inexperienced or wounded pilots.

6. No more stationary airplanes. Instead of that use normal airplanes to be placed by the user in FMB, using the livery of your choice.

Alternately, have stationary plane models JUST for planes that aren't flyable in the game and which aren't likely to be encountered in combat situations. That way you could shoot up an airport full of trainer or liaison type planes.

[SturmKreator]

you gonna fix the fw190 FM?

[kaix12]

1. Randomize and variable weather while in a mission or flight. You can take off in a sunny day and finish in a rainy day.

2. Wind is very important. Sometimes when you fly in a sunny day you can be hit by wind and shake the airplane.

3. Torque. The AI airplanes doesn't have torque effect except the TB3-4M (The one with 4 engines). When you see this airplane taking off is beautifull because you can see the realism produced by the torque effect.

4. All the AI airplanes land the same perfect way. Randomize performance and ability should be implemented when AI landing.

5. When in a LAN you cannot see the movement of airplane surfaces of other players. I know is a lot of information but should be implemented in a on or off option in the conf.ini file.

6. No more stationary airplanes. Instead of that use normal airplanes to be placed by the user in FMB, using the livery of your choice. This will add more realism when be attacked. The actual stationary airplane is destroyed inmediately and all the airplanes stayed the same way of destruction. If use normal airplanes the destruction will be different allways.

7. If an AI airplane can land and park, should be start, taxi and take off to help you or to join to attack. This airplane shoul be used the same way in the request number 6 of my list.


I hope some of this ideas should be implemented in future updates.

Thank you.

+1for all of the above

[Lagarto]

1) Can you stop this from happening?

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/7564/grab0000a.jpg (http://img683.imageshack.us/i/grab0000a.jpg/)

Pilotless, shot-up AI planes flying endlessly in perfect trim, even though they lack most of their control surfaces?

2) How about some adjustable settings for the AI in the difficulty panel: AI engine overheat on/off, AI G-force limits on/off, AI Stalls & Spins on/off?

[bugmenot]

Could it be possible to tweak some aircrafts' FMs?

E.G, I was dogfighting in a Ta-152H against La-7s and I couldn't catch up with them, or hardly with the MW50 activated... I mean, isn't the 152 supposed to be faster? Of course, the La-7s were doing impossible acrobatics, without any G-Locs and yet still faster than me...

I love this game but sometimes I feel like some planes are too powerful, and others not enough, historically speaking.

Thanks. :)

Another example, I was intercepting B-17s in a 190, suddenly one of them did a beautiful barrel roll, as fast as my plane, then flew straight to the ground. We reached a maximum speed of 620Km/H and yet the B-17 was totally ok, with its mighty gunners firing at will. Then it hided in a cloud and I lost it. :D

I have dozens of examples like this, that make me feel I'm playing something that is all but a flight sim.

[Ventura]

It would be nice if there was some visual cue regarding bomb release (head dipping or plane shuddering slightly on bomb release maybe?)

If that's too complicated regarding the mix of Jabos/Dive Bombers/level Bombers, then just raising the volume of the bomb release sound (It's a very, very low volume now) would be good.

Thanks again TD!

[Azimech]

Could it be possible to tweak some aircrafts' FMs?

E.G, I was dogfighting in a Ta-152H against La-7s and I couldn't catch up with them, or hardly with the MW50 activated... I mean, isn't the 152 supposed to be faster? Of course, the La-7s were doing impossible acrobatics, without any G-Locs and yet still faster than me...

I love this game but sometimes I feel like some planes are too powerful, and others not enough, historically speaking.

Thanks. :)

Another example, I was intercepting B-17s in a 190, suddenly one of them did a beautiful barrel roll, as fast as my plane, then flew straight to the ground. We reached a maximum speed of 620Km/H and yet the B-17 was totally ok, with its mighty gunners firing at will. Then it hided in a cloud and I lost it. :D

I have dozens of examples like this, that make me feel I'm playing something that is all but a flight sim.

At what altitude were you flying the Ta152H? That plane is configured for high-altitude fighting, while the La7 for low to mid.

The window says 4.07m but I believe the most recent data has been loaded.

[Bearcat]

Did I mention changing the AI code so that once a plane catches fire one the the following will happen:

1-The pilot will bail .. within 5-10 seconds.

2-The plane will nose down and go into a dive for the ground because .. number one did not happen.. which would mean tat the pilot was either dead of mortally wounded and incapable of controlling the plane.

3-The plane will explode.

But the plane will NOT

1-Turn on it's attacker or his wingman.. or some other aircraft and start to attack it.

2-Just fly off burning in the sky.. sometimes for quite a while..

[Ventura]

1) Can you stop this from happening?

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/7564/grab0000a.jpg (http://img683.imageshack.us/i/grab0000a.jpg/)

Pilotless, shot-up AI planes flying endlessly in perfect trim, even though they lack most of their control surfaces?

2) How about some adjustable settings for the AI in the difficulty panel: AI engine overheat on/off, AI G-force limits on/off, AI Stalls & Spins on/off?

Also related. He-111 Z Zwillig. Abandoned, missing right half (except tailwheel!) still flying.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c337/MF--C/he111z.jpg

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

What would you think about to create the C and E version of the He-111???
B
http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/he111b_3v.jpg
C
http://www.luftarchiv.de/flugzeuge/heinkel/he111c.jpg
E
http://kits.kitreview.com/images/he111ereview_box.jpg

This is a bird for the early war fans among us.

[Florinm352]

The game as it is now is a mixture of fabulous looking airplanes, the new ones like the Hs 129, and the old airplanes that look and sound just awful. Could you please fix that issue?

[Romanator21]

This may be a stretch, but I was wondering how realistic it was to go over the visual representation of damage.

Currently a broken spar results in the wing fracturing into 4 or 5 parts. It looks unrealistic and gives the wrong impression of the effectiveness of cannons (one or two rounds appear totally disintegrate a wing or tail rather than just weaken a spar to the point of failure).

I was wondering if this could be fixed because I noticed that the Yak-1 has a 3 part wing that can come off in one piece if struck at the root. It seems odd that this feature wasn't applied to other planes. It would help realism a lot.

Giving these fragments a collision box would also be great. Considering that there is now the G-limit feature which "bends" the airframe rather than breaks it, I wonder if it would be possible to offer a new type of collision model which takes into account energy (speed and mass) of impact and decides whether or not to simply damage, or tear off, parts of another plane.

[Hoogs]

I wonder if...

1) Its possible to fix the damage model on the P-38's twin tail booms. From what I understand it has never been programed as separate tail booms as far as the damage model is concerned. It has more than one rudder and the tail, it seems to me, gets damaged soooooo easily. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the P-38 was one tough mother!

2)A more realistic or different sound for the bending airframe. At present it sounds like loosing an aileron. IT's confusing.

3)You could kill the external padlock exploit used by many pilots to "Lock ON" to any enemy plane beyond visual range. That or kill the enemy plane external view for online play, or make enemy external views an option to be turned off. This drives me crazy. Any one can find you any where. That ain't right.

4)The ability to earn half credit on a kill. This would make life better for all pilots using 50 cals. At current you can smoke an engine, blow off ailerons, elevators, rudders, put holes in a wing, injure a pilot, and set the enemy on fire, but it all means nothing if some looser with a 30mm canon saws off the wing of all your hard work.

5)DELETE THE 185. What a stupid, magical piece of... er.. know what I mean? Or at least make the engine the completely unreliable P.O.S. it historically was.

6)Left and right break pedals? It would make taxi far more realistic.

Ty for 4.10.1 I love what you've done so far. Especially with the menu's and the new programmable joystick axis. Also the g-limit for all AC is greatly appreciated. All great fixes.

[ImpalerNL]

Poor/blind weather?

I still can see the ground at 2 kilometers altitude. :rolleyes:
In my opinion weather effects are really something that needs a priority fix .

[Borsch]

I was always asking for two things only- the rest can be done via MODs.

1. Proper wide screen support instead of heaving to rely on Sans FOV Changer or live with chopped off top of the screen.

2. Add button to remove icons from replays.

[Wiskey-Charlie]

Proper wide screen support instead of heaving to rely on Sans FOV Changer or live with chopped off top of the screen.


+1 !!!!!!!!!

[=815=TooCooL]

6DOF support, even if it's very restricted move.
I'm too tired of dodging cage bar with toggle gunsight key.

[JG52Karaya]

I wonder if...

1) Its possible to fix the damage model on the P-38's twin tail booms. From what I understand it has never been programed as separate tail booms as far as the damage model is concerned. It has more than one rudder and the tail, it seems to me, gets damaged soooooo easily. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the P-38 was one tough mother!

2)A more realistic or different sound for the bending airframe. At present it sounds like loosing an aileron. IT's confusing.

3)You could kill the external padlock exploit used by many pilots to "Lock ON" to any enemy plane beyond visual range. That or kill the enemy plane external view for online play, or make enemy external views an option to be turned off. This drives me crazy. Any one can find you any where. That ain't right.

4)The ability to earn half credit on a kill. This would make life better for all pilots using 50 cals. At current you can smoke an engine, blow off ailerons, elevators, rudders, put holes in a wing, injure a pilot, and set the enemy on fire, but it all means nothing if some looser with a 30mm canon saws off the wing of all your hard work.

5)DELETE THE 185. What a stupid, magical piece of... er.. know what I mean? Or at least make the engine the completely unreliable P.O.S. it historically was.

6)Left and right break pedals? It would make taxi far more realistic.

Ty for 4.10.1 I love what you've done so far. Especially with the menu's and the new programmable joystick axis. Also the g-limit for all AC is greatly appreciated. All great fixes.

Not meaning to sound rude but have you tried flying on full realism servers or servers with higher realism settings? Half your gripes would be voided by that as

- there typically are no external views on these servers
- there wont be anybody equipped with a 30mm on your side when flying most aircraft armed with .50cal MGs only
- there wont be any I-185 aloft

Especially the latter seems to be an "arcade server" problem. Only a handful of the I-185 fighters were produced and the M-71 engine utilized on the projected production model was found to be extremely unreliable up to the point that not only the fighter itself but also further development on the engine was seized altogether.

Other typical "arcade" fantasy planes include the MiG-3U and I-153P which you could also count in real life on two hands

[II./JG1_Klaiber]

1.) A cockpit for the upcoming Hs 123 - this is a great aircraft to be made flyable as it adds a lot to early to late war scenarios.

2.) Smaller fonts for the menus (without mods needed).

3.) Widescreen support.

4.) Reinstate the need for engine warm-ups immediately after engine start.

This used to be in IL-2 early on in the game's life, but was removed at some point through patching. The Bf 109E, for example, needed to idle at around 700RPM until the oil temperature reached 30 degrees Celsius.

5.) 6DOF track IR

6.) Dual pedal breaking.

[rodgdodge]

Hi guys,

I know you've done great work in the past. I have a request, could we have an in cockpit altimeter that doesn't stop at 30,000 ft in the climb ? E.g. in allied aircraft. As far as I'm concerned it would be a 'nice to have' it's not a show stopper.

Cheers

rodgdodge

[Hoogs]

Not meaning to sound rude but have you tried flying on full realism servers or servers with higher realism settings? Half your gripes would be voided by that as

- there typically are no external views on these servers
- there wont be anybody equipped with a 30mm on your side when flying most aircraft armed with .50cal MGs only
- there wont be any I-185 aloft

Especially the latter seems to be an "arcade server" problem. Only a handful of the I-185 fighters were produced and the M-71 engine utilized on the projected production model was found to be extremely unreliable up to the point that not only the fighter itself but also further development on the engine was seized altogether.

Other typical "arcade" fantasy planes include the MiG-3U and I-153P which you could also count in real life on two hands

Thank you for the response. I understand that many of my suggestions/gripes are solved by flying in full switch servers. And I have recently taken up flying in full switch servers.

I thought perhaps that the "arcade" pilots could benefit from such changes. I realize that it would take a considerable amount of work to make certain changes. The external padlock beyond visual range is a loop hole that I'm sure was never intended to be a part of the game. In my opinion it's a glitch and an issue that deserves resolution. I'm not the only arcade pilot who feels this way. IF this is a difficult issues to resolve then please by all means move on to more pressing matters. However if turning off enemy external views is an easy fix, then why not?

Don't "arcade" pilots deserve an honest hunt?

[AKA_Tenn]

I think thats the one biggest flaw with arcade servers, the redundancy of the whole map icons thing... i think if you have no enemy icons on the map, you shouldn't be able to just switch to the enemy plane to see where they are on external view, their the same thing, except even worse, switching to an enemy plane on externals, you will know exactly where they are, AND can also see their altitude, and therefor always maintain an advantage.... and that should never happen.

[Romanator21]

I agree. On servers with outside view enabled, it's impossible to maintain any kind of surprise. I feel that F5, F6, etc should be lumped in with "no padlock on" difficulty, and that external views should have the option of being limited to friendlies only.

[Stealth_Eagle]

I found this link and I think it will be quite helpful for new aircraft cockpits.

http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/cockpit-photos-of-world-war-two-aircraft.html

Hope this helps and please fix the Go-229 to be Ho-229 and able to carry a bomb load. Thanks

Eagle out.

[Juri_JS]

Please excuse me if this has been asked before. Are there plans to update the landscape textures of the old maps?

The newer maps like Slovakia or Bessarabia have very good looking textures and I think most of us would like to see the same quality on the other maps. Especially the Pacific maps look quite ugly and some have completely wrong textures (Chichi Jima).
In my opinion better map textures would be one of the biggest improvements for the game.

[Gryphon_]

Probably the oldest request of all, but after many months of holding back I have to ask you to look one more time at the low speed turn performance of the Spitfire, particularly the IX. In 4.10 the low speed turn performance of the IX was considerably improved, which was a surprise as it was widely regarded as too good to be true in 4.09. I have no issues with the Spitfire having a better turn rate than the 109 - it should - but when airspeed falls and AoA increases that big wing should produce a lot more drag than it does. But the Spitfire seems to retain energy very well, and pulls off high AoA turns that no other aircraft can follow. In short, the energy retention of the Spitfire isn't realistic, and as it's such an important aircraft in the game I think you need to look at it again.

[DK-nme]

Probably the oldest request of all, but after many months of holding back I have to ask you to look one more time at the low speed turn performance of the Spitfire, particularly the IX. In 4.10 the low speed turn performance of the IX was considerably improved, which was a surprise as it was widely regarded as too good to be true in 4.09. I have no issues with the Spitfire having a better turn rate than the 109 - it should - but when airspeed falls and AoA increases that big wing should produce a lot more drag than it does. But the Spitfire seems to retain energy very well, and pulls off high AoA turns that no other aircraft can follow. In short, the energy retention of the Spitfire isn't realistic, and as it's such an important aircraft in the game I think you need to look at it again.

Yes, yes, yes (standing ovation!)


DK-nme

[mceiras]

Any chance of 6DOF implementation for use with trackir and anothers similar devices ?

[Azimech]

I agree. On servers with outside view enabled, it's impossible to maintain any kind of surprise. I feel that F5, F6, etc should be lumped in with "no padlock on" difficulty, and that external views should have the option of being limited to friendlies only.

+1

Also I'd like to have the online scoring system reworked, instead of the last one that scores a hit gets the points, I'd rather see the number of hits and/or the total damage that has been done. Or maybe a style of distributing the points like the RAF had. I flew online yesterday, first time in ages, and was promptly irritated with the kill stealers. And when I was shooting a bf-110 a single bullet hit the B25 that was spiraling down without it's tail, so I was credited with a friendly kill. Pretty annoying!

[maxim42]

My requests:
-please make full normal widescreen support (there are lot of problems with it) to have normal option and no changes in conf by player,
-better Messerschmits cockpits (G-versions)
-there is a bug - if you take, as a first plane to fly in your game (multi), the AI plane - controls are not working

[JG27CaptStubing]

Airframe Limitations.

Having flown 4.101 for some time now I have to make a few comments regarding the Airframe Limitation. While I like the premise behind having airframe limitations I have a problem with it's current implementation.

Sure one can just go easier on the controls to prevent some sort of overstress of the plane but given there isn't any Real feedback letting you know the plane is being over stressed I think it's rather poor. Flashing the little G is a bit silly given they didn't have G meters in the planes and most pilots could feel the plane and their bodies and know when to back off.

I don't have a better solution at the moment but there has to be a better way of letting the pilot know you're about to bend the plane.

[Romanator21]

One addition that may or may not help the above issue, but I think it would be welcome anyway, is increased "head-shake". Currently, pilots in IL-2 have necks of steel, and when in gun-sight view, there is no movement at all. Leaning forward doesn't make one impervious to G's.

[Furio]

but when airspeed falls and AoA increases that big wing should produce a lot more drag than it does. But the Spitfire seems to retain energy very well, and pulls off high AoA turns that no other aircraft can follow.

This sounds obscure to me. As far as I know, there’s no reason a “big wing” should produce more drag in a turn than a small one.
As a rule of thumb, you look at wing loading (Kgs x square metres, or lbs x square feet) to evaluate stalling speed, but you must look at span loading (Kgs x metre, linear, not square) to evaluate efficiency and low drag in a turn.

My feeling is that Spit FM is pretty good, and that we should look with suspicion at our feelings without hard numbers.

[TelluricSummer]

First greetings for excellent work in the community IL-2 Sturmovik!

I imagine different altitudes for each plane, following the historical characteristics of each aircraft...
It will be fantastic!

Salute!

[Pursuivant]

Sure one can just go easier on the controls to prevent some sort of overstress of the plane but given there isn't any Real feedback letting you know the plane is being over stressed

There is a sound of the airplane squealing when you stress it, but I agree that there's not much sense of G forces, other than blackout/red-out, in full cockpit view. I lobbied for some sort of "g-meter" in full cockpit view back before 4.10 was released, and it is present in the "Wonder Woman" view, but no joy for full cockpit.

I think it's rather poor. Flashing the little G is a bit silly given they didn't have G meters in the planes and most pilots could feel the plane and their bodies and know when to back off.

I argued along similar lines; human beings are pretty good at sensing G-forces. The only limitation is that it might take some experience to figure out how much force corresponds to 2 G, 3 G and so-on. This isn't so much of a deal for overstressing the airframe, though, as for perceiving that your airplane is about to stall. Historically, "seat of the pants" flying meant that you could tell when your airplane was dropping out from under you, about to go into a stall. There are also minor vibrations and other sensations which are communicated to your body through the seat which you don't get in a game.

I'd suggest an "overspeed" or "overstress" warning on the HUD in the cockpit view. You can turn it off if you want to if you believe that "full realism" means limiting yourself to the feedback provided by your computer screen, speakers and joystick.

[Pursuivant]

The MiG-3 is one of the oldest models in the game, from the original Il-2. The P-47 model was done as a "gift" by someone so as to make the plane flyable, also very early in the game's development.

There is a modded form of the MiG-3 with an all new 3d model. It's gorgeous. Lets hope the creators give it to DT for inclusion in a later patch. I believe there are also modders out there reworking some of the other early 3d models.

There are also a number of modded cockpits which vastly improve on the stock cockpits, but they tend to be a bit hard on frame rates since they use much more detailed textures.

Personally, I don't see the point of having a generic "P-47" as well as actual named P-47 variants. The older model should either have its exact model specified or it should be retired.

[Pursuivant]

Also I'd like to have the online scoring system reworked, instead of the last one that scores a hit gets the points, I'd rather see the number of hits and/or the total damage that has been done. Or maybe a style of distributing the points like the RAF had.

I'd like something like that, too, both for online and offline.

The only problem is that, realistically, you'd need at least 3 kill-scoring systems, reflecting various attitudes to kill confirmation and kill sharing. The current system, not surprisingly, is most like the one used by the Soviets during WW2. The German system should be stricter about confirming kills and shouldn't allow kill sharing. The UK and US systems would be about like the German system, but allow shared kills and might give you credit for "damaged" and "probable" kills. The Japanese system would be much more generous, allowing you to claim a kill for just about any airplane you damaged.

Realistically, you'd also need to claim your kills under most systems and there should be provisions for overclaiming (especially by bomber crews).

Practically, it would be damned nice to get immediate credit for a kill once one of these things happen:

1) Pilot killed.
2) Uncontrollable fire started (or any fire started if no fire extinguishers).
3) Crippling damage scored (e.g., wing blown off).
4) Crew bails out.
5) Plane crash lands/ditches in water.

It's a pain in the *ss having to wait for an downed plane to hit the ground, possibly at the mercy of vulchers, after you've taken it out. It's also a pain having to wait around for the computer program to notice that a plane has ditched or crash landed.

As usual, for optimum user-friendliness/coolness, it would also be nice if you could control kill claiming conditions via the UI or server set-up controls, possibly as yet another "realism setting."

[Pursuivant]

Not a priority, but I was wondering if there were any plans to include more gliders in the game? I believe that way back when someone at 1C had a DFS230 in the works.

Due to lack of engines and (usually) lack of guns, they might be easier to model and code than other aircraft. My wishlist, in no particular order: DFS-230, Waco CG-4A Hadrian, Airspeed Horsa, Go242 and Antonov A7. I'm not greedy though, any one from the list would be cool. :)

Also, how about more loadouts for existing cargo types in the game? Nothing fancy is needed, just extra mass simulating various weights of cargo, with the assumption that the loadmaster has done his job properly.

If you wanted to get fancy, though, you could give the C-47/DC-3 and Li-2 bomb loadouts, as were sometimes improvised in the field, and you could create bomber versions of the Ju-52.

[KOFlyMaker]

Hello!
Before anything else I want to congratulate the team of Daidalos, for excellent work in patch 4.10.1

I would like to know of the possibility of a change in FMB. I wish I could change the speed of cars and tanks, as is already done on ships. Without this modification is impossible to make huge columns of cars moving because they just run over.

I look forward to more news. I know it's not easy for you to handle it alone but I hope you understand that I love this game and want a constant evolution.

[Xilon_x]

open canopy and doors at all airplane including also bombers.

[Pursuivant]

More ideas, suggested by others in the past, but worth repeating:

1) Static ground objects which carry point values, both for campaigns and for ground attack or bombing missions. No new objects needed to be coded, just create invisible destroyable "value boxes" which can be put inside of existing static objects in the FMB, based on soft vehicles, tanks and various sorts of ships.

2) Explosion effects which can be set or triggered in the FMB. Base them on various forms of bombs, have a way that they can be placed inside static objects or vehicles, then link the condition that triggers them to either a time, movement of another object or destruction of the object to which they're linked. This would simulate things like ammo or fuel dumps, vehicles filled with explosives or fuel and vehicles hitting mines.

3) Empty fuel tanks objects which are much harder to destroy.

4) More airfield equipment objects - bomb dumps, bomb carts, fire trucks, bulldozers and dump trucks (for filling in bomb craters), starter trucks, tractors, engine heaters, fuel trailers, engine hoists, mobile workshops, etc. This is the sort of infrastructure you take out during an airstrike on an airfield in addition to aircraft, buildings and runways.

[harryRIEDL]

The previous post reminded me of another small request an oppertiunity to target factories for point value to simulate large bombing raids. Also try to sort out some of the issues of large formations in QMB as when I flew in a 18 plane bomber raid a collision on the way to the target destroyed a 1/3 of the force

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Also try to sort out some of the issues of large formations in QMB as when I flew in a 18 plane bomber raid a collision on the way to the target destroyed a 1/3 of the force

Can you tell us the specs of the mission?

[harryRIEDL]

Can you tell us the specs of the mission?
Yep a mixed formation attack on Slovakia Summer map, target airfield with at a height anything from 500m-1000m flying allied side. large formation of consisting of PE-8 ,SB-100, PE-3, TB-3 (what I was flying) and sometimes added IL4/DB-3 as well plus about 16 enemy fighters 109, G50, and similar early war aircraft.

Anything else wanted?
also might be worth looking at the A.I behavior on landing as A fair amount of planes which are undamaged have flown in the the hills around one of the airfields in my experience

[ImpalerNL]

Ive seen the same problem with the AI.
It was on the Dday map, during low level ground attacks with only 12 aircraft involved.
During the attack two Beaufighters collided with each other, and two Typhoons crashed into the ground after firing their rockets.

[Gryphon_]

This sounds obscure to me. As far as I know, there’s no reason a “big wing” should produce more drag in a turn than a small one.
As a rule of thumb, you look at wing loading (Kgs x square metres, or lbs x square feet) to evaluate stalling speed, but you must look at span loading (Kgs x metre, linear, not square) to evaluate efficiency and low drag in a turn.

My feeling is that Spit FM is pretty good, and that we should look with suspicion at our feelings without hard numbers.

Ok then lets look at some hard numbers. Take a Spitfire-F-IXc-M61-15 with full fuel and turn the engine off, and glide at 280kph (160mph). Measure the rate of descent passing thru 2000m (5.1m/sec). This aircraft weighs 3377 kg in game.

Now try the same with a 109G2, you'll find this lighter aircraft (2846kg) has a much higher rate of descent of 6.2 m/sec at 280kph.

That Spitfire wing is really something...

[Furio]

Ok then lets look at some hard numbers. Take a Spitfire-F-IXc-M61-15 with full fuel and turn the engine off, and glide at 280kph (160mph). Measure the rate of descent passing thru 2000m (5.1m/sec). This aircraft weighs 3377 kg in game.

Now try the same with a 109G2, you'll find this lighter aircraft (2846kg) has a much higher rate of descent of 6.2 m/sec at 280kph.

That Spitfire wing is really something...

If you want to compare minimum sink rate between different planes, you should do so at – you guess – their minimum sink rate speed, and the same you should do to compare best L:d.
Now considering that Spitfire has a wing loading of around 130 kg per square meter, while the Messerschmitt is around 190, the best glide and minimum sink speeds are surely vastly different. Your test, performed at an arbitrary speed, doesn’t demonstrate anything meaningful. Moreover, the data provided (just weight and speed) are not enough to attempt any comparison.

A serious evaluation of Spitfire’s energy retaining capability is beyond my competence and – I suspect – beyond yours. In any case, you can make your attempt and send your report to Daidalos Team.

[IceFire]

Ive seen the same problem with the AI.
It was on the Dday map, during low level ground attacks with only 12 aircraft involved.
During the attack two Beaufighters collided with each other, and two Typhoons crashed into the ground after firing their rockets.

I set up the Normandy QMB map as well as modifying the Slovakia QMB. The AI in some situations gets a bit weird especially at certain starting altitudes. The will launch attacks on a target, destroy the target and try to fire rockets/shoot guns at a second target...except they are too close to the ground and they crash. Similar problems on any QMB or mission anywhere with the AI. When building in the FMB you can tweak the attack altitudes by situation to lessen the chances but the AI will still do it sometimes.

To some degree this is quite "normal" as it happened in real life and if you watch human pilots online the effect is quite similar. On the other hand the AI does it in a very unconvincing way :)

BTW: We have no Typhoons... only Tempests. Would love to see some Typhoons one day :)

[Adwark]

I has a question to DT. When you gays fixed broken P-51D-20AN gun sight? After patch 4.09 release its doesn't work.

[Gryphon_]

If you want to compare minimum sink rate between different planes, you should do so at – you guess – their minimum sink rate speed, and the same you should do to compare best L:d.
Now considering that Spitfire has a wing loading of around 130 kg per square meter, while the Messerschmitt is around 190, the best glide and minimum sink speeds are surely vastly different. Your test, performed at an arbitrary speed, doesn’t demonstrate anything meaningful. Moreover, the data provided (just weight and speed) are not enough to attempt any comparison.

A serious evaluation of Spitfire’s energy retaining capability is beyond my competence and – I suspect – beyond yours. In any case, you can make your attempt and send your report to Daidalos Team.

I made a comment about the Spitfire's performance in this thread, which is for 'Questions and Requests Only'. You chose to comment on it. I made the mistake of responding to you. Well, I've made my input to 4.11, thank you. If TD want to discuss it with me, they know where to find me.

[Furio]

I made a comment about the Spitfire's performance in this thread, which is for 'Questions and Requests Only'. You chose to comment on it. I made the mistake of responding to you.
You chose to write in a public forum, making statements that looked to me technically not correct. I questioned them on technical ground, and if my words sound in any way offensive, I apologize, of course. However, I maintain my technical points.

Well, I've made my input to 4.11, thank you. If TD want to discuss it with me, they know where to find me.
It’s your right to make any input you want, that’s out of question, and this is my last comment on this topic.

[Ernst]

Any possiblity of a "Bombenabwurfgeraet" like in CloD in future patches?

I want, I want! :-P

[Pursuivant]

Another idea: rework some of the uglier/less realistic-looking damage textures, especially for older planes like the MiG-3 and Bf-109.

At least get rid of the sooty crater look. Real bullet/cannon hits shred aluminum and blow off the paint, revealing the bare metal below. They don't leave perfectly round, black-edged holes.

[mcmmielli]

Radar for night fighters. Please.. Please...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg76JI8mbzk&feature=player_detailpage

Please, we need this radar for night missions...

[harryRIEDL]

another nice new idea would be a greater varitiy of formations Vs and various other formatons the ablity for the ai to do box formations would really add to relialism

[windweapon]

Not sure if mentioned, but spawns in aircraft bays/parking, and need to taxi for SP campaigns/missions to complement a more robust ground ATC.

[stugumby]

My question regards the Mosquito ground handling. To me perior to patch 410 series it didnt sway and bobble all over the runway at take off. Now, at least to me acts like the heinkl ehe-111 did before it was corrected. Can your development team take a look at this?

[Treetop64]

Don't know if it's been mentioned already, but:

>Curtis SB2-C Helldiver. Either flyable or AI.

Just one more conspicuously absent aircraft from the Pacific...

Thanks SO much for the Douglass Devastator in 4.11. Wonderful addition!

[Stealth_Eagle]

Could you please add an Italian Dynamic campaign for us who like Italian aircraft. I am considering on starting an Italian squad so all spots open.

[=FPS=Salsero]

My question regards the Mosquito ground handling. To me perior to patch 410 series it didnt sway and bobble all over the runway at take off. Now, at least to me acts like the heinkl ehe-111 did before it was corrected. Can your development team take a look at this?

ALL planes now behave like He-111 did, so be happy with that. Even worse - like drunken mules. It's "extremely funny" to see TB-3 uncontrollably rotating whilst on the runway, engines off. It seems that terrain now is made of hi quality Teflon (tm) :)

And I say nothing about taking off with pedals. Il-2 itself seems to be not responding to them on the ground, so I am using the keyboard.

[Ace1staller]

You should add Switzerland to the allies (they shot down 11 Luftwaffe aircraft). Also Sweeden for suppling the axis.

[Ace1staller]

Also add a few more allied and axis countries if they aren't added

[ElAurens]

The Swiss also shot down Allied aircraft.

[Xilon_x]

AXIS POWER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers

ALLIES of WWII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II

Participants in World War II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II

[addman]

My personal wishes are fly-able Douglass Devastator and Henschel Hs-123. I reaaaaaaally want them sant...ehr Team D!:)

[nearmiss]

It sure would be a help of the FMB was improved. It might be too much to ask, but if the FMB improvements in COD were applied to IL2 it would push the IL2 to a much higher level game play.

I know many that became disillusioned with the FMB in IL2 and long ago moved onto other things. The FMB in IL2 has never been adequate, and working with it is so tedious and time consuming.

Two major improvement areas needed in IL2 - AI performance improvements and the FMB.

[JtD]

I was under the impression that FMB upgrades had been a key feature in the 4.10 patch?

[tk471138]

Greetings People...I started ww2 flight simming with a game called aces high, three years ago....i got 1946 in preparation for the cliffs of dover...something i would like to see in 1946, that is also in aces high would be PB1 rockets for the FW190 (and what ever other planes used them). In aces high they have 12 rockets (6 under each wing) and they are designed for armor. otherwise im very impressed with this game and the fact that it has such a dedicated and talented team continuing to expand and improve on an already great game, well dont TD and Oleg and company...

here is some more information,
Copy-n-Pasted from a website that used "German Aircraft Weapons of WWII", by Ellis Kalhsberg, as a source.

...
One of those was the Panzerblitz 1 rocket. Developed by Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik, the Panzerblitz (Pb1) was a more successful missile than the Panzerschreck 1 that preceded it. The rocket consisted of an 80mm mortar grenade (Gerat M8 -Device M8) mated with the R4M air-to-air missile. In 1 Sept 1944, four Pb1 launch rails were installed under the wing of Fw-190F-8 Werke Number 733705 for trails. Tests showed the rockets could be launched from about twice the distance from the target (about 200 yards) as the Panzerschreck but with a maximum target approach speed of 305 mph, the aircraft was vulnerable to ground fire.

The number of rockets fitted beneath each wing rose to six and finally standardized on eight very late in the war. Not surprisingly, the smaller warhead penetrated only 90mm of steel. At first, the rockets were fired in two salvos, but later launched in pairs. On 1 January, 1945, the pilot of an Fw-190F-8, equipped with the Pb 1, crash landed near Asche, Holland, giving the Allies their first glimpse of the new weapon system.

Production of the Fw-190F-8/Pb 1 received high priority and, by February 1945, 115 aircraft were so equipped. Meanwhile, the infamous SS-controlled factory near Brno, Czechoslovakia, were producing missiles at the rate of 16,000 a month. By February, 1945, some 43,850 missiles had been manufactured. The PB1 type was replaced by Panzerblitz 2, a modified R4M with a Panzerschreck warhead, capable of penetrating 180mm of armor, but that is another story. The Panzerblitz 1 system also equipped a small number of BMW 801 TS powered Fw-190F-9 aircraft that started leaving the Arado and NDW production lines in October of 1944.
...

Another source says [oh, yes, conflicting info. How typical wouldnt you say?] that that both the Pzrschreck and Pnzrblitz were 88mm and that the Pb1 did have an AP and not an HE warhead on it. - "The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII", edited by Chris Bishop.

[Fighterace]

P-40 3D model fix and improved DM is my request

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

P-40 3D model fix and improved DM is my request

1+ ;)

[Pershing]

I have only one request - it's the question "WHEN?"))

[harryRIEDL]

I have only one request - it's the question "WHEN?"))
I support this message +1