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

[swiss]

Fix the Mc202 Cockpit/Revi, pleeeease.

[Ace1staller]

It would be nice to see the Sweedish J-22 fighter on the axis side. Also add Sweeden to the axis, they supplied germany with war material (such as coal).

[Xilon_x]

Sweedish J-22? :confused: is this?
http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/jakt/113J22_113-1358.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyua9x5MQqU&feature=related

and this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2S6EZbujdw&feature=related

and also this?

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

[MrBaato]

Sorry for the source, but i read on wikipedia that due to the changes the
Finnish made on the Fiat G50, it was alot slower than the original Italian version

430–450 km/h compared to 484 km/h

Not sure this is correct but if so,
could it be made faster when the nationality is Italian?

[Ace1staller]

Sweedish J-22? :confused: is this?
http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/jakt/113J22_113-1358.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyua9x5MQqU&feature=related

and this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2S6EZbujdw&feature=related

and also this?

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


The first vedio is the correct one. It would be nice if Daidlos team would add a neutral group of countries such as Switzerland and sweeden.

[Ace1staller]

The first vedio is the correct one. It would be nice if Daidlos team would add a neutral group of countries such as Switzerland and sweeden.

I ment the first vedio on the top of your vedios and guests the picture above was correct.

[Romanator21]

Another thing that would be nice would be opening up the default skin for replacement or editing. If possible, this should be done in a way that doesn't affect the appearance of other default skins online, ie. replacing the default skin with a pink one in order to spot online players more easily.

If not, please continue to update the default skins for some of our older planes as well as adding alternates for winter, desert, and pacific maps.

Secondly, I was wondering if it would be possible to expand the visibility distance for those running in "Excellent" or "Good" in addition to "Perfect" settings. I can't run perfect because my card doesn't run Open GL, but I think it can handle increased visibility distance/loading buffer size. It's a little displeasing to see shape-shifting mountains and obvious pop-in of objects as I fly around them.

[swiss]

He129
Proppitch assigned to an Axis

The way it is right now, I'm pretty sure no one uses it.
What sucks even worse is the fact i cant really tell whether manual is on or off without proppitch% on display.

[Romanator21]

I use it, generally for cruise. From what I've been told, manual settings were never used on the Hs-129. Activating this gives you access to max power, but if you're not careful, you risk ruining the engine. It's also a lot of workload during hairy ground attack missions.

The current system approximates the real thing which had switches rather than a lever. Just check your manifold pressure and rpms.

I see what you mean with regards to setting manual though - there is no hud text indication. It only tells you when you've switched to auto. However, if you look on the instrument panel, you'll see two red switches: up means manual, down is auto.

But I suppose an option is always possible for those who want it.

[swiss]

I use it, generally for cruise. From what I've been told, manual settings were never used on the Hs-129. Activating this gives you access to max power, but if you're not careful, you risk ruining the engine. It's also a lot of workload during hairy ground attack missions.

The current system approximates the real thing which had switches rather than a lever. Just check your manifold pressure and rpms.

I see what you mean with regards to setting manual though - there is no hud text indication. It only tells you when you've switched to auto. However, if you look on the instrument panel, you'll see two red switches: up means manual, down is auto.

But I suppose an option is always possible for those who want it.


Uh, yes, I know how it works.
I actually intended to use the manual PP as some kind of an airbrake, diving from 800m @ 40° builds up speed fast - and that's the angle you need for later tanks with the MK.
Not sure if this really works, but right now it's just a joke.


It get'0s even worse if you look at the logic of it:
We have several dozens of aircraft in the game - pp can be adjusted for ALL of them via an Axis, makes things simple right?
But no, just because the freaking Henschel uses a switch, now we have to assign keys to it - I don't have any freaking key left for it! I am going to use another profile for single plane either.
It just makes everything unnecessarily more complicated - and no, it does not add to "immersion" at all.

[Romanator21]

Uh, yes, I know how it works.

Sorry, no insult meant. However, your wording is misleading:

What sucks even worse is the fact i cant really tell whether manual is on or off without proppitch% on display.

From that I assumed you didn't know how it worked, but, I apologize.

But no, just because the freaking Henschel uses a switch, now we have to assign keys to it - I don't have any freaking key left for it! I am going to use another profile for single plane either.

You're the second person I've seen post about how few keys there are on a keyboard...Frankly, I'm surprised. I have no problems whatsoever, and I could easily program twenty more commands. I imagine that we have similar keyboards. If a dummy like me can do it, I'm sure you can.

We have several dozens of aircraft in the game - pp can be adjusted for ALL of them via an Axis, makes things simple right?

Well, I don't know of another axis plane that uses toggle switches in the cockpit like the Henschel. Maybe I'm wrong? In that case, then I sure wouldn't mind if DT added keyboard controlled pitch settings for those.

It just makes everything unnecessarily more complicated - and no, it does not add to "immersion" at all.

There I disagree. However, as I said before, I don't see anything wrong with an option. I'll keep mine the way it is, you assign an axis. Everyone's happy. It's just up to DT if they think it's fair in an online scenario.

Anyway, I was just trying to help, not start an argument in any way. Let's see what DT come up with.

[Phabius]

I used to play (and program missions in) MS CFS Series and was particularly attracted by the way CFS2 Mission Builder worked with events and triggers. It opens so much more possibilities for different situations than we have with IL2 FMB.

Any chances?

Otherwise this is the best combat flight simulator I've ever played! Keep up the excellent work!

[swiss]

You're the second person I've seen post about how few keys there are on a keyboard...Frankly, I'm surprised. I have no problems whatsoever, and I could easily program twenty more commands. I imagine that we have similar keyboards. If a dummy like me can do it, I'm sure you can.


The problem is - I would need them on the stick(throttle), fast change.
Probably not so important anyway.
I was just pissed because I wrecked the engines several times right before I posted.
Easy. ;)


Got a new need:

Fiat G55 in standard 4.11 - beautiful fighter and sooo rocks, given you take the fm from hsfx....

[daveballmh]

For me a good future development woud be Attack on the West 1940

France

Hawk 75
D520
Bloch 152, 155
MS406
Potez 633
Potez 63.11
LeO 451
Farman 222
Amiot 143
Mureaux 117

UK
Battle
Lysander
Hampden
Wellington
Whitley


Belgium
Fox II & VI

Holland
Fokker G1
Fokker TV

Germany
Do17
Hs126

Big wish list, but with a map and career would be fun

There are of course many other aircraft but these are already in place


For China in the future

Hawk75M
Mit Ki51
Mit Ki30
Kaw Ki36

[OREL_Erichos]

Hi, is it possible to add (to patch 4.11) to difficulty menu one additional switch for F6 EXTERNAL PADLOCK,ENEMY AIR? I know that if I switch off NO EXTERNAL VIEWS, switch it off EXTERNAL PADLOCK too, because sometimes is nice to have external views (for recording videos etc.) but external padlock no, it's like radar. Thanks.

[ElAurens]

Actually what needs to be implemented are external views for your aircraft only, with no external padlock, and the ability to also have externals only when on the ground.

There are ways to do this that cannot be spoken of here, but I see no reason why this cannot be offered to the stock game.

As we have no "ground crew" which in real life would help with ground movements the external view while only on the ground would be a very helpful thing.

[Romanator21]

Well, mods can now be discussed, if that's what you mean, El. I guess there are lots of differing opinions on how to change it.

Sometimes F6 view is useful for movies. Personally, I would like to have it under the "no padlock" switch, or possible under its own. Normal padlock doesn't work unless you're actually looking at the target. That could be applied to F6 as well so that it can't be used unless you know where everyone is first. But of course, there are so many ways to do this...but as long as there's an option that keeps the current setup, almost everybody will be happy I think.

I also agree that it would be nice to have outside view activate after landing. It would be nice to see what happened or what is still happening after I've landed, crashed, bailed, etc. during an offline campaign.

[IceFire]

Can I request that someone have a look at the coding for the MG-FF (really it's a MG-FF/M) in-game? It's been a widely circulated complaint that sometimes a MG-FF hit will cause a plane to roll uncontrollably. It and the VYa 23mm are the only two cannons in game to cause this effect to the best of my knowledge.

In the 20mm category no other gun does it.

Typically happens online. I'm sure most people have experienced it...

[Pursuivant]

For me a good future development would be Attack on the West 1940

That's quite a wish list! Some of these might run up against the non-compete clause of DT's contact with 1C.

Hawk 75, et al - There are mods that do this but no proper cockpit.
MS406/410, etc. - ditto
D520 - In development as a mod.
Bloch 152, 155 - ditto.

Potez 633, Potez 63.11, LeO 451, Farman 222, Amiot 143, Mureaux 117 - Nothing serious ever proposed as a mod. If they exist, they're secret projects. French planes aren't very popular, even though the French had some competitive designs. That's what you get when your army serves as a speed bump for the Wehrmacht.

Battle, Wellington - Available as a "frankenplane" mod, but no proper model or cockpit.

Wellington - Included in IL2:CloD, so off limits to DT.

Lysander, Hampden, Whitley - Nothing serious ever proposed as a mod. If they exist, they're secret projects.

Fox II & VI - I believe this is in the works as a mod.

Fokker G1 - Exists as a "frankenplane" mod, but no proper model or cockpit.
Fokker TV - Not heard of development on this one.

Do17 - Included in IL2:CloD, so off limits to DT.
Hs126 - Not heard of development on this one. Relatively minor type in a vast armada of German types. Not on my top 10 for Luftwaffe planes to be added to the game.

Mitsubishi Ki-51, Ki-30 - Exists as a "frankenplane" mod, but no proper model or cockpit.

Ki-36 - Not heard of development on this one. There's a whole load of Japanese planes that aren't in the game. Personally, I'd like to see a flyable B5N Kate and B6N Jill, an (official) Ki-44 and the G3M Nell, Ki-49 Helen, Ki-67 Peggy, H6K Mavis , P1Y Frances, Q1W Lorna and D4Y Judy, but that's just me.

[TedStryker]

The Hawk 75 is a plane that comes up time and time again in these discussions both here and at M4T, i guess 'cos it was used by so people in so many theatres.

It tops my list of AI a/c to make flyable.

The 2 AI planes I would request would be the Lanc and the G3M Nell - both a massive amount of work, for sure. These two bombers would open up alot of scenario possibilities for missions/campaigns.

Also, any chance of bombs for the Hurri MkIIc? A MkIV with universal wing and rocket/bomb/40mm Vickers loadouts would be tasty as well...but i'll be asking for the moon on a stick next...

Cheers

Ted

[nearmiss]

FMB improvement:

The ability to DE-SPAWN flights of aircraft in missions at some trigger point, altitude, defined area, specific timeout or waypoint, etc.

After the bombers have dropped their bombs and turned for home most of the time they are away from the action areas, but they affect FPS until they are gone completely.

I remember building missions where I ran the bombers into the side of a large hill,etc. Sadly, you had to hear all their radio comms during the process. LOL

Anyway, it sure would be nice to just have specific flights just disappear when they reach the specific postition.

[batistadk]

Hi folks.

First of all, I'd like to thanks Team Daidalos for the good job on 4.11 development. It shows IL-2 1946 is not dead at all, and will be in our PC's for a good time from now.

I'd like to know if you plan to add some new map at 4.11 patch. The Salomons Pack in 4.10 was a pleasant surprise, for sure. It would be nice to see a new map with Team Daidalos quality pattern.

Thanks in advance, and good job for all of you!!!

Cheers.

batistadk

[bf-110]

Oh,frankenplanes are...I got it...

I saw a He-59 that turned me on.
Hope to see more naval combat in IL2.Specially european naval battles.

[Fafnir_6]

Hello everyone,

I have a small request to make of Daidalos Team... Would it be possible to update the LOD0 of the legacy Macchi C.202 from the original IL-2 (the AI -only one) with that of the more recently added C.202 serie VII? I've been replaying a bunch of old DGen campaigns and the Italians showing up in the old low-detail C.202 is a real downer. Would doing this be a simple cut & paste job or is there a lot more to it?

Thanks for everything,

Fafnir_6

[IceFire]

Hello everyone,

I have a small request to make of Daidalos Team... Would it be possible to update the LOD0 of the legacy Macchi C.202 from the original IL-2 (the AI -only one) with that of the more recently added C.202 serie VII? I've been replaying a bunch of old DGen campaigns and the Italians showing up in the old low-detail C.202 is a real downer. Would doing this be a simple cut & paste job or is there a lot more to it?

Thanks for everything,

Fafnir_6
I wonder if it might be easier to replace the one with the other in the DGEN settings rather than swapping the models.

[IceFire]

I'm curious if there are plans for some more default skins being improved on some aircraft.

Some key ones in my mind:

- Spitfire Vc 2 cannon versions have RAAF Pacific scheme at the moment. A desert scheme would be nice. A Europe scheme would be nice too!

- He111H-2 and H-6 could use an upgrade.

- SBD-3 and SBD-5 share a skin right now. It'd be nice if the SBD-3 had a Midway scheme and the SBD-5 retained it's late 1943 scheme which works well.

- Ju52s are used all over the place and easily have one of the worst looking default skin these days.

- Most or all of the A6M Zeros

- Pacific theater P-47D-10 and D-22 have very old default skins. I don't believe they are even accurate. Updates there would be great.

- B25J has a weird shade of green applied. I've never seen B-25s painted that colour. Maybe in VVS service? A typical USAAF olive drab would be a nice change.

- Seafire in Pacific markings look medicore at best. It'd be nice to have the proper British Pacific fleet scheme applied.

- Spitfire VIIIs don't have as good a default skin as the IX and Vb series do at this point. It'd be nice to see Pacific/MTO/Europe schemes setup.

Just some thoughts that have been burning a hole through my mind recently while flying online. Suggestions only of course.

[Pursuivant]

The Hawk 75 is a plane that comes up time and time again in these discussions both here and at M4T, i guess 'cos it was used by so people in so many theatres.

Yep. I'm surprised that it hasn't officially made flyable. Right now, the modded version just uses the P-40 cockpit, which isn't quite right.

If it's made flyable, it would also be nice to see at least one fixed landing gear version. Currently there's a modded P-36H, but the gear isn't very good.

The 2 AI planes I would request would be the Lanc and the G3M Nell - both a massive amount of work, for sure. These two bombers would open up alot of scenario possibilities for missions/campaigns.

The Lancaster has been "in progress" as a potential mod for years, although there are "frankenplane" versions of the Wellington, Stirling and Halifax.

I haven't heard anything about the G3M being started as a mod project, much less an official one. Early war bomber aircraft just aren't as appealing to most modders as late-war/post-war fighter types.

Also, any chance of bombs for the Hurri MkIIc? A MkIV with universal wing and rocket/bomb/40mm Vickers loadouts would be tasty as well...but i'll be asking for the moon on a stick next...

The whole Hurricane family has been done as mods, with full historical loadouts. Most of them are quite good. They'd be on my short list of "mods to make official" if I ran the zoo.

[Macwan]

France

Hawk 75
D520
Bloch 152, 155
MS406
Potez 633
Potez 63.11
LeO 451
Farman 222
Amiot 143
Mureaux 117

UK
Battle
Lysander
Hampden
Wellington
Whitley


Belgium
Fox II & VI

Holland
Fokker G1
Fokker TV

Germany
Do17
Hs126

Big wish list, but with a map and career would be fun

There are of course many other aircraft but these are already in place


For China in the future

Hawk75M
Mit Ki51
Mit Ki30
Kaw Ki36

A lot of planes could be asked, actually. Interesting list, if you add the Spitfire Mk.1 and a Channel map, you have the Battle of Britain !

Could add :
-Boomerang
-Wirraway
-A-26
-Curtiss Helldiver
-Vultee Vengeance
-reworked C-47
-P-47N
-P40 F/L/N
-A-36 / P-51A
-C-45
-C-46 Commando
-Lockheed Hudson
-Lockheed Ventura
-Vindicator
-Privateer
-Catalina (early models)
-Coronado
-Kingfisher
-Fairey Barracuda
-Firefly
-Fulmar
-Albacore
-and those I forget

Plus missing japanese planes, especially bombers.
I don't know the feasability of a chinese campaign.

Would need :
-Curtiss Shrike
-Hawk III
-Westland Wapiti
-Dewoitine 510
-Ki-10
-P-66
-DC-2
-He-111P (not sure of the version any more)
...at least...

So many things to do.

But so many things already done... ! :grin:

Cheers !

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=284062&postcount=188

;-)

[ElAurens]

You sir have made this Curtiss fanboy's day.

:cool:

[Larry The Combat Spy]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=284062&postcount=188

;-)

http://www.yeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.com/

[TedStryker]

Ye-gads! The Hawk 75: thats superb news; you've made my day!

Beautiful looking cockpit....wow great update, thanks. We're pretty damn spoiled really.




Plus missing japanese planes, especially bombers.
I don't know the feasability of a chinese campaign.

Would need :
-Curtiss Shrike
-Hawk III
-Westland Wapiti
-Dewoitine 510
-Ki-10
-P-66
-DC-2
-He-111P (not sure of the version any more)
...at least...



The Sino-Japanese War is a big area of interest for me; thanks to some of TD's work (I-16 Type 5, I-15bis, as well the existing stuff like J8A/Gladiator) it seemed to me it was now possible to model - in the stock game - some of the core actions of the CAF from Nov. 37 (when the I-16 first saw action with the Soviets and the CAF 4th PG) right up to late '41 and beyond, if i was willing to live with some aircraft hacks and put some effort into giving stock maps a psuedo-Chinese look....in fact, if i was willing to live with loads of compromises!

This is what i've been coming up with:

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=10423

For me, the key aircraft to add for China scenarios would be the Hawk III, Ki-10 and G3M, although obviously the aircraft you listed would be the ideal set. Then theres maps - which would either be pretty darn big, or many smaller ones.

I'm making tentative steps towards learning the skills which i hope (probably far, far in the future) could contribute a little to bringing some of this China content to stock IL-2. Theres some intimidatingly great China stuff out there in the mod community....i'd love to see some of it in the stock game one day.

In the future, CAF fans have got the Hs-123 and SB to look forward to....and the Hawk 75! Bonanza!

@Pursuviant: thx for the reply

Cheers

Ted

[Mysticpuma]

Should have posted here rather than main forum:

It has long been a real irritation for me when flying IL2 to see Modded versions with superb smoke effects.

I can appreciate that this may be an issue with Contrails as these could easily overload the Graphics engine so these could be kept 2D, but in close-combat the 2D sprite of Smoke is such an immersion killer I wonder if it is possible to consider allowing 3D smoke into the simulation?

The difference would be substantial and a real welcome addition....as would tracer smoke from wings..etc, etc.

Could DT ever consider this please?

A close-up example of engine smoke can be seen from 1m 30s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrAga9BkmLQ

And here is the promo for more effects at his website....this guy does incredible work:

http://youtu.be/QNKeEK34EC0

Cheers, MP

[nearmiss]

Excellent effects, something we needed long ago.

Sometimes it's easy to fall into the trap of static thinking. The reason we didn't have those effects years ago..= FPS has always been an uphill battle.

Hardware just couldn't keep up with what we could imagine and create.

I always felt we should battlefield smoke that was like a fog that just hung over the battlefields in some situation. It has always bugged me to fly into an area we planned to bomb and everything was easter bunny clean and pristine.

No question effects like these are needed in all variants of Il2 - COD.

[nearmiss]

Artillery fire has always required a clear line of sight to fire on targets and the distance is very short (Gun to target). By that I mean if you were 200 yards from a target you must have line of sight to the target, and if a little hill is in the way you cannot shoot over the hill and hit the target.

In other words... artillery in IL2 can be described as cannons shooting like rifles. If you can't see it you can't shoot it.

Often, I used Flak guns. They were designed to shoot up, when the shells came down they exploded. So, I used them often to create the effect of artillery.

I don't know it it's possible in IL2, because someone on the development team long ago mentioned it wasn't possible. ---- Is it possible to have artillery that shoots like real world artillery from great distances. Artillery rounds should follow a defined arc path and shoot over hills, through trees and stuff to hit targets. It has always been an immersion killer to have enemy artillery within sight of the air base they were blasting.

Real world of battle, Artillery has always been way behind front lines. IL2 artillery has always had to be placed right in the thick of battle to work. Therefore, for the most part artillery was just used to create some effects of explosions and such.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I don't know it it's possible in IL2, because someone on the development team long ago mentioned it wasn't possible.

In one development update movie from before 4.10 (Triggers), you can see artillery shooting over an hill after a recon plane found some enemy targets. :-P

[SaQSoN]

Watched few videos from this effect mod. Here is my personal opinion: can not say, I like all of them. There quite a few great ones, but also a number of rather unrealistic ones as well.

I liked most the smoke effects, some ground explosions and ship bow wake. They are really great and are much of an improvement over the stock ones. But fires (either static, ground, or from aircraft), ship gun smoke and certain ground explosion effects aren't any better, then default ones. Some - even worse.

[nearmiss]

In one development update movie from before 4.10 (Triggers), you can see artillery shooting over an hill after a recon plane found some enemy targets. :-P

I didn't realize that. I always wanted to set up an artillery lines reasonable over 2 KM distance from battle areas, regardless of terrain.

Artillery doesn't have to be most precise in an air combat sim, because it is more for immersion. First person shooter games require a different artillery where locations can be pinpointed to knock out targets.

I'd just like to create battlefields where artillery is shooting at targets, enemy aircraft are trying to destroy the artillery, etc.

Nothing to do with precision, just creating the effects of battle fields even if the artillery has some randomness about hitting targets.

Il2 did this, but the distances were too short and the artillery was very darned effective at hitting targets in short distances line of site. So all the effort to setup artillery was pretty well a waste of time, the artillery targets were destroyed so quickly the immersion factor was pretty well nil.

Again... I use the heavier 88 and 85 MM flak guns within short distances to shoot at each other. It is funny you can actually drill down on an artillery to 3d and see the enemy flak gun from the gun you drill down upon. Still the flak guns shoot way up in the air and shells come down and eventually destroy the other flak guns. What a hoot, but a decent workaround to create the effects of artillery pounding the battle field. I usually line up about 20+ blue guns pointed in the direction of their counterpart, about 20+ red guns. Then set them on a time out so they start when your mission advances to the action area. It takes the flak guns several minutes to destroy each other, because the targeting is not good. You can get a very good battlefield under siege with flak guns used in this manner.

The explosions they make are pretty good and they look very good in low light conditions. I usually set the timeout so that as the player is approaching the battleground areas there are explosions going off all over the area. It looks like a battle is going on and the player is getting ready to enter a HOT zone.

If we can use artillery to work at greater distances we can accomplish these battleground views, and better still the remote artillery can be a target area as well.

[Oktoberfest]

Watched few videos from this effect mod. Here is my personal opinion: can not say, I like all of them. There quite a few great ones, but also a number of rather unrealistic ones as well.

I liked most the smoke effects, some ground explosions and ship bow wake. They are really great and are much of an improvement over the stock ones. But fires (either static, ground, or from aircraft), ship gun smoke and certain ground explosion effects aren't any better, then default ones. Some - even worse.

Just ask to integrate the best and not the worse. That would already be an improvement. Nothing is perfect in this world and the better is the enemy of the good.

[bsams]

korean war?
air sim

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

My system already get onto its knees from the stock effects. Especially the dust from starting planes. And no! I cannot live without 8x Antialiasing. :D

[ECV56_Guevara]

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.

+10000000!!

Is going to be an airborne radar in 4.11?
Thanks and keep the good work!!

[Mysticpuma]

My system already get onto its knees from the stock effects. Especially the dust from starting planes. And no! I cannot live without 8x Antialiasing. :D

Maybe an effects switch could be added though...enable or disable 3D smoke effects like those shown and gun-tracer?

Cheers, MP

[IceFire]

My system already get onto its knees from the stock effects. Especially the dust from starting planes. And no! I cannot live without 8x Antialiasing. :D

Antialiasing and clouds/smoke effects in IL-2 do tend to bring a system to it's knees. Only my very latest graphics card purchase seems to be unphased by 8x antialiasing :)

Still... a switch to turn on or off a few extra visuals might be a nice addition. Replace some flat bitmaps with particle smoke for example. Just a thought :)

[nearmiss]

Maybe an effects switch could be added though...enable or disable 3D smoke effects like those shown and gun-tracer?

Cheers, MP

On the tracers... like in the real world, gun tracers were set in the payloads. Night fighters didn't use tracer payloads, because they didn't want the enemy to know where they were.

As far as smoke effects... I always thought for the most part the smoking and fire were determined by the damage modeling.

I think it would work if we have smoke and fire as moveable objects.

Smoke and fire objects would be like vehicles with timeouts and such. That way you could arrange the fires and smoke to slowly move and heat up things in a pre-set pattern. It was just a way to make battlefield hot zones.

Also, when you left the action area where the smoke and fire moving objects had finished their little routes they wouldn't affect the FPS. I don't know, how to terminate them. It never was addressed so it didn't need a solution. LOL

This could still work, and be alot better than continous burning and smoking, which does affect FPS for many.

I do think fire and smoke that is created by bombing and strafing should clear itself after a certain amount of time. That might even be controlled by the type of weapon payloads used.

[Azimech]

For me a good future development woud be Attack on the West 1940



If you mean the building of a 1940's map of Holland, I think that would be terrible. Already in those days Holland was very dense in the amount of cities, towns and villages, rivers and roads. And to do it even semi-accurately would cost years. And I live here, IMHO the ugliest country on the planet. Compare it with Slovakia, probably the best map in the game, Holland is almost totally flat, almost half of it beneath sea level (can the IL2 engine do that? don't think so) with a huge number of dykes and would have ten times the amount of communities, even if the Slovakian map is only a small part of the country. Essentially, it would be like flying over the northern part of Crimea but with a larger framerate drop because there are tens of thousands of houses everywhere you look.

[Ernst]

TD is plannig a review of in game balistics? Some aircraft, even for larger weapons, had less dispersion and gravity effect over the bullet trajectories. Anyone can comment about this?

[Korn]

I thought ballistics are based on the weapon used, not the plane.

TD is 6DoF our of limits? This is one of the best features of mods imo...

[Asheshouse]

If you mean the building of a 1940's map of Holland, I think that would be terrible. Already in those days Holland was very dense in the amount of cities, towns and villages, rivers and roads. And to do it even semi-accurately would cost years. And I live here, IMHO the ugliest country on the planet. Compare it with Slovakia, probably the best map in the game, Holland is almost totally flat, almost half of it beneath sea level (can the IL2 engine do that? don't think so) with a huge number of dykes and would have ten times the amount of communities, even if the Slovakian map is only a small part of the country. Essentially, it would be like flying over the northern part of Crimea but with a larger framerate drop because there are tens of thousands of houses everywhere you look.

Having lots of small settlements dotted about is not a problem in FPS terms. What matters is the number of objects appearing in your screen viewport at any one instant. Also adding the auto-generated trees to the settlements has minimal impact. What causes the problem is creating large cities, like Rotterdam, but these problems can be reduced by making new models where each city block is a single model instead of made up from lots of separate houses.

Holland may be pretty flat, though it does have a few gentle hills, around Arnhem for example, but the map can be made more interesting than the stock Crimea map by careful use of ground textures showing field patterns etc. Most of the earlier stock maps are pretty boring in ground texture terms and it has been shown that their appearance can be greatly enhanced by changing the textures and adding bump mapping.

Ashe

[Wildnoob]

The speed of the Ki-84 will be lowered to the Japanese best of 624km/h?

The George and the Jack also need corrections.

[Zorin]

Can you give an estimate on when the new revised damage model for the ships and other naval crafts will be introduced?

[Ernst]

I thought ballistics are based on the weapon used, not the plane.

TD is 6DoF our of limits? This is one of the best features of mods imo...

TD says that not change balistics, damage or fms for the aircraft but i known they changed. The poor P-40 in 4.09 in 4.10.1 is a superb machine with that new .50s. They are better than cannons, cripple engine with a single burst and frequently. Easy to hit, easy to damage. :evil: Second Tony Willians machine guns are inferior than cannons but known they decide to turn them more deadly because some whinners. Can i have this AP bullet properly modeled in my aircraft too? The cannons are almost imposible to hit at high speeds except the spitfire cannons (where you aim they hit) and this .50 (ok they are fast and easy to hit but this new armor piercing is ridiculous, too good)

Before the F-4 was much superior than P-40 like in reality, now the P-40 is kicking F-4 ass. The P-40 was not a aircraft i feared before now yes. I am curious to see 4.10.1 compare, but we do not have it until now.

[nearmiss]

I've always been amazed at how so many people like those P40s. I remember doing a campaign years ago in New Guinea flying P40s.

Those darn things climbed like a rock, but that had the most incredible roll rate.

I read somewhere they put Merlins in P40s, which were the same as the ones in the P51-D. That might be a good combination, since the P40s were just lumbering louts. IMO

[Ernst]

I've always been amazed at how so many people like those P40s. I remember doing a campaign years ago in New Guinea flying P40s.

Those darn things climbed like a rock, but that had the most incredible roll rate.

I read somewhere they put Merlins in P40s, which were the same as the ones in the P51-D. That might be a good combination, since the P40s were just lumbering louts. IMO

You are saying about the old P-40? Old P-40 are poor. This new ones are too good. My opinion... No problem, i ll just have to fight the P-40 as i fight thes spits. I usualy subestimate the P-40 but now they are not as they are before, i ll take more care next time. Before i usualy did a rope a dope easily in the P-40 now its not a good manouver against him.
Next pacth problaby the hurricane ll behave the same way. It always this way... I ll be prepared.

[ElAurens]

:rolleyes:

The P40 has never been able to compete against a well flown BF 109 F in this sim.

NEVER.

It still cannot. It is slow in the climb and does not have the power for sustained low speed turning, even though it is a good turner, for a short while anyway. It does have a good rate of roll, which is historically correct, and it is good in the dive, which again is historically accurate.

It has a stout airframe, which again the real aircraft had.

It has a glass jaw engine which is not in line with the historical record.

Sorry if you don't like the AP loadout for the M2 Browning, but hey, that's what the USAAF typically loaded, so again historically accurate. If you think that six of them hitting in convergance won't hurt then you have no clue sir.

And if you doubt the effectiveness of the P40 than I suggest you do some research into the 325th. Fighter Squadron, USAAF, "The Checkertail Clan".

Nearmiss, the Merlin engined P40s were really little better than the Allison engined ones, as they did not have the two stage supercharger like the Spitfire and later, the P51 had.

[Ernst]

Ok. I am complaining about the P-40 being loaded with .50 AP but effectiviness of the .50 itself.

Discuss with the specialist, not with me:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bye.

[ElAurens]

Ok. I am complaining about the P-40 being loaded with .50 AP but effectiviness of the .50 itself.

Discuss with the specialist, not with me:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Bye.


It may appear that this low score of the .50 M2 is in disagreement with the satisfactory experience the USAAF had with this weapon. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effective against fighters and (not too sturdy) bombers, if installed in sufficient numbers. Six or eight guns were specified as standard armament, resulting in a destructive power total of 360 or 480, at the cost of a rather high installed weight. Most American fighters were sufficiently powerful to have a high performance despite this weight penalty. Incidentally, the mediocre efficiency score of the .50 M2 is not only an effect of the low chemical content of its projectiles. Even if only the kinetic energy were considered, the efficiency of this gun would remain inferior to that of the UBS, B-20, ShVAK or Hispano, although better than that of the MK 108 or MG-FFM. To sum up, the preferred US armament fit was effective for its purpose, but not very efficient by comparison with cannon.


Apparently you did not read this paragraph for comprehension, though I suspect that English is not your native language, so I do understand that we may have a language barrier as well, so I will repeat the important part:

"The answer to this apparent contadiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effectivie against fighters..."

[Sven]

It has a glass jaw engine which is not in line with the historical record.


A lot of inline-engined planes suffer from this, then again although the P40 triggers the grey smoke in the same fast way as the 109 for example, it still runs much longer from my experience online, but that is just an observation.

[Ernst]

Apparently you did not read this paragraph for comprehension, though I suspect that English is not your native language, so I do understand that we may have a language barrier as well, so I will repeat the important part:

"The answer to this apparent contadiction is that the .50 M2 proved very effectivie against fighters..."


I read but in IL2 actually the .50 are more effective than 20mm and this is not the case. Few hits of .50 are doing much damage. I personally hit two 30 mm shells in a spitfire and she continued to fly normally.

A snapshot of cannons do not disable a plane or rip wings easily now. Another day i take a snapshot of .50 and ripped my wings. Next mission, a snapshot from more than 400m and my engine out.

So the .50 was effective but should be less effective than cannos and actually they are more effective than 20mm since they are disabling engines and taking controls too easy. I think it is necessary a good tracking shot at point blank range to .50 be really effective, acctualy single snapshot are too efective frequently.

The conclusion is: .50 are less efective than cannos, period.

p.s.: easy to use "ad hominen" argument when you are lacking of it.

[Ernst]

Well i see one of the tracks where i was fighting the p-40 and changed my idea of their performance but not about the .50 effectiveness.

I was in a g6, with two gondolas and forget to drop the droptanks. Hehe... Ok maybe i missed the p-40 performance and continues to be crap, as it should be (Why? BFs fucked the Tommys in north africa) like before. :cool:

But my comments about .50 i maintain. They are too much effective now since frequently i see disabling engines and controls with snapshots. I guess the p-40 hit 2 bullets in ac in this track (engine down).

[Pursuivant]

If you mean the building of a 1940's map of Holland, I think that would be terrible.

One of the more prolific map-modders did a test map of the Netherlands and came to the conclusion you did.

The best you could do to build a frame-rate friendly map of the Netherlands is to create a "Netherlands-like" map, with slightly higher elevation than in real-life and drastically lower population density.

[Pursuivant]

korean war?

Off-limits per DT's agreement with 1C.

[bugmenot]

Is there a way to make the AI a bit more realistic?

I mean, I must confess I'm getting tired of those stupid unrealistic maneuvers, they never have any G-Locks, they continue to fly with un-flyable aircrafts, etc, etc...

The best is still : OK, I take plane "A", against AI plane "B" : whoa, the plane "B" is much better! Let's switch! Now I take the "B" one and give the AI the "A" one. Whao, the plane "A" is much.. wut wat? wtf?

Especially since I've reinstalled RoF, having such a crappy AI becomes even more visible and annoying.

I'm happy we got finally rid of the snipers gunners, I hope we won't have to wait another decade before having a decent AI.

Thanks.

[nearmiss]

As I recall there were mods released some time back that were improvements to AI performance.

I don't think they were applied to TD updates. I believe they were included with several of the consolidated mod packages.

[IceFire]

TD says that not change balistics, damage or fms for the aircraft but i known they changed. The poor P-40 in 4.09 in 4.10.1 is a superb machine with that new .50s. They are better than cannons, cripple engine with a single burst and frequently. Easy to hit, easy to damage. :evil: Second Tony Willians machine guns are inferior than cannons but known they decide to turn them more deadly because some whinners. Can i have this AP bullet properly modeled in my aircraft too? The cannons are almost imposible to hit at high speeds except the spitfire cannons (where you aim they hit) and this .50 (ok they are fast and easy to hit but this new armor piercing is ridiculous, too good)

Before the F-4 was much superior than P-40 like in reality, now the P-40 is kicking F-4 ass. The P-40 was not a aircraft i feared before now yes. I am curious to see 4.10.1 compare, but we do not have it until now.

Note: You're experiencing placebo effect. When someone told me that they thought that some guns were now more effective than they had been in the past I checked with the guys who work on armament on Team Daidalos. No changes to the any weapon values (outside of the Italian machine guns) at all to the best of their knowledge - they would know.

The .50cals were always effective at dealing with the early Bf109 models... disabling controls and damaging engines were their specialty since whenever the point harmonization was introduced (was that AEP days?). In online scenarios with the P-40 up against the Bf109F-4 I always felt like I had a solid chance on either side of the battle... the 109 was better but it was wise not to get cocky. I suspect you came up against someone who:

1) Knew what they were doing
2) Had fine tuned their convergence settings
3) Could aim

Makes all the difference.

[Zorin]

When you know what you are doing you can even defeat Ki-84s in a P-40M.

[ElAurens]

Indeed.

I bagged a 109 K4 with a P40M a couple years back. He gave up every advantage he had to try and be sporty with me on the deck. I refused to play the scissors game with him. Whenever he dumped flaps and pulled hard enough to pop the slats I gently pulled up and used my roll rate to come down on him and peck away at his wings. After about the third or fourth cycle of this he simply could no longer maintain control because of the damage to his wings and he spun in because he was too low to recover.

It was really nerve wracking to do and I was sweating bullets afterward, but it was so satisfying to beat the uber plane with a Hawk.

[JG52Karaya]

You gotta love people who rush to a conclusion over something that they have no clue of. There were no changes to existing aircraft weapons in the 4.10/4.10.1 patches, only fixes to aircraft that were using the wrong weapons (Yak-9UT, MS406/410, ...) - everything is just your imagination!

As to the P-40s, they are all too slow at sealevel, too heavy (by about an average of 250kg) but on the other hand climb way too fast at altitude (RoC actually rising from sea level to FTH which is BS).

And as to the .50CAL it still has an HE round in its belting when there were none of these or at least not in wide spread use - should be replaced with an API round! But then again also the MGFF/M and MG151/20 have incorrectly modelled mine shells (around 11g explosive when it should be 18,7g), same but to an even greater extent for the Mk108/103 (45g vs 72g). Hispano rounds have the least lifetime of all cannon shells (2s which results in their very poor range), MG15 and MG81 missing any kind of round beyond pure AP (no incendiaries), etc...

[Ernst]

Well, last 4 times i got shoted by .50 cals happened the things:

1. Hit in a zoon climb by one or two bullets at a range of .6 km shot from a p-40 sitting like a duck. Instead i was climbing i was at 300 km/h. The p-40 stalling. Result: Engine down and it was not a long burst (one or two hits)

2. Hit in a power dive at a range of .5 or more and gaining separation fast. Single burst. Result: Wings off (was not due speed, my speed was around 600 km/h)

3. Hit in good turn rate turning (at 380 km/h) by a P-51 zooming from high altitude. Was not a tracking shot just a snapshot. Result: elevator destroyed. Second pass another snapshot, ailerons e cannon jamed.

4.Hit in a turning power dive, snapshot again. Lethal loss of control.

All the four time killed by a single snapshot. Sorry but the .50 are more effective than cannon. Not a mere coincidence.

p.s.: more than one time i hit ac with 2 108 and she continued to fly. Yesterday i hit a spitfire with 4 20mm. He escaped in a loop and landed in a no active airfield. After 4 20mm the spit makes a loop and land easily?????????? One single .50 snapshot and lethal lost of controls???? Every snapshot a control or weapond damaged? In the other way lets be rightouss, i was hit yesterday by a spitifire with several hits (do not known if hispanos or brownings .303; but at least one or two were hispanos bullet), i continued to fly with some difficult manouvering to frustrate the efforts of my enemy until i was saved by another fighter. conclusion: by my personall experience last weeks this .50 making more damage than the cannos in game.

Maybe i am very unluck.

Are you kidding? .50 then is the perfect weapon, easy to hit and superior damage for each bullet put in the target. No compromises.

I am not sure it is a placebo effect.

[JtD]

I recommend you fly planes armed with .50ies once in a while. That helps to cure wrong perceptions.

[Ernst]

You gotta love people who rush to a conclusion over something that they have no clue of. There were no changes to existing aircraft weapons in the 4.10/4.10.1 patches, only fixes to aircraft that were using the wrong weapons (Yak-9UT, MS406/410, ...) - everything is just your imagination!

As to the P-40s, they are all too slow at sealevel, too heavy (by about an average of 250kg) but on the other hand climb way too fast at altitude (RoC actually rising from sea level to FTH which is BS).

And as to the .50CAL it still has an HE round in its belting when there were none of these or at least not in wide spread use - should be replaced with an API round! But then again also the MGFF/M and MG151/20 have incorrectly modelled mine shells (around 11g explosive when it should be 18,7g), same but to an even greater extent for the Mk108/103 (45g vs 72g). Hispano rounds have the least lifetime of all cannon shells (2s which results in their very poor range), MG15 and MG81 missing any kind of round beyond pure AP (no incendiaries), etc...

But if you consider the hispano is faster (more muzzle velocity) than they are in reality the distance the bullet travels is longer in a interval of time. In my opinion the the hispano has not poor range. They have the range normal for a cannon and are less affected by gravity in its trajectory due to the higher speed. However you see in that link i posted before that the hispano MK V had 830 m/s for muzzle velocity and german 20mm 800 m/s for mineshells (standart ammunition for cannons). Not much difference however the trajectories of german 20 mm and hispanos are very different. The german suffers much more the gravity effect.

860 m/s was for the hispano MK II, that crap cannon that jammed a lot.

[Ernst]

I recommend you fly planes armed with .50ies once in a while. That helps to cure wrong perceptions.

I flied and ripped a 109 wing in a 2 seconds burst. Maybe i was lucky this time.:cool:

[Ernst]

Do not believe? I do not need to say nothing anymore. I present the new .50 some say they are still the same. Just my imagination. Ok they this are good tracking shots, for sure this should shot down a ac nut the point is this the .50 are not the same. And a snapshot can not disable a ac every time. Old .50 were crap but now they are way too good.

You see: the .50 are too effective againt bombers (and that was b-52). You can not do better with cannons against that b-52. This is not the real thing. Cannons are better this situation.

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

The video title is sarcastic.

[Zorin]

4-6sec bursts with correct convergence settings, targets on static course, what the hell are you on about? The outcome would be the same with any weapon set and it is how it is supposed to be by being historically correct.

There is nothing wrong with the .50s, they have been like this before. I could show you several P-51 videos dating back 1 or 2 years with the exact same outcome.

[Ernst]

4-6sec bursts with correct convergence settings, targets on static course, what the hell are you on about? The outcome would be the same with any weapon set and it is how it is supposed to be by being historically correct.

There is nothing wrong with the .50s, they have been like this before. I could show you several P-51 videos dating back 1 or 2 years with the exact same outcome.

That 109 wings off received a 4-6 second burst? Ok. But how about the situation the .50 are taking out controls and engines in snapshots too easily.

[IceFire]

No I don't believe for two reasons:

1) Nothing you've presented has anything verifiable about it. If we're going on feeling alone... what you've done there is the same as what I could do for the last several patches.

2) The values haven't changed. They are still the same as they have been for a long long time.

Until you present something that shows that in 4.09 you can't do something and in 4.10.1 you can... there isn't much of an argument worth having.

[IceFire]

I may have posted this before but could someone on the team have a close look at the MG-FF and VYa 23mm (hub mounted only it appears).

Both of these cannons can sometimes cause player aircraft in mutliplayer to go careening out of control. Typically it's a 60 or 90 degree uncontrolled roll away from the blast. It tends to be made worse when hit on the extremities (such as the outer wings). It's a unique situation that is not seen in other weapons. I'm happy to provide tracks of the situation if need be...

Try a A6M5 versus a A-20 and watch what happens when hit. Doesn't seem to work on AI aircraft.

[Ernst]

I may have posted this before but could someone on the team have a close look at the MG-FF and VYa 23mm (hub mounted only it appears).

Both of these cannons can sometimes cause player aircraft in mutliplayer to go careening out of control. Typically it's a 60 or 90 degree uncontrolled roll away from the blast. It tends to be made worse when hit on the extremities (such as the outer wings). It's a unique situation that is not seen in other weapons. I'm happy to provide tracks of the situation if need be...

Try a A6M5 versus a A-20 and watch what happens when hit. Doesn't seem to work on AI aircraft.

This happens with hispano too, mainly when they hit the 190 near the wingtips. Well i end my discussion about this here. I give all my arguments and if i continue they ll become boring and the repetitive. Complaining too much ll not change to much since the programmers are the owners of the truth.

S!

[catch22]

Hi everyone,

IMHO, the following improvements would be fine in future upgrades.

Night fighting:

The best soft&screen combination will never get close to RL night vision (RL move detection by human eye in the dark). As a compensation, exhaust flames would benefit in-game night fighting (and be historically accurate, as early night fighters used to detect ennemy A/Cs by this mean - among others).

Radar antennas (and exhaust flame suppressors) on night fighters would be great. Either as separate A/Cs or option (in the weapon list?).

Svastika:

I don't know if this respects the national legislations forbidding the public display of the svastika, but an option enabling the svastika to show on German & Finnish A/Cs when markings are selected would content the players interested in historical accuracy, and respect the convictions and sensibility of other players.

---

A/Cs:

Of course, I'd like more. AFAIC, the game misses seaplanes, British bombers, Italian, French or late war German A/Cs. I guess there as as many A/C wishlists as players...Keep it that way, Team Daidalos, you're doing fine!

[JG52Karaya]

860 m/s was for the hispano MK II, that crap cannon that jammed a lot.

And that equipped all British cannon armed fighter throughout the war with the exception of the Tempest and very late model Sea/Spitfires...

The jamming problems occured mostly in cold air at high altitudes with the very first versions of the Spitfire (Ib, IIb) and were later solved by sending exhaust gases through the wings to heat up the cannons.

[csThor]

Svastika:

I don't know if this respects the national legislations forbidding the public display of the svastika, but an option enabling the svastika to show on German & Finnish A/Cs when markings are selected would content the players interested in historical accuracy, and respect the convictions and sensibility of other players.

I can already say that this won't happen. Due to the russian law situation it could create all kinds of unpleasant problems for 1C so we were asked not to fiddle with the swastika situation.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

And I repeadly strongly suggest to use such brilliant extern tools like MAT manager to handle such issues. ;-)

[Pursuivant]

Are you kidding? .50 then is the perfect weapon, easy to hit and superior damage for each bullet put in the target. No compromises.

Were you flying against player-controlled or AI planes? Ace level AI has unrealistically tight bullet dispersion along with extremely good accuracy, which allows lethal shots like you described.

[IceFire]

And that equipped all British cannon armed fighter throughout the war with the exception of the Tempest and very late model Sea/Spitfires...

The jamming problems occured mostly in cold air at high altitudes with the very first versions of the Spitfire (Ib, IIb) and were later solved by sending exhaust gases through the wings to heat up the cannons.

True! By the Mark V version of the Hispano the autojammers were removed because the cannons were extremely reliable by that point as well. Obviously confidence improved as the cannons were refined.

[catch22]

And I repeadly strongly suggest to use such brilliant extern tools like MAT manager to handle such issues. ;-)

Not really an issue. And, as you write, MAT Manager (or Photoshop) does the job.

Any feedback as for night fighting?

[catch22]

I can already say that this won't happen. Due to the russian law situation it could create all kinds of unpleasant problems for 1C so we were asked not to fiddle with the swastika situation.

Not surprised. I give up the idea with no regrets then. This is cosmetics anyway.

Any comment on my 1st suggestion (regarding night fighting) welcomed.

[bf-110]

No Korean War,but,Spanish Civil War?
Hope it's not a can of worms...

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Any feedback as for night fighting?

That topic will be more adressed in future. But its still lotta work to do to have it the proper way. So no details yet.

No special plans towards Spanish Civil War, although I agree, with relative low efforts, there could be a working scenario, primarly it needs a proper map.

[ocococ]

I don't understand why people still bitch about the lack of swastika.

It is a symbol related to politics. What do politics add to a flight simulator? Let me answer that, just one thing: More problems...

[Pursuivant]

No special plans towards Spanish Civil War, although I agree, with relative low efforts, there could be a working scenario, primarly it needs a proper map.

There are a large number of modded maps for Spain which look good, if the modders agree, perhaps they could become official.

[Pursuivant]

More ideas:

1) Make the red and blue target locator/tracking arrows separate from the no cockpit view. Allow them to be turned on or off either as a keyboard command or as a difficulty option. That way, the tracking arrows could be turned on when the cockpit view is on or turned off when the no cockpit view is on. This feature is available in CloD and might be an unused feature of IL2.

2) Allow the game to be paused while the map view is active.

3) Allow ships and stationary ground objects (i.e., buildings) to appear on the mini-map. Also have a switch so that ships and stationary objects don't appear on the mini-map, while planes still do (to simulate radar which can't pick up low-lying objects).

4) Provide a difficulty option which allow objects on the mini-map to remain hidden or unidentified until identified by a friendly unit (ship, vehicle, plane, etc.) equipped with a radio. This would represent the need to visually identify "bogies" picked up by ground-based radar.

[Pursuivant]

I don't understand why people still bitch about the lack of swastika.

I don't get it either. I hope it's just a desire for realism, not an actual desire to glorify fascism. Anyhow, if you want the hakenkreuz or realistic Finnish markings, just use one of the however many skins there are out there, Mat manager, or one of the various mods which allows politically incorrect markings to be displayed.

This option gets requested a lot, mostly by people who don't realize that the swastika is outlawed in some countries and is considered to be in extremely bad taste in many more. If DT had a FAQ, it should be right up there with other things that cannot be included in the game.

[Florinm352]

It is about history. Like it or not all German planes had a hakenkreuz painted on their tail. How about flying without any national markings on russian planes, because comunism was evil?

[Asheshouse]

At the risk of breaking a site rule, even the British Fleet Air Arm was known to use the swastika. This is a Blackburn Dart landing on HMS Furious in 1926. The use of the swastika by Finnish Air Forces pre-dated the rise of the nazi's in Germany. However laws are laws and some national sensitivities are understandably greater than others.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/Untitled-1-9.jpg

Don't click on the link if you might be offended.

[ocococ]

It is about history. Like it or not all German planes had a hakenkreuz painted on their tail. How about flying without any national markings on russian planes, because comunism was evil?

No it is not about history it is about politics. The luftwaffe symbol is there, so you instantly know that this plane belongs to Germany. That is enough for a flight simulator.

And the fact that you already gοt into politics discussion (the communism comment) confirms that I am right.

[nearmiss]

http://www.fredscorner.nl/hello_kitty/images/hello-kitty-fredscorner.jpgThe swastika is outlawed in several countries. Companies selling products must respect those laws or have problems. Who cares enough about a stupid swastika to create problems.

Basically, some people stupidly fixate on something like the swastika that means nothing. They just want to create issues for complaints.

Why not put a picture of "Hello Kitty" on the tail of your Axis aircraft. It would mean just about as much, and maybe even get a smile from the dude that blasts your butt out of the sky.

[catch22]

GENTLEMEN, LET'S FORGET ABOUT SVASTIKAS!

I'm sorry my first post generated such a squabble. I didn't mean to, and I thought my 2 previous posts made my point clear: I consider this a side issue of the game, and as it would be outlaw, the question is over (and thus any debate in this place is of questionable interest, IMHO).

I created this situation against my will. So I'll try to put an end to the argument and bring everybody round:

A famous pioneer airman said: "The first guy who painted a roundel on an airplane is a criminal".

I ain't sure, but it may be famous Brazilian pilot Alberto Santos-Dumont, who was horrified by the use of (unarmed) airplanes for military purpose when WWI started, and even more by the use of armed airplanes when they appeared. As some of you may know, he ended committing suicide, depressed by incurable disease (sclerosis) and supposedly also by the use of aircraft in warfare.

---

I'd be pleased to see my 2nd initial topic debated with even more enthousiam (see next post).

[catch22]

The AI nav lights issue correction paved the way to better night flight experience.

I think making exhaust flames visible could be the next (easy?) step which would notably improve night fighting.

I don’t fly at night in IL2. Not because I ain’t interested, but because I don’t see I damn thing - not to say downward. Any feedback on this?

On the other hand, AIs seem to be owl-eyed. Before thinking of blinding them, the next step IMO may be to give the player a chance (to spot exhaust pipes - as RL early night fighters).

Your opinion? Any other idea to improve night flying, fighting or bombing?

[ImpalerNL]

Coloured flares for ground target marking
Ammo crates and fuel tanks wich can explode
Bigger smoke plumes that follow the wind direction
Turn/slip indicator mounted on the P-47 gunsights
Bigger tracers for the 50.call mgs
Option to select tracer rounds or normal rounds
Larger normandy map
West Berlin map
Multi crew
Flyable Lancaster

[catch22]

Flyable Lancaster

...Wellington, Defiant, He-219, Ju-88C/G
Non-flyable Hampden, Stirling
Radar antennas for Bf-110, Fw-190, Ju-88, Ar-234 (+ Coastal Command Wellington and Liberator)
Exhaust flame suppressors...

[catch22]

More seriously, is there any chance that DT continues to forge ahead with Ju-88 versions?

The torpedo bomber is a brilliant addition. The fighter-bomber (JU-88C) would be a fine continuation.

The Ju-88C was notably used over the Bay of Biscay, flying anti-shipping patrols, fighting British and American antisubmarine aircrafts, escorting Fw-200 or providing boats (and mainly U-boats) with air cover.

It was also used as a night fighter, and the Ju-88G as well.

The G-series is quite different (new fuselage, vertical stabilizer of the Ju-188...), but the C-series is based on the A-series, the main visible differences being the solid metal nose and the suppression of the ventral gondola.

[Pursuivant]

...Wellington, Defiant, He-219, Ju-88C/G
Non-flyable Hampden, Stirling
Radar antennas for Bf-110, Fw-190, Ju-88, Ar-234 (+ Coastal Command Wellington and Liberator)
Exhaust flame suppressors...

Wellington and Defiant are presumably off-limits because they appear in ClOD.

Radar antennas/night fighter versions exist as mods for many aircraft (Mosquito, Bf-110, Ju-88, Ar-234) and look pretty good.

Exhaust flame suppressors presupposes exhaust flames. Again, there are some very nice effects mods that accurately simulate exhaust flames, at least for some of the single-engined fighters.

[catch22]

Wellington and Defiant are presumably off-limits because they appear in ClOD.

I know... I'm afraid CoD might kill any further development of aircrafts on Western front for IL2, especially early war's. Let's hope MTO doesn't know the same fate.

AFAIC, I'd love to fly CoD, but I'll wait a debugged and enriched "v.7" version (the like of 1946). Not to mention I'm not willing to buy a new laptop right now. USD 800 or so +50 is a bit too much a price just for a game, as great as it may be.

[catch22]

Radar antennas/night fighter versions exist as mods for many aircraft (Mosquito, Bf-110, Ju-88, Ar-234) and look pretty good.

Yep. I gave them a try. There's OK. But...

I stopped using mods. I prefer to devote the little time I can to play, not to instal and fix. I waited the official fix for AI nav lights to enjoy it, although I had had a taste of it when trying mods.

So radar antennas as part of the next official update would be nice.

[Asheshouse]

Wellington and Defiant are presumably off-limits because they appear in ClOD.

I'm not aware that anyone "official" has ever said that. However I'm also not aware that anyone is actually modelling these at the moment so the question is a bit academic.

I'd also like to see a Hampden bomber, but preferably flyable.

[harryRIEDL]

I'm not aware that anyone "official" has ever said that. However I'm also not aware that anyone is actually modelling these at the moment so the question is a bit academic.

I'd also like to see a Hampden bomber, but preferably flyable.

British bombers are hole which needs to be covered as all the other major forces German, Russian (in the latest patch and the PE-2) American the lack of a British medium bomber(a Heavy would be better)

[Fafnir_6]

Hello everyone,

I have one small request for a future DT patch regarding the Ju87D-3, Ju87D-5 and Ju87G-1. Later in the war, many of these aircraft were operated from rough fields with the wheel spats removed. Would it be possible to make wheel spats optional for mission dates of 1943 onwards? Perhaps this could be selected/randomized using skin checksums (like the gunsights in the D.XXI)?

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[ElAurens]

Actually I'd like to see all those "random" options that are tied to certain skins, mostly only offline, made options in the setup screen and have them able to be used online.

I want my wheel spats on the I-15bis. They just look so cool.

[harryRIEDL]

Actually I'd like to see all those "random" options that are tied to certain skins, mostly only offline, made options in the setup screen and have them able to be used online.

I want my wheel spats on the I-15bis. They just look so cool.

yeah I like that as well I much prefer the Revi on D-XX1

[catch22]

British bombers are hole which needs to be covered as all the other major forces German, Russian (in the latest patch and the PE-2) American the lack of a British medium bomber(a Heavy would be better)

I agree. None of the Fab 6 is a bit rough (medium bomber: Wellington, Hampden, Whitley; heavy bomber: Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling). 1 heavy would be nice (logicaly the Lanc); 1 medium (logically the Wimpy) and 1 heavy very nice.

I believe the Lancaster, Halifax and Wellington already exist as mods...

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

Can I start off by saying that I'm very impressed with the MDS features included in 4.10 and beyond. Looking on to 4.11, could I make a request of TD:

When a static carrier is sunk, the homebase attached to it is not disabled but rather facilitates airspawning. This is very unrealistic as it suddenly gives the advantage to those who can airstart. Would it be possible to eliminate the spawn options from the carrier HB as soon as that carrier is sunk?

Please let me know if this is already doable and I'm missing something. Thanks in advance,

[harryRIEDL]

I agree. None of the Fab 6 is a bit rough (medium bomber: Wellington, Hampden, Whitley; heavy bomber: Lancaster, Halifax, Stirling). 1 heavy would be nice (logicaly the Lanc); 1 medium (logically the Wimpy) and 1 heavy very nice.

I believe the Lancaster, Halifax and Wellington already exist as mods...

The most straightforward would be the Blenheim but due to COD that would be a no go. (the mod pit seems rather good but no evidence of gunner or bombardier position) Unless Im wrong there and the Blenheim could be added as a flyable, Also another good addition would be a clear nose mossies with a Norden you have good pathfinder missions. But would love a lanc, Wellington ect

[catch22]

The most straightforward would be the Blenheim but due to COD that would be a no go. (the mod pit seems rather good but no evidence of gunner or bombardier position) Unless Im wrong there and the Blenheim could be added as a flyable, Also another good addition would be a clear nose mossies with a Norden you have good pathfinder missions. But would love a lanc, Wellington ect

AFA British planes are concerned, I would love even oddities like the Bombay or the Seafox... Being realistic*, I think you're right: a flyable version of the Blenheim (and the Swordfish) and glass-nosed versions of the Mosquito would already be great.

*The unsoluble plane controversy

Being new to this forum, I may be wrong, but I understand so far that:

1) Some planes cannot be expected for legal reasons. Simple.

2) There are as many wishlists as players. I guess they may be aggregated to a certain extend: Polish players would like to see more Polish planes, Italian players more Italian planes, Japanese players more Japanese planes etc. Marketing suggests that the majority has the priority: if the Spit Mk.XIV is the most popular request, it’s legitimate to consider it first.

3) Another marketing aspect, IL-2 is almost dead as a commercial product, as opposed to CoD. I think we already can consider ourself lucky to have a wonderful DT to keep upgrading the official game. But it cannot be infinite. I perfectly understand that priority should be given to new versions of planes already being in the game.

4) New early-war British planes are unlikely to appear (I don’t write “no chance” because the Swordfish unexpectedly shew up) because of the agreement between DT and 1C not to develop elements relating to the BoB. This is worth commenting a bit:

Of course I’d like to see better DM, objects definition etc. in IL-2. We know the price: more CPU ressources. I don’t expect it, and I don’t ask it: IL-2 is a generation, CoD is the next one. The gap is obvious and CoD sells itself just on this - to me at least. But, for this very reason, I doubt BoB elements in IL-2 are that a threat to CoD sales. Of course, CoD focuses on this ground. Given the broadness of 1946, there are enough other fields to explore first and/or deeper. But deciding that a Channel map or a He-115 in IL-2 is a threat to CoD is IMO excessive, as the conclusion of a wrong market analysis.

I also read the Russian front and Pacific theater are exclusive axes of further developments. This would be a step back. The game started on Russian and German planes (Russian front), evolved with American and Japanese ones (Pacific), OK. But were added British, Polish, Italian planes, opening opportunies (Mediterranean theater, campaign of Poland, Western front…) - and gaining new players, like me. Strengthening all aspects of the game and extending them (night fighting, maritime operations - more seaplanes?) is legitimate in respect of the variety of players, IMHO.

---

Don’t take this too seriously. I’m just paving the way to my own wishlist… ;)

[nearmiss]

Always someone wants more aircraft.

I remember it from MSFT CFS1,CFS2,CFS3,IL2 1.0 up todate.

It doesn't matter we have a huge number of aircraft in IL2 and it's never going to finish.

I spent over 3 years with IL2 building missions and flying the year 1941-1942 on the Kuban map right after Barbarossa. I had all I could do with the aircraft that were available and the one map. The terrain was mixed and the aircraft were fast enough and hard hitting enough to enjoy.

The IL2 is a huge application with enormous object library.

Naw... I really should keep shut, because I know it's just the nature of the beast. Everyone wants some new aircraft, object or map thing we don't have. LOL

I want to see viable improvements within the core programming, the fmb and the things that really make the sim experience more exciting like the recent release of navigation.

[catch22]

I want to see viable improvements within the core programming, the fmb and the things that really make the sim experience more exciting like the recent release of navigation.

Agree. 6DOF, better AI etc. before any new crate.

[Fafnir_6]

Hello everyone,

I have one small request for a future DT patch regarding the Ju87D-3, Ju87D-5 and Ju87G-1. Later in the war, many of these aircraft were operated from rough fields with the wheel spats removed. Would it be possible to make wheel spats optional for mission dates of 1943 onwards? Perhaps this could be selected/randomized using skin checksums (like the gunsights in the D.XXI)?

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

I have been doing a little more research and apparently the Fiat CR.42 could benefit from this as well.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Romanator21]

The Ki-27 also had a couple wheel-spat configurations.

[IceFire]

Always someone wants more aircraft.

I remember it from MSFT CFS1,CFS2,CFS3,IL2 1.0 up todate.

It doesn't matter we have a huge number of aircraft in IL2 and it's never going to finish.

I spent over 3 years with IL2 building missions and flying the year 1941-1942 on the Kuban map right after Barbarossa. I had all I could do with the aircraft that were available and the one map. The terrain was mixed and the aircraft were fast enough and hard hitting enough to enjoy.

The IL2 is a huge application with enormous object library.

Naw... I really should keep shut, because I know it's just the nature of the beast. Everyone wants some new aircraft, object or map thing we don't have. LOL

I want to see viable improvements within the core programming, the fmb and the things that really make the sim experience more exciting like the recent release of navigation.
Of course we do. And thinking deeply about it why not? Variety is the spice of life and having so many types of aircraft available to us means that the variety is extremely good here. We can realistically and accurately simulate so many areas of the war now. There are still some holes and missing types that I'd love to see filled in... realistically not every gap will be filled in (that'd be just too much) but I do love getting new aircraft to fly. It makes my experiences enjoyable and opens up new options for mission building for both online and offline.

[ImpalerNL]

Adding more of the same doesnt equal better gameplay in my oppinion.
Its fun for missionbuilders yes, but why do we need more airplanes if most arent even used by the majority.

I gave up flying iL2 because ive mastered my favored aircaft, and i dont want to invest time in mastering another 1000 other aircraft.

Unless there will be really new stuff like multicrew, and new maps, i think most people will move on to something else.

[ElAurens]

In your opinion of course.

Personally new aircraft have been one of the hooks that have kept myself and most of the guys I fly with in the sim for 9 or 10 years.

New aircraft have the opportunity of opening new areas of operation, or making some of the ones we have actually useable.

For instance just a couple more Imperial Japanese aircraft could finally make the CBI/Asia/Pacific theater a really doable thing. The new soon to be flyable Hawk 75 opens the door to operations in the Netherlands East Indies, even without a proper map of Java or Borneo. Not to mention more varied choices for the Winter and Continuation Wars, and the Battle of France.

Even with all the planes we have there are several gaping holes in the plane set that if filled could insure a few more years of viability for the orignal IL2 franchise.

Not all of us care about late war operations over Europe you know.

[ImpalerNL]

I only fly 1940-1945 ETO aircraft yes.

Adding indiscriminatly new aircaft and content only makes it difficult to understand wich part of iL2 is going to be improved.
I think that it would make more sence if we get udates (new aircraft, maps etc.) for all 3 theaters of operation. This will satisfy more people and will improve iL2 as a whole.

for example patch 4.11 could contain the following:

new ETO map
new PTO map
new Eastfront map

one new flyable ETO aircraft
one new flyable PTO aircraft
one new flyable Eastfront aircraft

improved ETO aircraft cockpit
improved PTO aircraft cockpit
improved Eastfront aircraft cockpit

[Redwulf__42]

Some suggestions for your consideration:

1. Differential Braking for both Rudder Pedals - I use pedals in game and fly Cessna 172P a bit in real world. Currently (to my knowledge) you can only assign one pedal brake and it only becomes differential (side to side) at full rudder extension.

2. Toggle button for Combat Flaps Only - I occassionally jam my flaps in combat by inadvertently double clicking the flap down button. I often hear others complaining that they've done the same as well.

3. Assignable fuel loadouts for planes in dogfight servers - As is done in the coop servers. In Redwulf we strive to keep things historic by flying full switch (or nearly full switch) and by using historic plane sets. We also horse around alot. In my opinion, fighters with a 25% full load would have historically been on a return leg to base or hanging near a friendly base over friendly territory. If folks want to fly that way for improved turning capability fine, but I'd like the option, to set full fuel loadouts for our missions.

4. Hi-res National Markings - The plane skins and cockpits have improved dramatically since the game was released in 2001. But the national emblems (crosses, roundels, red stars) seem jagged and un-weathered when you zoom in on the planes in F2 mode.

Thanks very much for your hard work on the sim!

S!

Redwulf__42

[Romanator21]

On some planes, apparently differential braking was achieved with a single handbrake (sometimes mounted on the control column), and by deflecting the rudder one way or another. Not many planes used toe brakes at the time, as far as I know.

[Fafnir_6]

I only fly 1940-1945 ETO aircraft yes.

Adding indiscriminatly new aircaft and content only makes it difficult to understand wich part of iL2 is going to be improved.
I think that it would make more sence if we get udates (new aircraft, maps etc.) for all 3 theaters of operation. This will satisfy more people and will improve iL2 as a whole.

for example patch 4.11 could contain the following:

new ETO map
new PTO map
new Eastfront map

one new flyable ETO aircraft
one new flyable PTO aircraft
one new flyable Eastfront aircraft

improved ETO aircraft cockpit
improved PTO aircraft cockpit
improved Eastfront aircraft cockpit

You forget that DT has limited resources. In addition, they are working for free and only do stuff they wish to do (in their free time). They are sometimes able to add mods from third parties (such as the Pe-8 ) but the sheer amount of stuff not in IL-2 already means that many potential additions will not be added in a DT patch. Besides, mandating a rigid mix of potential additions for all future patches will restrict the work allowed and likely drive some of the talented DT team members away (something none of us wants). If you have something (map, aircraft, cockpit, game function, etc) you want in a future DT patch, you can do the following: 1) Request the desired feature here 2) If DT doesn't have the time or interest to do this themselves, see if someone in the greater IL-2 modding community is willing to work on it, co-ordinating with DT to comply with DT's legal, contractual, specification and accuracy standards. If you do this, I think you will find success. I haven't heard of any DT compliant, third party mods that have been turned down by DT. Be prepared for a bit of a wait, though...:)

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[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).

Hi Team Daidalos, was wondering if any of you had a view on the above ideas/requests. fully appreciate if not possible to do or if there is a good argument not to (bandwidth/server load was mentioned as this was apparently a feature that was disabled in one of the first few IL2 patches (anyone any idea which one?) - surely though 10 years later this would not be a problem?)

Many thanks for all your hard work, fantastic results!

[harryRIEDL]

Hi Team Daidalos, was wondering if any of you had a view on the above ideas/requests. fully appreciate if not possible to do or if there is a good argument not to (bandwidth/server load was mentioned as this was apparently a feature that was disabled in one of the first few IL2 patches (anyone any idea which one?) - surely though 10 years later this would not be a problem?)

Many thanks for all your hard work, fantastic results!

if you look at the latest dev update you will see that point one has been confirmed as being part of 4.11 with added confirmation that head movement will be also included

[llama_thumper]

? sounds great - but can't find the update you are referring to - any chance for a linky? can only see this: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20318 but no reference in it?

edit: OK, after some digging think you were referring to this, at 5:10:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNjbe2GqHB4&feature=player_embedded#at=309
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=282420&postcount=182

one word: FANTASTIC. Thank you TD. One last Q - what about rudder?

[IceFire]

I only fly 1940-1945 ETO aircraft yes.

Adding indiscriminatly new aircaft and content only makes it difficult to understand wich part of iL2 is going to be improved.
I think that it would make more sence if we get udates (new aircraft, maps etc.) for all 3 theaters of operation. This will satisfy more people and will improve iL2 as a whole.

for example patch 4.11 could contain the following:

new ETO map
new PTO map
new Eastfront map

one new flyable ETO aircraft
one new flyable PTO aircraft
one new flyable Eastfront aircraft

improved ETO aircraft cockpit
improved PTO aircraft cockpit
improved Eastfront aircraft cockpit

I think realistically as part of a true development group that was salaried and on a project timeline this would make a lot of sense. Very logical. I even thought about things that way myself.

From what I can see, within the TD group they do focus some efforts on specific areas, however, some of the content that we see is from external contributors with TD support. They work on whatever they want to work on... largely because it's hours and hours of their own time and effort spent researching, modeling, coding, etc.

The interest would lessen (IMHO) if a more rigid structure was imposed.

[Fafnir_6]

I think realistically as part of a true development group that was salaried and on a project timeline this would make a lot of sense. Very logical. I even thought about things that way myself.

From what I can see, within the TD group they do focus some efforts on specific areas, however, some of the content that we see is from external contributors with TD support. They work on whatever they want to work on... largely because it's hours and hours of their own time and effort spent researching, modeling, coding, etc.

The interest would lessen (IMHO) if a more rigid structure was imposed.

We seem to agree :).

Fafnir_6

[Mysticpuma]

I'd just like to see the P-38 Mesh remodelled so that the skin isn't reversed on the opposite side, this way Historically accurate markings can at-last be added to the P-38.

This has been one of the reasons I don't use the P-38 very-much as I hate to see numbers reversed on the opposite side of the aircraft due to the 'Mirror' Mesh.

Rather than asking for a new MTO Aircraft, this would be a great addition and allow some great skinning opportunities?

I'm just asking ;)

Cheers, MP

[ElAurens]

I agree sir.

The P38, together with the P40E and M are about the worst models in the sim at this point.

[Lagarto]

Much as I like to see new aircraft being added, certainly I'd rather see new cockpits for the game's oldest models, like the Bf 109 series.

[Pursuivant]

The P38, together with the P40E and M are about the worst models in the sim at this point.

Mig-3, Ju-52, Li-2/C-47/L2D, PBN

[ImpalerNL]

I only fly 1940-1945 ETO aircraft yes.

Adding indiscriminatly new aircaft and content only makes it difficult to understand wich part of iL2 is going to be improved.
I think that it would make more sence if we get udates (new aircraft, maps etc.) for all 3 theaters of operation. This will satisfy more people and will improve iL2 as a whole.

for example patch 4.11 could contain the following:

new ETO map
new PTO map
new Eastfront map

one new flyable ETO aircraft
one new flyable PTO aircraft
one new flyable Eastfront aircraft

improved ETO aircraft cockpit
improved PTO aircraft cockpit
improved Eastfront aircraft cockpit

I forgot the MTO.

[Romanator21]

Mig-3, Ju-52, Li-2/C-47/L2D, PBN

R-10. Hands down.

[MrBaato]

In a few planes the gunsight is only slightly above the engine so its
pretty much inpossible to see anything that happens underneath your crosshairs.

So my question, could you consider changing the seat/gunsight position of the
razorback p-47's, the mig's and perhaps the ki61?

I know a slight correction was done on the Mc202 and it makes a huge differance when aiming

Thanks

[harryRIEDL]

In a few planes the gunsight is only slightly above the engine so its
pretty much inpossible to see anything that happens underneath your crosshairs.

So my question, could you consider changing the seat/gunsight position of the
razorback p-47's, the mig's and perhaps the ki61?

I know a slight correction was done on the Mc202 and it makes a huge differance when aiming

Thanks

The tempest should be altered as it was implemented incorrectly when it was launched I remember Gibbage being unhappy that the seat was changed and it lost it rear view due the increased closeness to the rear plate (unless ive missed something and its been changed already)

[Pursuivant]

In a few planes the gunsight is only slightly above the engine so its pretty much impossible to see anything that happens underneath your crosshairs.

Would this be realistic though? I'm all for changing pilot's POV if it is wrong, or if historically seat and sight positions could be altered to give the pilot optimum field of view, but not if it would be unrealistic.

[IceFire]

The tempest should be altered as it was implemented incorrectly when it was launched I remember Gibbage being unhappy that the seat was changed and it lost it rear view due the increased closeness to the rear plate (unless ive missed something and its been changed already)

That would be Alex Voicu who did the Tempest. Gibbage did a great many other aircraft.

The original positions for the Tempest cockpit were changed at the last minute and that is part of the reason why rearward visibility is poor. It's tricky because the interior struts can block the fuel indicators in some positions as well.

Not sure what it takes to alter the viewpoints. The cockpit may need to be recompiled to do that.

[MrBaato]

Would this be realistic though? I'm all for changing pilot's POV if it is wrong, or if historically seat and sight positions could be altered to give the pilot optimum field of view, but not if it would be unrealistic.

Couldnt agree more and im not talking about the Fw190 for instance.
I noticed the seat/sight position of the later p47 versions are higher than the razorback ones, making the earlier models alot harder to aim with.

[Phil_K]

Just a quick request - please could you set the Burma map to a PTO map so we no longer get D-Day stripes on the static C-47's.

Thanks.

[Ace1staller]

I think this request can go to 4.12, But I though of adding Neutral countries Sweeden,Spain, and Switzerland to the game. also a new feature that would pick the oppenent would face from which side (either Allied or Axis). Also For the Neutral country feature that I would like to see from the feature that you have the enemy's planes which you could pick the enemy and players country.

[Pursuivant]

More FMB ideas:

1) Standardized convoys of ships.

2) Ability to "program" ground vehicle or ship to take evasive action without having to assign waypoints. For example, you could have a vehicle or convoy stop and start, swerve, make random turns or perform similar evasive action while still traveling along a more or less straight line.

3) Ship and vehicle convoys which follow simple "follow the leader" and station-keeping "flocking" behavior when they change direction, allowing them to automatically keep formation when they turn.

[Romanator21]

Along with #2 that you mentioned, maybe subs that can dive. The standard response to sighting a plane was to crash dive - only when the sub was stuck on the surface for various reasons including reloading externally mounted torpedoes, or fueling next to a "milk-cow" was AAA used. There were specially built flak-boats which conning towers with multiple quad AA installations, to project other u-boats, but these were very unsuccessful.

But yeah, +1 on the pre-built ship convoys and simple ship AI that takes evasive action (to an extent - sometimes ships had to stay in line no matter what). This would make situations like the battle of the Bismark Sea possible in which Beaufighters struck convoys with rockets, destroying flak and bridges. Anticipating a torpedo attack, all the ships turned 90 degrees to face the Beaufighters to reduce the area that could be hit. But by doing so, they exposed themselves to attacks from B-25s which were carrying bombs.

This is impossible to replicate in Il-2 because the ships have no AI (you would need to time the way points perfectly) and because it's impossible to inflict damage specifically to guns, bridges, etc.

[JtD]

Actually it is possible to damage specific guns and bridges on most ships.

Manoeuvring ships in particular if used with the MDS and with ntrk playback would be 5.0, requires so many changes that downwards compatibility is hardly possible, if at all.

Still, it would indeed add a lot to naval battles.

[harryRIEDL]

Along with #2 that you mentioned, maybe subs that can dive. The standard response to sighting a plane was to crash dive - only when the sub was stuck on the surface for various reasons including reloading externally mounted torpedoes, or fueling next to a "milk-cow" was AAA used. There were specially built flak-boats which conning towers with multiple quad AA installations, to project other u-boats, but these were very unsuccessful.

But yeah, +1 on the pre-built ship convoys and simple ship AI that takes evasive action (to an extent - sometimes ships had to stay in line no matter what). This would make situations like the battle of the Bismark Sea possible in which Beaufighters struck convoys with rockets, destroying flak and bridges. Anticipating a torpedo attack, all the ships turned 90 degrees to face the Beaufighters to reduce the area that could be hit. But by doing so, they exposed themselves to attacks from B-25s which were carrying bombs.

This is impossible to replicate in Il-2 because the ships have no AI (you would need to time the way points perfectly) and because it's impossible to inflict damage specifically to guns, bridges, etc.
like lots the idea of ship A.I also the option for ships to be a target on QMB would be great (Crimea map and other with ships).
Another nautical item which would be good would be LSO on RN and USN ships (ranwers has something in WIP in SAS forum which would fit the bill whicyh also add crew to the deck of carriers an option would be great to ground crew visible). More planes would be welcome especially British and French.

[Pursuivant]

Another nautical item which would be good would be LSO on RN and USN ships

Or even a little 2-d graphic showing an LSO with moving arms, like the one in Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator 2.

also add crew to the deck of carriers an option would be great to ground crew visible).

Mods exist which add static ground crew, deck crew, etc. to the game. They look good in screenshots, but seem a bit eerie in the actual game, since they don't move. In some cases, non-moving aircrew can also be an obstacle. While it would be very cool to have moving people who behave in a realistic fashion, I think that it's beyond what's possible for IL2.

More planes would be welcome especially British and French.

There are a few French planes in the works, at least as mods. I know that there's a D520 and perhaps an Arsenal VG33 which have gotten to the advanced 3d design stage. Perhaps the authors are collaborating with TD?

For British planes, it would be really quick and easy to put tailhooks on the Gladiator and the Hurricane to make the Sea Gladiator and the Sea Hurricane, although you'd need to tweak existing cockpits as well. Other than that, the RN is doing reasonably well for its mainline carrier-based aircraft, unless you want to model relative failures like the Skua, Roc and Albacore.

For RAF aircraft, there are still a lot of types which could be modeled, although I think that there's a certain amount of nervousness about not competing with CloD add-ons. Within the existing plane set, it would be easy enough to add the later marks of Hurricane and very welcome to have a flyable Blenheim, although that would require a lot of work. Key types not yet modeled in the game, or in progress as outside projects, include the Typhoon, Sunderland and Halifax.

[Pursuivant]

Manoeuvring ships in particular if used with the MDS and with ntrk playback would be 5.0, requires so many changes that downwards compatibility is hardly possible, if at all.

Rather than having actual AI, would it be possible to have pre-programmed movement paths in the FMB which fake AI? For example, have an option in the FMB which allows you to automatically give a ground unit or ship a zig-zag path or move forward in a series of loops instead of having to input dozens of waypoints?

One "pseudo AI" pattern which ships could use is already in the game - the "race track" or "loop" pattern adopted by fighters when escorting heavy bombers.

[ocococ]

Some ideas/suggestions for Team Daidalos:

- An option to automatically record all gameplay (offline/online) in .ntrk tracks (instead of .trk, which seem to be broken many times) without the requirement to press the record button.

Also this auto-record should work when you use the TimeSkip button (I guess with a new ntrk file each time you timeskip). I don't think there is a disk space problem nowadays. The user will be able to delete everything later. Maybe also add a separate folder for auto-records, and maybe include date in the filename.

I have lost too many great moments due to standard .trk bugginess.


- Some engine sounds have gaps in their loop. The spitfire/p51/tempest sound for example, "cracks" periodically (every ~2secs, more easily heard when on high rpm).


- A slight cockpit revamp for the very very very old planes would be welcome (109, ju87, yaks, migs). They somewhat look out of place compared to the rest.


- Bug: AM Radio Music can be heard from external view.


- In addition to toggle radiator button, is it possible to add separate open/close buttons (not axis)?


- Option to make PanView camera movement smooth (how much it turns depends on how much time you press the direction) instead of using steps.

Thanks.

[EvilJoven]

This has been said before and it needs to be said again. This game needs native 6DOF.

When 4.10 came out the people I play with and I decided to try playing without mods. Those of us with head tracking can't stand to be without it. We don't care if some of the cockpits aren't optomized for it, we just want the ability to move our damned heads from side to side and zoom so we can see past the cockpit braces. We want to see compasses behind the bloody flight stick and boost gagues behind cockpit re-enforcements.

So we install mod activators and fix the russian language problems it brings and deal with compatibility issues because 6DOF really is that neccesary.

So suck it up and give 6DOF to those of us who want it. We'll cope with the incomplete cockpits, it hasn't stopped us from wanting 6DOF before we found ways to mod it in.

As for the whole 'unfair advantage' argument, go ahead and tell me that TrackIR with 2DOF isn't already an unfair advantage over people who have to use a hat switch or mouse to look around. By that reasoning TrackIR support shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Lagarto]

How about a new damage model for the trains? As for now, a destroyed train looks very much like a string of crumpled cardboard boxes - not very realistic IMHO.
It would also be nice to have crewed AA guns on those trains, not those "remote-controlled" cannons.

[ocococ]

This has been said before and it needs to be said again. This game needs native 6DOF.

When 4.10 came out the people I play with and I decided to try playing without mods. Those of us with head tracking can't stand to be without it. We don't care if some of the cockpits aren't optomized for it, we just want the ability to move our damned heads from side to side and zoom so we can see past the cockpit braces. We want to see compasses behind the bloody flight stick and boost gagues behind cockpit re-enforcements.

So we install mod activators and fix the russian language problems it brings and deal with compatibility issues because 6DOF really is that neccesary.

So suck it up and give 6DOF to those of us who want it. We'll cope with the incomplete cockpits, it hasn't stopped us from wanting 6DOF before we found ways to mod it in.

As for the whole 'unfair advantage' argument, go ahead and tell me that TrackIR with 2DOF isn't already an unfair advantage over people who have to use a hat switch or mouse to look around. By that reasoning TrackIR support shouldn't be there in the first place.

"Toggle Gunsight" can help.

[312_strycekFido]

I have idea for FMB, please add this text as default to field for mission briefing in FMB (Edit -> description -> full description). THX

<ARMY NONE>

</ARMY>
<ARMY RED>

</ARMY>
<ARMY BLUE>

</ARMY>

[Ace1staller]

Or neutral countries can have a different color like yellow and the allies should be blue and Axis should be red.

[Avimimus]

Quick question: Has there been any thought of adding a QMB option that allows one to select between two templates with different densities of anti-aircraft guns?

The original Il-2 demo had this feature.

It seems particularly important with the I-15 and other slow aircraft - where '43 or '44 era anti-aircraft cannons can make some quick mission maps unflyable. It would be great to be able to choose between lots of cannons or just a few MG-42... With 3rd party QMB missions, one could even exploit such a feature to select between 1942 era ground targets and the 1946 era ones... or select between light anti-aircraft guns (low-altitude) or heavy anti-aircraft artillery (for the Pe-8, TB-3, Il-4 and B-25 high altitude runs). This way the player could choose whether to only burden the processor with the right kind of guns.

So my suggest for a QMB the AAA option:
None vs. Light AAA vs. Heavy AAA

(or if you want to get fancy increase to five options instead of three: None vs. Light AAA early vs. Heavy AAA early vs. Light AAA late vs. Light AAA Heavy)

[bencivenga1]

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? YESSS THOSE DUMB THINGS ALWAYS SNEAK UP ON ME.. :( and im like WTFFF lol
:confused:

[bencivenga1]

I would love to see the P-61 BlackWidow and i know people have been saying this forever but we need American heavy bombers or atleast some new B-25s :)

[ElAurens]

Being a Northrop product means we will never have the P61 in an official release.

[Blackjack]

Is anyone working on getting the conf.ini only graphic options (like water=x Forest=3) into the game GUI as options ?

Currently the options for forests are reset, also the landgeom detail option "3" (for the increased view distances) cant be set, it would be cool to have something like "detailed options" button where one could select forest/water/landgeometry.

On another note: Is the old IL2 style widescreen support planned to come back or is that impossible (buried in the code) ?

Just fire up the original il2, a complete fullscreen mission editor , neatly positioned speedbar/infobar (as I understand these can be repositioned with configuration options in the future ?).

Thats stuff that would motivate me to start coding for il2 :)

Looking forward to any additions to the state of the AI (supercheck6 and cloud-o-vision come to mind), maybe some time a option for deteriorated aircraft setting (90% performance), this could be very nice for external campaigngenerators....

aah the possibilities...

Keep up the good work and thx for caring !

[Ace1staller]

We need a dynamic Western Front Campaigns for Germany,France,United States, and United Kingdom.

[Ace1staller]

also I would say the invasion of Poland wasn't included so you can add that to the western Front Campaign ?

[csThor]

Dynamic campaigns are outside Daidalos' scope for the moment. Simply put DCG is an external program and DGen is property of Starshoy who never parted with the sourcecode and has been unreachable for years.

[Fafnir_6]

Dynamic campaigns are outside Daidalos' scope for the moment. Simply put DCG is an external program and DGen is property of Starshoy who never parted with the sourcecode and has been unreachable for years.

Cough...Replace DGen with DCG...cough. The DGen replacement mode means that all the old DGen campaigns will still work. DCG is wonderfully configurable (to address any potential concerns) and is still evolving, so all the new features implemented in previous DT patches are readily available. Sticking with DGen hobbles the potential of DT-patched IL-2. Go with a living, evolving campaign engine rather than a dead one. I believe we have discussed this before ;).

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[csThor]

That, IIRC that is, already works with DCG as it is. No need for Daidalos to do anything. DCG will remain an external application each user can download and install at their leisure.

[Pursuivant]

That, IIRC that is, already works with DCG as it is. No need for Daidalos to do anything. DCG will remain an external application each user can download and install at their leisure.

Making DCG "official" would allow developers other than Paul Lowengrin (creator and maintainer of DCG) to update DCG, and would also allow improvements to DCG to happen in parallel with updates to IL2, rather than afterwards.

[Pershing]

How about little improvement of ships's damage model (cariers, battleships, destroers)? I've noticed that, for example, aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious) after taking SC1000 becoming on smoke, bringing down by the striken side, BUT 100% of it's AA guns still working fine! Though we know that historically in most cases AA firepower was significantly decreased after taking bombs/torpedoes/large-caliber shells hits.

[Ace1staller]

How about the Swordfish MK I should be flyable, it should make the torpedo bomber players happy (;

Also, add the Fokker G.I Heavy fighter. It was flowen in WWII by the dutch and the luftwaffe. However, the Netherlands(or Holland) used the Foker G.I Heavy fighter the most and please add the He-219 Uhu. It was introduced in 1943,and can fill the whole in the German twin engine aircraft a little.

[Avimimus]

How about little improvement of ships's damage model (cariers, battleships, destroers)? I've noticed that, for example, aircraft carrier (HMS Illustrious) after taking SC1000 becoming on smoke, bringing down by the striken side, BUT 100% of it's AA guns still working fine! Though we know that historically in most cases AA firepower was significantly decreased after taking bombs/torpedoes/large-caliber shells hits.

I'd love to see a suppression script (eg. simulating the wounding or killing of AA crew and a delay while new crewmembers replace the gunners).

I love what ZloyPetruskO did with the ground based AA (although it could do with a bit of work - especially regarding night combat).

[Avimimus]

Being a Northrop product means we will never have the P61 in an official release.

Baring a change of heart on the part of the company or a reasonable court decision overturning the previous rulings...

Dynamic campaigns are outside Daidalos' scope for the moment. Simply put DCG is an external program and DGen is property of Starshoy who never parted with the sourcecode and has been unreachable for years.

Any thoughts on integrating DCG?

[Xilon_x]

NIGHT ATTAK ............ ATTAK TO TARANTO BY WOLF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPcBW0vSiQU

[viktor94]

We also need rockets for the FM-2.

[Ace1staller]

from the stationary plane spawn, I would like to request that when the player is in a stationary plane, the numbers of the stationary plane should be the same.

[jameson]

Some method to set the altimeter to zero before taking off? Sometimes there is a difference between the height of the airstrip and the height shown on the altimeter (sea level?). By the time you return to land, you've forgotten or can't remember what the difference between the initial altimeter reading and "true" zero was. I've noticed that it is, on occasion, nearly 100m. It would make landings somewhat easier!

[sjcnospam]

There might be a minor change that would add another useful vehicle to IL-2.

In the past, I have used the BA-64 as a substitute for the Sk Kfz 222. It doesn't have a red star painted on it, and its armament is reasonably similar, though the wrong color tracers.

But I could not use the BA-10 as a substitute for the Sd Kfz 231 (6-rad) or the Sd Kfz 232 (6-rad). Is it possible to remove the red star on the BA-10 object skin? That would permit such a substitution.

Alternatively, the B8 Greyhound could also be used without the white star. Not as good visually as the BA-10, though.

Armored cars were used extensively by the Germans, yet they are not as well represented as the Russian armored cars. An 8-rad vehicle would be a whole new vehicle. And the Sd Kfz 250 is missing as well.

Perhaps the removal of the red star on the BA-10 would be a simple change?

[steppie]

Hi Daidalos Team
love what you have done.

With the next patch would it be possible in the fog of war to added to added aircraft limited to the number of aircraft lost for each side and limited the number of pilot killed or captured for each side and when either side has be exhausted it a in game message which side has won. Also if you can it would be good to be able to have the option to tick if AI aircraft and pilot count and the same with static aircraft.

Also in targeting option when making a mission work great but you can set it one side only.
This would help to make mission building easier if this option can be set of both side in stead of only one.

Also would it be possible to have a trigger option so if a target is attack the AI react that you setup for this will change from there flight way points go and give air or ground cover.

And also the same with ships so if they come under attack they make a turn to the port or the starboard.

Also the option to set way points for ship able to have then zig zag or not tricking and option between each way point.

[Ocidean]

1st off. One of the major gripes I’ve found with the single player campaign mission is the fact that you have to at least land or complete one of the mission objectives before you can advance to the next mission.

I’ve recently found my old Microsoft CFS2 and I loved its single player due to the fact that even if you fail miserably in a mission as long as your not KIA, MIA or captured you can go for the next mission. Everyone has a bad day occasionally and I would like that to be recorded.

As it is now I lift, follow the objectives, shoot a couple planes down and sometimes am forced to bail/ditch before the kill limit for advancing is done or our friendly bombers take to long to do their run. Now I have to redo the mission and am able to get half a dozen kills because I know where and when they show up.

2nd It would also be nice to have several missions where our objective doesn’t meet several enemy planes. every sortie with 4 or 5 kills gets to be repetitive.

Taking a look at a couple of the German aces and I’ve noticed they have, say 800 sorties of which 250-300 of them they made contact. It would be great to have half a dozen sorties where we don’t manage to find anything to shoot. And would add to the realism factor as you don’t KNOW that you’ll find anything that particular sortie.

Cheers and thanks for reading.

[Romanator21]

1st off

Uncheck "No instant success" option in the difficulty.

2nd off

I agree, but a lot of players would be bored. You can't expect any changes to DGEN because the designer has disappeared. As for hand made campaigns, well, you might be forced to build one yourself with those parameters.

May I ask what difficulty level you play on? I find that I don't rack up such scores because I'm trying to cover my wingmen as much as possible (I'm usually the last one in the flight). The last mission I flew in DGEN was escort in the Brewster. We had Moranes also with us. When we encountered Polikarpovs, the Moranes went in first and did most of the work. My flight leader did manage one kill. I personally saw no action that trip and had a warm cup of tea back at base. :) No bombers or escorts were lost.

[Ace1staller]

We can't make Battle of France campaigns without the Bloch MB.153, Bloch MB.154, and the Bloch MB.155

And maybe, add a Junkers 290 or Junkers 390 maybe for 4.12.

[Pursuivant]

We can't make Battle of France campaigns without the Bloch MB.153, Bloch MB.154, and the Bloch MB.155

Personally, I'd just settle for a flyable MS 406 and MS410 with a realistic cockpit (with instruments printed in Finnish, Bulgarian and French please! :) ).

FWIW, there are independent efforts to create both the D.520 and the MB.151-155 series which are reasonably far advanced. I have no idea if they'll ever be part of an official release, though.

There have also been attempts to create some of the other French planes in the 1939-40 order of battle, but these are at the "maybe some day" stage.

[Ace1staller]

Anybody got any disadvantages for the Ju 290 and Ju 390 bombers for 4.11/4.12 ?

[MrBaato]

Anybody got any disadvantages for the Ju 290 and Ju 390 bombers for 4.11/4.12 ?

No objections!, you can start modeling Ace1staller! thanks for all your efforts...... :rolleyes:

[Ventura]

Without severely delaying the next update, is there any way to soften/dampen the 'bounce' inherent in the landing gear all aircraft in general when landing?

[robday]

Anybody got any disadvantages for the Ju 290 and Ju 390 bombers for 4.11/4.12 ?

Disadvantages no, objections yes! These aircraft totaled perhaps 70/72 examples, (including prototypes, pre-production aircraft and the various types that were built). Why waste time on such a minor player? What I'd rather have is a He 177.

[IceFire]

Indeed... there are still some major types that are totally unrepresented at this point. In the European conflict the Me410 and Hawker Typhoon Mark IB stand out as types that served in the hundreds and thousands from the midpoint of the war until the end.

[ElAurens]

We still don't have the P40 N, the most numerous sub type, and the fastest P40.

[Ace1staller]

No objections!, you can start modeling Ace1staller! thanks for all your efforts...... :rolleyes:


Well okay, what are the mod tools I'll need ?

[SaQSoN]

Well okay, what are the mod tools I'll need ?

For a start: 3D Studio Max, version below 9 (don't mix with 2009) - I heard it's free for educational purposes;
Adobe Photoshop, or other raster image editor - again, there are few free programs, similar to Photoshop in functionality.

[Sita]

and "stone ass" :D main tool for mod maker :D

[Pursuivant]

Indeed... there are still some major types that are totally unrepresented at this point. In the European conflict the Me410 and Hawker Typhoon Mark IB stand out as types that served in the hundreds and thousands from the midpoint of the war until the end.

Both of these exist as mods. The Me410 is nicely done and is based on the Me210. The Tiffie is only a frankenplane, though.

[Pursuivant]

We still don't have the P40 N, the most numerous sub type, and the fastest P40.

This also exists as a Mod. Given that it's externally just about identical to the other later P-40s, no 3d modeling is needed. All that's necessary is a new skin and new FM/DM.

[Pursuivant]

For a start: 3D Studio Max, version below 9 (don't mix with 2009) - I heard it's free for educational purposes

The latest version of 3D Studio Max (2012) is free for educational purposes, but only if you're affiliated with a recognized educational institution. The license is for something like 3 years.

Be warned that, even with the new versions of 3d Max, it's a frustratingly difficult program to learn. It's allegedly very powerful once you know how to use it, but it takes a LONG time to even figure out the basics. It's like trying to learn to fly on your own using a Boeing jumbo-jet.

[ElAurens]

Only if you are modeling the very earliest production block. All subsequent blocks (the vast majority of Ns produced) had a very different canopy and cut away in the area behind the pilot to increase rear visibility.

Simply taking our horrid, and very incorrect P 40 M, and calling it an N is not acceptable. The Ns had bomb racks on the wings, and could and did carry rockets too...

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg14/scaled.php?server=14&filename=paris1small.jpg&res=medium

[P-38L]

Hello and thank you for all the dedication on the best flight simulator of all times.

I have a few ideas, they are not requests, perhaps one or more could ring any bell.

1. It is possible to add the Rearm, Refuel, Repair or even re-heal option, ?

2. Variable weather in the middle of a mission. e.g. If you start your mission in a sunny day, perhaps half hour later starts to rain.

3. To add randomly wind gusts. In some cases when you are on final, wind appears and hit the airplane.

4. All the AI Aircraft take off and land the same "perfect" way. The only airplane that has the torque effect in take off is the TB-3 (the one with four engines) all the rest are -in a bad way- perfectly trimmed.

5. When F2 (outside view) is used, the camera is stuck to the airplane. What about to add a camera that follows the airplane, like the same effect when you are viewing an airborne airplane from another airplane; you can see how the airplane "floats". This will give more realism when the player are creating movies. A key combination could be Alt+F2 or any other available.

6. Independent brake pedals.

7. Real airplanes as stationary airplanes. Why?
a. You can use any livery (skin) you want.
b. When the enemy attacks, the airplane will be destroyed more realistic.
c. In dogfight you can depend of all the remain "new stationary" airplanes are in the airport.
d. If you crash your airplane, you can choose of any of remain airplanes. If you design your mission with 4 stationary airplanes, means that you can crash only 4 airplanes, after that you wont be able to fly again.
e. If the enemy destroy one or more of the "new stationary" airplanes you lose the option to use "that" especific airplane.
f. If an AI aircraft can land and park. They can taxi and take off, that means that you can request for help and one of that stationary airplanes will be an AI aircraft.

Большое спасибо.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I agree, the P-40N is one of the most important versions and dare I to say... also the ugliest one!

Yes, the canopy is much different than all other versions. Thanks for jumping in, ElAurens!

[ElAurens]

My pleasure.

I do get passionate about my P40s...

:grin:

[Wallaroo]

How about flyable Gladiator MkI's and MkII's with instrumentation in English? The J8A is okay - but would be even more immersive with anglicised instruments.

[Bionde]

*Animation of the blades when pitch is changed
*Spitfire MKI, XIV and XVI.
*Rework some cockpits if possible...
*Mixture adjust for all planes with this opition
*Check Spitfires FM

its my requests...


*here, some references for FM, i dont know if that are same in the game...

Spitfire MKI (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html)
Spitfire MKIIA (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-II.html)
Spitfire V (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-V.html)
Spitfire VIII (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-VIII.html)
Spitfire IX (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html)
Spitfire XIV (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV.html)




sry for my bad english


thanks...

[Pursuivant]

Only if you are modeling the very earliest production block. All subsequent blocks (the vast majority of Ns produced) had a very different canopy and cut away in the area behind the pilot to increase rear visibility.

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that later block P-40Ns had a different canopy.

Simply taking our horrid, and very incorrect P 40 M, and calling it an N is not acceptable. The Ns had bomb racks on the wings, and could and did carry rockets too...

Agreed. I think that there's evidence of earlier P-40s carrying rockets, too. In any case, I think it's a common and simple enough field mod to give P-40E and F series planes Soviet, British and/or American bombs and rockets.

[Pursuivant]

How about flyable Gladiator MkI's and MkII's with instrumentation in English? The J8A is okay - but would be even more immersive with anglicised instruments.

Unless your native language is Swedish. But, agreed, a flyable Glad MkI or MkII (and even better, the Sea Gladiator) would be a welcome addition.

But, if Diadalos Team just concentrated on making existing non-flyable planes flyable, they'd be at work for years.

[Pursuivant]

Spitfire MKI

Exists as mod. Off limits for DT because it overlaps with IL2: Cliffs of Dover (formerly IL2: Storm of War).


Spitfire MKIIA
Spitfire VSpitfire VIII
Spitfire IX
Spitfire XIV

These all exist as mods. Actually, some of the Mk VIII and Mk IX variants exist as stock planes. Agreed that it would be nice to have the Griffon-engined Spitfires in the game.

The only problem with the Spitfire series is that there were more than 20 variants and many sub-variants, I think that there were something like 100 different versions in all. That's even more variants than the Bf-109 series!

[IceFire]

Exists as mod. Off limits for DT because it overlaps with IL2: Cliffs of Dover (formerly IL2: Storm of War).



These all exist as mods. Actually, some of the Mk VIII and Mk IX variants exist as stock planes. Agreed that it would be nice to have the Griffon-engined Spitfires in the game.

The only problem with the Spitfire series is that there were more than 20 variants and many sub-variants, I think that there were something like 100 different versions in all. That's even more variants than the Bf-109 series!

If we model every single type of war time service Spitfire it'd probably be pretty close in number to the Bf109 variations that saw service from the Spanish Civil War and up. Two very prolifically upgraded fighters for sure!

[ElAurens]

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that later block P-40Ns had a different canopy.



Agreed. I think that there's evidence of earlier P-40s carrying rockets, too. In any case, I think it's a common and simple enough field mod to give P-40E and F series planes Soviet, British and/or American bombs and rockets.


US P40s operating in China used the "bazooka" type rocket launcher tubes. This was well after the AVG was merged into the regular Air Corps of course.

Also, the Hawk 75s as used by the Dutch in the Netherlands East Indies should be able to carry a bomb under each wing. KNIL Hawk 75s in the ground attack role successfully bombed a bridge to slow, at least for a short while, the advance of the Japanese in Java.

[Bionde]

if possible, check the variometer indication speed...

i think that are too slow...

after diving, i saw the altitude increasing, but he are still indicating altutide loosing...

[mcmmielli]

Please is possible include the Avia B-135, i hear about this model for IL-2.
Model made by Stoupa, and i don´t know so this is finish or not...


http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/camo.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/Avia135Konstrukce.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/AviaB135_BG5.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/Avia135Bomby.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/Avia135Bomby6x10.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/tucet.jpg

Tank´s

[Daniël]

Tail looks like a Hurricane, other parts like a Spitfire! :o

[Bionde]

i think this is good reference for P51 B&C cockpit...

http://www.stclairphoto-imaging.com/360/P51-Mustang/P51_swf.html

[Ace1staller]

Please is possible include the Avia B-135, i hear about this model for IL-2.
Model made by Stoupa, and i don´t know so this is finish or not...


http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/camo.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/Avia135Konstrukce.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/AviaB135_BG5.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/Avia135Bomby.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/Avia135Bomby6x10.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/tucet.jpg

Tank´s

Very nice plane, I hope TD would add that in the next patch or this patch.

[Ace1staller]

Tail looks like a Hurricane, other parts like a Spitfire! :o

I disagree with that, Yes the tail might look like a Hawker Hurricane. The engine and the propellars doesn't look like a Spitfire.Also the front of the Avia B-145 model looks more like a Typhoon. But skins doesn't make it look like a Spitfire or a Hurricane.

[Daniël]

I disagree with that, Yes the tail might look like a Hawker Hurricane. The engine and the propellars doesn't look like a Spitfire.Also the front of the Avia B-145 model looks more like a Typhoon. But skins doesn't make it look like a Spitfire or a Hurricane.

If you imagine a bit;) Those wings and canopy...

[jermin]

Hi, TD.

First, I would like to thank you for your continuous hard work on the development of IL2. As follows is my request for the incoming patches.

Would you please fix the high altitude performance of late-war 109s in the incoming patch? Both historically and according to IL2 Compare, late-war 109s should outrun and outclimb P-51 and P-47 at high altitude. But in the game, what 109 pilots can do is merely struggling for a level flight above 8000m. Let alone maneuvering and climbing.

This problem has been existing ever since the birth of IL2. Oleg once mentioned that the inaccurate high altitude performance was due to the limitation of IL2 engine, which was originally designed for low altitude air combat scenario. But while P-51 and P-47 can perform normally high up. I believe there should be a way to fix this problem.

Also, is it possible to modify the cockpit of late-war 109 variants? The cockpit struts are just too big compared with real 109s, which make 109 pilots suffer from a great SA disadvantage in combat.

Thank you!

[Ace1staller]

Hi, TD.

First, I would like to thank you for your continuous hard work on the development of IL2. As follows is my request for the incoming patches.

Would you please fix the high altitude performance of late-war 109s in the incoming patch? Both historically and according to IL2 Compare, late-war 109s should outrun and outclimb P-51 and P-47 at high altitude. But in the game, what 109 pilots can do is merely struggling for a level flight above 8000m. Let alone maneuvering and climbing.

This problem has been existing ever since the birth of IL2. Oleg once mentioned that the inaccurate high altitude performance was due to the limitation of IL2 engine, which was originally designed for low altitude air combat scenario. But while P-51 and P-47 can perform normally high up. I believe there should be a way to fix this problem.

Also, is it possible to modify the cockpit of late-war 109 variants? The cockpit struts are just too big compared with real 109s, which make 109 pilots suffer from a great SA disadvantage in combat.

Thank you!

Jermin, I think it mite go to the 4.12, because that 4.11 patch is almost done from my view. But Very good request.

[Ace1staller]

If you imagine a bit;) Those wings and canopy...

Well yes, but it looks like a mix of parts from the Hurricane,Spitfire, and Typhoon. Well yes the wings and canopy may look like a spitfire but the front of the aircraft looks more like a Typhoon.

[Zorro]

Hi Team Daidalos,

first I want to thank you for your dedication to make IL-2 better and listen to the community. Excellent job.

Now coming to my main point. It seems that most of the German Squadron markings and color codings are incorrect somehow. As an example sqadron 4 is green and have the character of a Gruppenstab, but it should be blue and have the letter of a Staffel (squadron). As a reference please look at http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?/flugzeugbau/kenungen2.htm. I cross checked this source with other I have like Flugzeug Classic Special 7 or Ju 87 from Planes and Pilots. Also the Geschwaderstab is always mapped to I. Gruppe when set to 4. Staffel. So instead of showing XX + A(in green)A it shows XX + A (in green)B. My recommendation to fix this would be a 0 for Geschwader or Gruppenstab in the squadron selection, than 1 -4 for the Staffel of each Gruppe.

Regarding the markings it seems to be wrong as well. As an example take IV. Gruppe/KG 27. The IV. Gruppes Shield is blue regarding the link to http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/Kampfgeschwader/KG27.htm. I have seen similar issues for other Geschwaders as well e.g. Lehrgeschwader 1 or KG 26.
I would appreciate if you can fix this, because I fly missions that are based on historical data. And I want to use the proper Squadron for this, which is not possible at all. I know, this might seem to be a little bit picky, but there are a lot of Geschwader, Gruppe and Staffeln out there in the community that want to have right markings for there online squadrons as well.

Thanks!

Zorro

[csThor]

Quite frankly the marking system is inflexible and often downright wrong. I have tried to correct it as much as I could but my influence was limited. As for the unit emblem found on the internet - I have learned not to trust any of them without checking myself. There is a lot of conflicting information around.

Bottom line: Il-2 would need a completely new marking system to fix all the issues and that isn't going to happen.

[Pursuivant]

Would you please fix the high altitude performance of late-war 109s in the incoming patch? Both historically and according to IL2 Compare, late-war 109s should outrun and outclimb P-51 and P-47 at high altitude.

This comes dangerously close to the typical "chart war" complaint, which is extremely difficult to prove and lends itself to endless online arguments. By 1944, there were so many factors which muddied pure plane vs. plane performance of German vs. Allied fighters - fuel quality, pilot skill, operational factors, manufacturing quality - that it's very hard to tell which was the better plane - Bf-109G, P-47D, P-51D, Yak-9 or La-7.

A better strategy would be to fix IL2's high altitude performance. Personally, I don't understand why modeling high altitude performance should be a problem, since atmospheric pressure, oxygen content, temperature and similar factors all vary as a constant with altitude, which in turn affect engine and aeronautical performance in a predictable fashion.

[Pursuivant]

Bottom line: Il-2 would need a completely new marking system to fix all the issues and that isn't going to happen.

Is this due to limitations of the game engine, restrictions on DT's license with 1C, or lack of time/interest on the part of DT?

Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal, since the marking system can easily be altered by add-ons or custom skins.

[WWFlybert]

Is this due to limitations of the game engine, restrictions on DT's license with 1C, or lack of time/interest on the part of DT?

Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal, since the marking system can easily be altered by add-ons or custom skins.

If it can "easily" fixed by mods, then why don't you talk to the author(s) of said mods and ask them to contact TD with the solution ?

or perhaps, the decal-markings system, may indeed have limitations you are not aware of (proper positioning for different dates comes to mind, as well as some skins having slightly 'off' positions that the decal-markings overlay incorrectly)

[csThor]

Well, we'd have to rewrite pretty much all the units in the game and the way markings are applied. We'd need to go over all the models and create new overlays and and and ... Quite frankly this is simply far too much work at this stage quite honestly 99% of the players would not even notice it.

[llama_thumper]

guys, not sure this has come to your attention, and whether there is any easy way to fix this. this is from online play in stock IL-2, i.e. 4.10.1, on spits v 109s.

often, when ONE of your engine dies, the other player sees that BOTH of your engines have died. is there any way to fix this? so you have an example, please see the link to this youtube video (sorry for the stuttering, but, hopefully you can see that BOTH engines are not moving):

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

BUT, in reality, it was only the left engine that wasn't working - here is the proof, the record from the mission (the right engine was working all the time):

http://redo.net/temp/public/quick0013.ntrk

are you able to fix this? would be great for immersion...

[SPITACE]

hi can we see more british bombers in the sim for some night" rear gunner "missions we have got the me 110 allready in the sim to do it.

[Pursuivant]

Well, we'd have to rewrite pretty much all the units in the game and the way markings are applied. We'd need to go over all the models and create new overlays and and and ... Quite frankly this is simply far too much work at this stage quite honestly 99% of the players would not even notice it.

That's what I thought. There are add-ons like Mat-Manager and the "Forgotten Countries" mod which sort of rework units and markings, but they're of indifferent quality. They add a lot of stuff, but some of it isn't well done. That said, I'd love to see national and unit markings of equivalent quality to those in Mat-Manager in the stock game.

That's not to say that DT has done nothing to improve the default national and unit markings. While it's never been an advertised feature in any of the patches, the new national markings for the U.S. and Japan look a lot better than used to.

[Pursuivant]

hi can we see more british bombers in the sim for some night" rear gunner "missions we have got the me 110 allready in the sim to do it.

More flyable British bombers would be welcome. There's a mod effort afoot to get the Lancaster into the game, but I don't know its current status.

As for night gunner missions, the grim reality is that most British bomber crewmen never saw the nightfighter than killed them. The top scoring German nightfighter ace scored 121 victories; the top British tailgunner ace had 8. And, there were a lot more Luftwaffe nightfighter aces than there were RAF gunner aces.

Realistically, an RAF tailgunner mission would consist of 8-12 hours of constant vigilance, where your main tactic would be to scream at the pilot to "corkscrew" (i.e., go into a deep curving dive) to avoid being shot down. If you failed to see your enemy against the virtually black ground of blacked-out occupied Europe, suddenly, without warning, you'd find your plane engulfed in flames before you can fire a shot.

[Deliverator]

Hi guys!

I'd like to ask you to remove the limitations on the DeviceLink so we can export information to our X52pro MFD or other displays :grin:

[Artist]

And, if you at it :grin::

Would you please, please make set()-keys available for the new "Multi-throttle/prop support and radiator axis" in DeviceLink?

Artist

[iMattheush]

Is the end of the month will be made ​​patch 4.11?

[Ace1staller]

We need more Japanese Bombers such as Ki-21 sallys and so on so we could make a campaign about the war in China.

[mcmmielli]

Nice request Ki-21 flyable + 1 for this...

[Bat*21]

I wouldn't mind being able to put AAA on the roofs of buildings or on bunkers.
Could this be done?

Also, catapult-launch option from battleships to simulate North Sea convoys or ship-launched recon planes.

[Ace1staller]

Nice request Ki-21 flyable + 1 for this...

Well yes the Ki-21 is a very good request but I didn't care if it was Flyable or not, it would be perfect for flying against the flying tigers or shooting it down as a flying Tiger, But mcmmilli, I still agree with you still that it should be flyable because it makes bomber pilots happy.

[Ace1staller]

I wouldn't mind being able to put AAA on the roofs of buildings or on bunkers.
Could this be done?

Also, catapult-launch option from battleships to simulate North Sea convoys or ship-launched recon planes.

I like your request, but I'm not sure if its possible, but this request should be +1

[ElAurens]

Trouble is we have no Allied warship launched recon planes.

The Curtiss SOC Seagull would be a good one to have for the Allies, and the Misubishi F1M "Pete" for the IJN.

[IceFire]

Well yes the Ki-21 is a very good request but I didn't care if it was Flyable or not, it would be perfect for flying against the flying tigers or shooting it down as a flying Tiger, But mcmmilli, I still agree with you still that it should be flyable because it makes bomber pilots happy.

I could be wrong here but it sounds a bit like you aren't aware that the Ki-21 is in the game already...

Ki-21-I and Ki-21-II have been available in the game for a few years now :)

The request is mostly around making it flyable. Having it or a Ki-48 or some sort of Japanese Army bomber would be really great.

[Bionde]

ajustable time for runway lights...
i don't know if that speed of variometers are historical, but that are too slow...

fix that if possible..

sry for my bad english

[Bat*21]

Trouble is we have no Allied warship launched recon planes.

The Curtiss SOC Seagull would be a good one to have for the Allies, and the Misubishi F1M "Pete" for the IJN.
I think catapult-launched Hurricanes were common for the North Sea convoys (although it was a one-way trip for them!). But you're right about the battleship launched planes, not too sure about US ships, but King George V battleships carried the as yet un-modeled Supermarine Walrus.

[ElAurens]

Well, we won't get the Walrus, as that is a Cliffs of Dover model and TD cannot use it, sadly.

THe Curtiss SOC served the USN throughout the war, even as it's replacement, the Kingfisher monoplane came on the scene.

[Bat*21]

Well, we won't get the Walrus, as that is a Cliffs of Dover model and TD cannot use it, sadly.

THe Curtiss SOC served the USN throughout the war, even as it's replacement, the Kingfisher monoplane came on the scene.
The Curtiss will have to do then, I guess...

Thinking about the idea as a whole though, I've started thinking that it's a bit gimmicky. As much as I'd like the feature, the missions it'd be used for would be a bit repetative...

[Asheshouse]

It would be nice to see another flyable seaplane, particularly if it could be catapult launched.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image13-4.jpg

[Bat*21]

If we do go down the road of catapult-launched aircraft, maybe a new ship?

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5692/zrclip001n3cb3d682.png
Japanese I-400 class submarine


Would involve modelling of the Aichi M6A Seiran to go with it, but could make for some interesting alternate history missions in Pacific theatre...

[ElAurens]

The I 400s were not the only IJN submarines that deployed seaplanes.

The Kugisho E14Y Glen was carried on the smaller seaplane launching subs and was the only Axis aircraft to bomb the continental United States, though the attack was ineffective.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aircraft-pictures/171409d1309182532t-japanese-light-bombers-reconnaissance-aircrafts-yokosuka-e14y-glen-001.jpg

[Bat*21]

True, but the I-400 would be the one I'd like to see in the sim.

[Ace1staller]

I could be wrong here but it sounds a bit like you aren't aware that the Ki-21 is in the game already...

Ki-21-I and Ki-21-II have been available in the game for a few years now :)

The request is mostly around making it flyable. Having it or a Ki-48 or some sort of Japanese Army bomber would be really great.

oops, forgot about that, but the French potez 540 would be nice

[Ace1staller]

Also a new request :

Nakajima B3N Torpedo Bomber, I know its prototype, but what if its in WWII.

Here what it looks like :

http://http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/04/10/news/artb.jpg

[ElAurens]

True, but the I-400 would be the one I'd like to see in the sim.

The I 400 never sailed with it's intended aircraft, or on it's intended mission (attack of Panama Canal).

The other classes of IJN subs would be more useful.

But I't take anything I can get.

[Bat*21]

I think with some of the '46 aircraft in the sim, we can allow a bit of artistic license on the Pacific front too....

[ElAurens]

Oh I agree with that.

But then we would need a Rita, Kikka and Shinden.

;)

[Bat*21]

and why not? :grin:

I'm in no position to make demands, but I feel the experimental weapons on the Pacific front have been rather neglected.



Had another thought too, maybe a USN variant of the P-80, with arrestor hook etc?

[idonno]

Please, please, please do something about the ability of gunners, both human and AI, to fire accurately (or at all) while the airplane is maneuvering violently.

I'm so sick of taking hits from inverted bombers pulling 5 "G's".

Does anybody really think this kind of thing as at all reasonable? And it's been like this for how long?

It's long past time for this incredible oversight to be addressed.


I.D.

[ElAurens]

This is one of the best things about Cliffs of Dover.

The AI gunners behave like humans under stress and not robots from the planet Argus 9.

You can attack BF 109s and actually have a chance in a stern attack, unlike in IL2 where they snipe you from great distance. In fact all encounters with aircraft that have flexible gunners stations are far more realistic in Cliffs than IL2, and result in far more historical outcomes. (110s get slaughtered, as in real life).

[Pursuivant]

The Curtiss SOC Seagull would be a good one to have for the Allies, and the Misubishi F1M "Pete" for the IJN.

If some plane designer were to get the urge to model catapult-launched float planes, these would be my choices:

USN: Vought OS2U Kingfisher (most important operationally and numerically). Free of copyright, but not as good: Curtiss SOC Seagull, SOC3 Seamew or SC Seahawk.

RN: Swordfish Mk I (with floats) or Fairey Seafox, Supermarine Walrus (off-limits due to CloD) or Supermarine Sea Otter. Also, US lend-lease designs could substitute; the RN used the SO3C Seamew.

IJN: Mitsubishi F1M Pete, Aichi E13A Jake.

VVS: Beriev Be-4/KOR-2.

Regia Marina: IMAM Ro-43

France: Liore 130

The problem is that the sort of work that patrol/recce floatplanes did doesn't lend itself to in-game action. In the game, they're just targets and there are already plenty of planes which serve that role.

[Pursuivant]

I wouldn't mind being able to put AAA on the roofs of buildings or on bunkers.

Or, just being able to place objects on top of other objects, so that you could, for example, put trucks or cargo on piers.