Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11 [Archive] - Page 4

View Full Version : Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

IceFire

07-16-2011, 08:51 PM

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.
Sorry but you make it sound like it's this really easy thing to fix and that by throwing a switch it'll be done. How dare people not throw the switch. That isn't how it is.

AI programming is not the easiest thing... Cliffs of Dover had a totally different AI implementation from the ground up and that's why that system is so much better than the way the AI gunners in IL-2 behave. I know stuff has been worked on in the past and probably will be worked on in the future... but it isn't an easy thing.

idonno

07-16-2011, 11:19 PM

Bat*21

07-18-2011, 06:45 AM

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.

When I first had the idea I was actually thinking of SeaHurricanes used on the Arctic convoys.

And I don't think the game is past a bit of patrol/recce work, I've had to fly SAR missions in the past which just involved me flying over the pacific ocean looking for a pilot in a raft....

Could use the floatplanes for ASW mission for a larger carrier group maybe?
Put some depth charges in game and take on those submerged subs!

Pursuivant

07-18-2011, 06:52 AM

Could use the floatplanes for ASW mission for a larger carrier group maybe? Put some depth charges in game and take on those submerged subs!

I agree. ASW would be an interesting area which hasn't been covered (at least from the aerial sub-hunter's point of view) and would fit in nicely with some of the strike-fighter, navigation and electronic warfare mods which have been developed.

SAR operations would take more more work, such as animated swimming figures or figures in lifeboats or life rafts.

Bat*21

07-18-2011, 06:59 AM

SAR operations would take more more work, such as animated swimming figures or figures in lifeboats or life rafts.

The USN Bomber campaign has one or two of these. Very long distance flying though, and all to try and spot the pilot in a life raft object from height!

Bat*21

07-21-2011, 03:35 PM

Not to seem demanding or anything, but maybe this one day?
EDIT: I can't see the picture just at the moment (may be my version of Flash playing up) but the pic is a He-343 Strahlbomber.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/ac/pic-detail.asp?aircraft_id=859&sCurrentPic=heinkel-he343-strahlbomber.jpg&sCurrentDescriptor=Left side color profile illustration view of the Heinkel He 343 Strahlbomber

This website (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=859) has all the relevant speculation needed (I think).

Asheshouse

07-21-2011, 03:52 PM

At the moment during an offline mission you can escape to Controls then rejoin the Mission. When you rejoin would it be possible to select a different aircraft, switch planes mid-mission in other words.

I can remember having a facility like this in "1942 Pacific Air War".
You could start a Midway mission in a torpedo bomber, and when inevitably you were shot down or successfully attacked and evaded, you could then switch to another flight and do the attack run all again. No need to start the mission at the beginning again.

LeLv8_Otto

07-24-2011, 07:25 PM

This is the problem that bores me the most in flight sims.

...

I think a sim should use Icon (very small) and should simulate what the pilot see and what he does not: clouds, sun... the dots/icon should totally disappear in that case.

Build a Toggle Icon key and I'm ok with that.
Could this finally be implemented in IL-2 series as well - dot is a dot regardless of the side or camouflage??

Ace1staller

07-25-2011, 12:30 AM

We REALLY NEED the D-520. It would fill a hole in the early French Aircraft.

bitterman

07-31-2011, 05:34 PM

dear developers! how about controlable Douglas DC-3, li-2, ju-52 and other cargo crafts? and it would be great to have cargo boxes, paratroopers and agents as loadouts on some planes. Many thnx!

Bat*21

07-31-2011, 07:51 PM

We REALLY NEED the D-520. It would fill a hole in the early French Aircraft.

And then we can have our Bf-109s fill the D-250 with holes! :D
Champion.

Tanker

08-01-2011, 12:13 AM

Add proper friction to runway and field surfaces so that a static aircraft will not weathercock into the wind.

bitterman

08-01-2011, 07:36 AM

and it would be great if some new map will appear. especially something from western and central europe. france, britain, greece, poland, belorussia , etc. there are lots of maps in Ultrapack (http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/3734/il21946fmbmaps.jpg). there are new and old in autumn and spring variants. and there are really good mods providing new textures to maps. (i think everyone agrees that the difference between slovakian and old prohorovka's textures are great) our squad (http://20abr.ucoz.ru/) hopes that something new will happen with maps in 4.11. thxs! (sorry if a similar request was mentioned above in this topik by someone else)

Bat*21

08-01-2011, 11:06 AM

Pursuivant

08-01-2011, 02:54 PM

This would be a welcome mod for folks who like their unlimited ammo, but still want to be able to dogfight or crash land safely when needed.

For off-liners, this change to the game has been right up there on the request list for years, but it's been ignored like a short kid when it's time to pick basketball teams.

Now, there's a mod (a really small, relatively simple mod) which fixes this problem. Perhaps it will inspire DT to produce an official, better, version.

Mod here:

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.phptopic,17518.msg188117.html#msg188117

Romanator21

08-02-2011, 11:58 PM

I think "jettison stores" will do the trick.

Jumpy

08-03-2011, 08:23 AM

That already works in 4.10. You need to have a button mapped to the command "Jettison Stores" (or something like this).
I might be replying to the wrong person, but, to Team Daidalos, thanks for keeping the game alive.
Like many others,I would like to see an allied 4-engine bomber but realise that it must be a huge undertaking to do properly, so enough of that. I would like to see more ships for the FMB. A wider variety of merchants, the German cruisers and battlecruisers , 8-inch gunned county class british, or the special anti-aircraft cruisers that the Americans developed during the period. Not all at once, of course , but perhaps some of the could be added over time. Also, I would like to be able to place objects such as stores or AA on docks/piers and on the concrete gun placements which are already included in the "objects" file in FMB. At the moment everything sits on the ground level or water surface. One last thing, can someone explain to me how to use the Test Runways in FMB? When I build an airfield, there only seems to be one that works for take-off.

Jumpy

08-03-2011, 08:44 AM

Would it be that hard to just temporarily disable the gun for a human or switch off the AI gunner while the plane is pulling a certain "G" load?

When I say it's long past time this were fixed, what I mean is the game should never have been released this way. I know you Daidalos Team guys haven't been tinkering with the sim that long, relatively speaking. I don't blame you for the fact that Oleg never did anything about it, but I do think something like this, that would benefit everyone and greatly improve the realism of the sim, is very much worth the time it would take to do it, no matter what needed to be pushed to the back burner.

I.D.

I am 57 years old and my father and uncles were soldiers. I was fortunate to be acquainted with so many of that generation, most of whom are now dead, and I miss them. Your post reminded me of a short conversation I had with one such, an ex RAF navigator who flew in Handley Page Halifaxes. He new I was interested in aircraft because I have a private pilot licence, fly microlights and used to be a jumper (parachutist). He mentioned that the early model Halifaxes often did not recover from a 90 degree bank. Incredulous, I said: "Surely they did'nt put a 4 -engined aircraft into a 90 Degree bank!!." (I thought he was joking.) He simply said:"They did with a fighter on their tail!" Your post made me laugh, that's all. Suggestion; Get high on their flank, dive and make high-speed firing passes. If it were too easy it would become boring.

batistadk

08-03-2011, 11:50 PM

Hi people.

I would like to know how difficult is to develop and add new vehicles to the game. I ask this because I feel the sim is missing important vehicles, and it would be good if Team Daidalos (or a specific developer, I don't know how they work) could add some of these in the next patches.

I miss vehicles mainly of three nations:

France - There aren't any kind of vehicle or tanks, but considering the lack of French stuff, even aircraft, those aren't a priority at all.

England - We could have early vehicles, like the Austin truck series, and some tanks, like Crusader, Churchill, etc., that were used in the North Africa, for example, before the British start receiving great amounts of American stuff through Lend-Lease.

Italy - It's a shame we don't have a single Italian vehicle, or even a tank, in the sim :mad:. They were used in some numbers at the USSR with the ARMIR, by the Whermacht in Italy after the armistice, but mainly in the Balkans and North Africa. CV-33, M13/40, the Semoventes, and the Fiat trucks would be my bet.

I think adding these vehicles would increse realism level, and make some strafings much funnier :rolleyes:. If someone is interested, I can add some links to these vehicles data and profiles. But, anyway, it's just a secondary request. If this process request too much resources and abusive hours of work, it's better just leave it aside and keep doing the most important work. That's why my first question.

I would like to thanks Team Daidalos for their good work, and for the promising 4.11 patch. Thanks in advance guys.

batistadk

Pursuivant

08-08-2011, 08:10 AM

I think "jettison stores" will do the trick.

Nope. I tried this, and unless I'm doing something wrong, it only works to jettison the cannon of the Hs-129Wa.

For other planes, if you select unlimited ammo from the options menu and choose any loadout option that includes rockets, bombs or gunpods, you're stuck with them for the entire mission.

Bat*21

08-08-2011, 11:10 AM

Nope. I tried this, and unless I'm doing something wrong, it only works to jettison the cannon of the Hs-129Wa.

For other planes, if you select unlimited ammo from the options menu and choose any loadout option that includes rockets, bombs or gunpods, you're stuck with them for the entire mission.

You're right. from my experience "Jettison Stores" doesn't work with infinite ammo.
Also, I didn't know you could drop that cannon on the Hs-129! I'm now contemplating how this could be used in a hilarious/practical manner!

Azazello

08-08-2011, 09:06 PM

Any chance of the higher rated +10.5lbTempest please?

IceFire

08-08-2011, 09:17 PM

Any chance of the higher rated +10.5lbTempest please?

That'd be a dream :)

On the outside... a +13lbs with Rotol propeller would be a blast.

Azazello

08-08-2011, 09:34 PM

That'd be a dream :)

On the outside... a +13lbs with Rotol propeller would be a blast.

:-D

would be - we have all these obscure variants of the Bf-109 and FW-190 but not more widespread British fighters like the 13lb Tempest or dare I even say the Spitfire Mk XIV. Shame really.

Maybe they'd be just a bit too awesome.

+1 for the 13lb Tempest.

Go on TD, you love it!

IceFire

08-08-2011, 10:01 PM

:-D

would be - we have all these obscure variants of the Bf-109 and FW-190 but not more widespread British fighters like the 13lb Tempest or dare I even say the Spitfire Mk XIV. Shame really.

Maybe they'd be just a bit too awesome.

+1 for the 13lb Tempest.

Go on TD, you love it!

To be fair the Bf109 spans the entire war and several theaters while the Tempest arrived on the scene in 1944 and received very few modifications through it's wartime career (not counting the design lineage and history with the Typhoon). Nonetheless we're missing some key British types that I'd really love to see implemented. I'm not talking about bombers either (which is a default position people seem to take when I say that).

Going back to the Tempest itself. The biggest impediment a few years ago was utter lack of detailed documentation on the +11lbs. Oleg was more than willing to entertain the notion of a +11lb Tempest but we couldn't find enough information. It's like the Air Ministry waved its hand and proclaimed that 11lbs was just fine without worrying too much about it... sounds rather un-British like to me. There are a couple of charts but they were lacking detail and had no climb information. Surely performance information exists somewhere.

Perhaps more has been dug up since the last time I looked?

EDIT: I forgot to mention... the Spitfire XIV only problem has been a lack of 3d modeling. Back in the early days of IL-2 there were several attempts at Spitfires and the two successful ones gave us the Mark V, IX and Vc/VIII and Seafire III. There were a couple of later model Spitfires that were never finished. I know there is one that was made by one third party somewhere... not sure how fully complete it is and to what specifications it was done to. There may be others floating around somewhere! I still have some pieces of information about the XIV gunsight.

Azazello

08-09-2011, 06:06 AM

To be fair the Bf109 spans the entire war and several theaters while the Tempest arrived on the scene in 1944 and received very few modifications through it's wartime career (not counting the design lineage and history with the Typhoon). Nonetheless we're missing some key British types that I'd really love to see implemented. I'm not talking about bombers either (which is a default position people seem to take when I say that).

Going back to the Tempest itself. The biggest impediment a few years ago was utter lack of detailed documentation on the +11lbs. Oleg was more than willing to entertain the notion of a +11lb Tempest but we couldn't find enough information. It's like the Air Ministry waved its hand and proclaimed that 11lbs was just fine without worrying too much about it... sounds rather un-British like to me. There are a couple of charts but they were lacking detail and had no climb information. Surely performance information exists somewhere.

Perhaps more has been dug up since the last time I looked?

EDIT: I forgot to mention... the Spitfire XIV only problem has been a lack of 3d modeling. Back in the early days of IL-2 there were several attempts at Spitfires and the two successful ones gave us the Mark V, IX and Vc/VIII and Seafire III. There were a couple of later model Spitfires that were never finished. I know there is one that was made by one third party somewhere... not sure how fully complete it is and to what specifications it was done to. There may be others floating around somewhere! I still have some pieces of information about the XIV gunsight.

I hear what you say about the Tempest - the lack of performance data is odd. Closterman's account of the 13lb makes it sound like a beast - a pity.

There is a good 3D model of the Spit XIV in UP3. They've done the XVI too.

viktor94

08-09-2011, 10:18 PM

All the new aircraft from 4.09 and 4.10 should be integrated into the DGen sometimes.(AI and flyable)
The Fokkers DXXI for example is a must be for the FAF campaign. :)

IceFire

08-09-2011, 10:46 PM

I hear what you say about the Tempest - the lack of performance data is odd. Closterman's account of the 13lb makes it sound like a beast - a pity.

There is a good 3D model of the Spit XIV in UP3. They've done the XVI too.

Do you know if:

A) It's actually finished (meaning all LODs, etc.)?
B) Done to specifications in terms of solidity of the mesh and poly count?
C) Contacted Team Daidalos?

If so that'd be fantastic. It does seem that sometimes some great MODs are out there but only partly finished (the bits important enough to get into the game) and not quite ready for an official release. I'd love for the extra mile to be covered... there are some truly great works out there.

Azazello

08-10-2011, 07:44 AM

Sadly, I don't know the answers to your questions. I just play the game from time to time. All I can say is that the XIV and XVI models look good enough on screen.

IceFire

08-11-2011, 02:09 AM

Sadly, I don't know the answers to your questions. I just play the game from time to time. All I can say is that the XIV and XVI models look good enough on screen.

Not to look down on the mod makers because they do fantastic stuff but often enough things are done just to get it in (which is fine) but not truly finished which is sometimes problematic over the long haul. Especially on lower end systems. This is often a problem with mods for other games too. Still I'd love to see some great content migrate over to the official patches... the mod world is a great place to iron out the kinks and get things right.

Deliverator

08-11-2011, 11:34 AM

Hello there team Daidalos !

First, i'd like to introduce why i'm going to ask you, what i'm going to do. I've been an spanish IL2 user for 6 years (i've started when i was 15 years old only :grin: ) and i've been all this time a member of an spanish squad called Escuadron 69 (http://www.escuadron69.net/v20/foro/index.php?app=ccs) all this time. Nowadays, we mostly fly serious missions with or/and against other squads, so we mostly use SEOW mission generator and another one called Danger Zone (http://dangerzone.escuadronbo2.com/home.php) that is under constant update.

For this both kind of mission generators, there is one kind of mission type for supply airfields and cities. To do that, we have to turn on smoke so eventlog register the point of supply, what is really innacuratte.

I'd like to ask you to add the option to register in eventlog the drop of supply cargo from planes, and the drop of paratroopers. If these both actions are registered in eventlog, it does open a new world of gameplay adding realistic supplies and paratroopers launching to take enemy airfields and cities. More than interesting, don't you think? ;).

Thanks for your hard working in IL2 series Daidalos !

Xilon_x

08-11-2011, 12:13 PM

supply and repair the airport. launch of paratroopers on the city to win them.MMMMMMM good idea!!!
are years that ask for refueling at the airport and a very important thing.

i ask also optional comand for NAVY and ARTIGLIERY.

Azazello

08-12-2011, 11:46 AM

Not to look down on the mod makers because they do fantastic stuff but often enough things are done just to get it in (which is fine) but not truly finished which is sometimes problematic over the long haul. Especially on lower end systems. This is often a problem with mods for other games too. Still I'd love to see some great content migrate over to the official patches... the mod world is a great place to iron out the kinks and get things right.

I don't know whether there's any lines open between TD and the mod makers, but it strikes me that some kind of communication might be constructive for both sides.

Perhaps someone from TD could assess the Spitfire XIV models present in UP3 to see whether they're good enough - at the very least they should provide a base from which to work.

There were as many XIVs produced as there were FW190 Doras so the XIV deserves to be in the sim, in my opinion at least.

ECV56_etendar

08-19-2011, 02:59 AM

IceFire

08-19-2011, 03:13 AM

I don't know whether there's any lines open between TD and the mod makers, but it strikes me that some kind of communication might be constructive for both sides.

Perhaps someone from TD could assess the Spitfire XIV models present in UP3 to see whether they're good enough - at the very least they should provide a base from which to work.

There were as many XIVs produced as there were FW190 Doras so the XIV deserves to be in the sim, in my opinion at least.
Some people work in both areas... which is great because some cool stuff gets implemented in the official releases later. I'd love to see more of that.

Bat*21

08-19-2011, 07:28 AM

I do not know if was proposed, groups of naval force, ewxample: 1DD + 6Cargo Ships; 1CV + 1BB + 3DD; this moves at same form to vehicles columns.
Set the waipoints and the naval force move in the map as yuo want.

I would also like this. Very frustrating trying to get ships to hold formation in anything other than a straight line.

Stealth_Eagle

08-20-2011, 03:56 AM

Would it be possible to incorporate the mod B 26 into 4.11 since some of us (like me) do not wish to run mods. Also, since there is so many requests for repaints of the cockpits, is it even a possibility to add the mod repaints of the cockpits. Also, I don't know if this has been mentioned but is it possible to use the ground AA 50 cal tracer in the aircraft tracer rather than the current red or is the red historically more correct than the white since I remember seeing gun camera footage of white 50 cals over Europe but red in the pacific.

Thanks for your dedication and time.

ElAurens

08-20-2011, 01:03 PM

I think the mod cockpit repaints are way out of spec in regards to poly counts. This is why they do not get included in official TD patches.

CWMV

08-21-2011, 07:05 AM

Ace1staller

08-21-2011, 03:03 PM

Stealth_Eagle

08-22-2011, 01:34 AM

.50 cal tracer is red/red-orange depending on the person looking at it.
This is true of ball, API, SLAP and I believe SLAP-T ammo.

I have this question as well since you have said that: the AAA 50 Cal fires white rounds not the red rounds so why the difference?

DTsang

08-23-2011, 05:21 PM

"Control surface & pilot's head positions transferred over network"

This is really a good feature and thanks very much Team Daidalos.

are these information stored in the track files? i.e. when I play the track files, I can still see the control surface and pilot head moving for all aircrafts?

Currently I can see the control surface moving of my own plane, and that's all.

Besides it would be even better if we could see the speed, altitude, even whole instruments of every aircraft in the track. But I seriously doubt about this. :-P

Hawker17

08-24-2011, 10:22 PM

Are (AI) triggers planned for 4.11 release?

Ibis

08-24-2011, 11:03 PM

A small mission clock in the corner of the full mission builder for testing missions as they are built would be very welcome.
cheers,
Ibis.

Xilon_x

08-25-2011, 04:30 AM

dear Daidalos Team my request is:
a STANDARD FICTIONAL COCKPIT(simple interface) for AIRPLANE NOT FLYIABLE.
Actualy when you play online whit not flyable airplane the problem is fly whit only esternal view.

Pursuivant

08-25-2011, 07:28 AM

.50 cal tracer is red/red-orange depending on the person looking at it. This is true of ball, API, SLAP and I believe SLAP-T ammo.

Historically, the incendiary material used for tracers could vary, giving them different colors - white, red/reddish-orange or green. Details here:

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

Pursuivant

08-25-2011, 07:38 AM

Some ideas for the QMB and FMB:

1) Make it possible to give all planes in a flight the same skin without having to select each plane individually. That is, in addition to plane 1-4, have an "All planes in this flight" option.

2) Make it possible to "clone" flights in the QMB, without having to select the same aircraft, nationality, loadout, etc.

Jumpy

08-26-2011, 04:44 PM

I would like to see a Netherlands Fokker G.I in the 4.12 patch as flyable or unflyable because it would be a great for my new Empires and Allies camapign. Which this might be included in the 2nd version of my campaign.

We all have our favourites I guess. Since there are so many Spitfire and Bf109 variants I hope Team Daidalos will revisit the Hawker Hurricane. It carried yes, 500 lb bombs, rocket projectiles, external fuel and don't forget the 40mm Vickers guns. These were belt fed with 15 rounds. The Stuka and Sturmovik are modelled with similar weapons, so why not the good old RAF workhorse, the Hurricane. The addiition of the correctly shaped arrestor hook would also produce the Sea Hurricane which operated from HMS Argus and also I think ARK ROYAL in the Med. This coding is already in the game, and would only have to be 'linked' to the hurricane. Oh, and the Hurricane also carried assymetric stores, although not popular with pilots doing this. I have a photo in a book showing one in North Africa with a 40mm gun under the starboard wing and an external fuel tank under the port wing. Considering that it was also used in the Far East, I think this aircraft has been overlooked a bit in the game.:rolleyes:

Jumpy

08-26-2011, 07:36 PM

This is Jumpy again still raving about the Hurricane. I Have just performed a successful circuit (take off and landing) from an aircraft carrier with the Hawker Hurricane in Il-2. How do I record this and put it on You-tube?
Maybe it was a fluke, but I would like to do it again and post it. I had about one fuselage length between me and the bow when the plane stopped.
And this time I did'nt bend the propeller. Please Daidalos Team, give me an arrestor hook before I kill myself, ha-ha! :-D:-D

DD_crash

08-27-2011, 09:31 AM

This is Jumpy again still raving about the Hurricane. I Have just performed a successful circuit (take off and landing) from an aircraft carrier with the Hawker Hurricane in Il-2. How do I record this and put it on You-tube?

You need to record the track in game then capture the playback using FRAPS. Check out the movie forum at Ubi.

IceFire

08-27-2011, 06:54 PM

TedStryker

08-28-2011, 08:30 PM

Yep more Hurris/loadouts (assymetrics would be so cool - 40 mil Vickers and drop tank ahoy!) get my vote. Desert filters would be tasty as well.

Ace1staller

08-28-2011, 11:55 PM

Hurricane additions sound like a very good idea. Useful in North Africa scenarios, Western Europe scenarios (in the case of the Hurribomber) and Burma scenarios where the Mark IV with rockets and bombs were used.

Perhaps that I'm working on a Western Europe scenario already, I'm working it for Mission4Today community.

Tolwyn

08-29-2011, 08:31 PM

Here's a post on SimHQ (http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3311390/Easy_Ideas_for_Patch_for_Daida.html#Post3311390) that I wanted to share... Also follows an idea I had.

In conf.ini:

smoke_rtip_hexvalue "rrggbb" (FF0000 is red, 00FF00 is Green, etc.)
smoke_ltip_hexvalue "rrggbb" (same)
smoke_persistence "" (value is in seconds before dissipation)

Xilon_x

09-10-2011, 04:56 PM

what is the max number of airplane to carrier illustrious?
36 fulmar and swordfish in il-2 sturmovik 1946 not possible 36 airplane to carrier.
The carrier illustious not have the elevator in il-2 why?
carrier illustrious i start to plane 2 a not to plane 1.

beta4good

09-11-2011, 08:00 AM

When I'm looking in an external view (next friendly, for example) to another plane, if this multi-engine plane (bomber, fighter) has one engine shut down (eventually, feathered), all its engines seem to be shut down, as if this plane is only gliding.
Can this be changed? Thank you for your work and dedication!

Ace1staller

09-13-2011, 12:42 AM

I would like to see blood on the cockpit windows (both external and cockpit view) of a plane for 4.12 patch of Il-2 Sturmovik 1946. It makes it easier to tell that a pilot is KIA and its realistic.

Romanator21

09-13-2011, 03:13 AM

That would require changing the game rating, and that's impossible at this point.

Alien

09-13-2011, 02:59 PM

But maybe there could be some small drops of blood, not so gory, but reallistic enough.

Juri_JS

09-13-2011, 05:04 PM

I rememeber there was a HighGore option in an earlier version of the game, that worked only with some planes, but I think it was removed in later versions.

If blood isn't possible because of age ratings, pilots and gunners should at least slump forward when hit. At the moment it is impossible to tell if a pilot or gunner is still alive, which is especially frustrating when attacking bombers.

Romanator21

09-13-2011, 10:20 PM

As far as I recall, gore only worked on the Russian version of the game. The He-111 had pilots that slumped for a long time, but there was a bug associated with it in which bailed out crewmen would appear like dead ones, or something like that....

I agree that slumping could be a reasonable effect. I don't know how that factors into the rating though. Someone more knowledgeable could answer.

Juri_JS

09-14-2011, 12:44 AM

Slumped pilots/crews shouldn't be a problem for the rating. Rise of Flights has this feature too and it got an ESRB rating of 10+, as long as no blood is shown everything is OK.
Slumping crews would be a big improvement and I think DT should consider adding it. The game already supports this feature, therefore it wouldn't cause too much work.

aquila26

09-17-2011, 11:26 AM

mi piacerebbe una campagna corea no mods

aquila26

09-17-2011, 11:34 AM

assolutamente d'accordo molto bello missioni di rifornimento o paracadutisti!!!
idea per daidalos

Stealth_Eagle

09-17-2011, 12:54 PM

Two requests that I have:

1. A flyable B-26B with the wing enhancements (extending of the wing by 3 feet so you wouldn't have to land extremely fast relative to other aircraft)

2. Workable catapults like the mod does (I don't know if the mod is good enough for it since I always run my IL-2 games clean) as well as improved ship functions such as below decks on carriers (that was initially planned to be part of pacific fighters but never came through)

3. More surface ships (If someone will teach me how, I'll possibly work on some so we don't just have 3 merchant ships and only a limited number of German and British warships but someone else will have to do the skinning)

4. Skins for ships rather than having several examples of the same kind of ship like the Japanese carriers.

ElAurens

09-17-2011, 01:44 PM

The early B26s were the better aircraft in combat.

Pursuivant

09-18-2011, 03:49 AM

Two requests that I have:

That's actually four.

1. A flyable B-26B with the wing enhancements (extending of the wing by 3 feet so you wouldn't have to land extremely fast relative to other aircraft)

Add it to the pile of requests for official aircraft. There's a modded B-26B frankenplane, though. It works reasonably well.

2. Workable catapults like the mod does (I don't know if the mod is good enough for it since I always run my IL-2 games clean) as well as improved ship functions such as below decks on carriers (that was initially planned to be part of pacific fighters but never came through)

Catapults are available as a mod and would be sort of useful as an official add-on. I don't see much point to below decks hangars on aircraft carriers, since that's mostly the domain of the mechanics and other ground crew. IL2 is a flight simulator, not a ship and aircraft maintenance simulator. Working elevators which make aircraft on deck "vanish" or magically appear would be sort of cool, but it's a real low priority.

3. More surface ships

Again, available as a whole variety of mods. Also, according to rumors there will be more ships in official DT patches. While the list of U.S. ships is limited by the NG agreement, there are no restrictions on ships of other nationalities (i.e., British, Italian, Japanese, Soviet, German), and no restrictions on the sort of small craft which were the typical prey of strike fighters.

Ships fall between aircraft and land vehicles and ground objects in terms of modding difficulty. There are tutorials on how to get ships into the game on various modding websites, but nothing official.

4. Skins for ships rather than having several examples of the same kind of ship like the Japanese carriers.

I agree that the ability to skin ships would be convenient. Not only could you update camo patterns by year, and make hack skins so that ships of one country could stand in for those of another, but you could apply skins to differentiate ships of the same class (e.g., the various U.S. CVL).

Who knows what the coding would be like to get this feature into the game, though? Again, IL2 is a flight simulator, not a ship simulator. The only reason that ships exist is as landing places, mobile flak batteries and/or targets. Most players probably don't give a rat's hindquarters that the U.S. Mahan class destroyer isn't in the game or that the Fletcher class destroyers all have the same camo scheme and that it never varies from 1941 to 1945. So, potentially a lot of work for little practical improvement to the game.

ElAurens

09-18-2011, 03:17 PM

Skinning ships would be a good thing.

The Russian Marat BB would make a good stand in for the Fuso or Ise.

Xilon_x

09-18-2011, 05:14 PM

WW2 whit need war ships i not call ww2 but i call stupid game.
yes il-2 is a air simulation but in the object list i loock russian american english and german list of navy where are the italian navy(ROMA)? where is FLOTTIGLIA X MASS?
this is not respect for ww2 naval story.
in il-2 exist air combat and aereonaval combat i agree if you adding a catapult sistem and elevator to carrier and ship.
MISSING the super important WAR SHIP BIG IN THE WORLD ----THE YAMATO--- this is not respect for naval history.

ALSO the TANKS WHERE IS THE ITALIAN AND FRANCE TANKS in the object list i noot see this.

MicroWave

09-18-2011, 06:31 PM

aquila26

09-18-2011, 06:45 PM

guerra italo etiopica guerra di spagna, alcune idee non ho caapito la scaelta del IK3 nella patch 4.11 èstato poco usato quasi sconosciuto!!!!

Romanator21

09-18-2011, 07:56 PM

guerra italo etiopica guerra di spagna, alcune idee non ho capito la scelta del IK3 nella patch 4.11 èstato poco usato quasi sconosciuto!!!!

Italo Ethiopian War Spanish Civil War, some ideas I did not understand the choice of the 4.11 patch in the summer Ik3 little used almost unheard of!!

It sounds to me as if you're complaining, so allow me to say something:

Adding a 3-D model is extremely tough work (believe me, I've tried and failed to build a MiG-15 once). In order to be successful, you need expertise, and strong interest in the project.

This time around, someone was more interested in modeling the Yugoslavian front and built the IK-3. Also, I wouldn't call it an unimportant plane: it represented a people's ingenuity and fight for freedom. It was even preferred by pilots over the Hurricane and Bf-109E. Only 6 aircraft were operational at the time of the German invasion, yet pilots managed to shoot down 15 German aircraft.

I think the idea of a Spanish Civil War map would be interesting, but that would require staggering amounts of new aircraft, tanks, vehicles, etc.

The Italo-Ethiopian war may have been important too, but it's not interesting to most people where the only aerial combatants would have been the Potez 25 and a mish-mash of other aircraft vs. the Ca.101, Ca.111, Ro.1, Ro.37, MF.4, CR.20, and CANT 25. Overall, it was fairly one-sided, and most of the fighting took place on the ground. If someone does decide to take on that project, you can expect it to take a few years to have everything ready.

Someone has to build them. It's not like there is a pool from where developers just pick stuff they like.

IceFire

09-20-2011, 03:54 AM

I may have asked about this before... but I honestly can't remember. Has anyone who worked on the Me410 project for UP or HSFX or wherever it showed up ever thought about trying to submit that for official inclusion? I believe even a cockpit was underway at one point.

Not an absolutely critical aircraft but one with quite a bit of flexibility in roles and... interestingly enough the aircraft that replaced the Ju88 in the bomber role despite being somewhat unsuited to it.

Tempest123

09-21-2011, 04:48 PM

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.

This is a long standing issue, and if I recall correctly there will be several AI changes to 4.11.

Other long standing AI issues include the ability of AI to see through their own plane, clouds and the dark of night, making it impossible to "bounce" them, and making nightfighting missions somewhat unbalanced. Their evasion tactics consist of endless aileron and barrel rolls, and if your wingmen follow you in for landing they often crash into the ground, or yourself. Also their speed and manoeuvres are somewhat superhuman, given that no one could pull all the g's the AI pull and still be able to fight.

The G-limits where IMHO the best change to IL2 in a long time, and has made it much better, but AI programming is very difficult so I don't know what issues can be addressed or not.

Pursuivant

09-21-2011, 09:01 PM

Someone has to build them. It's not like there is a pool from where developers just pick stuff they like.
Fortunately for you, someone built something from your list.

There's also the problem that DT is prevented by their license with 1c from modeling the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, which seriously limits the Italian equipment available in the game. Likewise, DT is prevented from modeling the Battle of Britain era, which limits the French equipment available.

And, not to be disrespectful to either the French or the Italians, but France was pretty much out of the war by 1941 and Italy was pretty much out of the war by the end of 1942. Certainly, French and Italian units continued to fight on, but they mostly used machines made by other countries (e.g., Germany, U.S., U.K.) to do it.

That said, there are independent efforts afoot to create Italian and French ships, planes and armor. They're just proceeding relatively quietly.

As for the IJN Yamato, it was a colossal waste of money and resources. Sure it was the biggest battleship in the world, but by 1942 that just made it a great big target. It was obsolete the day it was launched. Still, it looks like the Yamato will be in some future patch, so IL2 players will get the thrill of reenacting operation Ten-Go from the point of view of the Americans, I just wish that we had a proper SB2C Helldiver to bomb it with.

Xilon_x

09-21-2011, 10:58 PM

ok ok.... There's also the problem that DT is prevented by their license with 1c from modeling the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, which seriously limits the Italian equipment available in the game. Likewise, DT is prevented from modeling the Battle of Britain era, which limits the French equipment available.

MEDITERRAIN no is proibited
BATTLE OF BRITTAIN no is proibited

remain the BALKANS war ITALY GREECE
or REMAIN the RUSSIAN mission over BATTLE STALINGRATO
or remain the FRANCE germany attak france and italy attak south france especiale wen FRANCE and ENGLAND attak the port of GENOVA.
remain spanisc civil war and
final remain the post ww2 era the corea or suez crisis.

Romanator21

09-21-2011, 11:32 PM

Do you expect anyone to make planes overnight? It's not easy.

You keep complaining that the Italian forces are under-represented.

Just in case you haven't noticed, we've gotten an SM.79, Re.2000, Re.2002, CANT Z.1007, Fiat G.55s of many variations and the G.50 model was corrected. The new patch will feature new default skin variations that will permit the user to change the skin of the Ju-87, Ju-88 etc to a Mediterranean one simply by switching the nationality. A few other surprises may be in store as well.

Think about how many planes that is in just two patches. Still want to complain?

Tempest123

09-22-2011, 03:39 AM

Xilon if you want all this stuff you keep asking for then feel free to make it yourself.

Xilon_x

09-22-2011, 07:06 AM

I thank all the teams Daidalos for SM.79, Re.2000, Re.2002, CANT Z.1007, Fiat G.55s of many variations and the G.50 model was corrected.
BUT the work not is copletely complete missing much much italian airplane and bombers IMAM ro 43/44 missing piaggio p108 and missing fiat br20 missing reggiane 2006 missing CANT 1018 missing S.M.81 and 82 missing the DORNIER 217 iTALIAN HAVE THIS FOR BOMBER missing cant 501 cant 506 ecc.

but war ship pola, trento bolzano class littorio giulio cesare, roma ,cavour,zara,fiume,ecc.ecc.

and italian tank and trqansport unit missing for colum.
the work for daidalos team is hard and longe but for me is sufficent add only 2 important bombers italian example and 1 italian seaplane. 1important war ship and 1 importat cruiser 1 important tank stop.

Romanator21

09-22-2011, 07:33 AM

Ok, but think about how many planes are missing from all the other air forces too! In a world of finite resources, you can't have everything, unfortunately.

I'd love to have those planes too, but since neither of us can model, we have to take what we get, and be happy that we have anything at all!

This is a request thread. It's ok to make requests. But, remember not to turn your request for something into a complaint for lack of that something. Have patience, and maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised! ;)

MrBaato

09-22-2011, 10:03 AM

There are many generic skins that change with the theater of war, which can't be selected manually.

It would be nice to have each generic skin as a bmp in your skin folder so you can choose for instance a western europe p47 generic skin in a pacific theater map. Or winter cammo in a summer map.

lebobouba

09-22-2011, 03:37 PM

Each new plane is welcome.
But I think it would be possible to have more planes easily whitout heavy modifications, by using the existing in game aircrafts in order to dispose many of missing variants.

Some examples:

GE: Me109 E1 & E3, Me110 D, E & F, Fw190 A2,A3,F9
GB: Hurricane mk IIa & Sea Hurricanes, Spitfire/Seafire mk I & II, Blenheim's fighter variant & IV-V (with improved defensive armament), Beaufighter Mk I & VI.
US: P40's F-K-L-N, P38's E-F-G-H, F4U1 Birdcage & F4U4, SBD's 2-4-6, B-25 C (field mod) & J strafer variant, A20 strafer (field mod).
USSR: A20 (field mod with UB machine guns and UTK rear turret)

And the list is far from being closed.
Sorry for my bad English.

Tempest123

09-23-2011, 12:47 AM

I have a small request. There are many times when I would like to fly as a pilot or bombardier, but not both, in single player. I find it tedious to have to fly the aircraft, aim the bombsight and worry about fighters at the same time.
I think it would be realistic to allow the aircraft to be flown by AI (autopilot), and still have manual control of the bombsight and bomb release. And on the flipside, it would be nice to have an AI fellow as your bombardier so I could concentrate on flying.
Any thoughts?

Anvilfolk

09-23-2011, 02:58 AM

I'm part of the CVW-13, and we mostly fly VT-13, a torpedo squadron. We love flying formations and all that Zekes vs Wildcats, but on servers with more flak, the risk/reward of torpedo bombing is really off.

Apparently the problem is that the explosive charge is not enough. It is realistic, but since ships only have "above the waterline armour", then the effect of explosives on a less protected, below the waterline area is not modelled. Therefore, each torpedo does a minimal, irrealistic amount of damage.

I would suggest counter-balancing by either 1) having torpedos with more explosives, or 2) modelling underwater armour as well as above waterline armour. Either way, if ships entered evasive manoeuvres, it would be the best thing ever :)

Cheers!

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

09-23-2011, 07:14 AM

I think it would be realistic to allow the aircraft to be flown by AI (autopilot), and still have manual control of the bombsight and bomb release. And on the flipside, it would be nice to have an AI fellow as your bombardier so I could concentrate on flying.
Any thoughts?

I understand, what you are heading for, but wasn't the bombadier flying the plane during bomb run?

SaQSoN

09-23-2011, 07:43 AM

I understand, what you are heading for, but wasn't the bombadier flying the plane during bomb run?

On some planes - yes, on some other - no. And on some even others, bombardier was controlling plane indirectly through bombsight, connected to an autopilot.

Actually, most of the bombsights in IL-2 game are very simplified operation-wise, or even worse - work completely different, then IRL.

On top of that, bombardier in the game is actually same, as the pilot. Bombardier and bombsight views in game are just another viewpoints for the pilot, from the game mechanics point of view. And that, I believe, is main and most difficult to overcome problem, which wouldn't allow making more realistic bombardier to pilot operation and cooperation in the game.

SaQSoN

09-23-2011, 07:57 AM

since ships only have "above the waterline armour", then the effect of explosives on a less protected, below the waterline area is not modelled. Therefore, each torpedo does a minimal, irrealistic amount of damage.

a) there is no difference between "underwater" and "above water" strength of the ship hulls in the game, in other words, there is no such thing as "above the waterline armour", or "below the waterline armour" in the game;
b) real life WWII war ships had more or less adequate underwater protection, especially designed to withstand underwater ordnance detonation;
c) and finally, just as my personal opinion: most torpedoes in the game are way too effective, comparing to the real life, actually. Even destroyers and transports, which didn't have the underwater protection could often survive single torpedo hit IRL. In the game - they don't.

Romanator21

09-23-2011, 09:52 AM

Torpedo-bombing was certainly a thankless job. Single "kills" were rare, and it was really a group effort. (Another reason for dividing points online for a shared kill: everyone wants to be the last one to drop the torpedo)

On the other hand, even one torpedo hit would do damage - the ship might list, slow down, or sit dead in the water. Many ships in the game have an "all-or-nothing" DM: The ship is either healthy, or stopped and sinking... Even the big ships like BBs and carriers have their simplifications.

Unfortunately, Il-2 wasn't designed as a sim for torpedo bombers, so many concessions were made in ship modeling. In order to be up to par with folks' and my own desires, everything about the ships will have to be redone completely from scratch: ship AI, convoy behavior, subs that dive, and also more detailed DM so players can damage the engines, blow up magazines or fuel, knock out guns, or destroy the bridge, etc. That's a Herculean task.

Somewhat related: In Silent Hunter 3 (a sub game) one has to make sure his torpedoes are going to hit the hull of the ship perpendicularly. If the angle is too shallow between the path of the torpedo and the side of the hull, an impact-pistol torpedo can bounce off, doing no harm. Magnetic-pistol torpedoes explode under the hull, eliminating this restriction, but as far as I know, planes didn't carry those (you have to know the draught of the vessel you're going to hit).

Pursuivant

09-23-2011, 02:41 PM

Each new plane is welcome.
But I think it would be possible to have more planes easily whitout heavy modifications, by using the existing in game aircrafts in order to dispose many of missing variants.

Good idea. I've asked for it myself! :)

Adding new variants of new planes, and increasing the loadout options for existing planes would make a lot of mods redundant. It would also be relatively quick and easy to do, since little new 3d modeling, FM and DM work would be needed.

Pursuivant

09-23-2011, 03:39 PM

I think it would be realistic to allow the aircraft to be flown by AI (autopilot), and still have manual control of the bombsight and bomb release. And on the flipside, it would be nice to have an AI fellow as your bombardier so I could concentrate on flying.

For planes equipped with the Norden bombsight, you can already do this. Training video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BY3i7BlCPo

Some late war RAF and Luftwaffe planes had similar sights, which allowed the bombardier to essentially fly the plane during the bomb run, but the British and German versions of the Norden sight aren't yet in the game.

What isn't in the game is an AI pilot who will respond to your commands as bombardier. This would be much the same thing as the Norden sight, but with slower feedback and more chance of error if the pilot overcorrects, undercorrects or doesn't react in time.

Anvilfolk

09-23-2011, 06:32 PM

Thanks for the answers, SaQSoN and Romanator. Appreciated :)

I've noticed that whenever the torpedo doesn't hit near a 90 degree angle, sometimes it won't even take down a destroyer. I think it is related to angle but I'm not sure. can anyone clarify?

Another question is whether hitting the same area repeatedly does more damage than hitting separate areas. For vanilla and/or UP, this information would be nice to have :)

For instance the carrier damage models are great (I only fly UP, so I'm not sure if it's their modification) for carriers. They get craters making take-off hard/impossible, and they list, and all that.

And if anyone could point me to statistics about how many torpedoes it took to take out ships in general, I'd love to read about it. I'm trying to figure out the actual effectiveness of torpedo bombing!

Thanks again!

Tempest123

09-23-2011, 07:29 PM

For planes equipped with the Norden bombsight, you can already do this. Training video here...

Thanks, I wasn't aware that you could use trim to steer on level stabilizer. I was thinking maybe an AI pilot who would take care of overflying the target himself, so that the bombardier didn't have to make so many corrections.

Pugo3

09-23-2011, 08:23 PM

Hello, new to this forum and very late making this inquiry. I realize this will most likely not rank as a high priority item, but might you include a toggle option in the set up to have the option of close in 'twist and turn' combat, B&Z, or random (with 3-way toggle) while flying offline?

I've found that if I fight any AI aircraft whose performance is greater than the one I'm flying, it will not engage in classic dogfighting, but always climbs away to begin the B&Z. This prevents one from ever knowing how the planes compare in close while flying offline.

I hope you will consider including this option in the future at some point, as it would greatly increase the quality of the AI offline experience for those wishing to see how the aircraft compare in close in fighting while flying offline.

Thanks for all the great work, love Il-2 and would love to see this feature in the game.

Respectfully,

Pugo3

Lagarto

09-25-2011, 07:21 AM

P-51A (as flown by the Air Commandos in Burma) and P-47N comes to my mind

Each new plane is welcome.
But I think it would be possible to have more planes easily whitout heavy modifications, by using the existing in game aircrafts in order to dispose many of missing variants.

By the way, am I the only one who thinks that the ground is way too rough? It's nearly impossible to taxi around outside runways without nosing over. It's unrealistic, since forward airfields were usually just open stretches of land and aircraft were able to operate from them.

aquila26

09-25-2011, 02:08 PM

:)perche non campagne tipo guerra civile in Spagna o guerra Italo Etiopica, nel secondo caso sarebbero in particolare ground targets in quanto , per quel che so gli etiopi non avevano quasi aviazione

aquila26

09-25-2011, 02:26 PM

NOn ho ancora capito il problema avengers perche no?
Perchè no i Kate o i Swordfifish?
Sarebbe ben averli a bordo delle portaerei americane britanniche o giapponesi

aquila26

09-25-2011, 02:34 PM

Ho visto poche missione con SM 79 come mai?c'è qualche problema tecnico o non piace aereo?

aquila26

09-25-2011, 02:41 PM

A squadra Daidalos è molto impegnativo trasformare aereo AI in Aereo Fliable?
Vedo nella lista AI molti aerei della WW II

_1SMV_Gitano

09-25-2011, 03:18 PM

@ aquila26:

modellare un cockpit in 3D Studio MAX è impagnitivo tanto quanto un modello esterno. Quindi ci vuole qualcuno che lo sappia fare bene, e ci vuole tempo. Il Team Daidalos non ha un numero sufficente di modellatori 3D per modellare i cockpit di tutti i velivoli AI presenti nel gioco.

Per quanto riguarda l'Avenger, il suo cockpit non può essere aggiunto al gioco per una questione legale tra 1C e Northrop-Grumman.

aquila26

09-25-2011, 03:29 PM

Im qualsiasi modo facciate e quualsiasi decisione prendiate ....
sempre e comunque un grande e sentito grazie

Tolwyn

09-28-2011, 05:25 PM

Any response? :)
I thought it was a great idea. ;)

Here's a post on SimHQ (http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3311390/Easy_Ideas_for_Patch_for_Daida.html#Post3311390) that I wanted to share... Also follows an idea I had.

In conf.ini:

smoke_rtip_hexvalue "rrggbb" (FF0000 is red, 00FF00 is Green, etc.)
smoke_ltip_hexvalue "rrggbb" (same)
smoke_persistence "" (value is in seconds before dissipation)

Lagarto

09-30-2011, 07:02 AM

Is it possible to tweak the damage model so that an a/c hit in the wing would drop wheel? Judging from debriefing reports, it was a common occurrence, esp. with Bf 109s and Fw 190s.

Hanzu

09-30-2011, 08:59 AM

Requesting fixes for these official missions which have been broken since Forgotten Battles was released.

\Missions\Net\coop\1IBCo-op3-HungaryBridge.mis is missing [Target] which makes RED WON ! and BLUE WON ! impossible
\Missions\Net\coop\1IBCo-op6-SeelowHeights.mis is missing [Target] which makes RED WON ! and BLUE WON ! impossible
\Missions\Net\coop\1IBCo-op8-FirstDay.mis is missing [Target] which makes RED WON ! and BLUE WON ! impossible
\Missions\Net\coop\3IBCo-op1-Stalingrad.mis is misbalanced and BLUE WON ! is 99% impossible
\Missions\Net\coop\3IBCo-op3-MistelBerlin.mis is missing "army" and "[Target] time" which makes RED WON ! impossible
\Missions\Net\coop\3IBCo-op5-ConvoyChina.mis is using "Target Ground" for non-stationary units which makes RED WON ! and BLUE WON ! impossible

More details here (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=26080).

Pursuivant

09-30-2011, 02:21 PM

Is it possible to tweak the damage model so that an a/c hit in the wing would drop wheel? Judging from debriefing reports, it was a common occurrence, esp. with Bf 109s and Fw 190s.

Wheels dropping are an indicator of a hydraulic fluid leak and/or damage to the hydraulic system, which was sometimes used to control other systems, such as flaps.

It's possible to model this sort of damage in IL2; there are several mods which do so for certain planes. But, it would require a fair bit of time given the number of planes in the game. It would also require investigation into which planes had hydraulics, what parts of the plane they controlled and how quickly they would fail if the system sprung a leak. To complicate things further, some planes had multiple hydraulic systems which controlled different parts.

Tempest123

09-30-2011, 02:49 PM

I have a request relating to runway lights. In the real world, many ARCAL and other light systems stay active for 15 minutes after being turned on.
In Il2 tried them out and had to request the lights to be turned on 3 times during approach in Bf110, once they went out right as I was over the threshold. I doubt in the real world, that the ground crews would have killed the lights while the aircraft was on approach.
Can we make the duration of runway lights at least 5-10 minutes so that a full approach from a beacon can be made?

Another request, the landing light is non functional as it doesn't light up the ground, can this be fixed, maybe in the same way that flares and explosions cast light?

Xilon_x

09-30-2011, 04:16 PM

SaQSoN

09-30-2011, 04:52 PM

Wheels dropping are an indicator of a hydraulic fluid leak and/or damage to the hydraulic system

As someone here has already said, gear dropping is a result of landing gear leg upper lock damage (which was holding the leg in retracted position). It has nothing to do with hydraulic system damage (or damage to any other system, used to operate the gear).

IceFire

10-01-2011, 11:47 PM

i request exential object in the game actualy exist only 3 flags GERMANY, JAPAN,AMERICAN..... where are the all flags of the rest of nations?
in mission builder if i want constructed italian base after i put only GERMAN flags where are the all flags?

and wing meausure wind flag in the airport.

Actually there are only two nation flags. There is a Japanese Flag, an alternate Japanese Flag and the American flag. No Germany or otherwise without mods. Having some additional flags would be nice although the German flag would have to be modified or obscured to meet with censorship laws in various countries including Germany.

Flags would be nice props to have.

Xilon_x

10-02-2011, 07:30 AM

axis powers raprestation of flags.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Italian_and_German_flags_-_june_1943.png/200px-Italian_and_German_flags_-_june_1943.png

loock this flags
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers
and after loock allied flags
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II

if you want to GERMANY flags eliminate or removed the swastika(if it is illegal), while the rest of the flag remains normal.

Lagarto

10-02-2011, 12:29 PM

While looking at a possibility to enjoy a good "Flying Tigers" campaign, I realized that there are no Ki-30 "Ann" nor Ki-48 "Lily" Japanese light bombers. Just a hint for future patches :)
By the way, both types were extensively used in kamikaze attacks in 1945.

ElAurens

10-02-2011, 03:00 PM

I wholeheartedly support anything to advance the representation of the air war over China.

From 1937 on it was an amazing theatre of operations.

Pursuivant

10-03-2011, 05:15 AM

In Il2 tried them out and had to request the lights to be turned on 3 times during approach in Bf110, once they went out right as I was over the threshold. I doubt in the real world, that the ground crews would have killed the lights while the aircraft was on approach.

During wartime, especially when there were enemy planes about, landing lights were only turned on when the plane was on final approach and were killed as soon as the plane touched down. So, technically the landing light behavior in IL2 is realistic, if irritating.

Another request, the landing light is non functional as it doesn't light up the ground, can this be fixed, maybe in the same way that flares and explosions cast light?

Landing lights were often hooded to the sides, so that they were only visible when the plane was on the correct approach. This was partially a navigation aide and partially another method of keeping the lights from being visible to every plane in the air. So, again, arguable realistic.

Pursuivant

10-03-2011, 05:58 AM

As someone here has already said, gear dropping is a result of landing gear leg upper lock damage (which was holding the leg in retracted position). It has nothing to do with hydraulic system damage (or damage to any other system, used to operate the gear).

Damage to the gear lock could also explain a gear dropping, as could excessive G-loads or severed cables, but I still hold that the main reason that gears, flaps and other plane parts dropped when damaged was due to hydraulic failure. Obviously, though, it depends on the plane and in the heat of combat the exact cause was often impossible to figure out.

In some cases, however, damage to the hydraulic system is so obvious it has to be the cause for gear drop.

Example: Starting at 0:32 in this video, you can see a fire on the oleo struts of the Hurricane as the hydraulic fluid burns away. Fire is localized and burns out quickly once the fluid is gone. (Actual damage to the hydraulic lines/pump was probably earlier, since smoke from the area becomes visible at around 0:30.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqJwHdMDK0

More examples of shot-up planes dropping landing gear in a fashion consistent with hydraulic failure (and video of the mod I mentioned):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvlG9fY9g2Q

aquila26

10-03-2011, 03:32 PM

thanks Gitano

Tempest123

10-03-2011, 04:41 PM

Landing lights were often hooded to the sides, so that they were only visible when the plane was on the correct approach. This was partially a navigation aide and partially another method of keeping the lights from being visible to every plane in the air. So, again, arguable realistic.

This is true for reducing side visibility from enemy aircraft during wartime, however the main function of a landing light is to light up the surface of runway on the final stages of approach and touchdown for depth perception. Having just recently flown IRL at night I can attest to the importance of a properly functioning landing light :)

SaQSoN

10-03-2011, 07:03 PM

Damage to the gear lock could also explain a gear dropping, as could excessive G-loads or severed cables, but I still hold that the main reason that gears, flaps and other plane parts dropped when damaged was due to hydraulic failure.

All planes with retractable gear had 2 gear locks (one for each gear position) for each gear leg. And ONLY this locks were holding the gear in terminal positions, not hydraulic, or air pressure, or mechanical force from gear actuator (depending on how the gear was operated). The pressure was sent in the system ONLY when the gear was either retracted, or extended.
So, I repeat again: gear drop can be caused ONLY by lock damage.
However, it is quite possible, that hydraulic, or pneumatic lines, or whatever lines were used to operate gear could be damaged as well at hte same instance, as the locks, since they were usually located near the locks. Yet again, their damage is not related to the effect of gear drop.

PS Hydraulic fluid doesn't burn. The fire was probably from small fuel tanks, located on the front edge of Hurri wing. There is nothing in the video, that may hint, what caused the gear to extend.

PPS And after reading Hurri operating manual, I tend to believe, that in this particular case the pilot under attack occasionally engaged emergency gear down pedal, which releases the upper gear lock and lets gear to drop down under their own weight.

Tempest123

10-03-2011, 11:28 PM

All planes with retractable gear had 2 gear locks (one for each gear position) for each gear leg. And ONLY this locks were holding the gear in terminal positions, not hydraulic, or air pressure, or mechanical force from gear actuator (depending on how the gear was operated). The pressure was sent in the system ONLY when the gear was either retracted, or extended.
So, I repeat again: gear drop can be caused ONLY by lock damage.
However, it is quite possible, that hydraulic, or pneumatic lines, or whatever lines were used to operate gear could be damaged as well at hte same instance, as the locks, since they were usually located near the locks. Yet again, their damage is not related to the effect of gear drop.

PS Hydraulic fluid doesn't burn. The fire was probably from small fuel tanks, located on the front edge of Hurri wing. There is nothing in the video, that may hint, what caused the gear to extend.

PPS And after reading Hurri operating manual, I tend to believe, that in this particular case the pilot under attack occasionally engaged emergency gear down pedal, which releases the upper gear lock and lets gear to drop down under their own weight.

+1 for this, and if a hydraulic line was hit, but the up-lock was not, the gear could often be extended to engage the down-lock position via the aforementioned emergency system, where the pilot could extend the gear by using gravity, a hand crank or other "blow down" system. Of course if the gear falls out but doesn't lock down, you'll have a bad situation. It would be neat to see some of this in Il2, but I think there would be many other systems that would need to be modeled.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

10-04-2011, 09:52 AM

Additionally a lucky hit could inflict the electric/hydraulic system in a way, that the gear lowers normally but unintended, just as if the pilot would have pushed the lever.

"So always do aim with your 20mm for that little switcher on the left panel!" ;-)

Tempest123

10-04-2011, 03:04 PM

I always aim for the altimeter

Lagarto

10-04-2011, 05:39 PM

Azimech

10-05-2011, 04:19 PM

PS Hydraulic fluid doesn't burn. The fire was probably from small fuel tanks, located on the front edge of Hurri wing. There is nothing in the video, that may hint, what caused the gear to extend.

I'm very sorry but hydraulic fluid does burn, if sprayed under high pressure even very violently, both mineral and synthetic types. Sometimes I use old fluid in my garden torches.

Pursuivant

10-06-2011, 11:52 PM

This is true for reducing side visibility from enemy aircraft during wartime, however the main function of a landing light is to light up the surface of runway on the final stages of approach and touchdown for depth perception. Having just recently flown IRL at night I can attest to the importance of a properly functioning landing light :)

I see your point about needing the lights to illuminate the runway. It is unrealistic that they don't.

My point was that wartime airfields were kept as dark as possible, not lit up like Christmas trees the way that modern civil airports are. You're absolutely right that the lack of landing lights is a safety issue, however. The need to keep airfields dark to prevent attacks probably contributed to the higher rate of landing accidents among nightfighters.

Pursuivant

10-07-2011, 12:22 AM

So, I repeat again: gear drop can be caused ONLY by lock damage.

I think you're generally right, but I also think that there are causes other than damage which might make the lock fail, or fail to engage in the first place. A combination of wear, vibration and/or poor maintenance could set up a situation where lock barely holds the gear in place, so that it drops when the hydraulics are hit.

The paradox, though, is that there is gun camera footage which shows both landing gears dropping in a pattern consistent with loss of hydraulic fluid. Otherwise, it would have to be a very lucky hit indeed to take out all the locks on both gears at once!

Others have pointed out that cockpit or electrical system damage could cause gears to come down. Also, as you point out it's possible that pilot error (hitting the wrong button) could also cause the gears to deploy.

PS Hydraulic fluid doesn't burn. The fire was probably from small fuel tanks, located on the front edge of Hurri wing. There is nothing in the video, that may hint, what caused the gear to extend.

In the case of the Hurricane, I think that you might be right, assuming the Hurricane was relatively low on fuel so that the other fuel cells didn't catch fire.

But, hydraulic fluid can burn if you use the right liquid! For example, during the Cold War some Soviet planes used alcohol as hydraulic fluid (doesn't freeze as easily at high altitudes). As a result, they had a problem with readiness as ground crews were prone to siphon off hydraulic fluid for illicit, unintended, purposes.

Anyhow, I think we're both in agreement that, regardless of origins, it would be nice if landing gear drop and hydraulic/pneumatic system failures were modeled in the game.

Jumpy

10-07-2011, 01:25 AM

Anyhow, I think we're both in agreement that, regardless of origins, it would be nice if landing gear drop and hydraulic/pneumatic system failures were modeled in the game.[/QUOTE]

I've enjoyed this discussion, although we all need a beer to arrive at the correct answer! As for droopy underage or flaps, I will be happy when patch 4.11 arrives. Now my request to DT: DON'T LISTEN TO THEM - LISTEN TO ME!:-P:-P

Tempest123

10-08-2011, 12:46 AM

Were the MiG-3 and Yak-3 from Aviaskins submitted to DT for inclusion, where they acceptable? just wondering.

Romanator21

10-08-2011, 01:50 AM

There's also a PZl.23, PZL.37, Ju-88 C-6, etc that seem nice. I wonder if they meet the standards as well.

Pursuivant

10-08-2011, 03:57 AM

There's also a PZl.23, PZL.37, Ju-88 C-6, etc that seem nice. I wonder if they meet the standards as well.

The cockpits in the PZL.23 and PZL.37 look a little bit unfinished compared to the required standard, but the external models look decent.

That is, assuming that they're not Frankenplanes, which are inherently unacceptable. (This isn't snobbery, either. There are lots of good reasons why Frankenplanes aren't as good as a plane made from scratch, although the problems with them aren't immediately obvious.)

In any case, however, TD seems to have taken the position that it's up to the mod maker to contact TD about getting their creation into the game, and TD doesn't go out of its way to ask modders for content.

Romanator21

10-08-2011, 05:42 AM

I don't think the models are franken-planes, but I haven't seen the cockpits. I do hope they decide to contact DT if that's the case!

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4978/30012011112734.jpg

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6938/nf3c.jpg

http://img847.imageshack.us/img847/6605/los22l.jpg

Jack_Aubrey

10-09-2011, 10:02 PM

Hi:
I made up a list of things i would like to see it improved. It's mainly about the ships but theres also a little bit about our heavies:
- About the AI ships:
· It seems to me that they turn around their center, when it would be better if they turn around their stern.
· For other ship to set target on an allied ship (meaning same color) so they keep in formation with the first one, so we can setup a formation really easy.
· Whenever they are under aerial attack beggins zig zag maneuvers.
· Enhace their damage models so the gun, the rudder are disable, the power keg or fuel tanks can be blow.

- About the heavies:
· To review the load options and FM from B17, i had found that it has many other options than the ones from il2 and also that with them change the ceiling service. This is the page from where i read the pilots notes and other staff. (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/b-17-manuals-5048.html)

Pursuivant

10-09-2011, 10:03 PM

I don't think the models are franken-planes, but I haven't seen the cockpits. I do hope they decide to contact DT if that's the case!

He-219A-2: By Checkyersix and Ranwers. Originally a frankenplane, subsequently it got its own 3d model. Cockpit is original and looks very good, but no bordfunker/radar operator station.

Mosquito MkII Nightfighter: By SAS~GJE52. model is IL2 stock with slight 3d improvements to wheels and spinners, plus the obvious radar antennas and a new default skin. Cockpit is IL2 stock with no radar operator station.

PZL P.37B Los: By Ranwers. Original 3d model, cockpit and gunners stations. Interior looks very good, except for the top gunner position which has a few minor 3d issues when you look into the fuselage interior.

===

Other mods that look pretty good:

A-20 Boston MkIII Strafer: Unkown modder. Minor external reworking of stock IL2 model. Stock cockpit.

A-20G: Aviator Mod Team. Tweak of stock IL2 3d model, new engines and loadouts.

Ar-234B Nachtjaeger: Unkown modder. Minor external reworking of stock IL2 model. Stock cockpit.

Ar-234C-2: Unkown modder. Minor external reworking of stock IL2 model. Stock cockpit.

B-29 "Silverplate": Oceanic Wing. Reworking of stock IL2 3d model. Exterior model and atomic ordinance looks good. Cockpit is a bit crude, gunner stations are franken.

Beaufighter MkIC: Unkown modder. Rework of stock IL2 Beaufighter MkIB model. Gunners position interior is franken.

Beaufighter MkX: Unkown modder. Ditto.

Bell 47 Iroqouis Helicopter: SAS_Sani. New 3d model, interior and cockpit. Looks good, flies well. Might be off-limits as an official plane due to contract with 1C.

Bf109B-D series: Japancat, SAS_Cirx: Reworking of stock IL2 Bf-109E-4 3d model. Stock cockpit. External model looks good.

Blenhein MkIF & MkIVF: Unknown. Reworking of stock IL2 Blenheim 3d model. Cockpit and gunner stations look to be franken and are fairly crude.

D4Y3 JUDY: ten010. Beautiful 3d model.

Fi-156: Fully modeled cockpit and crew station. Crew station looks a bit primitive and has some 3d issues, but the instrument panel and pilot station looks good.

FW-189: Fully modeled interior. Instrument panel looks good, the rest of the cockpit and interior looks a bit amateurish, rear gunner station not modeled. Still, it might save some work to use the existing modded interior as a starting point.

Hurricane MkI Rotol prop: Rework of stock Hurricane MkI 3d model. Stock cockpit.

Hurricane MkIII & IV: Ditto. In SAS "Dark Blue World" mod pack, sand filters only appear on desert maps, saving plane slots.

J7W1: Kodama. Original 3d model and cockpit. Looks good inside and out.

Ju-87C: Aviator Mod Team. Tweaks to stock IL2 Ju-87 model. Stock cockpit and gunner station.

Ju-52: Unknown modder (Ranwers?). New cockpit. Instrument panel looks good, but interior has some minor texture problems.

Ki-44. Japancat &/or Tainan Kosho mod team. Original 3d model and cockpit. Very nice!

Ki-46-III-Kai: Unknown modder. Cockpit, looks good but might be franken.

Ki-98: Kodama. Good exterior model.

L-5 Sentinel: Unknown modder. Original 3d model and interior. Only pilot station modeled, but looks good.

Me-210 (including Zestorer): Original 3d model, cockpit and interior. Gunner station not modeled and not player-operable.

Me-262B-1a Nachtjaeger: Reworking of stock IL2 mesh. Stock cockpit and pilot station, fully-modeled bordfunker/radar operator station station, but radar screen doesn't work.

Me-410 series (including Nachtjaeger model): Original 3d model, cockpit and interior. Gunner station not modeled, player operable only in gunsight mode.

Miles Magister: Oceanic Wing Mod team. New 3d model and cockpit. Only front seat cockpit modeled.

Mosquito FB MkXXVIII Tse-Tse: Unknown modder. Reworking of stock IL2 3d mesh. Stock cockpit.

Mustang MkI: Aviator Mod Team. Rework of stock P-51B 3d model. Stock cockpit.

MXY-11 Ohka: Oceanic Wing Mod Team: Reworking of stock IL2 3d model.

P-26 Peashooter: Deutschmark. Original 3d model. Cockpit franken.

P-38E & F series: Gibbage. Reworking of stock IL2 3d model. Stock cockpit.

P-38H Droop Snoot: Unknown Modder. Reworking of stock IL2 3d model. Stock cockpit. Franken bombardier station.

P-47N: 101tfs. Reworking of stock IL2 3d model. Stock cockpit. External model looks good.

P-51A: Aviator Mod Team. Rework of stock P-51B 3d model. Stock cockpit. A-36 Apache was promised but hasn't seen the light of day yet.

PZL P.24B: Ranwers: Original 3d model, cockpit and interior. Interior might need a tiny bit of cosmetic work, otherwise excellent.

PZL P.42: Ranwers. Ditto.

Sikorsky UH-19D/HRS3 Helicopter: SAS_Sani. Original 3d model & cockpit. Looks good, flies well.

Spitfire Griffon Engine Series (e.g., MkXIV): Unknown modders. LOTS of variants of this one. Tweak of stock IL2 3d mesh. Stock cockpits.

Spitfire PR.XIX: Tweak of stock IL2 3d mesh. Stock cockpit.

Su-26: Aviaskins? Original 3d model and cockpit. Exterior looks good, cockpit is fairly crude.

R.XIIID: Ranwers. Original 3d model, cockpit and interior. Interior might need a tiny bit of cosmetic work, otherwise excellent.

RWD-8: Ranwers. Original 3d model and cockpit. Observer/student pilot/passenger station not modeled. Looks good otherwise.

RWD-10: Ranwers. Original 3d model and cockpit. Excellent.

U-2 variants (night bomber, trainer, ShVAK rear gun): Unknown modder. Reworking of stock IL2 3d model, changing or eliminating rear gun and altering position of rear cockpit figure. Fully modeled interior, both cockpits/gunner stations. Looks good.

UTI-4: Uknown modder (Aviaskins?). Reworking of stock IL2 I-16 mesh. Rear cockpit is just duplicated version of front cockpit.

Yak-7UTI: Reworking of stock IL2 Yak-7 model. Reworked cockpit. Rear cockpit is just duplicated version of the front cockpit.

==

This list ignores the ridiculous number of A6M, Bf-109, FW-190, I-53, I-16, Ki-61, Ki-84, Lagg-3, La-5, La-7, N1K, P-38, P-39, P-40, Spitfire, Hurricane and Yak series mods which are basically nothing more than loadout and FM tweaks.

It also ignores announced projects which haven't yet been made public, such as the B7A, J4M, Ki-83 (http://damawo.blog99.fc2.com/), the Whirlwind, Boomerang, Vampire, Fury/Nimrod (http://www.oceanicwing.com/il2_projects.html) and the Foche-Angelis FA-223 (another one of Sani's projects, but it appears that the Youtube video of its flight test has vanished),

And that's JUST aircraft.

Honestly, I wish that TD team members wouldn't be so coy about asking for content. If you're a TD member and you see a mod that looks like it's up to TD standards, why don't you ASK the creator if you can incorporate it into a future patch. Better yet, load up UP or DBW, choose the content you like and shamelessly steal it.

At this point, mod packs such as UP, HSFX5 and SAS UP/DBW just beat stock IL2 hollow in terms of content and creativity, if not overall overall quality. Yes, there are some really ugly "frankenplane" cockpits and interiors to make every plane in the game flyable, some not so great original models (He-51, He-45), and some "frankenplanes" which technically not up to scratch, even if they look good (Battle, Halifax, Tiger Moth, Typhoon), but the modded game allows you to fly just about every theater of war from 1936-1956, the AI is challenging and the effects look great.

SaQSoN

10-10-2011, 05:26 AM

If you're a TD member and you see a mod that looks like it's up to TD standards, why don't you ASK the creator if you can incorporate it into a future patch.

This is exactly, what DT does. This also explains, why most of the mods do not draw DT's attention.

PS To my knowledge, PZL P.37B Los, R.XIIID, RWD-8, RWD-10 models were built by a guy with a nick name Loku, not Ranwers, who seem to be unfamiliar with 3D programs and does creepy frankenplanes only.

Pursuivant

10-10-2011, 07:13 PM

This is exactly, what DT does. This also explains, why most of the mods do not draw DT's attention.

I'm glad to hear this. Pity that so many of the mods on my list don't measure up for whatever reason. I can see them not being ready to go into the game immediately, but it seems like it would be a huge time savings to work with what's already there.

PS To my knowledge, PZL P.37B Los, R.XIIID, RWD-8, RWD-10 models were built by a guy with a nick name Loku, not Ranwers,

My apologies, my list of authors wasn't complete. Mod packs don't always list all the authors unless you download the mod and read the readme file, which would have taken too much bandwidth and too much time.

Ranwers might not be a 3d guy, but it's obvious that he's a reasonably skilled java programmer with a lot of very clever ideas. I can understand why you don't like what he does, but you still have to grudgingly admire his dedication and creativity. If he could be "converted" and his talents directed in the right direction, it would be a huge benefit for everyone.

I also apologize for a bit of a rant in my previous post. I absolutely love what TD is going for the game. Your skill and attention to detail is second to none and I look forward to every new patch. The problem is that you guys are on the extreme side of the "fast vs. good" equation. In the time it takes TD to lovingly craft a new patch and polish it to perfection, dozens of modders have produced hundreds of new mods which are "good enough" for most people. And, to quote one of the dictator on the winning side of WW2, "Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own."

Lagarto

10-10-2011, 07:15 PM

By the way, no one ever considered making Bf 109T, Hs 126 or Bristol Beaufort? They would fit in nicely with some offline campaigns (Beaufort was used extensively in the ETO, MTO and PTO as well).

PKU

10-10-2011, 10:02 PM

One of my pet bugs is the propeller pitch control in the F4F (all models, lower left corner of the front cockpit). Note that at high speed (fine pitch), it's all the way back, while at low RPM (coarse pitch), it's further in. To have it all the way in is to effectively feather the prop.

This is backwards, as it should be all the way in for fine pitch (high speed), and all the way out for feathering.

Please note pitch control in the Pilots Operating Manual:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lMZfLqGNm7MC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=F4F+Wildcat+propeller+pitch+control&source=bl&ots=UAiskbpAWx&sig=oAT2oJMusgE6BPcPM5YVZfiHa2U&hl=en&ei=1vV7TvK-J82y8QOc58TjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'll throw in one more gotcha about the F4F. Note the shape of the handle in the sim that controls prop pitch. What's the shape the handle in the handbook? And what control IS shaped like the one in the sim? Hmmmmm... Great sim, always will be. Could've been greater with a bit more attention to the nits to pick.

One more note. Why is this such a big deal for me? What caused me to notice it in the first place? Why the clock, of course. How the heck are you supposed to dead recon with your view of the silly clock blocked by a control that's doing what it's supposed to do, but isn't where it's supposed to be while doing it??? Grumble... (Yes, this was pre-track IR things, but it still makes a big difference to those of us who minimize up/down, front/back sim-head movement.)

Thanks for consideration of this matter. And, of course, it would be great to see it fixed in 4.11! :mrgreen:

Romanator21

10-10-2011, 11:28 PM

The problem is that you guys are on the extreme side of the "fast vs. good" equation. In the time it takes TD to lovingly craft a new patch and polish it to perfection, dozens of modders have produced hundreds of new mods which are "good enough" for most people. And, to quote one of the dictator on the winning side of WW2, "Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own."

DT are a group of volunteers but they have rules or guidelines set by Oleg and 1C.

I personally think that high quality trumps high quantity. Of course, everyone is different, but that's why mods are optional. If something is going to be stock, it has to reach the baseline level of quality. If DT took nearly every plane that other modders built, there would almost be no point to have them working at all - just get the mods instead of patches...

I'm not a mod guy myself, but I'm not against mods. I think I'll wait once DT releases their final patch (hopefully not anytime soon) to pile on the plethora of mod aircraft :) I'm having too much fun just learning the ins-and-outs of their latest creations such as the Fokker, SM.79, and HS-129.

mcmmielli

10-11-2011, 03:56 AM

Loku´s planes are realy good, and if have any oportunit, this deserve to include in game:

R-XIII

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/743/rxiiipack.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/336/rxiiihistoskin.jpg

PZL23B&PZL42

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7946/pzl23b42.jpg

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2535/karasstukas39.jpg

P-11F I.A.R - Romanian IAR P-11f license build version powered by French license build Gnome-Rhome engine with skis for Winter conditions

http://www.whatwalrus.com/sas2/Loku/iarp11fskis.jpg

RWD-10

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9061/erwudewlocie.jpg

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/6148/rwdwojskowy.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfIFGGwAN6w

And others plane for Stoupa to:

Avia BK534:

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/AviaBk534defaulty.jpg

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/AviaBk534Lyze-1.jpg

Avia B-135

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

http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/CockpitAviaB135.jpg

And many others planes:

Ki-44
D4Y2
J7W1
Ki 98
J4M

Sita

10-11-2011, 07:17 AM

aircraft production by Loku looks veeeeeery good !!!
but they are unlikely will be included into the patch
(((

JtD

10-11-2011, 09:07 AM

mcmmielli

10-11-2011, 04:23 PM

All Loku´s planes listed are complete, Avia BK534 by Stoupa (autor of B-534 model) are done and will be great in game, and B-135 is in work.
K-44 first model is done, the others versions in work by Tainan
D4Y2 in work by Kodama (nice model need the cockpit)
J7W1 done whit cockpit and it´s a realy nice model
Ki 98 need cockpit or maybe can be used whit AI
J4M need cockpit or maybe can be used whit AI

And are others models that will be good for the game.
Ju-88C variants
Fw190 D-11 & D-13 by old AAA
Fw190 D-14 & D-15 by Gerd
Spitfire Mk XII and XIV by AAA
SeaHurricanes by Muas
SeaGladiators
Seafires MkI/II/XV
HurricaneMkIIa/IId/IV ant trop models
Remodeled external model for BF-109´s
(and maybe can be added BF-109 G-4, G-5, G-5AS, G-6TAil, G-14AS, K-6 and K-14, including trop versions ;))
P-38E/F/G/H
P-47N-15
Remodeled MIG-3 for aviaskins (and maybe can be added MIG-1 ;))
Remodeled YAK´s for aviaskins
I-15 M22 & M25 by Aviaskins
I-16 type 27/29 by Aviaskins

Nightfighters:
Bf 110 G-4NJ (functional radar)

Cockpits:
Cockpit DO-217K
Remodeled cockpit for BF-109´s
Remodeled cockpit for P-47´s
Retextured Cockpit for La´s, Lagg´s, Yak´s, Mig´s and IL-2´s
Retextured Cockpit for P-11 (this terrible cockpit, when i fly it i´m feling in old days of CFS I)

DT are make a wonderfull work in IL-2, and the last updates are amazing, P-8 cockpit and others planes, but i think there are others nice works done for other people in out side, and maybe this work can be added in game.

Tank´s for your graet work.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

10-11-2011, 06:55 PM

Loku´s planes are realy good, and if have any oportunit, this deserve to include in game:

R-XIII

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/743/rxiiipack.jpg

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/336/rxiiihistoskin.jpg

Is Loku also the author of the R-XIII for MSFS?

http://www.simhangar.com/main1/index.php?page=fsalublin&lang=en

http://www.simhangar.com/main1/images/fsalublin/2010-3-4_23-12-41-927.jpg

Pursuivant

10-12-2011, 12:27 AM

How many of the planes listed/shown have complete LOD models and not just the first one? Which match the polycount and texture size limits as set by 1C? Which ones do not violate some copyright law? Which authors want to have their creation in an official patch in the first place? And what's not subject to the NG issue?

Good questions. Assuming that you weren't asking them as rhetorical questions, here are my answers.

Proper modeling: I had assumed that full LoD, damage and shadow models were required for any plane to be imported into the game. Obviously I was wrong. Is there an easy way to figure this out without having to hack into the game?

Polygon and texture count: For fighters and other small single-engined aircraft, it's very hard to exceed the polygon count. Poly count could be a problem for the P.37 and P.23/P.42. Texture size might be a problem for any of them. Is there an easy way to figure this out without having to hack into the game?

Copyright: Again, good question, but AFAIK, the mods I mentioned are original models or are reworkings of models which have been released into the public domain. There might be a few planes on the list which have been adapted from other games, though, so that could be problematic.

Northrop-Grumman: None of the planes on my list are made by NG or any other company it's bought up over the years (Ryan). And, most of the U.S. planes I mentioned are just variants of planes that are already flyable in the game. Everything else was made by companies that went out of business, were nationalized, or which were on the losing side (so copyrights and whatnot were taken by the victors as "spoils of war").

Why haven't modders contacted TD?: Language barriers? Ignorance? Dislike of TD and its policies? (The last one is stupid in my opinion. There's too damned much politics in the IL2 modding world.)

I do know that modders have big active web sites, which have extensive resources to help people create content for the game. That means that talented newcomers tend to gravitate towards mod sites.

Meanwhile, TD barely makes its email address known and the closest thing there is to an "official" guide to making content for the game is the "IL2 Bible" which hasn't been updated in 8 years.

As for good mods which should be in the game, look at Checkyersix's command and control mod, Certificate's AI mod and Frog's formation mod.

Luno13

10-12-2011, 02:49 AM

DT are already working on the AI. Some members have mentioned it a few times although it's not in this update thread.

IceFire

10-12-2011, 03:53 AM

Good questions. Assuming that you weren't asking them as rhetorical questions, here are my answers.

Proper modeling: I had assumed that full LoD, damage and shadow models were required for any plane to be imported into the game. Obviously I was wrong. Is there an easy way to figure this out without having to hack into the game?

Polygon and texture count: For fighters and other small single-engined aircraft, it's very hard to exceed the polygon count. Poly count could be a problem for the P.37 and P.23/P.42. Texture size might be a problem for any of them. Is there an easy way to figure this out without having to hack into the game?

Copyright: Again, good question, but AFAIK, the mods I mentioned are original models or are reworkings of models which have been released into the public domain. There might be a few planes on the list which have been adapted from other games, though, so that could be problematic.

Northrop-Grumman: None of the planes on my list are made by NG or any other company it's bought up over the years (Ryan). And, most of the U.S. planes I mentioned are just variants of planes that are already flyable in the game. Everything else was made by companies that went out of business, were nationalized, or which were on the losing side (so copyrights and whatnot were taken by the victors as "spoils of war").

Why haven't modders contacted TD?: Language barriers? Ignorance? Dislike of TD and its policies? (The last one is stupid in my opinion. There's too damned much politics in the IL2 modding world.)

I do know that modders have big active web sites, which have extensive resources to help people create content for the game. That means that talented newcomers tend to gravitate towards mod sites.

Meanwhile, TD barely makes its email address known and the closest thing there is to an "official" guide to making content for the game is the "IL2 Bible" which hasn't been updated in 8 years.

As for good mods which should be in the game, look at Checkyersix's command and control mod, Certificate's AI mod and Frog's formation mod.
The modeler would fairly quickly be able to answer some of these questions.

I'm in total agreement with you... there are some great mod packages out there with some really well deserved updates to all sorts of aircraft. Some of it looks top quality to me... have they produced a finished product or made one that works just "good enough" I don't know. Two or three guys I even asked them if they intended to bring their aircraft to TD to see about implementation... total silence.

There are several guys who have worked with TD and received fantastic support in my mind. The fruits of that labour are already showing in some of the current patches with more to come.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

10-12-2011, 06:25 AM

Proper modeling: I had assumed that full LoD, damage and shadow models were required for any plane to be imported into the game. Obviously I was wrong. Is there an easy way to figure this out without having to hack into the game?

Polygon and texture count: ... Is there an easy way to figure this out without having to hack into the game?

There is. Since the kind of modding is, that you have everything in an open structure, you will just to download the mods, open the packages and see, how many mesh files there are or how big the texture are.

Meanwhile, TD barely makes its email address known and the closest thing there is to an "official" guide to making content for the game is the "IL2 Bible" which hasn't been updated in 8 years.

The "IL2 Bible" is indeed still actual, if it comes to modeling for 1CMaddox standard (which is also DTs standard). On base of it you can make all the nice things, that have been released during 1CMaddox development times (excluding maybe the very first models). There is no need to update it.
And as IceFire said... the newest 3rd party models, that will be soon available via 4.11 and ongoing patches, show very well, that the (all so blamed) old standards are way enough to produce wonderfull content.
Higher standards or technologies are just good to help poorly skilled modeling freshmen.

Sita

10-12-2011, 07:38 AM

many ModMakers are asking, why DT keep working under that old 1C MG standarts?
they told that performance of current grafik cards, with 1 gigabyte and higher, will enough for work with models, which exceeded poly count of older standarts, or they can handle with texture bigger then 256 or 512... or complects textures which higher than 8 mb...

EJGr.Ost_Caspar, you know that we are working in rights direction... and trying to fit into the requirements
and we like, that our work looks not bad for today and In this case we fit into the limits

just curious...

(p.s. sorry for my bad english)

JtD

10-12-2011, 01:28 PM

Good questions. Assuming that you weren't asking them as rhetorical questions, here are my answers.

Certainly not rhetorical and thanks for your answers. But I can't answer your question, so best listen to Caspar. :)

I hate politics, too. I want one version of the game that has the very best of all worlds, a common effort by the community. I hate to see things wasted, one way or the other, by having folks go in different directions. And I'm afraid that much of it is down to ego, nothing else. Some folks just can't take a seat in the second row - idiotic but human.

FrankB

10-12-2011, 01:29 PM

many ModMakers are asking, why DT keep working under that old 1C MG standarts?
they told that performance of current grafik cards, with 1 gigabyte and higher, will enough for work with models, which exceeded poly count of older standarts, or they can handle with texture bigger then 256 or 512... or complects textures which higher than 8 mb...

I, for one, am grateful that the old limits are still enforced. I can't afford to buy a new computer every 3 years.

I've been playing IL-2 on AMD Sempron 1800, 1.5 GB RAM, ATI X550 with 128 MB, resolution 1280x1024. It fully satisfies all my needs except when there are many objects in IL-2, but I keep hearing that is a problem even on today's high end computers.

JtD

10-12-2011, 01:31 PM

many ModMakers are asking, why DT keep working under that old 1C MG standarts?...

What's your frame rate if you have a mission with a couple of hundred planes and several hundred ground objects?

Bottleneck isn't necessarily the graphics card, but I still get noticeable frame rate losses when flying over an air field with a hundred static planes on it, or over a city, and most recently I noticed even a cloud related frame rate drop.

Now if all the objects have twice the poly count, I'd get the same drop with half the objects, and even now the object count is too low for my taste.

Sita

10-12-2011, 03:13 PM

understand)

Mustang

10-13-2011, 03:13 PM

REQUEST
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h448/totoloco1/FMB.jpg

Tolwyn

10-13-2011, 08:44 PM

I don't have a PC like that, so I'd be against killing the original system requirements.

many ModMakers are asking, why DT keep working under that old 1C MG standarts?
they told that performance of current grafik cards, with 1 gigabyte and higher, will enough for work with models, which exceeded poly count of older standarts, or they can handle with texture bigger then 256 or 512... or complects textures which higher than 8 mb...

EJGr.Ost_Caspar, you know that we are working in rights direction... and trying to fit into the requirements
and we like, that our work looks not bad for today and In this case we fit into the limits

just curious...

(p.s. sorry for my bad english)

Tolwyn

10-13-2011, 08:44 PM

Is there any chance to take a look at the FM of the FW190 part of the Mistel? Also, to make the mistel flyable by AI planes??

Pursuivant

10-13-2011, 10:54 PM

There is. Since the kind of modding is, that you have everything in an open structure, you will just to download the mods, open the packages and see, how many mesh files there are or how big the texture are.

So, what's a good number?

When downloading 3d files in other formats and playing around with 3d stuff on my own, it seems like ~1 M is about right for just a reasonably detailed vehicle model. Perhaps double that for textures and animation info. Is that too much?

The "IL2 Bible" is indeed still actual, if it comes to modeling for 1CMaddox standard (which is also DTs standard).

Could be updated to better explain:

1) Limitations of NG agreements and restrictions of 1C contract.
2) How to produce ground objects. (There is a mod guide to doing this, which is decent.)
3) How to produce ships (AFAIK, there's no guide for that).
4) How to produce maps. (There are some good mod guides, but it would be nice to have an official explanation.)

Higher standards or technologies are just good to help poorly skilled modeling freshmen.

Removing every extraneous vertex you can is just good modeling practice.

But, since you mention it, I think there are some modeling tools which weren't available in 2003. A revised IL2 Modeling Bible could explain which modern techniques aren't acceptable. (For example, sub-surface smoothing modifiers can make a model look really good, but they also vastly increase the number of polygons.)

Tempest123

10-14-2011, 01:32 AM

small request, the grass runways are impossible to see in summer and winter, and given the pop-up in textures at short distances and the penalties for landing off-grass in IL2 makes it that much harder.
Can the textures be "browned up" a bit, to simulate mud/dirt and make finding it easier?

attached pic, but you all know what I mean, the aerodrome is right in front of the plane.

Lagarto

10-15-2011, 03:35 PM

Could you possibly introduce a new type of ground object in form of large patches of desert shrub (and I do mean large) so that we can cover with them at least parts of the "Sand of Time" desert map (the only desert map integrated into the DGen so far) to make it look more like Tunisia?
Also, we could do with some new British and French vehicles/armor (also the so-called supply columns); as for now, it's tough to make a decent-looking 1940 western front campaign when all allied vehicles are either Russian or American.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

10-17-2011, 02:47 PM

@Pursuivant:

For the better connectivity and infos, I added our eMail adress and the link to the modeling bible to my signature. You will find everything you need there!

It doesn't need to be explained everywhere else, especially not here, where it get lost imidiatly after a few further postings.

Pursuivant

10-17-2011, 05:16 PM

For the better connectivity and infos, I added our eMail adress and the link to the modeling bible to my signature. You will find everything you need there!

A small, but much-needed addition. Thanks!

ADorante

10-17-2011, 06:00 PM

DK-nme

10-17-2011, 06:53 PM

How about including the P-51 A's from the SAS site? Or the P-61 from same site?

DK-nme

ElAurens

10-17-2011, 09:45 PM

The P-61 "Black Widow" was made by Northrop, hence it will never be in an official release.

I second the addition of the P 51 A, however.

Sita

10-20-2011, 09:50 AM

Dear DT, the current build of the D.520 also does not fit your standards? (((

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,2892.msg206383.html#msg206383

French fighter extremely needed in the IL2!!!

dFrog

10-20-2011, 06:30 PM

Dear DT, the current build of the D.520 also does not fit your standards? (((

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,2892.msg206383.html#msg206383

French fighter extremely needed in the IL2!!!

No, they admit they have exceeded the poly count. But I agree, french fighters, or better say french planes, are really missing in Il-2...

Sita

10-20-2011, 07:35 PM

too bad(

Pursuivant

10-23-2011, 04:57 AM

No, they admit they have exceeded the poly count. But I agree, french fighters, or better say french planes, are really missing in Il-2...

I have to agree with DT that this is just lazy modeling. I've played around with producing 3d models of single-engined fighters and it's EASY to stay within 3000 polygons and get a reasonably decent-looking plane.

9000 polygons is just ridiculous, and probably means that the people producing the D.520 relied heavily on what Blender calls "sub-surface mesh" modifiers. (I'm not sure what they're called in payware programs like 3ds Max, Maya or Autocad). That's a time saver, and allows anyone to produce decent looking work, but makes for excessively big models.

mkubani

10-23-2011, 10:33 AM

A bit of history on D.520 from TD's point of view. We have cooperated with the author and reviewed the original 3D model of D.520. It was his first model in 3D Max if I recall correctly. There were many beginner mistakes and we have suggested to him it would be easier to make a new mesh from scratch than to try to fix paintfully the old one. He did start to model from the scratch again and we have granted him an access to our 3rd party development forum in order to guide/help him through the modelling process. He has never used this opportunity to share his WIP work with us. Others did and a good example will be an upcoming model of Ki-45.

Fighterace

10-23-2011, 11:35 AM

Is the F-82 Twin Mustang and/or the Ki-83 out of the question for Il-2 1946?

ElAurens

10-23-2011, 02:29 PM

As you may recall the F-82 Twin Mustang has already been modeled for "Project Galba" the Korean War sim that Luthier's own studio was working on before he took over Cliffs of Dover in total.

I suspect that makes it off limits to TD, and will also make any Korean War aircraft that isn't already in IL2 also off limits to TD.

The Ki 45 will be an excellent addition BTW, but I hope it will be flyable and not just AI, as the Japanese side is really lacking in aircraft.

Sita

10-23-2011, 02:47 PM

A bit of history on D.520 from TD's point of view.

it's a sad (

nonder

10-23-2011, 05:19 PM

Dear DT, I have some idea. It will be nice to have output from lights, altimeter, speedmeter... etc. It will give us posibility to create realistic cockpits for IL2. But i know its hard but it will kick IL2 to the next gen.

Sorry, my english isnt very good.

JtD

10-24-2011, 05:54 AM

Doesn't the devicelink interface do exactly that?

Asheshouse

10-24-2011, 08:07 AM

I have to agree with DT that this is just lazy modeling. I've played around with producing 3d models of single-engined fighters and it's EASY to stay within 3000 polygons and get a reasonably decent-looking plane.

9000 polygons is just ridiculous, and probably means that the people producing the D.520 relied heavily on what Blender calls "sub-surface mesh" modifiers. (I'm not sure what they're called in payware programs like 3ds Max, Maya or Autocad). That's a time saver, and allows anyone to produce decent looking work, but makes for excessively big models.

You seem to be jumping to conclusions here which, unless you have seen the model mesh, you cannot be sure about.

9000 polys does seem high but it may be because the modeller has used them to include higher levels of detail than is found on the stock models. Without seeing the model mesh you cannot be sure.

Experiments by others have shown that the number of polys in the model has very little effect on the fps in game. What seems to be more important is the size of the textures used to skin the model.

I'm looking forward to the D.520, whether modded or official.

Ashe

aquila26

10-24-2011, 04:27 PM

How about adding all aircraft produced in ww2?
;)
For example
swordfish kate Ju 52 C47 fliable any news about avengers problem ?

Pursuivant

10-26-2011, 03:19 PM

You seem to be jumping to conclusions here which, unless you have seen the model mesh, you cannot be sure about.

True, but looking at screenshots the model is very smooth in the same way that I've gotten using "sub-surface mesh." Also, the D.520 has very smooth lines. It would be hard to add that many polygons modeling airscoop, tailwheel, engine exhausts and so forth. So, my semi-ignorant guess is that most of the polys come from smoothing out the lines of the wing and fuselage.

Don't get me wrong, the D.520 model is very nice looking and I look forward to flying it, but I think that had the modeler been willing to work a bit harder he could have made it to DT's standards. After all the MS.406 is a very similar looking plane and it was modeled to IL2 standards back in the IL2 Sturmovik era.

Experiments by others have shown that the number of polys in the model has very little effect on the fps in game. What seems to be more important is the size of the textures used to skin the model.

This is very interesting indeed. Do you have a link to details of these experiments?

Asheshouse

10-26-2011, 03:36 PM

Don't get me wrong, the D.520 model is very nice looking and I look forward to flying it, but I think that had the modeler been willing to work a bit harder he could have made it to DT's standards. After all the MS.406 is a very similar looking plane and it was modeled to IL2 standards back in the IL2 Sturmovik era.

Fair comment.

This is very interesting indeed. Do you have a link to details of these experiments?

The original ones I am thinking of related to in-game testing of a scratch built Lancaster model. The LOD0 model was, from memory, greater than 20000 polys.

Very recently I have been trialling an IJN Kongo BB made by others.
The LOD0 model for this was around 160000 polys !!!
I didn't expect it to work, but it did. FPS was 65 on my mid level system compared with 62 for the stock HMS KGV model. Beta version available here: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,17300.msg207259.html#msg207259

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

10-26-2011, 06:11 PM

The high polyon models may work with the game (although it wasn't programmed to necessarly do so). The difference will get clear, if you have lots of that models in one scene.

But your statement, that large textures have a bigger impact than more polygons, is generally correct.

Bolelas

10-26-2011, 08:26 PM

Sorry if this was reported before. Could someone check the engine one axis and engine one prop pitch: if it is set to simetric it runs ok, but if the simetric switch is turned of, the values start from 10 or 11%. When i am throttling up it stays on 0%, i keep mooving the lever... and suddenly BANG 11%!
It is not serious stuff because we can use the simetric switch, but if it is not very dificult to solve it i woul appreciate.

Thanks to DT, and the community.

Pursuivant

10-27-2011, 04:03 AM

The original ones I am thinking of related to in-game testing of a scratch built Lancaster model. The LOD0 model was, from memory, greater than 20000 polys.

Presumably, this was a closed beta-test of Oceanic Team's Lanc.

Do you know if there were any other factors which could have contributed to better or poorer fps, like map or visibility levels? (In a cleverly-modeled sim, I could see a Lancaster model with 20k polys being a lot easier on FPS at night.)

Very recently I have been trialling an IJN Kongo BB made by others. The LOD0 model for this was around 160000 polys !!!

Maybe this has to do with differences between ships and planes in the game. For one thing, a fair bit of a ship model is hidden below the waterline. Another factor is that ships don't move or maneuver nearly as fast as aircraft.

Mind you, I'm not trying to dispute you, I'm wondering if the IL2 engine handles ships (limited AI and maneuverability, often seen at lower LOD levels) compared to aircraft.

If you're right, then it makes a whole lot more sense for TD to cap the total number of pixels in textures, rather than the total number of polygons in the model. IIRC, currently texture size is 125 pixels squared for ground objects, 250 pixels squared for vehicles, and 1026 pixels squared for vehicles. I don't know what it is for ships, but I could see total pixels being huge for a big ship.

Perhaps the limit on polygons for models is more part of the "non-compete with CloD" part of TD's agreement with 1c than an actual limit of the game engine.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

10-27-2011, 06:26 AM

... IIRC, currently texture size is 125 pixels squared for ground objects, 250 pixels squared for vehicles, and 1026 pixels squared for vehicles.

In fact its correctly:

128, 256, 512, 1024 pxl square (I guess, because of the 32bit game structure), while for ground objects 256pxl or below is still standard, but can be increased to 512 pxl square, if reasonably.

I don't know what it is for ships, but I could see total pixels being huge for a big ship.

1024pxl square is max, preferibly 512pxl square... you can have as well one large and few smaller textures for one model though.
Polylimit for larger ships is ~5000 to ~8000 tris, depending on object size and complexity.

Perhaps the limit on polygons for models is more part of the "non-compete with CloD" part of TD's agreement with 1c than an actual limit of the game engine.

No. That has nothing in common. Its rather, that the engine is build for it, so its the best to keep it, so its on the save side. And also because the game has already so much content, that it would go inharmonic looking, if new content would be made with higher standards. And its maybe understandable, that we are not able to remodel every existing content in game to higher standards. That would mean a new game (what CoD is in fact).

Asheshouse

10-27-2011, 07:55 AM

Polylimit for larger ships is ~5000 to ~8000 tris, depending on object size and complexity.

But the stock model, HMS King George V BB has 20016 polys for the LOD0.

and the stock model, HMS Illustrious CV has a LOD0 of 16815 polys.

-- So would it not be reasonable for modellers to take these as a guide rather than be limited to 8000 for a capital ship?

In the work I have been doing I have used HMS KGV as the principal guide to model size and structure with the result:

HMS Warspite BB - LOD0 15998 polys
RM Caio Duilio BB - LOD0 19386 polys

If used correctly by mission builders there would not be lots of these models in a scene and if realistically spaced only one of the models would be displaying at high lod level at a time. -- unless your doing a Pearl Harbour scenario I guess.

When used in the game the biggest fps hit is seen when the AAA all opens up at the same time from multiple warships. This is not related in any way to the complexity of the 3D model itself, just the effects generated by the number of guns.

Ashe

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

10-27-2011, 02:07 PM

But the stock model, HMS King George V BB has 20016 polys for the LOD0.

and the stock model, HMS Illustrious CV has a LOD0 of 16815 polys.

Well, I have different models then. :grin:

-- So would it not be reasonable for modellers to take these as a guide rather than be limited to 8000 for a capital ship?

Well... most of the ship models (and especially higher poly ones) came with Pacific Fighters and were 3rd party work. So I suppose, the 3rd party people didn't care to orientate on the given limits and the models were nethertheless pressed into the game with one eye shut (due to the well known time and money problems, that Luthier had with PF). But thats just a theory of mine.
As well it could be, that with Pf the limits were raised - without me knowing about it.
However, you are right, current work should orientate on the given and I see no problem with higher polycount for big warships/battleships, as they rarly come in dozens.

However... it must be reasonable! And if you think about it, its expectable, that the King George V is rather high poly, with all the masses of tiny anti-aircraft weapons on deck (the AA guns on the after deck alone are already ~1000 tris). Marat on the other side is 'naked' and can live with a third of the polycount.

In the work I have been doing I have used HMS KGV as the principal guide to model size and structure with the result:

HMS Warspite BB - LOD0 15998 polys
RM Caio Duilio BB - LOD0 19386 polys

While Warspite is still ok, being the same category as KG-V, the Caio Dulio is IMHO over the edge.
The trick is, not to look for the maximum limit, but for the average values - these to orientate on.

See here the numbers of a few of the bigger stock ships (only LoD00, NULL mesh deleted) - in order of polycount decreasing:

King George V. - 15867 tris
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/5391/kgvi.th.jpg (http://img838.imageshack.us/i/kgvi.jpg/)

Illustrious - 11444 tris
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/8254/illy.th.jpg (http://img856.imageshack.us/i/illy.jpg/)

Tirpitz - 8020 tris (!)
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/9297/tirp.th.jpg (http://img694.imageshack.us/i/tirp.jpg/)

Kent - 5961 tris
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3420/kentg.th.jpg (http://img257.imageshack.us/i/kentg.jpg/)

Niobe - 4080 tris
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8831/niobeb.th.jpg (http://img641.imageshack.us/i/niobeb.jpg/)

Marat - 3845 tris
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8384/maratp.th.jpg (http://img440.imageshack.us/i/maratp.jpg/)

Illmarinen - 3036 tris
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3237/illma.th.jpg (http://img72.imageshack.us/i/illma.jpg/)

Note, how the rather small destroyer is higher on polycount than the battleship Marat. As I said, its depending on size and complexity, if its really reasonable.

28_Condor

10-28-2011, 07:40 PM

S!

Since we are working on this (I guess)...

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=140959&d=1315981769

Why not try to do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE8M1aQNgos&feature=related

This would be an very interesting addition!

This or a future patch...

:)

Jumpy

10-29-2011, 06:14 AM

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).

You may as well, then, add Switzerland to the Axis because their banks were so involved with NAZI finances and hiding stolen gold etc.
This is not meant to be sarcastic or in any way deprecating, but I think it is better for the game to treat Neutral nations as just that. Also, consider that escaped prisoners and downed airmen or pilots flying damaged aircraft on occasion tried to make it to both of the Countries because the chance of authorities turning a "blind eye" to their presence was good. Some were able to rejoin their respective National forces from these Countries. I expect that demonstrates their neutrality.

Pursuivant

10-29-2011, 02:01 PM

This is not meant to be sarcastic or in any way deprecating, but I think it is better for the game to treat Neutral nations as just that.

It would be interesting to have the option for any country to be "red", "blue" or "neutral". There were plenty of situations during WW2 when allies accidentally fired on each other when enemy planes were near. In one incident German fighters actually triggered a fight between U.S. and Soviet fighters while getting away unscathed themselves!

ElAurens

10-29-2011, 02:04 PM

The whole Swiss and Swedish neutrality issue is a can of worms that should not be opened. There are far more important issues on TD's plate.

Fighterace

11-01-2011, 07:35 AM

Is the Birdcage F4U & F4U-4 Corsairs denied to be put into IL-2 1946 by Northrop Grumman?

csThor

11-01-2011, 08:49 AM

Yes. At best we can give the Corsair Mk I a dedicated US paintjob and pretend it's a birdcage Corsair. More is not possible.

Fighterace

11-01-2011, 09:09 AM

Yes. At best we can give the Corsair Mk I a dedicated US paintjob and pretend it's a birdcage Corsair. More is not possible.

Ah ok thanks, I thought it could of been a possible project for TD but that's now nipped in the bud :(

IceFire

11-01-2011, 09:13 PM

For those of you calling for high poly warships... I encourage you to arrange a dozen KGV's in a harbor in some sort of mooring formation like you might see in any major port. Then fly over that mass of ships.

Even my latest PC which can handle Battlefield 3 on Ultra... balks at this and my frame rate drops from 140+ to the mid 20s at times. Double the number of polys on a ship and do the same thing and I just can't see it happening. The game engine wasn't designed to handle it.

Lagarto

11-03-2011, 11:11 AM

Asheshouse

11-03-2011, 07:35 PM

For those of you calling for high poly warships... I encourage you to arrange a dozen KGV's in a harbor in some sort of mooring formation like you might see in any major port. Then fly over that mass of ships.

Arranging 12 KGV's in harbour sounds a bit unrealistic. After all only five of the class were built. ;)

At Pearl Harbour battleship row had seven BB's.
At Taranto there were 6 BB's.
In May 41 the British Mediterranean Fleet had 4 BB's and a CV operating out of Alexandria.
Operation Pedestal - 2 BB's and 4 CV's

The greatest impact on FPS is due to AA fire, not the ship model, but this can be tuned down in the Mission Builder.

Using the existing KGV model as a guide for future work seems reasonable to me.

Ashe

IceFire

11-03-2011, 08:03 PM

Arranging 12 KGV's in harbour sounds a bit unrealistic. After all only five of the class were built. ;)

At Pearl Harbour battleship row had seven BB's.
At Taranto there were 6 BB's.
In May 41 the British Mediterranean Fleet had 4 BB's and a CV operating out of Alexandria.
Operation Pedestal - 2 BB's and 4 CV's

The greatest impact on FPS is due to AA fire, not the ship model, but this can be tuned down in the Mission Builder.

Using the existing KGV model as a guide for future work seems reasonable to me.

Ashe
Fine... put 5 KGV's plus a dozen destroyers and support vessels :) FPS drops significantly on even the best systems.

AA fire is a big hit but the models themselves bottleneck the graphics system as well. Obviously as a mission builder you design around these kinds of limitations but it's unhelpful if the limits go up too far as they become prohibitively difficult to build enjoyable experiences for a wide variety of players. The KGV is finely detailed but I don't think, with the current engine limitations, there should be any huge bump in detail level above and beyond.

This is also why, for example, I don't model entire front lines worth of fighting in any of my campaigns. I saw someone do it once and I remember the slideshow that I experienced as a result.

Loku

11-03-2011, 08:49 PM

Hi all i saw a post about mods i have made and i would like to explain some things about them:
P11F-modified stock P11c
RWD-10 build from scratch by me (~3200 poly) made for PAT aerobatic team.

PZL23B and PZL42 (~7000 poly) build by Fatman and Lucas for Targetware adopted by me.
R-XIII`s ( ~14000 polys) build by Empeck for FSX adopted by me.

I have permission from authors to use their models and they send me their orginal files to work with.

When i get them for adoption i had to made their internal structure no different than stock models to make them work in game ,so i have made LODs,caps,shadow,colisions boxes and hitboxes.Cockpits were also made to be functional.Knowing that polycount of those models is higher than game specs they are available as MODS only.Game seriously lack of polish planes so this was only way to get them in.

To make TD life easier(they already have things to do)dont ask them to include my mods into official patches.

Asheshouse

11-03-2011, 08:59 PM

Less polys than KGV. :-)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image23-2.jpg

Pursuivant

11-04-2011, 07:33 AM

By the way, we could use some more variety of other surface vessels: more types and sizes of merchant ships, large troop transport, tugboat, self-propelled river barge and Asian sampan;

+1

I'd love to see more boats and small ships in the game. They were much more common prey for strike fighters and attack bombers.

A large troop transport would be sort of interesting, but the really big troop ships didn't usually get that close to enemy planes. Smaller troop transports would be welcome, though. I believe that there are some modded LSTs and other US transport ships.

Another thing is to make the in-game rivers navigable - most of them look neither too narrow nor too shallow for that; is it feasible?

I believe that it's currently possible for rivers to be navigable. Actually, one of the issues with many maps is that the rivers are too wide.

Lagarto

11-04-2011, 08:20 AM

Currently rivers are not navigable, unless they're as wide as Volga.
Recently I've been flying some south-east Asia scenarios and it struck me how dead the rivers look; in real life they would be teeming with water traffic. In his book "Into the Teeth of The Tiger" Donald Lopez wrote that they frequently flew interdiction missions against Japanese sampans, because due to scarcity of roads, rivers were main traffic routes.
Another thing is the odd color of the rivers in the PTO scenarios; I imagine they're more like muddy brown than cobalt blue.

FrankB

11-04-2011, 01:40 PM

Quick question about high-poly-count models.

Do you actualy recognize in-game the intricate details of those models?

In my case I see the dot, then it turns into a cluster of dots from which you can start guessing the size of the aircraft/ship, then you get an actual mini model where you can be 100% sure about the type and Blam! You are past them.

Somewhere between seeing the identifiable mini model and the you-are-past-them moment there is a point where you can for a split second see all the details, but I am usually quite busy with aiming to appreciate the true replica of every screw on board.

Is my Samsung Syncmaster 713BM LCD too slow/blurry given the current standards?

Asheshouse

11-05-2011, 05:26 PM

What is your definition of High-Poly? I have suggested that the polycount of the stock KGV is what should be used as a guide for capital ships. Late war ships inevitably have a higher polycount due to the increase in AA guns. Also any modelling of the IJN BB's with large pagoda style bridge structures will be a serious challenge to the poly budget.

As to whether or not you see the detail I guess with many ships you will only see it at the last second of a strafing, or skip bombing run, but certainly you would expect to get a close up view of a carrier as you approach for landing, so I would suggest that this level of detail is not unreasonable.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image24-2.jpg
HMS Eagle CV - Polycount 16848 (inc. gun crew)

Ashe

Fighterace

11-05-2011, 10:53 PM

Is it possible to have the P-47M and N versions?

Pursuivant

11-06-2011, 06:29 AM

Currently rivers are not navigable, unless they're as wide as Volga.

Pity. I thought they were.

Recently I've been flying some south-east Asia scenarios and it struck me how dead the rivers look; in real life they would be teeming with water traffic.

This would be true for any major river. There was, and is, a lot of traffic along major European rivers like the Rhine and the Danube. Europe also had a fair bit of barge traffic along its extensive canal systems. From 1943 to 1945 there were lots of Western allied fighter bomber strikes against river and canal traffic, as well as canals and lock systems themselves.

Another thing is the odd color of the rivers in the PTO scenarios; I imagine they're more like muddy brown than cobalt blue.

This is sort of fixable. I believe that river color textures can be selected by the map creator. I've seen modded maps where the rivers are muddy brown.

Sadly, it's harder to get mixed water effects, like where a river meets the ocean, producing a mixture of muddy and clearer water.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

11-06-2011, 07:13 AM

Sadly, it's harder to get mixed water effects, like where a river meets the ocean, producing a mixture of muddy and clearer water.

Water color is unique per map, you cannot change it.
Whyt you can change is the water ground texture in areas of rivers, but rivers have to be shallow then everywhere.

Luno13

11-06-2011, 09:48 AM

Hi DT,

Really loving the work so far, and I hope I can offer some ideas for future updates. It's a bit of a long list, but I'm not making any demands:

- Windsock model that can be placed to show the wind direction on a specific mission (wind is constant over the whole map anyway unless it's gusting). Dynamic windsock would be nice too. This would be useful for coops especially.

- Bomb-bay door function for the planes that had it. These would have to be affected by airflow in a similar manner to gear/flaps (they couldn't be opened beyond a certain speed). Also, a toggle for bomb salvo release on planes with automatic bomb-sights - ie short, medium, long (large cluster vs. spread out).

- Similarly to the above, a feature which limits how far cooling flaps could be opened based on airspeed (maybe a jam, tearing off, or snapping shut?).

- Gunners and observers which call out enemy fighters and give updates periodically or when requested (ie, "He's on our five! Now he's on our six o'clock low! Break left! Pull up!"). This is especially important on the Beaufighter when flying long closed-pit sorties.

- Some love for reconnaissance aircraft! Namely, game-play elements for such unarmed aircraft: Bomb-drop button activates camera. An invisible object is placed in the target area. If the player aircraft takes a picture over the object at a certain altitude(based on camera focal length), he gets points. Taking the photo at the wrong altitude or when jerking the plane leads to blurriness and taking the photo with the wrong exposure could lead to a washed-out or too dark image. The AI can also complete objectives in this manner, or the player gets points for successfully escorting AI reconnaissance aircraft. On the next mission offline, the player can click a button which shows the photo that was taken on the last one. Online, the player or AI lands and the photo appears in the briefing screen and helps bombers know what to aim for.

- Some love for bombers!
- Area bombing "target" which allows for city and industrial targets and point values for specific objects such as oil tanks.
- Bomber pilots could use more incentives online: currently, any aircraft destroyed on the ground is only 20 or 30 points.
- Point sharing for torpedo-bombers: currently in coops everyone wants to be the last one to drop a torpedo in order to get the points for sinking a big ship, or the main target is abandoned in favor of one-hit targets like merchants.
- Small formations: currently a lot of online players fly bombers alone and are massacred by fighters. It would be great if one, two, or three AI aircraft could spawn with the player, making an element or flight, and follow him to the target. The player could chose his position in the formation so that other players don't always know which bomber to shoot first (ie, always killing the player's lead plane to break up the formation). Also, incentives could be placed for escorts to take time to ensure their bombers make it back!
- Troop concentrations and livestock objects: A lot of troops moved on foot during the war and the Germans and Russians in particular used lots of horses to move supplies around. Troop camps or marshaling areas could be placed to give a target for fragmentary AB bombs, for instance (gore isn't a necessary feature).

- Switchable fuel tanks and manual fuel pump. It's annoying to have all of one's fuel leak or burn out when it would have been possible to switch to the undamaged tank and pump fuel from the leaking one. Also, medium fires (black smoke) always progress to full fires (yellow flames). Either the appearance of the medium-level fire needs to change or a random progression of fire size could be implemented. Also, emptied fuel tanks continue to burn at full force.

- Flag signal officer model on aircraft carriers: An invisible glide-slope is projected from the back of the carrier. Based on the player's position, the flags change, telling the player if he's too slow/fast, too high/low, etc.

- Catapults from carriers and capital ships (would require some seaplane models for the latter).

- Water geysers which affect aircraft flying through them. Sometimes, ships would fire their guns into the water with the intention of having an attacking aircraft hit the fountain and crash or at least temporarily lose control.

- Aircraft fragments from an explosion cause damage if collided with. If a wing is chopped off at the root, the wing stays in one piece rather than always disintegrating into its 4-5 constituents.

- Simple self shadowing. I heard a rumor that it's possible in Il-2.

- Simple exhaust flame graphic for night operations. It doesn't need to be tied to CEM like in Clod.

- Fuel grade load-out option for mission builders. Low octane results in reduced power output and maybe a "dirty" exhaust smoke effect.

- More advanced reliability set by mission builders: some aircraft were more prone to engine or structural failures than others, especially new types. Aircraft can lose wings or tail, get oil spills, or even total seizures. Guns also could jam, and some jammed if fired at high G.

- Option to change high-altitude clouds for a mission. Currently there are three types (common type for most maps, one for Slovakia and Bessarabia, and clear for the MTO).

- Wake turbulence from aircraft. This would have a big effect on formations and close-in shooting/maneuvering.

- Reload feature for drum-fed rear gunners. Graphical representation like in Clod isn't necessary, just a key press and wait two seconds to begin firing again. Currently, ammo drums disappear one-by-one in the He-111, but not in planes like the Betty.

Cockpits:
- Adding periscope in soon-to-be featured Il-4 to Pe-2.
- Observer for Beaufighter or a version with a gunner.
- Rear gunner in Il-2 "field-mod".
- Mosquito Mk.IV (glass nose).
- G4M2, also with "normal" load-outs.
- Su-2

Aircraft:
- New slot Beaufighter Mk.X (nearly identical to Mk.21 in game which was Australian licensed model. Differences in engines and armament).
- Default 4x mg for I-16 type 24 (some sources state that the original mg armament was modified with cannons. Others state type 28 was identical to type 24 except for the upgraded cannon armament). The type 29 had 2x mg and 1x hmg under the nose.
- R-10
- Ki 51 or the similar Ki-30 or Ki-15.

Asheshouse

11-06-2011, 10:01 AM

Currently rivers are not navigable, unless they're as wide as Volga.
Recently I've been flying some south-east Asia scenarios and it struck me how dead the rivers look; in real life they would be teeming with water traffic.

It is possible to create missions with moving ships on narrow rivers but it cannot be done with Full Mission Builder. You need to manually text edit the mission file to add the ships and waypoint coordinates. Also useful for creating moving ships in the narrow fiords on the Norway map, or for making ships run close to the beach on amphibious operations.

The problem seems to be related to limitations of the Full Mission Builder, not the Game Engine itself.
Since this is the request thread could I request that this feature be fixed in FMB?
Also on some maps, like Berlin, there are bridge objects which are impassable to vehicles.
Would it be possible to fix these?

This example shows gunboats on the NW Europe map. Take care to avoid bridge piers when plotting waypoints. :)

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image26-2.jpg

Lagarto

11-06-2011, 05:52 PM

It is possible to create missions with moving ships on narrow rivers but it cannot be done with Full Mission Builder. You need to manually text edit the mission file to add the ships and waypoint coordinates.

Sounds great but a little tricky; how do you do it? :eek:

Asheshouse

11-06-2011, 07:21 PM

You use a stationary ship object to generate coordinates for the ship route and then cut and paste text to convert the stationary objects to a moving ship.

Step 1 - You need to know the correct format for the ships you intend to use so load a map with open sea and create a mission using each ship which you will want. Plot two waypoints for each ship and save the mission. In the [Chiefs] section of the *.mis file you will find the text you will need. For may example with two gunboats:

[Chiefs]
0_Chief Ships.MO4 1 0 2 1.0
1_Chief Ships.MO4 1 0 2 1.0
[0_Chief_Road]
90579.69 88397.05 120.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
94456.00 88430.18 120.00
[1_Chief_Road]
90132.42 88363.92 120.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
94074.99 88397.05 120.00Now open the mission you want to add ships to in FMB and create waypoints for the ship routes using a stationary ship object. Save the mission and look at the text for the stationary ships:

[NStationary]
0_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 15716.96 38834.82 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
1_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 16157.25 38508.16 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
2_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 16973.91 37924.54 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
3_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17456.81 37350.63 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
4_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17549.12 37180.20 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
5_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17546.43 36823.04 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
6_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17642.13 36729.56 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
7_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17860.25 36722.88 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
8_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 19785.79 36720.41 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
9_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 28848.74 36718.71 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
10_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 29288.04 36873.40 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
11_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 29313.46 36957.68 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
12_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 29306.77 37417.53 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0The waypoint coordinates are shown in green. You need to select this block of green text and copy it.

Now paste in the code you previously saved for the moving ships:

[Chiefs]
0_Chief Ships.MO4 1 0 2 1.0
1_Chief Ships.MO4 1 0 2 1.0
[0_Chief_Road]
90579.69 88397.05 120.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
94456.00 88430.18 120.00
[1_Chief_Road]
90132.42 88363.92 120.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
94074.99 88397.05 120.00
[NStationary]
0_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 15716.96 38834.82 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
1_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 16157.25 38508.16 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
2_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 16973.91 37924.54 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
3_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17456.81 37350.63 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
4_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17549.12 37180.20 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
5_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17546.43 36823.04 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
6_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17642.13 36729.56 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
7_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 17860.25 36722.88 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
8_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 19785.79 36720.41 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
9_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 28848.74 36718.71 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
10_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 29288.04 36873.40 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
11_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 29313.46 36957.68 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
12_Static ships.Ship$G5 1 29306.77 37417.53 360.00 0.0 0 2 1.0Replace the coordinates in the [Chiefs_Road] section with the coordinates from the [NStationary] section. A text editor which can cut and paste blocks of text is useful here. I use TextPad. Delete the lines from the NStationary section. You will end up with:

[Chiefs]
0_Chief Ships.MO4 1 0 2 1.0
1_Chief Ships.MO4 1 0 2 1.0
[0_Chief_Road]
15716.96 38834.82 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
16157.25 38508.16 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
16973.91 37924.54 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17456.81 37350.63 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17549.12 37180.20 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17546.43 36823.04 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17642.13 36729.56 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17860.25 36722.88 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
19785.79 36720.41 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
28848.74 36718.71 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29288.04 36873.40 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29313.46 36957.68 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29306.77 37417.53 360.00
[1_Chief_Road]
15616.96 38934.82 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
16057.25 38608.16 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
16923.91 37954.54 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17456.81 37350.63 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17549.12 37180.20 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17546.43 36823.04 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17642.13 36729.56 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17860.25 36722.88 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
19785.79 36720.41 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
28848.74 36718.71 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29288.04 36873.40 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29313.46 36957.68 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29306.77 37317.53 360.00
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[StaticCamera]
16331 39044 100
16862 38766 100
17279 38390 100
20849 36400 100
24940 37423 100
29170 36292 100
[Bridge]
[House]For the two ships in column formation only the start and end waypoints need to be separated. I made this adjustment "by eye".

To try it out create any mission on the NW Europe map and paste my final text into the [Chief] section. You will see the boats if you use the static cameras.

Arrow

11-06-2011, 08:23 PM

For me one of the single most important features to greatly enhance offline flying would be the AI loosing sight of player's plane, I can't recall how many times I was chased by 20 planes across the whole map. I truly also hope that with new AI's shooting abilities it won't be able to seen through clouds...

Xilon_x

11-06-2011, 08:51 PM

Italian flottiglia X-MAS in the LA SPEZIA port http://eleri.interfree.it/ilterzonano/Guerre/XX_secolo/Seconda%20guerra%20mondiale/Marina%20militare/img/mas_452-555.jpg
Battle in the volga
http://rusnavy.com/images/pic-grem.jpg
HUDSON RIVER
http://www.blitzkriegbaby.de/waves/hudson.jpg

Lagarto

11-07-2011, 08:41 AM

Thank you Asheshouse, it works :) However, I second your request wholeheartedly that this feature be fixed in FMB!

F19_Klunk

11-07-2011, 09:16 AM

Asheshouse

11-07-2011, 09:29 AM

No. They do not disappear, but you cannot select or edit them in FMB.
The rest of the objects can be edited normally.

Ashe

Lagarto

11-07-2011, 11:48 AM

Asheshouse, since you are the inventor of that trick (hats off to you) and you know inside out how it works, maybe you could upload some map templates with river traffic?

Asheshouse

11-07-2011, 01:24 PM

Asheshouse, since you are the inventor of that trick (hats off to you) and you know inside out how it works, maybe you could upload some map templates with river traffic?
I'm not the inventor, just the message bearer. I learnt it from someone else when I was struggling to plot ship routes in the Norwegian Fiords.

Ashe

Asheshouse

11-07-2011, 02:53 PM

Here is another function which the game engine can handle but the FMB does not. Switching trains across sidings. Again you can do this by manually editing the *.mis file. Train scheduling is fun :-). Try and avoid collisions. Maybe this could be enabled in the FMB?

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/image26-3.jpg

The scene is in the central dock area of the NW Europe map. Here is some text to paste into a mis file to enable the scene. You also need to set up a static camera. Three trains are running on the same track, but each train is switched to a siding to enable them all to enter the unloading area. Similar system could be used to allow trains to pass each other where there is a passing loop at an intermediate train station.

[Chiefs]
0_Chief Ships.MO4 1 0 2 1.0
1_Chief Ships.MO4 1 0 2 1.0
2_Chief Trains.USSR_CargoTrain/AA 1
3_Chief Trains.USSR_CargoTrain 1
4_Chief Trains.USSR_CargoTrain 1
[0_Chief_Road]
15716.96 38834.82 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
16157.25 38508.16 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
16973.91 37924.54 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17456.81 37350.63 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17549.12 37180.20 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17546.43 36823.04 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17642.13 36729.56 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17860.25 36722.88 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
19785.79 36720.41 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
28848.74 36718.71 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29288.04 36873.40 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29313.46 36957.68 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29306.77 37417.53 360.00
[1_Chief_Road]
15616.96 38934.82 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
16057.25 38608.16 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
16923.91 37954.54 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17456.81 37350.63 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17549.12 37180.20 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17546.43 36823.04 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17642.13 36729.56 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
17860.25 36722.88 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
19785.79 36720.41 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
28848.74 36718.71 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29288.04 36873.40 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29313.46 36957.68 360.00 0 2 8.333333969116211
29306.77 37317.53 360.00
[2_Chief_Road]
30700.00 39900.00 20.00 0 3 5.555555820465088
29100.00 38300.00 20.00
29100.00 37735.00 20.00
29095.00 37720.00 20.00
29095.00 37100.00 20.00
[3_Chief_Road]
31300.00 40500.00 20.00 0 3 5.555555820465088
29100.00 38300.00 20.00
29100.00 37100.00 20.00
[4_Chief_Road]
31700.00 40900.00 20.00 0 3 5.555555820465088
29100.00 38300.00 20.00
29100.00 37365.00 20.00
29105.00 37350.00 20.00
29105.00 37338.00 20.00
29110.00 37323.00 20.00
29110.00 37210.00 20.00
The rail network is roughly on a 5m grid so you can zoom in on the FMB map and make a note of the coords for each corner.

Unlike ship waypoints, if you load this back into FMB the manual edits will be lost. FMB will just read the first two waypoints ignore the rest, so keep a backup of the train text.

Ashe

Alien

11-07-2011, 06:31 PM

Hey Ashe, in the ,,Big E'' campaign available at M4T, creator makes some flights of planes which don't take off or do it with delay, something like triggers, but it's just a trick, not game feature. Do you know how to do this? It'd be very useful to make some missions with i.e. realistic airfield strafing.

Asheshouse

11-08-2011, 08:26 AM

v4.10 already has Stationary Aircraft as an option in FMB.

Alien

11-08-2011, 03:05 PM

You misunderstood me :D I mean he created planes which don't take off or do it with delay, but aren't static planes and can be placed on a carrier as well. I know about static plane objects lol.

Aviar

11-08-2011, 05:53 PM

If I may interject. It's easy to set a delay time for a flight. Just change the Start time of the first waypoint.

As far as planes spawning but not taking off, this can be done with a little 'trickery'. Veteran mission builders know all these tricks. I've also been able to make AI planes spawn on the runway, start their engines, sit there for a designated time and then take off. This is done with a lot of imagination and sometimes many hours of testing.

Aviar

Alien

11-08-2011, 06:00 PM

So how to do this?

ECV56_Guevara

11-09-2011, 03:20 PM

a toggle for bomb salvo release on planes with automatic bomb-sights - ie short, medium, long (large cluster vs. spread out).

- Similarly to the above, a feature which limits how far cooling flaps could be opened based on airspeed (maybe a jam, tearing off, or snapping shut?).

- Some love for reconnaissance aircraft! Namely, game-play elements for such unarmed aircraft: Bomb-drop button activates camera. An invisible object is placed in the target area. If the player aircraft takes a picture over the object at a certain altitude(based on camera focal length), he gets points. Taking the photo at the wrong altitude or when jerking the plane leads to blurriness and taking the photo with the wrong exposure could lead to a washed-out or too dark image. The AI can also complete objectives in this manner, or the player gets points for successfully escorting AI reconnaissance aircraft. On the next mission offline, the player can click a button which shows the photo that was taken on the last one. Online, the player or AI lands and the photo appears in the briefing screen and helps bombers know what to aim for.

- Some love for bombers!
- Area bombing "target" which allows for city and industrial targets and point values for specific objects such as oil tanks.
- Bomber pilots could use more incentives online: currently, any aircraft destroyed on the ground is only 20 or 30 points.
- Point sharing for torpedo-bombers: currently in coops everyone wants to be the last one to drop a torpedo in order to get the points for sinking a big ship, or the main target is abandoned in favor of one-hit targets like merchants.
- Small formations: currently a lot of online players fly bombers alone and are massacred by fighters. It would be great if one, two, or three AI aircraft could spawn with the player, making an element or flight, and follow him to the target. The player could chose his position in the formation so that other players don't always know which bomber to shoot first (ie, always killing the player's lead plane to break up the formation). Also, incentives could be placed for escorts to take time to ensure their bombers make it back!
- Troop concentrations and livestock objects: A lot of troops moved on foot during the war and the Germans and Russians in particular used lots of horses to move supplies around. Troop camps or marshaling areas could be placed to give a target for fragmentary AB bombs, for instance (gore isn't a necessary feature).

- Simple exhaust flame graphic for night operations. It doesn't need to be tied to CEM like in Clod.

- Fuel grade load-out option for mission builders. Low octane results in reduced power output and maybe a "dirty" exhaust smoke effect.

- More advanced reliability set by mission builders: some aircraft were more prone to engine or structural failures than others, especially new types. Aircraft can lose wings or tail, get oil spills, or even total seizures. Guns also could jam, and some jammed if fired at high G.

.

Excelent suggestions. Especially the recon. Form day one, that the recon funvtion needs to be improved.
Caspar it´s doable any of these, I mean technically?

Pursuivant

11-09-2011, 05:28 PM

Asheshouse, since you are the inventor of that trick (hats off to you) and you know inside out how it works, maybe you could upload some map templates with river traffic?

I believe that it's also possible to use this trick to get barges to navigate canals.

Something that would be useful for a future patch would be "templates" which allow mission builders using the FMB to do the various cool things described by Asheshouse and others. For example:

Ships and boats navigating fjords, harbors, canals and rivers.
Conveys zig-zagging in a realistic way.
Trains switching tracks in train yards.
Planes taxiing on runways.
Tank companies advancing or retreating in historically correct fashion (i.e., in "line abreast" or by "bounds" with one tank in each pair providing an overwatch for the other).

Of course, if the templates get too complex, it might be simpler to just fix the FMB.

Pursuivant

11-09-2011, 07:33 PM

Italian flottiglia X-MAS

Torpedo boats for all nations that used them would be welcome additions to the game, since they were common targets/antagonists of strike aircraft and fighter bombers. In addition to the X-Mas and other Italian motor torpedo boats which saw extensive service in the Mediterranean, it would also be wonderful to see various forms of German E-boats/schnellboots, British MTB and RAF rescue launches, U.S. PT boats and Japanese Shinyo suicide boats.

But that's a mighty long wish list.

Pursuivant

11-09-2011, 07:51 PM

- Windsock model

Windsock: A simple version of this exists as a mod, in that there are windsocks modeled at different levels of "fullness". A simple windsock which automatically displays the correct model in the right direction based on wind speed and direction probably wouldn't be that hard, but would require some coding. A truly "dynamic" windsock which reacts to variable wind speed and direction would be a lot of work for not much gain.

- Bomb-bay door function

Available in the stock game for all of the flyable planes, but I'm not sure if they're affected by airspeed.

toggle for bomb salvo release

Might be under development for the 4.11 or future patch.

I'd like to see more variability in bomb spread, at least for medium and high altitude bombing. Right now, it is possible to "put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet". In real life, things like variable air density, variable wind speed and direction, vibration and imprecise altimeters meant that bomb accuracy was a lot lower, even under ideal bombing conditions. A simple randomization function for every X meters that bombs fall would be a good, simple fix.

a feature which limits how far cooling flaps could be opened based on airspeed (maybe a jam, tearing off, or snapping shut?).

Or, possibly cooling flaps/shutters might be jammed or not be able to open/close completely due to damage.

- Gunners and observers which call out enemy fighters and give updates periodically or when requested

Sort of implemented in the current game. In theory, a tail gunner will call out the vector of incoming fighters and tell you to break left or right (then cuss you out when you do!) but it doesn't seem to be implemented for all two-seater planes, and it certainly isn't implemented for multi-gunner bombers. Perhaps a review of coding for multi-seat planes?

Currently, there's no command which will allow you to ask various other planes to repeat their message or update their status or than repeating the same order.

Getting fancier with the crew intercom voices or adding new gunner/crew commands would require a lot of new programming, as well as a serious reworking of the voice packs. Consider all the pertinent messages the various crewmen on a B-17 or Pe-8 might give during a mission!

Even worse, think of all the commands the crew might give if they were to coordinate gunnery! Consider just this command: "Nose here. Incoming bandit, 1 o'clock high. Tailgunner, get him as he passes." That's 7 different routines the AI has to figure and 7 different phrases the voice-pack has to parse. Multiply that by 11-13 for the crew of a heavy bomber and you've got literally thousands of different permutations!

That's the reason the game's called "IL-2 Sturmovik, not "B-17 Flying Fortress"!

- Some love for reconnaissance aircraft!

Some cool ideas there. But, most players don't care about any plane that doesn't have guns or bombs on it.

Points for Recce: Points for flying over a map point can currently be implemented in FMB for passing over a waypoint as a mission objective. But, it would be nice if the FMB could assign different values for doing so (other than just putting a bunch of mission objective waypoints really close together).

Taking Pictures: Currently you can take pictures of the ground in IL2 with a single press of a button. That button is called PrtScn! :). To get moving footage of the ground, just set up a bombsight view (if the plane has one) or a "straight down" pilot view with cockpit off and have the game record a .ntrk or .trk. But, having the game automatically set up to give you a still shot of the ground in black and white or black and white movie camera footage would make the movie makers very happy.

While TD is at, perhaps they could add a gun camera view - black and white camera offset from the cockpit, with blur effects when the guns fire or the plane pulls gs!

- Some love for bombers!

Point Values for Infrastructure: A simple way to give "value" to ground objects would be "point markers" for 10, 20, 25, 50, 100, etc. points which FMB users could place under infrastructure targets. They'd be as hard to destroy as unarmored vehicles or armored vehicles and could also trigger various effects like smoke, fires or explosions of various sizes. Currently, the only way to do this in the FMB is to put a vehicle (or multiple vehicles) within an infrastructure target.

Ground Killed Planes: Planes destroyed on the ground were, paradoxically, always counted as being less valuable than air-to-air kills, even though they were often harder to achieve. So, the 20-30 points for a ground kill vs. 100 for an air kill is sort of realistic. Anyhow, static aircraft are way too easy to kill.

Sharing Kills: Point sharing for any sort of "kill" is on everyone's wish list. Figure out how to implement it and "vulching" will be a thing of the past. Figure out how to implement it so that it's historically accurate for each air force and you're a coding genius!

Unrealistic Torpedo Bomber Behavior: Going for small ships you can take out with one bomb/torpedo is a potentially historically valid choice. Fatal damage to a ship wasn't always obvious, since fire or flooding could take hours or even days to kill a ship. Pilots in subsequent attack waves might see the main target(s) all on fire and "sinking" because they were down at the bow or stern, and decide to take out undamaged ships instead. Cautious/ cowardly pilots might be deterred by intense AA from a capital ship and decide to take out something less well armed.

Small Bomber Formations: Small formations are already available as a coop option. Just have the server admin specify that bombers only fly as flights, and that human players should choose the lead bomber if they want to be flight leader. If you want to be sneaky about letting other players know which plane you're in, don't fly lead. For dogfight servers, flying solo is the name of the game. Get some friends who also want to fly bombers, have them spawn when you do and form up once you're in the air.

What would be nice would be mechanisms for players to take over command of a flight if lead AI planes are shot down or turn back.

It would also be nice if the lead bomber had the option of commanding the other planes in his flight/squadron/group to drop bombs on his command.

Incentives for Escorts: Incentives for escorts bringing the bombers back are already available in some online campaigns, and the admin of a well-run coop server can make escorting bombers worth your while in subsequent missions. Complaining about lack of teamwork on a dogfight server is futile.

People and Animals as Targets: Troop concentrations, cavalry, horse-drawn vehicles and livestock are all available as mods. They look a bit funny when they move, but they're otherwise beautiful. The problem is that adding human or animal targets to the game would alter IL2's ESRB rating, so they cannot be added to any official patch.

Fuel Tanks: Fuel tank switching, fuel shut-offs and manual fuel pumps would require massive recoding of the game. Currently, all fuel tanks drain at an equal rate. Load balancing if fuel tanks drain at a different rate, figuring out flow rates for pumps, recalculating performance based on differential fuel use/loss, figuring out damage to fuel pumps/shutoffs, and so forth would be a massive headache.

Fires: Fire progression is also poorly modeled. Sometimes small fires (black smoke) takes unrealistically long to progress to full fires, sometimes a full fire will burn for hours without spreading or damaging adjacent structures. Sometimes an empty fuel tank will continue to burn (remember, all tanks on the plane drain equally, so it's actually burning the fuel in all your other tanks). Also, there's only two different sizes of fire: "small" and "large." But, some features of fires are very well modeled. At times, if you use fire extinguishers or dive hard from a high altitude, fires will go out. Sometimes they will restart.

LSO: An LSO would be a nice feature, but it would require a lot of modeling and coding for relatively little gain. Although it is possible to place objects on a carrier deck, creating an animated figure which would respond to your plane's actions would be a lot more work. Currently, very few objects in IL2 are animated, or can be animated. (Notice all those stiff, board-like flags on ships in IL2?) Anyhow, not all nations used LSOs, some just used glide slope indicators or lights which indicated whether you were cleared to land or not.

Carrier Catapults: Carrier catapults have been successfully implemented as a mod. Basically, you give the plane a short-lived emergency boost or RATO which simulates catapult take-off (but without all the steam coming from the deck).

Catapult Rails: Catapults from launch rails are trickier, since I think that the game interprets contact between the launch rail and the plane as a collision, and I think that the game might have trouble figuring out how to launch a plane at a non-parallel angle to the ship.

A workaround might be some kind of modified "air start" where the plane has the ability to hold station at some angle with respect to the ship, and actually launches a foot or so above the end of the launch rail.

Alternately, catapult rail launch might work from a stationary ship as long as you define the plane as "air starting" a foot/meter or so above the launch rail. Anyhow, possibly workable, but lots of work for not a whole lot of gain. Consider, there are currently only three planes in the game which were catapulted from rails: Ar-196, Hurricane & MBR-2. Only one is flyable in the stock game.

Water Geysers: More typically, water geysers represented undershooting the target. Guns big enough to cause explosive effects will damage targets near enough to be hit by them, which is the same as getting hit by a column of water. The big problem is that there are only two sizes of water geysers in the game: small arms and bombs. Big guns or big bombs should produce bigger geysers.

Aircraft Fragments Causing Damage: Big enough airplane parts already do cause damage if you hit them.

Aircraft Fragments Falling Apart: Rarely happens, usually when there's an explosion just as the plane starts to fall apart. Could possibly be dealt with using coding, but then the game would have to keep track of each falling object rather than just one. Lots of work for little more than eye candy.

Self Shadowing: Probably doable, but: Huge increase in frame rates. Potentially lots of coding. Mostly eye candy. Might conflict with CloD "do not compete" agreement.

Exhaust Flames: Realistic exhaust flames tied to engine RPM/fuel mixture and start-up procedure have been available as mods for quite a while, although not for all planes. My ignorant guess is that DT will address the issue if they ever tackle night fighting/night bombing ops. Of course, most planes designed for night fighting had exhaust dampers.

Fuel Grades: Another wish list favorite, right up there with APIT 0.50 caliber loadouts for U.S. fighters and dynamic weather. Easily modeled by giving planes that had the capacity to use 100 or 120 octane fuel their own flight model, but that doubles or triples the number of FM "slots" required. Might be better handled by new coding. Opens up a whole can of worms over low octane/high octane FM performance.

Realistic System Reliability: Modeling realistic systems failure - instruments, fuel, oil and hydraulic lines and pumps, controls, etc. - would be a massive coding job. Realistic engine reliability is a small step towards modeling this. Realistic damage to airframe and control surfaces due to overspeed and g-forces is nicely modeled in the current game. Guns sometimes jam on their own, especially at high g's, although jamming could be better simulated when shooting at high altitude (guns iced up or lubricant froze) or when shooting inverted (some guns were more prone to jam if you did this).

Cloud Types: One step towards another usual wish list suspect: dynamic weather. High cloud types (i.e., the wispy cirrostratus clouds you see far above you even at high altitude) would be the least of it. Mods which allow moving clouds, multiple cloud layers, colors and thickness have shown it's possible, but they're still very crude.

Wake Turbulence: Available as a mod. Nice little effect. Relatively easy to implement, although I'm not sure that the mod can tell the difference between the sort of turbulence the engines of a B-29 would produce and those produced by the engine of the Fi-156!

Reloading Drums: Reloading any ammo would be welcome, since many guns were fed from ammo drums/boxes which could be reloaded. Currently, IL2 treats all flexible/turret gun ammo as one big belt. At the very least, there should be a feature which tells the game that one belt/box is out, making the gun shot shooting for X number of seconds before it can shoot again. Coding ammo drums/boxes vanishing would be a nice touch. Many planes for Pacific Fighters were rushed. Flyable He-111 was later work. The attention to detail shows!

IL-4, Pe-2 periscope: Other than being cool eye candy, what would this get you? Currently the game gives you an option of external views which sort of simulate periscopes.

Beaufighter Observer/Gunner: Would be welcome. It's strange that the stock Beau doesn't have a gunner.

IL2 Field Mod Gunner Position: Do you really want to simulate the world's worst job? Would require creating rear gun cockpit and there might not be sufficient references to do so.

Mosquito Mk IV: DT has said they plan to make cockpits for a lot for current planes to make them flyable. Perhaps this one will be on their short list.

G4M2: Probably easy enough to rework cockpits for this one. Increased loadouts would be easy to do. Experimental belly pack full of explosives, intended for kamikazes, would be a nice addition.

Su-2: I think that a cockpit is in the works for this one.

Beaufighter Mk.X: Available as mod. Easily added.

I-16 type 24 4MG: Easily added as new weapon loadout option.

R-10: Possibly a cockpit in the works for this one.

Ki 51, Ki-30 or Ki-15: I think that at least one of these is in the works by an independent mod team.[/QUOTE]

Lagarto

11-09-2011, 08:12 PM

addman

11-09-2011, 10:23 PM

Touch up the old Fiat G.50, cockpit and externals. It really needs it.

Luno13

11-10-2011, 05:16 AM

Available in the stock game for all of the flyable planes, but I'm not sure if they're affected by airspeed.

This is the first time I've heard about it. Are you sure it isn't a mod?

Even worse, think of all the commands the crew might give if they were to coordinate gunnery! Consider just this command: "Nose here. Incoming bandit, 1 o'clock high. Tailgunner, get him as he passes." That's 7 different routines the AI has to figure and 7 different phrases the voice-pack has to parse. Multiply that by 11-13 for the crew of a heavy bomber and you've got literally thousands of different permutations!

Well, it doesn't need to be that complicated. As long as any one gunner is alive and "sees" enemy aircraft, there can be a general call-out. At the very least, just one line "Enemy spotted!" will do just fine.

But, most players don't care about any plane that doesn't have guns or bombs on it.

That's why you make a system of points: incentive for those that need it. But I imagine that there may be more interesting projects. I was probably over-reaching with reconnaissance objectives as nothing like that has ever been done in a game before anyway...but I would be quite happy to fly transport duties too in a Ju-52 or C-47, or tow gliders in a Pe-8 (now possible) or He-111 Z or in a formation with 3 Bf-110s...Or even gliders themselves!! (with points bonuses/incentives for online players for landing and delivering the goods).

Ground Killed Planes: Planes destroyed on the ground were, paradoxically, always counted as being less valuable than air-to-air kills, even though they were often harder to achieve. So, the 20-30 points for a ground kill vs. 100 for an air kill is sort of realistic. Anyhow, static aircraft are way too easy to kill.

Interesting tidbit, but online is a different world, and people do things for slightly different reasons.

Unrealistic Torpedo Bomber Behavior: Going for small ships you can take out with one bomb/torpedo is a potentially historically valid choice. Fatal damage to a ship wasn't always obvious, since fire or flooding could take hours or even days to kill a ship. Pilots in subsequent attack waves might see the main target(s) all on fire and "sinking" because they were down at the bow or stern, and decide to take out undamaged ships instead. Cautious/ cowardly pilots might be deterred by intense AA from a capital ship and decide to take out something less well armed.

Good point. But ships have guns in Il-2 too right? Some players will want to be cautious or avoid the BBs outright. But in the game there is literally no point to attacking a BB, whereas in reality, there would be some alternate source of motivation.

Small Bomber Formations: Small formations are already available as a coop option. Just have the server admin specify that bombers only fly as flights, and that human players should choose the lead bomber if they want to be flight leader. If you want to be sneaky about letting other players know which plane you're in, don't fly lead. For dogfight servers, flying solo is the name of the game. Get some friends who also want to fly bombers, have them spawn when you do and form up once you're in the air.

This was possible a few years ago, and I have done it, but the online community is shrinking. Also, why settle for a three plane formation with friends when you can have a 12 plane formation with AI and friends?

Incentives for Escorts: Incentives for escorts bringing the bombers back are already available in some online campaigns, and the admin of a well-run coop server can make escorting bombers worth your while in subsequent missions. Complaining about lack of teamwork on a dogfight server is futile.

Well, there is indeed a greater sense of camaraderie in coops, but that's because everyone waits for ten minutes in the lobby, and all spawn at the same time. Dogfights have way more potential because the player can join or leave as his/her schedule permits. I don't expect a perfect finger-four from complete strangers, but a point system with adequate rewards could serve as an incentive to do something else than just fly directly to the enemy lines at full power and get shot down in three minutes.

People and Animals as Targets: Troop concentrations, cavalry, horse-drawn vehicles and livestock are all available as mods. They look a bit funny when they move, but they're otherwise beautiful. The problem is that adding human or animal targets to the game would alter IL2's ESRB rating, so they cannot be added to any official patch.

I'm not familiar with all of the legal issues, but what about the modeling of pilot death in Il-2? The pilot can slump in his chute, crumples when he hits the ground, the screen goes red to black as he bleeds out, fleeing truck drivers can be strafed, and the game displays certain online status messages such as "X turns Y into a heap of meat!" . Are these not a part of the rating? Again, graphic gore isn't necessary, but maybe the horse and infantry can just disappear, fall over, or stop moving?

Fuel Tanks: Fuel tank switching, fuel shut-offs and manual fuel pumps would require massive recoding of the game. Currently, all fuel tanks drain at an equal rate. Load balancing if fuel tanks drain at a different rate, figuring out flow rates for pumps, recalculating performance based on differential fuel use/loss, figuring out damage to fuel pumps/shutoffs, and so forth would be a massive headache.

I agree, but something should be done about the practical death sentence of getting a fuel tank leak or grey smoke when over enemy territory.

LSO: An LSO would be a nice feature, but it would require a lot of modeling and coding for relatively little gain.

There is a nice ILS feature in Il-2 now. When the player is to the right of the glide slope, long beeps play, to the left, short beeps, and right on the money, a long tone. This is inherently all an LSO would have to do... just with an infantry figure and flags. I guess putting that on a ship would be harder, but not every object on ships is static (guns).

Aircraft Fragments Causing Damage: Big enough airplane parts already do cause damage if you hit them.

I was never aware of that. As far as I can tell, a nearby explosion causes the damage, but not impact with parts.

Cloud Types: One step towards another usual wish list suspect: dynamic weather. I wasn't expecting dynamic weather (quite a coding challenge I bet) but at least user-selectable high-alt clouds in the same way we can select low alt cloud density and height.

Pe-2 Belly Gunner: Other than being cool eye candy, what would this get you?

Completeness.

IL2 Field Mod Gunner Position: Do you really want to simulate the world's worst job? Would require creating rear gun cockpit and there might not be sufficient references to do so.

It's fun for a masochist like me - the later gunners didn't have it easy either. As for cockpit, it shouldn't be different from stock. A hole was cut and a canvass strap was used as the seat. This is the same in all Il-2s in the game. The guns can come from the TB-3.

Again, these were just ideas and suggestions. I know it's not a perfect world with infinite resources and manpower (and if it was, I would have the skills, time, and passion to program things myself). DT are working hard, and they've added a lot of features we'd never thought we'd see, and more surprises are coming. It's difficult to not get hopeful once in a while :cool:

IceFire

11-11-2011, 12:14 AM

I vote for more AI-only reconnaissance aircraft - they make great targets :) For example, Hs 126 would be a nice addition for early war campaigns. And of course some more Japanese bombers (for the same reason): Ki-30 Ann, Ki-48 Lily and G3M Nell.

It might be good to spread the love a little... the Luftwaffe already has two recce aircraft although the Hs 126 is a very interesting type on it's own. The Piper L4 was used quite a bit by the Western Allies who currently have zero recce types.

Additional flyable Japanese bombers would definitely be a good thing. There are quite a few types and it might be nice to see something other than the G4M1 all the time. It was used well into 1944 and probably into 1945 (alongside the newer G4M2 variants) BUT some variety would be great and the Ki-21 is currently not flyable for online scenarios.

Lagarto

11-11-2011, 09:17 AM

The Piper L4 was used quite a bit by the Western Allies who currently have zero recce types.

Great idea! Generally speaking, this sim fares much better with low-altitude, eastern-front-type, tactical fighting. It just wasn't programmed for high-altitude massive combats and it shows. That's why I'd rather see some more early-war Japanese bombers - or French, for that matter (Potez 63, please) - than a Lancaster, even though I agree it's a beautiful aircraft :)

Tempest123

11-12-2011, 03:20 PM

Putting around in a storch or a piper would be a blast I think in Il2, coupled with the the recon target. Could be some fun missions, STOL -style

ElAurens

11-12-2011, 09:17 PM

Zorin

11-13-2011, 01:07 AM

I have one request that should be fairly easy to implement.

Could you please add some very basic tiles we can place as objects in the FMB for dirt roads, paved roads and rail tracks?

Make them height and pitch adjustable and we mission makers should be able to cope with most topographic situations on the maps and have a very powerful tool to create our own railyards and villages.

IceFire

11-13-2011, 03:03 AM

The L5 Stinson was/is in one of the mod packs, as is the Storch.

You are nothing but a target in one.

The sim is not sufficiently realistic enough to make using them anything but a suicide mission.

I did manage to hold off two A6M3s in the Stinson in an online campaign for several minutes. It was fun, but the outcome was never in doubt.

Even the largest of maps in the sim tend to concentrate the action in one or two areas, hence there is no where to hide, and certainly no where to run at 100 mph.
As a flyable it'd be almost pointless but as an immersion factor in campaigns and single missions having recce aircraft can be very useful. Especially if a recce aircraft can be set to operate as an artillery spotter. Mission objectives could be to protect the spotter aircraft on it's mission from enemy aircraft... that sort of thing.

But your right... as a flyable... doesn't work in very many situations.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

11-13-2011, 09:45 AM

I could imagine a setup of a multiplayer dogfight map with a larger number of moving ground targets (i.e. tank battle or artillery), whose positions are almost not known (i.e. through a fastly moving front). So a human controlled spotter plane could be VERY important for reporting positions. Most online experience, that i have is: "I join the server, having no clue, where to go (I know, where the fixed ground targets are, but I don't know, if they are still intact), choose to just dogfight in a fighter, get bored and leave".

It doesn't need to be necessary, that the spotter pilot reports via chat manually (on online servers the communications is quite poor usually). Ones his plane comes in range of view of ground targets, the message could be send automaticly (with a randomly success rate) - similar to the trigger feature, that we presented a long time ago. Such a message could be: "John 'Player' Doe (Fi 156) reports: armored collumns at A5/6".
This would also work for other AI ground units, as artillery, which can start to fire then and fight the enemy ground targets.

Just brainstorming...

ElAurens

11-13-2011, 02:30 PM

Two good posts here. But you must remember that the "Oleg flak" will make quick work of a slow mover like a Storch or Stinson, trust me, I know... :grin:

Now maybe when the flak gunners can no longer see through clouds, trees and other terrain features like say, oh, mountains, it could work.

;)

Lagarto

11-14-2011, 11:43 AM

Could you possibly fix this 'glow effect' of the Zero gunsight and make it look like the Ki-61's 'clear' gunsight? Unless it can be tweaked somehow but I don't know how. In the pics it doesn't look like much but in the actual game the difference is considerable.

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7910/gunsights.jpg

Pursuivant

11-14-2011, 01:17 PM

Two good posts here. But you must remember that the "Oleg flak" will make quick work of a slow mover like a Storch or Stinson

That's realistic. Slow, lightly-built and low-flying equals dead.

The only defense that artillery spotter aircraft had against intense flak was running away as fast as they could while calling in artillery fire.

But your point about AAA in the game being able to see and shoot through clouds and trees, and "see" (if not shoot) through mountains is valid.

dFrog

11-14-2011, 02:22 PM

Could you possibly fix this 'glow effect' of the Zero gunsight and make it look like the Ki-61's 'clear' gunsight? Unless it can be tweaked somehow but I don't know how. In the pics it doesn't look like much but in the actual game the difference is considerable.

Keep the glow effect, just change the reticle to correct one, please...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EayasHQYEGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXsVg8F91t8

Lagarto

11-14-2011, 04:22 PM

dFrog, in the clips you linked the gunsight is (obviously) glowing but it's not blurred and that's what I would like to see fixed :) When you fire a long-range burst, for example trying to hit a bomber's engine from a distance, the Zero's blurred gunsight becomes a nuisance.

IceFire

11-15-2011, 03:41 AM

He's right... the Zero gunsight has a overdone glow effect while the Ki-61 version has more of the appearance as that shown in the videos.

That said I'm not sure if the Ki-61 has the right gunsight reticle either. I thought it should look like the one that the Ki-100 uses. I could be wrong but I remember that being part of the long list of grievances about the Ki-61s modeling accuracy.

RegRag1977

11-15-2011, 03:20 PM

Hey,

+1 for A6M gunsight fix.

What about the P51B/C gunsights that are put too low? Same for Razorback Thunderbolts...

Any chance to fix that? That would be very nice!

Anyway, please keep doing the good work and making our IL2 1946 love story go on and on TD, you guys rock :) We are so lucky to have you!

S!

MrBaato

11-15-2011, 05:13 PM

Hey,

What about the P51B/C gunsights that are put too low? Same for Razorback Thunderbolts...

I requested it too (and still am :) ) +1

Silverback

11-17-2011, 02:14 PM

I think all the P-47s cockpits could use a makeover. They are the worst in the stock sim IMHO.

IceFire

11-17-2011, 11:50 PM

I think all the P-47s cockpits could use a makeover. They are the worst in the stock sim IMHO.

That's because it's not finished and is missing textures (like the seat). Not sure if it can be touched due to the N-G legal issues.

Silverback

11-18-2011, 03:04 AM

But the P-47s were built by Republic. A long dead company.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

11-18-2011, 02:22 PM

Long dead companies are sometimes bought by other companies (like NG). But in case of the P-47 its all clean.
I agree, it could need a rework. There is a nice looking mod out there, but unfortunately its totally NOT made to standards and thus useless for us.

Lagarto

11-18-2011, 03:59 PM

MrBaato

11-18-2011, 07:04 PM

Could you also take a look at the fiat cr42 gunsight view position?

The vision when you are in gunsight position is even worse than the normal view...

Just raising it a little bit so it would actually be possible to aim, and so the wings dont fill up the entire screen.

Thanks

Chili

11-18-2011, 11:11 PM

It would also be nice if the lead bomber had the option of commanding the other planes in his flight/squadron/group to drop bombs on his command.

Yes, it would be great to get this function one day! E.g. like it is already realized to command the dropping of fuel tanks. By the way, bomb release upon the formation leader's order was the tactics pretty widely employed in RL during WWII.

Best regards

Daniël

11-19-2011, 07:46 AM

Dear Team, I have a question about a possible map. I know that the Channel Front is off-limits due to an agreement with Oleg's crew but here's a map which has nothing to do with BoB nor the Channel itself. I'd call it the North Sea front.
It offers so many possibilities - from the Blitzkrieg in the West through early RAF raids, large 1943-44 air battles of the 8th AF vs. Luftwaffe, Market-Garden, until practically VE-Day (in some of the areas on the Dutch coast the Germans held out well into 1945). Any chance?

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/3876/enemycoastahead.jpg

I would love that map. I could fly over the town I live in :)
If TD makes this map it would be nice to include the Bunkers on the Afsluitdijk. There are Dutch bunkers which are called Kazematten. When the Germans began to make the Atlantikwall they made new bunkers. So there's a difference between 1940 and 1944.
The red dot shows the place where the bunkers are on the Afsluitdijk. If somebody needs more info, just ask me :)

And the province Flevoland wasn't there in the WWII, you can see it on old maps of the Netherlands.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Dutch_defense_lines_-_ln-en.jpg

Fighterace

11-20-2011, 08:51 AM

Since there has been some suggestions for the P-47...My suggestions/requests are

1. To have the P-47s machine guns all fire with one trigger/button instead of two separate triggers.
2. A fly able P-47M and N models, unless NG has already denied us that right.

That's all I have at the moment, anything else I can think of I post here :P

ElAurens

11-20-2011, 01:28 PM

All my guns on the P47 fire with the same trigger. You don't have your's mapped properly in the config. Actually I have 3 triggers mapped. One that fires all guns (my main trigger on the stick) a button for cannons only and one position on a hat switch for machine guns only.

Also the P-47D Late is very close to P-47M performance.

I'd still rather see the correct bomb load out for the 47. One 500 under the fuselage and one 1000 under each wing.

I don't care if it breaks missions that were made 5+ years ago.

Fighterace

11-20-2011, 09:57 PM