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

[malta knight]

I have a dream, of flying a spitfire with a griffon engine,could that be materialised?

[Fighterace]

I have a dream, of flying a spitfire with a griffon engine,could that be materialised?

+1

[Sokol1]

The point im trying to make is, The P-47 only had 1 trigger to fire its guns IRL so why do you need to have 2 trigers for all 8 mgs??? It doesnt make sense.

Simple map trigger to fire weapon 1+weapon2.
All 8 mg fire at same time with one trigger.

Sokol1

[ElAurens]

I pull my main trigger and all 8 guns fire, as in real life.

But thanks to the wonder of modern computers and a CH Hotas I have the ability to fire cannons and machine guns seperately. On the P47 one set of the guns is mapped in the game as "cannons". This was done so that they could have their convergance set to two different distances, which was done by some pilots historically.

It's a feature, not a bug.

[IceFire]

I have a dream, of flying a spitfire with a griffon engine,could that be materialised?

Shared by many :)

A more demanding and challenging Spitfire to fly would be interesting.

[Zorin]

I have a dream, of flying a spitfire with a griffon engine,could that be materialised?

Not like it is already around as a MOD for donkey's years... Only someone at TD would need to take a look at it and polish it to make it fit. They have all the talent and insight they need.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/Spitfire_1_n.jpg

Build by me, in case anyone remembers.

[CWMV]

The only spit in IL2 worth flying!
I cant believe some people haven't used these aircraft yet.
Thanks much Zorin.

[Silverback]

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

Don't you mean the Late 47D is close to the 47N ,as the M model didn't really get out of limited production, mostly due to problems with it's engine.

Also their is a P-47N at SAS and it is vary good. Really like the tail warning radar. Cheers

[Fighterace]

Any chance of any early version P-38s ie. E,F,G, and H models?

[JtD]

The P-47M was powered by an R-2800, just like the D or N.

[Silverback]

The P-47M was powered by an R-2800, just like the D or N.

Yep your right I was thinking about the J model. My mistake. Cheers

[IceFire]

Not like it is already around as a MOD for donkey's years... Only someone at TD would need to take a look at it and polish it to make it fit. They have all the talent and insight they need.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/Spitfire_1_n.jpg

Build by me, in case anyone remembers.

You should get in touch with the third party developers group if you're at all interested. I'd be thankful! :)

[Fighterace]

You should get in touch with the third party developers group if you're at all interested. I'd be thankful! :)

Wasn't there an actual Spitfire XIV variants been designed for IL-2 a few years ago that didnt make it or am I imagining things???

I can remember seeing a Spitfire XIV though?!?!?

[MOH_Hirth]

PEACE! a 4.11 patch MOD friendly OK?

[a67epipadjld]

It would be nice to have a way, if you are flying lead in a level bomber, to have a way to tell the other planes in your flight to release their bombs. Either via a new command to your flight or via some sort of key-bound toggle "FlightReleasesBombsOnPlayerRelease" on/off.http://www.quandulps.info/5.jpg
http://www.bingertoday.info/huang4.jpg
http://www.bingertoday.info/huang3.jpg

[Pursuivant]

Don't you mean the Late 47D is close to the 47N ,as the M model didn't really get out of limited production, mostly due to problems with it's engine.

Even so, the P-47M was an operational plane and did see service in greater numbers than some planes in the game.


Also their is a P-47N at SAS and it is vary good. Really like the tail warning radar. Cheers

P-47N is a welcome addition, but to get it up to DT standards, it would need a new cockpit with working navigation aids.

My choice for a new P-47 would be the P-47C-5. This was the main P-47C variant and was one of the first U.S. fighter planes which could accompany U.S. heavy bombers all the way into Germany. While it's not not the late war hot-rod that most IL2 fans want, it's probably one of the most important variants of the "jug".

[Pursuivant]

Any chance of any early version P-38s ie. E,F,G, and H models?

These all exist as mods, designed by Gibbage, who did the P-38s in Forgotten Battles. They work well, but I don't know what's become of Gibbage, or if he'd want his mods to become official.

[Lagarto]

While it's not not the late war hot-rod that most IL2 fans want,

Do they really? Then I must be in the minority. I guess you mean the online crowds. Anyway, I'd rather see a French fighter of 1940 vintage than another late-war 'hot-rod'.

[RegRag1977]

And what about repairing the Dora fuselage that is dissapearing at some distance? anyone else has this bug?

[Daniël]

And what about repairing the Dora fuselage that is dissapearing at some distance? anyone else has this bug?

I have that too. I think everyone has it :mad: It would be nice to be solved.

[RegRag1977]

I have that too. I think everyone has it :mad: It would be nice to be solved.

It would be so nice indeed.......

Oh, and by the way, please TD, please give us droptanks (on ETC501) for Fw190A8, Fw190A9, and the Doras.

[RegRag1977]

The point im trying to make is, The P-47 only had 1 trigger to fire its guns IRL so why do you need to have 2 trigers for all 8 mgs??? It doesnt make sense.


And what about finding a way to stop firing MG and wingroot Canons with the same trigger on the Fw190? Why not make one trigger for all canons, and one for MG just like with any other aircraft in the game?

I often asked myself why it was modelled this strange way?

[DD_crash]

Thanks for the work so far TD :) Would it be possible to get the game to recognize for than 4 controllers?

[csThor]

And what about finding a way to stop firing MG and wingroot Canons with the same trigger on the Fw190? Why not make one trigger for all canons, and one for MG just like with any other aircraft in the game?

I often asked myself why it was modelled this strange way?

Because that was how the triggers in the Fw 190 worked? The cowl guns and the inner MG 151/20 were on the same trigger circuit whereas the outer pair of cannons had a separate trigger.

[RegRag1977]

Because that was how the triggers in the Fw 190 worked? The cowl guns and the inner MG 151/20 were on the same trigger circuit whereas the outer pair of cannons had a separate trigger.

Interesting, thanks. Ha! i knew there was a good reason ;)
I always thought that the Fw190 had a kind of selector enabling the pilot to chose between any weapon combination possible. I was wrong.

Thanks for correcting me :)

[RegRag1977]

I've been thinking recently: what about making the pilot die more often in crashlandings? I noticed that one could survive really bad take-offs and landings (think crash in the water), when the aircraft collide with the ground at high speed, the aircraft sometimes rolling on the floor and ending on its top.

Wouldn't a pilot die or at least be seriously injured by such accident? I'm not sure but in the original IL2 it seemed that TO and landing accidents were less forgiving. Not sure though...

Wouldn't it be nice to have something like a realistic accident injury option in the difficulty menu.

What do you think?

PS Also making the pilot die when bailing out, when it is obvious that he hits aircraft parts too violently (wing, propeller (ouch:)))?

[Birdman86]

And what about repairing the Dora fuselage that is dissapearing at some distance? anyone else has this bug?

I actually fixed this for UltraPack 3.0 together with early Spitfire Mk.IX wing LOD and some other similar bugs. If you want, I can pack those fixes and send them for Team Daidalos, but it needs some extra work since they are currently among many fixes for mods. Then they just need some testing in stock IL-2 and conversion of meshes from text to binary format.

I have also improved damage visuals of Bf 110, Me 210 and Blenheim, so I can also send them if you are interested:

Before:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/raukorpi/Me-210_before.jpg

After:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/raukorpi/Me-210_after.jpg

[RegRag1977]

I actually fixed this for UltraPack 3.0 together with early Spitfire Mk.IX wing LOD and some other similar bugs. If you want, I can pack those fixes and send them for Team Daidalos, but it needs some extra work since they are currently among many fixes for mods. Then they just need some testing in stock IL-2 and conversion of meshes from text to binary format.

I have also improved damage visuals of Bf 110, Me 210 and Blenheim, so I can also send them if you are interested:

Before:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/raukorpi/Me-210_before.jpg

After:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/raukorpi/Me-210_after.jpg

Hi Birdman86,

I'm really impressed by this community and especially by how nice (and gifted) people like you share their work with us, poor mortals. That is really why i love this game.

Great job you did there, sir!

So many thanks for your work, for answering, and for offering your help with such class :)) Please send your work, that would be very nice :)

[Luno13]

The Fiat G.50 also has this problem.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Which problem? Damage texture or 3D issue?

[Silverback]

Wile we are on the subject of Italian fighters could you folks make the MC series a bit more maneuverable. By every account I have read our MC 202-205s should turn at least on par with the Spitfire V. Thanks

[Pursuivant]

I've been thinking recently: what about making the pilot die more often in crash landings?

I agree that a hard ground loop or flip could injure or kill crew, yet it only seems that crew are killed if the plane explodes. This would be a nice little bit of realism.

(The most famous death of this type was when a A6M2 pilot tried to make a force landing on what he though was solid ground on an Akutan Island in the Aleutians. He broke his neck when his plane flipped, allowing the Americans to capture their first intact Zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akutan_Zero).

Also making the pilot die when bailing out, when it is obvious that he hits aircraft parts too violently (wing, propeller (ouch:)))?

This would also be a nice touch, but it would be much harder to implement. The bailout sequence is a stock animation and the animated pilot doesn't have a damaged model.

Another option that would be nice is if the player controlled when his parachute opened.

[Pursuivant]

Do they really? Then I must be in the minority. I guess you mean the online crowds. Anyway, I'd rather see a French fighter of 1940 vintage than another late-war 'hot-rod'.

I'm with you in that I like my early war and obscure aircraft, but then I've always been a sucker for rare birds. And, I'm just as eager as you to see a flyable French fighter.

The quick and dirty way would be to just make the MS 406/410 and Hawk 75 flyable.

Another quick method of getting a France 1940 plane into the game would be to slightly modify the A-20C into the Douglas DB7.

[Luno13]

Which problem? Damage texture or 3D issue?

That which is seen in the Me-210 screenshot. The wing spars become visible through the skin.

http://koti.mbnet.fi/raukorpi/Me-210_before.jpg

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Will investigate. Thanks!

[SPITACE]

hi how about putting the missing rear bottom/side/ gunner/ro in the PE2 can this be done maybe in 4 .12? :neutral:

[Pursuivant]

Not to seem ungrateful, but while it's an improvement that AI gunners don't shoot down friendly planes, is there any progress on the two big AI gunnery issues?

1) AI "radar" and perfect situational awareness.

Enemy planes can see and shoot you through clouds and darkness. Enemy pilots always know when you're sneaking up on them and never lose track of where you are.

2) "Sniper" AI gunners who are immune to the effects of G forces, wounds, sudden maneuvers by the pilot and the effects of slipstream at high speed.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

All covered! ;)

[RegRag1977]

I agree that a hard ground loop or flip could injure or kill crew, yet it only seems that crew are killed if the plane explodes. This would be a nice little bit of realism.

(The most famous death of this type was when a A6M2 pilot tried to make a force landing on what he though was solid ground on an Akutan Island in the Aleutians. He broke his neck when his plane flipped, allowing the Americans to capture their first intact Zero. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akutan_Zero).



This would also be a nice touch, but it would be much harder to implement. The bailout sequence is a stock animation and the animated pilot doesn't have a damaged model.

Another option that would be nice is if the player controlled when his parachute opened.

Hi Pursuivant,

thanks for the link.

I guess you're right about the bailing out sequence, never thought about that this way...

+1 for the chute opening controlled by player, that's actually a very good idea: sometimes weird (and fatal) things happened to me because of the lack of such an option, if you see what i mean :))

+1 also for the "neck breaker" option as a consequence for violent to moderate ground loops or flips as you say. We definitely need something like this!

[RegRag1977]

The cockpit view of Fw190A8 shows a normal straight Fw190 canopy, but external view shows the late war bubble canopy. anyone have that?

The canon shells exploding look like fireball when they should look like flashes. The fireball (yellow orange colour if you see what i mean) lasts far too long and this gives too much time advantage to know if the target is hit or not.

On the other way, the HMG hitting don't produce small smoke puffs as they should, and the debris are too strange looking (vey bad quality) and actually less visible than the cartriges ejected by a firing plane.

When following a smoking aircraft from too close, we should have oil spots on our windshields, wouldn't that be nice ?

Just some ideas and opinions. TY Team Daidalos for working and to allow us to make requests

[Pursuivant]

The canon shells exploding look like fireball when they should look like flashes.

The problems with special effects you've described have been solved by a number of special effects mod packs. I'm particularly fond of the the Holy Grail and Potenz effects pack because the developers did a very good job of trying to make the IL2 effects look like actual gun camera footage.

TD has previously vetoed volumetric smoke from aircraft due to performance issues on older computers, but fixes to make cannon and MG hits look better are easy to implement and don't impact frame rates.

Likewise, it's an easy fix to remove the stock "ugly green footballs" debris effect and replace them with better looking graphics. A cool touch would be a sound effect of debris impacting your plane, although realistically if you're wearing headphones and sitting next to one or more aircraft engines you're not going to be hearing anything but your radio and your engines!

Oil splashes on the windscreen from following a leaky aircraft too closely would require more work and more graphics files. Basically, you'd have to add some graphics effects, write code which links to them and applies them under the right circumstances, and then recode every cockpit for every flyable plane in the game!

But, you make a valid point. It opens up the whole issue of "crud on the windshield" ranging from insects to oil, to ice. On the inside of the cockpit, there's the possibility of condensation or ice on the inside of unheated cockpits, blood from wounds (or messily killed crew members) as well as smoke and fire. All realistic bits of "eye candy" which would improve authenticity.

There are mods out there (by Wolfighter) which give very nice oil splash and blood splash effects for some cockpits, but that's due to damage to your plane, not to a nearby plane.

[KG26_Alpha]

Hi

Is it yet possible cockpit precipitation renders can be implemented along with better weather options ?
eg:
Light/medium/heavy > with option for lightening on/off

Also ground take off dust removed when raining (the big frame rate killer).

Snow/Rain and other elemental glass effects, debris including oil water from enemy etc etc.

For future updates of course not v4.11

Thanks

[Pursuivant]

Also ground take off dust removed when raining (the big frame rate killer).

The dust shouldn't necessarily be removed for wet weather, it should just change color to represent water or snow spraying.

Also, the amount of dust/water/snow flying around should depend on the map.

On a hot North African desert, Russian steppe or Pacific island map, there should be huge clouds of dust if you take off or land from a dirt or PSP runway, very little if you take off or land on a concrete runway.

Likewise, vehicles moving on dirt roads or off-road should also generate huge clouds of dust.

For snowy or wet maps, there should be smaller amounts of blowing snow/water vapor if you take off or land from a dirt or PSP runway, and maybe a small amount for a concrete runway.

Vehicles on roads or off-road should generate minor amounts of spray.

A nice touch would be to make it so that you can skid on a wet or frozen runway, regardless of what material it's made from.

[IceFire]

Hi

Is it yet possible cockpit precipitation renders can be implemented along with better weather options ?
eg:
Light/medium/heavy > with option for lightening on/off

Also ground take off dust removed when raining (the big frame rate killer).

Snow/Rain and other elemental glass effects, debris including oil water from enemy etc etc.

For future updates of course not v4.11

Thanks
You mean the raindrops on the windscreen? I remember those from the IL-2 demo. I forgot about those...

[Zorin]

You mean the raindrops on the windscreen? I remember those from the IL-2 demo. I forgot about those...

Isn't the Mossie the only plane that has these? Along with wipers?

[KG26_Alpha]

You mean the raindrops on the windscreen? I remember those from the IL-2 demo. I forgot about those...

Yes it was there years ago iirc.

[Luno13]

Stock Mossie has "automatic" windshield wipers.

[KG26_Alpha]

Stock Mossie has "automatic" windshield wipers.

I just retested on the ground and up to 150 mph they work.

[IceFire]

Isn't the Mossie the only plane that has these? Along with wipers?
It has the wipers but not the raindrops.

If you can find an old copy of the IL-2 demo (I'm sure it's still floating out there). Set up a QMB mission with rain or thunderstorm and check out the raindrops hitting the wind screen. It was taken out for some reason but I can't remember the details... some sort of graphics card issue.

[Zorin]

TD, I have a request.

Could you please introduce an overall player limit for each team along with a limit of plane types that can be set in the FMB mission profile?

This would result in a dramatic decrease of unbalanced teams in online servers and would be highly appreciated by all online pilots.

[CWMV]

No, it wouldn't.

[Zorin]

No, it wouldn't.

Pardon me?

[CWMV]

You said it would be appreciated by all online pilots. Fact is it would not.

[Zorin]

You said it would be appreciated by all online pilots. Fact is it would not.

Players who deliberately unbalance teams and enjoy such battles I do not even regard as worth mentioning. There is no lesser being on earth than a player like that.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I just retested on the ground and up to 150 mph they work.

Haha! I never knew about this. Thanks guys! There is even a sound file for the wiper!

[KG26_Alpha]

It has the wipers but not the raindrops.

If you can find an old copy of the IL-2 demo (I'm sure it's still floating out there). Set up a QMB mission with rain or thunderstorm and check out the raindrops hitting the wind screen. It was taken out for some reason but I can't remember the details... some sort of graphics card issue.


Just fired up the Demo version and there's no rain on the cockpits, static or when flying.



Haha! I never knew about this. Thanks guys! There is even a sound file for the wiper!

Prangster did a nice job on the Mossie.




.

[Lagarto]

Dear DT, how about the following:

Train platform guns with 3d gunners (not those ‘remote-controlled’ Flak 30s)
New damage model for train boxcars, so that, when destroyed, they don’t look like a string of crumpled cardboard milk boxes

US PT (Patrol-Torpedo) boats - like the one commanded by JFK himself (PT-109) – which were heavily engaged in the Solomons
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/PT109officialModel.jpg

generic Japanese cruiser
British AA heavy gun (3.7 inch perhaps),
French Char B1bis tank (or similar)
German light reconnaissance vehicle, like Sdkfz 222
A column of generic allied trucks which don’t have U.S. white stars all over them

[SaQSoN]

Dear Lagarto, how about the following: you get yourself a 3D Max and Photoshop and start modelling things on your list?

[aus3620]

Hi Team Daidalos,

Amazing contribution to the flight sim community. A couple of questions from a newbie.

1. Estimated release date for 4.11

2. I have just discovered the "perfect" settings conf.ini discussion and am pleased to say I have had a good improvement in graphical performance. Will 4.11 bring anything new that may help game performance?

3. Do you think that 1946 is maxed out as far as graphical representation goes?

thanks

[Lagarto]

Dear Lagarto, how about the following: you get yourself a 3D Max and Photoshop and start modelling things on your list?

Hmmm.. this is a request thread, isn't it? By suggesting these things, I show my interest in DT's work. So, what is your problem?

[SaQSoN]

Hmmm.. this is a request thread, isn't it? By suggesting these things, I show my interest in DT's work. So, what is your problem?

I got no problems. But, see, DT members have told many times here and everywhere, that DT's resources are quite limited and DT is not able to produce many new stuff internally. Actually, the team is already hands full with their current projects.

So, by continuing posting things, like, "hey guys, why didn't you make {place your favorite addition here}", or "how about you make {place your favorite addition here}", or, "you should add...", you either show complete ignorance towards what DT members say, or (if you say, you know, what they are telling) imply, that DT has no own clue about what may/should be added to the game.

Now, if you post something like "Hey Santa, I wish {place your favorite addition here} was in the game by Christmas" - that's fine. But when you say, "hey guys, how about you make, what I want?", the only reply you may hope for is "how about you make it yourself?"

[Zorin]

I got no problems. But, see, DT members have told many times here and everywhere, that DT's resources are quite limited and DT is not able to produce many new stuff internally. Actually, the team is already hands full with their current projects.

So, by continuing posting things, like, "hey guys, why didn't you make {place your favorite addition here}", or "how about you make {place your favorite addition here}", or, "you should add...", you either show complete ignorance towards what DT members say, or (if you say, you know, what they are telling) imply, that DT has no own clue about what may/should be added to the game.

Now, if you post something like "Hey Santa, I wish {place your favorite addition here} was in the game by Christmas" - that's fine. But when you say, "hey guys, how about you make, what I want?", the only reply you may hope for is "how about you make it yourself?"

No, there are three replies they can and should give. Either: "Good idea, we will add it to our list for consideration" - "Thanks, it is already part of our list for consideration" or "Sorry, this will not be dealt with by TD."

Simple as that. No need to get nasty on people who react to the very name of this thread.

We can not read the minds of TD members and only know what they are up to when they release a news update.

[Luno13]

Lagarto wrote: "How about the following:" ie, a suggestion, and not a demand.

He did not do what many have done here which is "DT, why isn't this plane in the game? It's super important! This is an outrage to my nation and people! How dare you not work faster!"

There are a lot of good ideas in this thread that I'm sure must have inspired someone. DT have a ton of stuff to work on, but they've delivered miracles thus far. Under such circumstances, it's hard to not have a few things on the "wishlist".

[swiss]

Engines repeatedly catching fire:

I always wondered if this is a bug or a feature.
When an engine gets damaged to a certain degree it will catch fire no matter what you do.
If you to cut the fuel(0%throttle) and manage blow the fire out and cool the engine down - how can this thing light up again and again?
I mean, there's neither fuel nor any hot parts like the exhaust. :confused:

[JtD]

From TD side, requests and questions are most welcome. If it's a great idea and not too much work, it might even be in the next patch (not 4.11 any more, but you get the idea), if it is just more contents and requires much work, then the chances for that are much smaller.

But still, it would be great if a larger part of the community would make the 3D models of the items they want in the game, because it is a fact that out of all the desired contents, TD can maybe deliver 1% on their own with each patch. 3D modelling (and other aspects) takes a lot of time, and cloning hasn't been invented, yet.

[RegRag1977]

Hi Team Daidalos,

What about not knowing the skill, numbers and aircraft of AI enemy we will face (in the QMB): for instance having the possibility to chose random as an option for aircraft and skill.

There could be a "random" option along with the usual rookie/veteran/ace, in the form of a interrogation point (?) in the list of ac and in the number box (1,2,3,4, or ?).

You know this kind of thing could really change the old and dusty habits in the qmb, and really make the surprise rise again!

You already know you rock!;)

[harryRIEDL]

Hi Team Daidalos,

What about not knowing the skill, numbers and aircraft of AI enemy we will face (in the QMB): for instance having the possibility to chose random as an option for aircraft and skill.

There could be a "random" option along with the usual rookie/veteran/ace, in the form of a interrogation point (?) in the list of ac and in the number box (1,2,3,4, or ?).

You know this kind of thing could really change the old and dusty habits in the qmb, and really make the surprise rise again!

You already know you rock!;)

I like that idea lots a randomized aircraft selection would be interesting as well if it chose from Allied and Axis aircraft(I mean if it were Axis it would chose only axis aircraft)

[Sita]

want something - it's easy

want something, and be able to do what you want - it's hard to

to do something by the standards of the IL2 - even more difficult

who doubts the fact that it is not easy, try it

DT - a group of enthusiasts ... and they work at their own pleasure, and doing in the first place then that is interesting by itself ...

SaQSoN says a little brutal, but he says is true - if you want to do something qualitatively for the IL2 ... except for yourself, nobody will do it

[Avimimus]

Has there been any thought of incorporating gun jams? Also, the possibility for structural failures as a result of a prolonged bursts from the Il2-3m's main guns?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Has there been any thought of incorporating gun jams? Also, the possibility for structural failures as a result of a prolonged bursts from the Il2-3m's main guns?

Up till now, gun jams, damage and structural failures have been implemented only as a concequence of players mistakes. This is game-design.
However... technical reason for such issues could be implemented, so these things would happen randomly. While this would be part of realism and maybe wanted by a number of players (offline players I suspect), it could exist only as an option.
I am interested in how many players are willing to be forced to end a campaign unsuccessfully, after having done alot of missions, although they did nothing wrong - only because a random happening?
I think before this question isn't fully evaluated, these considerations cannot be go to a high priority status.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

As maybe not everyone knows, SaQSon has his own kind of express things. Additionally, the language barrier here let us understand different things ("requesting" or "demanding").

The posting of Lagarto wasn't understood by me as a demanding (and I hope, its the same with the team).
And as JtD already said, the truth in SaQSons speach is: we could do more with professional help from extern.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

What about not knowing the skill, numbers and aircraft of AI enemy we will face (in the QMB): for instance having the possibility to chose random as an option for aircraft and skill.

There could be a "random" option along with the usual rookie/veteran/ace, in the form of a interrogation point (?) in the list of ac and in the number box (1,2,3,4, or ?).



Good ideas! :-P

[Bionde]

please check the hit point of aircraft especially in wings, because, if you are doing a roll and get a hit by a 20mm or high caliber, your plane is forced to roll to another side beacuse impact force, but after that impact you cannot roll you plane for about 0.5sec~, in other words, you freeze to that interval, and this can change the situation of the combat, i didn't know if this happen only here, i usually fly in the spit, and always when get hit of 20mm (30mm or high rarely the wing wont broke) in a roll i cannot continue the roll immediately.

thanks.

sorry for my cr** english..

[Lagarto]

Caspar - since you mentioned being able to do more with external help - I was wondering if DT and mod makers are mutually interested in joining efforts. I'm aware that many 3D models are not up to your standards but what about maps? I've seen some WIP screenshots of Donbass (eastern Ukraine) and Caucasus maps, for example. Is there any chance that you incorporate them into your future patches? I hope the subject is not too sensitive to discuss it here :)

[Pursuivant]

Dear Lagarto, how about the following: you get yourself a 3D Max and Photoshop and start modelling things on your list?

That's a bit acerbic. Lots of people don't understand just how much work it takes to create a ship or plane in IL2.

Also, GIMP is free and does most of what Photoshop does. :)

For 3d modeling, 3DS Max educational version is free to students and staff of educational institutions.

[Pursuivant]

What about not knowing the skill, numbers and aircraft of AI enemy we will face (in the QMB): for instance having the possibility to chose random as an option for aircraft and skill.

+1!

I fondly remember the ability to encounter random planes and random skill levels in CFS2. For IL2, there are third party mission editors which already implement this (UberDemon's QMG), so it's definitely doable.

http://uberdemon.sushicereal.com/index2.html

And not just random plane types and skill levels, but also random heights, maps, starting times, weather conditions and just about everything else.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Caspar - since you mentioned being able to do more with external help - I was wondering if DT and mod makers are mutually interested in joining efforts. I'm aware that many 3D models are not up to your standards but what about maps? I've seen some WIP screenshots of Donbass (eastern Ukraine) and Caucasus maps, for example. Is there any chance that you incorporate them into your future patches? I hope the subject is not too sensitive to discuss it here :)

Especially regarding 3rd party maps, there is something going on, yes. No more details. ;)

[dFrog]

OK, Caspar. I'll ask directly. Why TD does not want to make certain "things" ? There have been many requests or wishes for e.g. Hurricane Mk.IId or Mk.IV. Yes, they exist as mods, but this is no option for users, who do not want to use them.
As far as I can see, TD has never made anything what allready exist as mod, it was allways something else. For example manual bomb bay doors. Will we ever see this made oficial or never, because it was made first as a mod ? I just like to know...

[Juri_JS]

Especially regarding 3rd party maps, there is something going on, yes. No more details. ;)

Caspar, are there certain standards a map has to meet to be included in an official patch, comparable to the standards for new aircraft?

[_1SMV_Gitano]

I'll try to answer:

@ dFrog: making a mod is much easier and less time-consuming than a properly built model. You mention the Hurricane IId. If you check the Vokes filter on the modded model, you'll recognize that it is just the mesh of the Spitfire Vc copied there, IIRC with no LODs at all.

As already said, there are few 3d modellers within DT, they (we all) work for free in the spare time so we would like to retain the freedom to choose what to model. A help from the community would be more modellers willing to work under specs. The few that decided so are doing an outstanding job! ;)

@ Juri: yes, there are some specs also for maps. I'm not an expert so Caspar can be more precise. Anyway, here are some tips:

Generic:
- maps representing WW2 scenario or pre-WW2 conflicts are welcomed. However, regions under 1C veto are not allowed. These are currently the English Channel, the MTO and Korea; Situation could change in the future but is is hard to say at the moment;
- Map should be 1:1 scale and possibly not too large;
- Size should depend on object count. For comparison, take Solomons map as an extreme limit;
- Maps with reduce scale are ok if distances involved are too large;
- Rivers should be at sea level. Isolated lakes can be at higher altitude;

Objects:
- custom objects should be made under specs, both polycount and texture-wise;
- Objects coming from other games are not allowed;
- Re-textured objects with binary meshes are not allowed;

1.Textures:
1.1. File format should be standardized, (large TGB, smaller TGA, add bump and tree sub-textures for each main texture)
1.2. Roads, hedgerows and other similar and prominent terrain features of the textures should be tile-able between different textures. Would be even better, if painted roads will (sat least partially) fit into map road grid.
1.3. If RL photo was used to create texture, any buildings and other anthropogenic features, except roads, should be removed from the texture (a blurred "shadows", where buildings are supposed to be may be left only).
1.4. Last, but not least: all textures within one map should be in relatively same color gamma. Bump maps from different textures should also be unified (without large difference in contranst between different files).

2. Texture placement on the map:
2.1. Textures with noticeable structure (like fields, for instance), which produce pattern effect should NOT be placed alone. Instead a random mix of 2-4 similar, but different textures, which has tile-able edges should be used.
2.2. Rivers MUST have an underlying textures along whole it's length.
2.3. Textures and objects should be placed in realistic manner, resembling real life. Like: no fields on steep slopes; fields are usually separated from rivers/sea with a grassy or forested area; hill tops use brighter textures (due to fewer water supply) and so on.

3. Other stuff:
3.1. Far map texture should be produced after final texture placement.
3.2. Preferably that user map images would be made in standard IL-2 manner.

[FrankB]

OK, Caspar. I'll ask directly. Why TD does not want to make certain "things" ? There have been many requests or wishes for e.g. Hurricane Mk.IId or Mk.IV. Yes, they exist as mods, but this is no option for users, who do not want to use them.

I am not anyhow connected with TD so I can't speak for them, but it is obvious that there are so many requests that one could work on them for the whole lifetime and still not be finished, so it is a matter of priorities.

Also I would say TD is focusing more on generic issues (e.g. navigation in 4.10 which required coordinated changes all over the code) than specific ones (adding one more plane to the list of, um, more than 100 others).

Do not make me wrong, If I received the Hurri you are talking about, I would be of course grateful for it, but I appretiate TD for doing changes none of the modders is capable of.

As far as I can see, TD has never made anything what allready exist as mod, it was allways something else. For example manual bomb bay doors. Will we ever see this made oficial or never, because it was made first as a mod ? I just like to know...

You are wrong, for example the bomb fuze delay first appeared as a mod.

If you read the forums carefuly, you will see the TD are open to 3rd party development. The main issue seems to be the modders usualy have no interest/will/skills/whatewer to bring the work up to TD standards so it could be included in the official patch.

As a proof you can look around these forums you can see B24 and other planes being developed by 3rd parties and scheduled for inclusion in subsequent patches, so that is definitely not a problem.

[dFrog]

Don't take me wrong, I really appreciate all the effort TD is putting into this game. I just wonder why some versions of already existing planes are still missing. For example brits are still missing ground attack plane - Typhoon or Hurricane Mk.IId
One more question - MTO ban includes whole Mediteranean or just some areas ? I'm still hoping for Avia S-199 and map of Syria - Palestine - Egypt area.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Caspar, are there certain standards a map has to meet to be included in an official patch, comparable to the standards for new aircraft?

Yes. There have to be correct texture and file type and size, not too much objects (I have no numbers in mind at the moment) and not too much size (although the reasonable size of the map depends also on objects density). I.e. Bessarabia was to big, so the object density had to be reduced a bit, on the other side the large Solomons map is ok, since it has a low density.
And finally, it shouldn't contain modded objects (naturally), except, if such objects are delivered together with the map as a full standard 3D model, so we can include it. Roads and rails all must work. Same for bridges. Rivers have to be on 0m level.
Well... such stuff... Gitano has already told the most details.

EDIT: 1:1 scale is not a requirement, but nice to have. We even would accept a pure fun-map, if its well made.

But generally you have to care for less points in map making, compared to aircraft modeling.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Why TD does not want to make certain "things" ?

Well, that is not true in its core. If we could, we would do everything, that can be considered as 'missing'! Most issue contrary to that is: not enough manpower and not enough time.

As for the Hurri IID and the manual bomb doors, I think both have very good chances for future implementation anyway. Just be patient pls. The day, that we say: "Thats it, folks!" - that day you can start to complain. ;)

[dFrog]

...As for the Hurri IID and the manual bomb doors, I think both have very good chances for future implementation anyway. Just be patient pls. The day, that we say: "Thats it, folks!" - that day you can start to complain. ;)

Good to hear, looking forward...

[Lagarto]

Thank you Gitano and Caspar for your posts, very interesting and informative. I'm a little unhappy about the ban on the MTO, which means no Sicily/Malta map, as I understand it. I sincerely hope the 1C has some good reason for it, like an MTO extension pack for ClOD (although I doubt such an add-on would make any sense at the current state of things).
I'm also curious about the maps' size limit. The stock maps are generally small but I thought it's because they were made with 2001/2003-era PCs in mind. The present-day computers surely can handle much more but perhaps the game's engine can't?

[Avimimus]

Up till now, gun jams, damage and structural failures have been implemented only as a concequence of players mistakes. This is game-design.
However... technical reason for such issues could be implemented, so these things would happen randomly. While this would be part of realism and maybe wanted by a number of players (offline players I suspect), it could exist only as an option.
I am interested in how many players are willing to be forced to end a campaign unsuccessfully, after having done alot of missions, although they did nothing wrong - only because a random happening?
I think before this question isn't fully evaluated, these considerations cannot be go to a high priority status.

Okay, thank you for the reply!

Hmm... We'll, I was thinking about situations which are primarily the fault of players:
- The structural failures in the Il-2 3m were a result of prolonged firing of the NS-37 (typically in a dive).
- Gun jams could also happen as a result of gun overheating, high-g maneuvers or flying too low. So, how you fly matters.


On the other hand some types of guns were notoriously prone to jamming. This didn't typically lead to the lost of a plane, but it did sometimes force pilots to abort attacks. In most cases it lowered effectiveness by causing one (our of several) guns to become unavailable before it had fired off all of its rounds.

The ShKAS had "48 ways of jamming". The Mk-101 and Mk-108 were also notoriously prone to jamming (one of their downsides vs. the Mk-103). The BK-5 was rarely able to fire off all of its ammunition.

However, these guns could and did prove to be extremely effective weapons. They just weren't 100% reliable and every few missions a pilot would carry some of his ammunition home.

So, it is really just a random factor effecting overall firepower.

If you don't mind, I could put together a poll to see what people think of the idea?

[Pursuivant]

Like Lagarto said,

Thanks to Gitano and Caspar for very helpful information. It should be a sticky post somewhere, along with the other DT limits and standards.

I'd also like to see further clarification as to how broad the ban on MTO maps, equipment, etc. is.

Does the ban on MTO maps just include Northern Africa, or Greece, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, Italy, Spain, Corsica, Southern France, the Balkans and the Holy Land as well?

What about late war maps which include parts of northern Italy, but which focus on the Western allied attacks on occupied Europe, such as Corsica, Southern France, Yugoslavia or Austria?

Finally, the ban on MTO equipment seems pointless, since most major Italian aircraft are already in the game. If they're not in the game, they could be legitimately modeled because they were used elsewhere in Europe, or could have been used by Italian forces engaged in Russia. The CANT Z.506 will be something of a test case - mostly used in the Med., but also used by the Germans in the Baltic. The Italian vehicles will be another test case - mostly North Africa, but also used in Russia and France.

As for U.S., British and German equipment, just about every vehicle or plane which saw action in North Africa also saw action elsewhere in the world - or could have.

My guess is that Oleg mostly intended the ban to apply to areas of the MTO which saw action from 1939-41. Mostly Libya and the Western Desert of Egypt, but possibly also Greece, Malta, Gibraltar, Sicily and Sardinia.

[swiss]

If you don't mind, I could put together a poll to see what people think of the idea?

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!

[Pursuivant]

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!


Anything that improves realism is fine by me.

For people who don't like it, there should be a button to turn it off.

[Luno13]

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!

If you look at the first video, you will see that bomb fuses have changed. You can select low level, delay, and long delay fuses. ;)

Also, I don't see why this can't be an option. This could fall under the general category of "reliability" to include engines, airframes, and weapons.

I for one, would vote for such features, even if it makes campaigns and missions more difficult.

[Daniël]

What about a failing interrupter gear? In Il-2 now you'll never shoot your propellor off. What about making this an option for reliability or damage?

[RegRag1977]

Anything that improves realism is fine by me.

For people who don't like it, there should be a button to turn it off.

+1

Same here, gun jamming, especially caused by high g and frame stress, will considerably improve gunnery realism and overall difficulty, this by making firing windows less wide under very high gs, it would be a good addition to structural G limit that tend to be a greater problem for boom-and-zooming pilots (less sensitive for turn-and-burner as far as i experienced).

[RegRag1977]

Any possibility to have a new 3D work for the Fw190A (cowling is to wide open)? I once saw a mod correcting this. Also the ETC501 rack is weird and could need refinements...


A new Mig3 model would be nice too, i saw a russian mod greatly improving it, would be nice if it could be implemented in, what do you think?

There is a missing metal frame in the P39 cockpit view, giving more visibility:

http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/yy314/RegRag/BellP-39QAiracobra2.jpg


Thank you guys for reading this topic!

[kennel]

Does anyone know what variables AI planes are actually effected by FM wise?
We constantly see AI flying with perfect trim, no overheat ect but are their planes effected by the same environmental, structural & g force limitations.

The reason I ask this is I once tried to dive away from an AI LA7 in a 190D9. The LA7 followed me down, if this was online the LA7 would have torn its wings off, however it was offline so LA was in good condition even though I had the dora at 900kmh when diving away.

An idea would be to have the difficulty settings we apply to ourselves apply to the AI as well, but one would assume this would be a massive code re write.

[Bolelas]

Dont know if this was discussed before, sorry if it was: Would it be possible to the pilot of a bomber, to deliver control to other crew member? And then regain it when he wanted to, by pressing some key? Would it be very dificult to do it in the game-coding? And could we have access, in a recording, to the views of the cockpit of other players/AI, just instead of external views?

This are not requests... just questions of someone that is allready very gratefull with Team Daidalos work.

Thanks guys!

[Tropical Storm]

Hi all,

Don't know if this has already been discussed here too, but I would like to know if there will be any improvements on the autopilot system. It's kind of common that my plane breaks formation, do not follow the leader or the waypoints, or even puts nose down straight to the surface when on autopilot...

Thank you very much for keeping working on this great game!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Dont know if this was discussed before, sorry if it was: Would it be possible to the pilot of a bomber, to deliver control to other crew member? And then regain it when he wanted to, by pressing some key? Would it be very dificult to do it in the game-coding? And could we have access, in a recording, to the views of the cockpit of other players/AI, just instead of external views?


To make things more clear:

1st of your question is about human bomber crew in COOP, where pilot and gunners/bombadier can switch positions by will during flight?
2nd of your question is about just watching others (for teaching issue maybe)?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hi all,

Don't know if this has already been discussed here too, but I would like to know if there will be any improvements on the autopilot system. It's kind of common that my plane breaks formation, do not follow the leader or the waypoints, or even puts nose down straight to the surface when on autopilot...



So far no issues with autopilot has been recognised. It generally follows waypoints (note: it also flies back if you have missed one) and starts attacks on enemy planes.

[KG26_Alpha]

Dont know if this was discussed before, sorry if it was: Would it be possible to the pilot of a bomber, to deliver control to other crew member? And then regain it when he wanted to, by pressing some key? Would it be very dificult to do it in the game-coding? And could we have access, in a recording, to the views of the cockpit of other players/AI, just instead of external views?

This are not requests... just questions of someone that is allready very gratefull with Team Daidalos work.

Thanks guys!

This was asked for years ago but was told netcode blah blah blah by Oleg and team, since then most of the "netcode blah blah impossible" remarks have been proven otherwise especially friendly outside views only and take off outside views etc etc which were asked for years ago also and are now in v4.11.

So it should/could be possible to hand the bombsite and ac controls over to a crew-member or at least let them have the bombsite controls and you pilot making adjustments on comms :)

[Bolelas]

To make things more clear:

1st of your question is about human bomber crew in COOP, where pilot and gunners/bombadier can switch positions by will during flight?
2nd of your question is about just watching others (for teaching issue maybe)?
1st question:Yes, human bomber crew switching positions at will, with the "original" pilot having the autority to who he delivers controls of the bomber and regain them whenever he wants. I think would be good for long missions,(gives pilot a break, and encourages more people to play as gunner position, because they can also do some part of piloting) and maybe used also for teatching purpose.
2nd question: yes, mainly to learn something out of others, and good also for having more stuff to put in a film.
Thanks for ansewering. :)

[Pursuivant]

This was asked for years ago but was told netcode blah blah blah by Oleg and team

I'm more inclined to trust DT's comments about what is, and isn't possible with IL2. Like the rest of us, they're fans who are driven by love of the game rather than profit.

[Fenice_1965]

Is it possible to have a feature in dogfight maps to limit the percentage of fighters and bombers.
Example: You build a map balancing it for a server of 50 players. You can put an aircraft limit to 12 fighters. So the rest is bombers.
Problem is: if the server has 12 players for side in....and everybody chooses fighters the mission design is altered.

If I can set aircraft limitation by percentage...example 50% fighters....with 12 players in I can have 6 bomber and six fighters. The mission design remains untouched.
:!:

[KG26_Alpha]

I'm more inclined to trust DT's comments about what is, and isn't possible with IL2. Like the rest of us, they're fans who are driven by love of the game rather than profit.

Which is why if you read the rest of my post...............

It probably is possible.

[Pursuivant]

Which is why if you read the rest of my post...............

It probably is possible.

Yep. My point is that it's a pleasure having fans developing for IL2, rather than a company. For so long fans were told "this isn't possible" when what Oleg and company really meant is "it isn't profitable enough."

While I'm awed by what Oleg and 1c did with the IL2 series - it was light years of any other combat flight sim out there when it was released - I don't like being lied to.

Anyhow, my comment wasn't meant to criticize your request. I think it's possible and it's certainly a good idea. To look at it a different way, a mod which allows the bomber commander to hand off control of the plane could also be used to allow a player bombardier to take control of the plane using the Norden bomb site or similar device, or for a player copilot to take control from an AI lead pilot (or vice-versa).

Tweak the idea slightly, and you could have the same mod allow human-crewed bombers to pass control around. For example, player 1 (in pilot position) gets killed, so player 2 could take over. This would simulate things like the Flight Engineer, Navigator or Bombardier (who often had some flight training) shoving the pilot's body out of the seat and taking over the controls.

[Tropical Storm]

So far no issues with autopilot has been recognised. It generally follows waypoints (note: it also flies back if you have missed one) and starts attacks on enemy planes.

Hum, so maybe the problem is with the allied (I mean, squadron leader) AI. He often takes a different course than the waypoints one and behavior strangely, so my plane on autopilot just follow him... For example: many times playing as a B 25 bomber, the whole squadron dive to bomb, and not level, just like they were diver bombers. If I turn off the autopilot close to the target and level my bomber for myself, they just shout for me to "stay on course"! Other times, playing as an escort fighter, my whole flight fly away from the bombers we were suposed to protect just because we missed a waypoint...

Maybe if the AI had some behavior patterns depending on the type of plane it flyes... like, do not dive if he is a level bomber, or always follow the bombers if he is an escort, regardless of his own waypoints... them maybe my plane and my flight would do what they are suposed to do, even on autopilot. :)

[IceFire]

Hum, so maybe the problem is with the allied (I mean, squadron leader) AI. He often takes a different course than the waypoints one and behavior strangely, so my plane on autopilot just follow him... For example: many times playing as a B 25 bomber, the whole squadron dive to bomb, and not level, just like they were diver bombers. If I turn off the autopilot close to the target and level my bomber for myself, they just shout for me to "stay on course"! Other times, playing as an escort fighter, my whole flight fly away from the bombers we were suposed to protect just because we missed a waypoint...

Maybe if the AI had some behavior patterns depending on the type of plane it flyes... like, do not dive if he is a level bomber, or always follow the bombers if he is an escort, regardless of his own waypoints... them maybe my plane and my flight would do what they are suposed to do, even on autopilot. :)

That's not an autopilot problem. That's an AI problem... or rather a limitation.

The B-25 version in-game is a B-25J which operated as both level bomber and strafer using the guns in the nose to attack targets are very low level. The AI is setup on this aircraft for the strafer behavior so that's what it tries to do. At some higher altitude it is supposed to play nice as a level bomber but I'm not sure what that is.

On my wish list is an ability to tell the AI what to do at the attack waypoint depending on what options are available for that aircraft. So that we can have A-20s and B-25s and other types that did double duty doing what they are supposed to do according to mission parameters.

[Pursuivant]

My problem with waypoints is that if you miss a waypoint and then turn on AI, the AI tries to go back to it, rather than going on to the next waypoint or to the nearest waypoint.

Going back to the last known location might be realistic if you're flying over unfamiliar terrain or have limited landmarks and the waypoints are widely separated, but makes no sense if the waypoints have been set up to make planes orbit over a particular location, or if the planes are supposed to rendezvous with some other unit.

In a more perfect world, the FMB would include the following options:

Attack -> Attack type: high level bomb, dive bomb, strafe/rockets, torpedo/skip bomb/kamikaze.

Loiter -> Pattern: Circle, Racetrack, Expanding circle/spiral, square, rectangle, expanding square, expanding rectangle, random with X radius of waypoint. Speed change: +/- X mph/kph. Altitude change: +/- X m/feet.

Missed Waypoint Behavior: Back to last waypoint, go to next waypoint, go to nearest waypoint.

Dogfight behavior: Avoid contact (i.e., keep at least X distance from nearest enemy while still trying to get to next waypoint), Defensive circle (AKA Lufberry Circle), Escort/air cover (i.e., don't go beyond X distance from Y unit/location - close vs. loose escort set by distance), Ignore (i.e., don't dogfight or maneuver at all - very realistic for level bombers at IP point), Cautious (i.e., dogfight if attacked but don't pursue if enemy breaks off), Aggressive (i.e., normal dogfight behavior), Scatter (i.e., similar to what happens when bomber formations are badly shaken up, but logical initial behavior for unarmed formations), Flee/Retreat (i.e., avoid contact with enemy and got to another waypoint if enemy sighted), Scatter & Flee (combines the two options above - formation scatters, individual planes try to make it to another waypoint individually).

Escort Behavior (Can be assigned with other commands, no other flights need be present to get search patterns along a particular path): straight flight, weave (i.e., a sinusoidal path), zig-zag (i.e., 45 degree left and right turns every X meters), racetrack (i.e., oval loops - like current fighter escort behavior), orbit (i.e., circular loops), random.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

'Go to next waypoint' has always been available and it works for you own planes autopilot too.

[Tropical Storm]

'Go to next waypoint' has always been available and it works for you own planes autopilot too.

Yes, but if Im not a flight group (or squadron) leader it will not work for the entire flight, right? I mean, the leader will still try to go back to the missed waypoint (what the AI is programmed to do, I supose), and if I go to the next by myself, I'll break formation...

[Tropical Storm]

My problem with waypoints is that if you miss a waypoint and then turn on AI, the AI tries to go back to it, rather than going on to the next waypoint or to the nearest waypoint.

Going back to the last known location might be realistic if you're flying over unfamiliar terrain or have limited landmarks and the waypoints are widely separated, but makes no sense if the waypoints have been set up to make planes orbit over a particular location, or if the planes are supposed to rendezvous with some other unit.

In a more perfect world, the FMB would include the following options:

Attack -> Attack type: high level bomb, dive bomb, strafe/rockets, torpedo/skip bomb/kamikaze.

Loiter -> Pattern: Circle, Racetrack, Expanding circle/spiral, square, rectangle, expanding square, expanding rectangle, random with X radius of waypoint. Speed change: +/- X mph/kph. Altitude change: +/- X m/feet.

Missed Waypoint Behavior: Back to last waypoint, go to next waypoint, go to nearest waypoint.

Dogfight behavior: Avoid contact (i.e., keep at least X distance from nearest enemy while still trying to get to next waypoint), Defensive circle (AKA Lufberry Circle), Escort/air cover (i.e., don't go beyond X distance from Y unit/location - close vs. loose escort set by distance), Ignore (i.e., don't dogfight or maneuver at all - very realistic for level bombers at IP point), Cautious (i.e., dogfight if attacked but don't pursue if enemy breaks off), Aggressive (i.e., normal dogfight behavior), Scatter (i.e., similar to what happens when bomber formations are badly shaken up, but logical initial behavior for unarmed formations), Flee/Retreat (i.e., avoid contact with enemy and got to another waypoint if enemy sighted), Scatter & Flee (combines the two options above - formation scatters, individual planes try to make it to another waypoint individually).

Escort Behavior (Can be assigned with other commands, no other flights need be present to get search patterns along a particular path): straight flight, weave (i.e., a sinusoidal path), zig-zag (i.e., 45 degree left and right turns every X meters), racetrack (i.e., oval loops - like current fighter escort behavior), orbit (i.e., circular loops), random.

That would be perfect! :grin: I was talking exactly about that when I mentioned "flight patterns". But I understand that it would be very difficult and time consuming for TD to make such changes for this patch, but maybe it stays on the wishlist for the next...

[OREL_Erichos]

Hi guys, my question is about support 6DOF mode for freetrack/IRtrack in 4.11 update, will this feature be in this update or not?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Yes, but if Im not a flight group (or squadron) leader it will not work for the entire flight, right? I mean, the leader will still try to go back to the missed waypoint (what the AI is programmed to do, I supose), and if I go to the next by myself, I'll break formation...

If you not the flight leader, you probably won't miss any waypoint. There is no reason to leave your flight, is there? Thats the point of being NOT the flight leader. However, there have some good suggestions beside this and we read them all.

[Bolelas]

Hi guys, my question is about support 6DOF mode for freetrack/IRtrack in 4.11 update, will this feature be in this update or not?

This was mentioned many times before. NO, because some older planes are not designed to suport this feature in their 3D design, and some parts would become transparent. It would be ugly to do official patch with such fails (that permited some sort of "cheat"). So basicaly, if you want 6DOF, fly with MODs.
:(

[RegRag1977]

Hi,

Why not have new (and wider) FOV options instead of an impossible 6DOF thing: it would be a simpler way to increase visibility? the FOVs we have now are too restricting especially while using a wide screen. It would also help those who have no TrackIr to cover more space (i mean something more close to human eyes fov).

[Tropical Storm]

If you not the flight leader, you probably won't miss any waypoint. There is no reason to leave your flight, is there? Thats the point of being NOT the flight leader. However, there have some good suggestions beside this and we read them all.

Well, it may happens when you need to go back to base due to a fuel leak, for example. And sometimes, when engaged in dogfight, the whole flight misses a waypoint, including the leader. But even if we are close to the next one, he will go back to the missed point.

Anyway, thanks for you answers and your attention, Im glad to know that you guys are reading our suggestions!

[jameson]

Would it be possible to assign menu buttons. that currently have to be mouse clicked, keyboard letters? Say, 'F' for fly, 'D' for difficulty? Or even Alt+whatever? Sometimes the keyboard would just be easier to use than scroll left, click, next page scroll right, up, down. click... For those with sim pits getting rid of the mouse would be a godsend I'd have thought, and one less thing in the way on the desk.

[Pursuivant]

It seems to me that a very simple change, which would render a number of mods obsoleted, would be to increase the number of loadouts available for planes in the game.

For example, there is evidence that the P-40M carried "bazooka" style rockets, that the Luftwaffe experimented with having the Do-217 carry torpedoes, and that the Fiat G-50 was fitted with hardpoints so that it could carry bombs. Bombers like the A-20 and B-25 could carry far more varieties of ordinance, or combinations of ordinance, than are currently modeled in the stock game.

On a purely visual level, there's evidence that U.S. lend-lease planes were fitted to carry Soviet or British bombs and/or rockets.

Basically, if there's any evidence that a plane could carry a particular type of ordinance in a particular nation's inventory, there's no reason that it shouldn't be modeled in the game.

On a purely hypothetical level, the various "Luftwaffe 46" planes, perhaps including real planes like the Bf-109K, Do-335, FW-190D, Hs-162, Me-262A or Ta-152 could all get loadouts of the late war German weapons like the Fritz X.

[T}{OR]

Just one request really, not sure if it was posted before:

differential braking with toe brakes some of us use with rudder pedals.

For the planes that had them off course.

[Bolelas]

Not a request, just a question. Sorry for the ignorance. I dont use MODs, not against, but a few days ago i went for the 1st time to MODs room in this forum, and i read about some guy named Aachens that made a preciser "program" of the flight models used in IL2. Is it accepted as closer to real models? Is it possible to use it for the stock version? Dificult to implement? Legaly possible?

Thanks for Daidalos Team excelent work. I think you should have some paypal account were we could deposit some help (i cannot help with computing or 3D models). I am not rich, (far from that), but i would be glad to help with 5 or 10€, and if many give a little, the comunity would help a lot.
Of course you say that you dont want profit, but tools are needed for work, computers sometimes get damage, need repair, etc, and at least you should not have economic losses...

THANK YOU ALL.

[maxim42]

It would be nice if you include widescreen support. As you know - widescreen is new standard and I'm sure that most of people here have 16x9 monitors. Nowadays you are able to config in conf.ini file to play with this kind of monitor but this is not comfortable. There should be support for most popular resolutions in standard (I have 1360x768 monitor and playing il-2 is a little bit complicated). Greetings!

[GF_Mastiff]

It would be nice if you include widescreen support. As you know - widescreen is new standard and I'm sure that most of people here have 16x9 monitors. Nowadays you are able to config in conf.ini file to play with this kind of monitor but this is not comfortable. There should be support for most popular resolutions in standard (I have 1360x768 monitor and playing il-2 is a little bit complicated). Greetings!

you can go in to the config.ini and change your resolution to match your native widescreen. Just remember to saveaspect to =0

[window]
width=1920
height=1080
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=1
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=0
EnableResize=0
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=0
Use3Renders=0

[Lagarto]

No Mastiff, it doesn't really solve the problem. In this way you can get rid of the black bars at either side of the screen but at the cost of losing a fairly large portion of the view at the top and bottom. I would also like very much to see a true widescreen support.

[Xeno]

THere are two issues with wide-screen support, first is unable to select proper resolution from the list, wchich is easy to work-around by manually alter config file

Second issue is smaller vertical FOV, which ca be only solved by mods. Problem is not everyone wants to fly modded install and mods doesn't work for everyone (i've tried carmasters and different one (can't find wchich one it was). None f them worked for me and my install get prone to crash.

[schnorchel]

pls could Daidalos team take care of BF109s? I almost fly BF109 dedicatively in this sim. but I seldom play it anymore after 4.07M.
Now what we can have on this AC,
it cannot climb even at high altitude. besides the super LA5FN never get overheat above 5000m.
it cannot dive. due to the overdone famous so called "concrete elevator"
cannot turn, nobody expect she can outturn Las, for sure.

VVS fighter can beat 109 from 10000m to the bottom easily. We only have 2 kinds fighter for LW. but now none of them is modeled decently. :(

[pupo162]

pls could Daidalos team take care of BF109s? I almost fly BF109 dedicatively in this sim. but I seldom play it anymore after 4.07M.
Now what we can have on this AC,
it cannot climb even at high altitude. besides the super LA5FN never get overheat above 5000m.
it cannot dive. due to the overdone famous so called "concrete elevator"
cannot turn, nobody expect she can outturn Las, for sure.

VVS fighter can beat 109 from 10000m to the bottom easily. We only have 2 kinds fighter for LW. but now none of them is modeled decently. :(


what??

i flew 109 exclusively for 1 or 2 years, and that beast si a killign machine. unless oyu are going for really late war, 109 can kill the hell off vvs

[schnorchel]

what??

i flew 109 exclusively for 1 or 2 years, and that beast si a killign machine. unless oyu are going for really late war, 109 can kill the hell off vvs

not very really late war, in 1943 for example. What are you going to do in 109G6 when you meet a L5FN @3000m with same energy status? I fly 109 from 2002. I do not think I am a bad pilot.

[pupo162]

not very really late war, in 1943 for example. What are you going to do in 109G6 when you meet a L5FN @3000m with same energy status? I fly 109 from 2002. I do not think I am a bad pilot.

i run away.

as a matter of fact. if i meat anything Co-alt i will most likely run away.

[schnorchel]

i run away.

as a matter of fact. if i meat anything Co-alt i will most likely run away.

So the fact is that 109 can only perfrom hit and run fight from 1943 onward. could you please teach me what is the standard of the killing machine if you call she is. no offensive here, but I really need to relearn how to use it.

[ElAurens]

Only attack when you have a major altitude advantage.

Only attack from astern with that altitude advantage.

Never turn with your opponent.

Never ever engage co-altitude or co-energy.

Only attack n00bs if possible.


That's how Hartmann did it.

[pupo162]

So the fact is that 109 can only perfrom hit and run fight from 1943 onward. could you please teach me what is the standard of the killing machine if you call she is. no offensive here, but I really need to relearn how to use it.

not offended.

The 109G6 vs la5fn and yak 9d ( or B , the uber one) scenario it is familair for me. i play aroudn 200 missions 1 hour long in such. our planeset was 2 FW mdoels and 2 109s models. so 25% of th eitme luck draw me a 109g6. Let me tell you those were the worst and hardest missions.

i would come in high ( 6000 meters or so. and check the area, usually rushing the objective, or an intereption point ( if we were escorting bombers or intercepting) to make sure i was the highst bloke around. thsi worked preatty well. if i found them on time i would be high were they arent expect me to be whilst still climbing. BnZ till i loose my advantage ( offensive BnZ, not the slow paced one) and then dive for a lower altitude hoping they would follow me to a lower alt, were they would have a nice pack of 190s waiting for some meat. I woudl usually do this alone, not becouse im good. but a single fighter was harder to spot, i could go faster and all that lone wolf stuff.

tech data? i would stay relatively slow. i wouldnt go over 700 kmh in hte dive. shallow dives, 30 - 45º, i would aim my passes so i was level while shooting, and would loop at about 200 km/h. this blees a lot more energy on the loop phase, but keeps saves a lot in the dive.

but this is me hunting.

when defensively ( same level, surprised, no friends around) i would dive away to 0 km. i was slightly faster there. and i could dive better. if he still manage to get me, i would drag him to scissors. its a desperate move but if he falls for it, i win, if he doesnt im in some trouble, but still possible to work around.

my K/d ratio on 109 g 6was about 2 /3 - 1. but in this plane i was more prone to accidents. and i died a lot in bombing sorties.


I used to love that campaign.. .the good old days :grin:

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Could you open a separat thread for such discussions please? This is already a cramped place. Thanks! ;-)

[AJaromir]

Please add to HOTAS settings Fuel mixture because i cant't set this to any of axis in 1.10.1 Thanx

[Luno13]

Thanks for the hard work on the patch DT. :)

One little thing just occured to me the other day. The tube-sight in the SBD actually has a slip indicator around the bottom edge. I don't recall this being modeled in il-2. There is an image in a book, but I can't find it online, and I'll try to scan it.

Furthermore, those types of sights on these and other aircraft may not actually be "telescopic" in the sense that they provide magnification, but the pilot looks with both eyes so that with one eye he sees crosshairs projected on infinity and with the other, keeps track of the moving target. The overall effect is similar to that of the crosshairs projected on glass. If it's true, then the view through these sights should look like those of the Aldis sights in Rise of Flight.

[RegRag1977]

What about more atmospheric effects like increasing turbulences (in general) and especially in hot weather maps?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

What about more atmospheric effects like increasing turbulences (in general) and especially in hot weather maps?

You can adjust turbulences and gust in FMB since 4.10.
One is low altitude and one is high altitude atmosphere effect (I'm not knowing at the moment, which one is which).

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8987/grab0116.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/grab0116.jpg/)

Altitudes here are chosen by the regular real life hapenings.
Dynamic changings during mission is not possible though.

[RegRag1977]

Wow, this rocks: i will spend more time in the fmb to check this, many thanks Caspar!

You can adjust turbulences and gust in FMB since 4.10.
One is low altitude and one is high altitude atmosphere effect (I'm not knowing at the moment, which one is which).

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8987/grab0116.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/593/grab0116.jpg/)

Altitudes here are chosen by the regular real life hapenings.
Dynamic changings during mission is not possible though.

[gianlucabagatti]

Hi all, will the "propwash effect" be included in 4.11 (or maybe 4.12)?
best regards,
Gianluca

[Phil_K]

As TD have updated the FMB waypoints, I've got a quick but very useful request for 4.12.

Please could you include a "no strafing" option on the attack waypoint. At the moment B-25J's for example will drop their bombs and then descend from high altitude to strafe the target - this is obviously extremely unrealistic.

Also there are times when one wants even dedicated attack aircraft to just drop their ordnance and exit the target area e.g. when there is heavy flak.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

[Phabius]

Yeah, good idea! I was building a mission with B-25s and had to give up due to this issue. "No strafing" would be excellent for Ground Attack waypoints in this case, so they drop their bombs and follow to the next waypoint.

[Bolelas]

One thing that get me a little mad is when i am online, and wont to change pilot(key assignments, HOTAS)and that is not possible. (probably ofline it is the same, i dont remenber). Imagine redefine all those keys! It would be nice. Eg: if we forgot the "bomber pilot" key assignement in, we would go to escape menu we are used to (were is refly etc), we would clic, change pilot to our fighter keys assignement (for example), and fine!
:)

[Alien]

I'd love to have a flight construction like in CoD. But I think 40 aircraft is too much for an old sim. Maybe max number would be 16? I'd really LOVE to see this, it could make mission building MUCH easier and less time consuming.

[JG26_EZ]

I'd love to have a flight construction like in CoD. But I think 40 aircraft is too much for an old sim. Maybe max number would be 16? I'd really LOVE to see this, it could make mission building MUCH easier and less time consuming.

I beg to differ Alien..
Though it may make mission building easier, the way that a flight attacks another flight might end up being really scary when the one flight of 16 Spitfire comes roaring in after me if I happen to be flying in < + - , no matter how many planes I have in my flight, they always seem to want to see the flight leader killed first.

If AI reacted differently, I'd raise a glass to your request and say here here.
At the moment, I'm finding flights of two is the way to go. I guess we'll see what happens in v4.11

[Alien]

But it's natural human behavior - everyone wants to kill the leader of the enemy flight. At least I do and I think everyone does. But you're right - it sometimes pisses someone off if he's the leader against many enemies :D

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Thats a false interpretation of the things happening. If you want, you can do a fight as a flightleader without being attacked at all. All you have to do is: avoid close contact, set your buddies to attack and DON'T SHOOT ever!

Its just simple. AI is quite dumb (still is), so if you - as the player - present the most activity by attacking, shooting, being the most dangerous guy in your mission sky, so each enemy AI, that you are going onto (even if you just pass behind him), is 'crying for help' from its flight members - means, the other enemy AI's. Now, if they are not too busy with fighting or defending with your buddies, they will for sure GO AFTER YOU! Its just logical.

In short - if you prove to be dangerous, you will have to live with the consequences. :D

[Alien]

OK, thanks, but what do you think about my request? :D Can it be done for 4.12 or not?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I really have no clue about that, i.e. what problems it might mean programming wise or how AI would behave, or how much calculation is too much for the game/PC. So I stand out of any oppinion.

[K_Freddie]

But it's natural human behavior - everyone wants to kill the leader of the enemy flight. At least I do and I think everyone does. But you're right - it sometimes pisses someone off if he's the leader against many enemies :D
Not me.. I hammer the weaker ones first as it's quicker, leaving more time to deal with the leader. Start chasing the leader and you'll have the rest of the pack on your tail in no time, as it's harder to do the leader.
;)

[HarryM]

I always just assumed it was because the leader is "physically" closer flying in the lead position to enemies coming at 12 o'clock so usually gets detected/targeted first.

[Pursuivant]

A whole gaggle of fighters latching onto a single opponent might be realistic, but it's also a rookie mistake. It's just stupid for a whole squadron of supposedly "veteran" or "ace" AI to be trailing along behind you in a stern chase.

If you've got the advantage of numbers on your side, you "box" the enemy by sending off pairs or sections to cut off his lines of retreat or to try to hit him with fire from multiple directions.

At the very least, if you're chasing an opponent you should send out a couple of sections in a line abreast so that there are more guns to bear should the enemy decide to turn.

While I'll reserve comment on AI behavior until I get the 4.11 patch, it seems to me that AI could be further improved by:

1) Having fighters target the lead bomber of a "box" (group formation), or lead bombers of each element of a "V".

Historically, this was important because the "command bomber" often decided when the rest of the formation would drop its bombs, and the "lead bombardier" aboard the command bomber was also likely to be the most experienced (hence, most accurate) bombardier in the group.

2) Have fighters cooperate when attacking enemies, rather than "every man for himself".

While it would be too much to ask for full-developed and historically accurate section, flight, squadron and group tactics, some attempt to split defensive fire with simultaneous attacks or to cut off an opponent's line of retreat would be easier to model.

3) Trying to better model historical doctrine, such as the reportedly low initiative and focus on formation keeping by early war Soviet pilots or British early war 3 plane fighter formations.

4) Make wingmen slightly smarter and have more options for your wingman.

Right now, wingmen slavishly follow their leader and almost never shoot unless an attacker makes the mistake of getting between the lead plane and the wingman and attacking the lead.

By contrast, if you tell them to "attack my target" they're in competition with you for the kill, and sometimes accidentally shoot you!

Wingmen also don't immediately report enemies on your tail, nor do they tell you what to do to get them off.

If asked, a good wingman could be ordered to get into a position to cut off an opponent's line of retreat or bring him under fire when he turns, in the classic "drag and bag" manuever.

He should also tell you to break right, left, up or down to avoid an incoming attack, and possibly even attempt to use a "drag and bag" himself.

Likewise, you should be able to order your wingman to take the lead, or act as "bait" so YOU can try a drag and bag:

Basic commands:

1) Break Right.
2) Break Left.
3) Keep steady (i.e. go straight).
4) Dive.
5) Climb.
6) Hold course (i.e., keep doing what you're doing).
7) Chop the throttle/try to get the enemy to overshoot.
8) Cut off - i.e., try to get a position 60-90 degrees off the enemy's current course so you can get a shot at them as they turn.

[Xilon_x]

the italian autoblinda transform for go to RAIL WAY.
http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/l.aspx?k=2735007

[Alien]

A whole gaggle of fighters latching onto a single opponent might be realistic, but it's also a rookie mistake. It's just stupid for a whole squadron of supposedly "veteran" or "ace" AI to be trailing along behind you in a stern chase.

If you've got the advantage of numbers on your side, you "box" the enemy by sending off pairs or sections to cut off his lines of retreat or to try to hit him with fire from multiple directions.

At the very least, if you're chasing an opponent you should send out a couple of sections in a line abreast so that there are more guns to bear should the enemy decide to turn.

While I'll reserve comment on AI behavior until I get the 4.11 patch, it seems to me that AI could be further improved by:

1) Having fighters target the lead bomber of a "box" (group formation), or lead bombers of each element of a "V".

Historically, this was important because the "command bomber" often decided when the rest of the formation would drop its bombs, and the "lead bombardier" aboard the command bomber was also likely to be the most experienced (hence, most accurate) bombardier in the group.

2) Have fighters cooperate when attacking enemies, rather than "every man for himself".

While it would be too much to ask for full-developed and historically accurate section, flight, squadron and group tactics, some attempt to split defensive fire with simultaneous attacks or to cut off an opponent's line of retreat would be easier to model.

3) Trying to better model historical doctrine, such as the reportedly low initiative and focus on formation keeping by early war Soviet pilots or British early war 3 plane fighter formations.

4) Make wingmen slightly smarter and have more options for your wingman.

Right now, wingmen slavishly follow their leader and almost never shoot unless an attacker makes the mistake of getting between the lead plane and the wingman and attacking the lead.

By contrast, if you tell them to "attack my target" they're in competition with you for the kill, and sometimes accidentally shoot you!

Wingmen also don't immediately report enemies on your tail, nor do they tell you what to do to get them off.

If asked, a good wingman could be ordered to get into a position to cut off an opponent's line of retreat or bring him under fire when he turns, in the classic "drag and bag" manuever.

He should also tell you to break right, left, up or down to avoid an incoming attack, and possibly even attempt to use a "drag and bag" himself.

Likewise, you should be able to order your wingman to take the lead, or act as "bait" so YOU can try a drag and bag:

Basic commands:

1) Break Right.
2) Break Left.
3) Keep steady (i.e. go straight).
4) Dive.
5) Climb.
6) Hold course (i.e., keep doing what you're doing).
7) Chop the throttle/try to get the enemy to overshoot.
8) Cut off - i.e., try to get a position 60-90 degrees off the enemy's current course so you can get a shot at them as they turn.

Yeah, that would be great to have something like this!

[magot]

the italian autoblinda transform for go to RAIL WAY.
http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/l.aspx?k=2735007
This is not bad idea. Is count with new railroad models in next updates.
How much pieces of autoblinda was converted to railway?

[Patton521]

Ok I have a question regarding the use of custom skins for aircraft while in multi player. I remember in the 4.09 patch that when flying online if someone had a custom skin for a plane I could see it. But while using the 4.10.1 patch I can't see another players custom skin unless I have that exact same skin and I have the Download Skin option enabled. Will the new patch have something that will address this problem or would it be possible to have something like what was used in the 4.09 patch?

[char_aznable]

This is not bad idea. Is count with new railroad models in next updates.
How much pieces of autoblinda was converted to railway?
There was a conversion kit made on purpose, any Autoblindo could be converted then reverted to the previous configuration. They were used in the Balkans to patrol the railroads.

BTW, the above depicted one is actually an AB 40 (some 25 built) painted in 'Colonial Kaki' camo... :confused:

[Luno13]

It came up in another thread that apparently the La-5FN uses 1944 performance figures. An Early and Late version with different power outputs or FMs might be useful.

Just thinking out loud: maybe there could be a way to consolidate all "Early" and "Late" type FMs into a single 3D model for the specific plane type, and is selectable by the user or mission builder. ie, you select "Fw-190 D-9", and in the loadout menu, you select "Late" and when you fly online, etc you see "Fw-190 D-9 Late". This could be used to add weapons, skis, or floats to planes with a corresponding FM change without adding another item to the list of planes to consolidate some I-16s, MiGs, etc.

I posted this in another thread a while ago, but it might be useful to overhaul loadout options as well. Right now there is only one field, and some planes have in excess of 30 options in order to cover various combinations of bombs etc. It might be better to set multiple fields such as "Hardpoint 1" "Hardpoint 2",Hardpoint 3" etc as well as "Weapon 1", "Weapon2" for guns.

Under Weapons fields you can select type of gun (ie Mk 108 in Bf-109) and long or short belts of ammo, or certain historical belting combinations (For instance, tracerless until the last 50 rounds or so), or simply empty.

Hardpoint 1 represents the left wing, 2, the belly and bomb-bay, 3 the right wing. If the player selects a heavy bomb load in the bomb-bay, and tries to add bombs to the wings, an "Overweight" message could appear, and prevent him from pressing "Fly" unless fuel was reduced or some bombs removed.

A plane like the P-47 could add bomblet dispensers on the wings and a extra-large fuel tank on the centerline rack, and indeed, any historical combination, without a tremendously long list.

Ki-43s can have the historical loadout of one bomb and one droptank.

Pe-8s which have a bomb-bay and wing racks could select the appropriate positions of bombs for the mission.

A reload function for gunners and corresponding delay could be nice. This doesn't necessarily need to be animated (player presses "R" for instance, and waits two seconds). This could also be nice for planes which carried drum ammo such as earlier Bf-110s and Beaufighters, and planes such as early Ki-45s with a 37 mm cannon that was loaded one round at a time or B-25s with the 75mm cannon. If the appropriate crew member in these planes is injured, reload is longer, and if killed, reload stops entirely.

Thanks for the work so far DT. Can't wait to see what surprises 4.12 will bring.

Ok I have a question regarding the use of custom skins for aircraft while in multi player. I remember in the 4.09 patch that when flying online if someone had a custom skin for a plane I could see it. But while using the 4.10.1 patch I can't see another players custom skin unless I have that exact same skin and I have the Download Skin option enabled. Will the new patch have something that will address this problem or would it be possible to have something like what was used in the 4.09 patch?

Probably that skin is being downloaded into the netcache folder, but hasn't completed due to network speed. Sometimes I will see players' skins changing to the custom versions after 30 minutes of flying. Also, if the dedicated server you are on has custom skins "off", then you won't be able to upload or download custom skins.

Host a mission with your friend and fly a little longer to see what happens.

[Pursuivant]

Had the original designers of IL2 been thinking a harder about the future of the series, they would have designed the plane selection GUI and FM/DM a bit differently to make the game a bit more "modular."

For example, in the GUI, it would make sense to have 3 levels of menus for plane selection:

Basic Type --> Sub-Type --> Ordinance Loadout.

Example: Bf-109 --> G6 --> R6 field mod.

It would also be cool if the GUI had allowed you to select planes by year of introduction, nations or organizations that historically used a particular plane and/or role. For example, you could select by "U.S. Air Force, "level bombers" and "1944"

It would also be cool if the ordinance menu were somehow interactive, so when you click on particular ordinance combination, the plane in the view window changes to reflect the currently selected loadout. Or, when you moused over a particular ordinance layout, you'd get hypertext describing a particular weapon and its uses. That would be very useful for explaining obscure ordinance or foreign acronyms.

For FM, it would make sense to have engines and airframes separate, so you could model several different versions of the same plane, with identical airframe but different engines, using one airframe FM. Engine type would be selectable by the user or mission builder.

It would also make sense to model optional systems on the plane (e.g., radar, extra fuel tanks) as internal, non-droppable ordinance rather than as a dedicated part of the FM.

FM should also be alterable in the mission builder based on fuel type, state of repair, weather (e.g., ice on wings, moisture which soaked into wooden or canvas parts of the plane) and changes in mass or CG.

DM should be tweakable based on state of repair, quality of construction, sabotage, etc.

Modeling extra fuel tanks as internal, non-droppable "drop tanks" would eliminate the need for certain FM.

Certain internal weapons could be easily "swapped out" using meshes, rather than coding for an entirely different FM and 3d model. For example, British .303 caliber defensive guns rather than U.S. 0.50 caliber, or Soviet style dorsal turret rather than U.S. type, or removing the tail cone on the later G4M
series.

Other FMB/QMB niceties:

1) Being able to select Ammo loadout and amount of ammo for each weapon.

2) Listing amount of ammo available for each gun.

3) Listing types of guns rather than just saying "default".

4) Being able to select sight type (if multiple varieties were historically available).

5) Being able to select engine heat state when the mission starts (i.e., a dead cold engine which must be warmed before it can be safely started, or an overheated engine.)

6) Being able to "paint" damage onto an airplane so that certain parts have light or heavy damage when the mission begins.

7) Being able to assign special damage to an airplane (e.g., wounded crew, reduced engine power, oil leaks, jammed guns, landing gear that doesn't work) before a mission, or trigger failures at some point during a mission.

[Blackjack]

Had the original designers of IL2 been thinking a harder about the future of the series, they would have designed the plane selection GUI and FM/DM a bit differently to make the game a bit more "modular."

Seeing that at first it was planned as sim with il2 variants only, it was possibly thought of to be redundant at first and regretted later on :grin:

[BadAim]

This is not bad idea. Is count with new railroad models in next updates.
How much pieces of autoblinda was converted to railway?

It seems about 550 were built in all, all of which could use the rail bogies. The Germans used them too.

[Bearcat]

Had the original designers of IL2 been thinking a harder about the future of the series, they would have designed the plane selection GUI and FM/DM a bit differently to make the game a bit more "modular."


All that aside... people are still flying this sim a decade later and a top of the line rig from 2001 would choke on 4.10.1 .. so I don't know how much more they cold have looked to the future in the long run. There aren't many 12 year old game engines still running today. (IL2 was released in 2001 but IIRC the original engine was based on a space sim from a year or two earlier..) .

[ElAurens]

All that aside... people are still flying this sim a decade later and a top of the line rig from 2001 would choke on 4.10.1 .. .


Fact!!!

I still have my original Dell that I first used for IL2 back in December of 2001. I tried to load up the game sometime after the PE2 addon.

It was a slide show as best.

It's amazing to think I flew online regularly with that old thing. Furballs with lots of planes... blowing up Vyazma every other night online.

Ah, those were the days.

:cool:

[jameson]

"blowing up Vyazma every other night online". Is this legal?

[F19_Klunk]

All that aside... people are still flying this sim a decade later and a top of the line rig from 2001 would choke on 4.10.1 .. so I don't know how much more they cold have looked to the future in the long run. There aren't many 12 year old game engines still running today. (IL2 was released in 2001 but IIRC the original engine was based on a space sim from a year or two earlier..) .
+1

[WTE_Galway]

Shouldn't this now be a 4.12 thread ???


On another note, for the far distance future ... whats the chances of a flyable PBY eventually in a patch or two's time. I recall Gibbage who did the externals of the AI one said he had a flyable partially done but was lacking details like ammo feeds for the gun positions ... but that was many many years ago.

[swiss]

Wish

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=384124&postcount=92

[zakkandrachoff]

nice update, like the changes.

but, still missing in official way, (some of they are already done), this planes:
Renard R31 (belgium)
Hawker Fury (belgium and yugoslavia)
Fairey Firefly (belgium)
Curtiss Hawk II (china)
Curtiss Hawk III (china)
Hawker nimrod
Fokker G1(dutch) need this plane, at least AI
Dornier Do17Z 1940 (need it)
Bloch mb 151 (french) need it (flyable will be nice)
Breguet 693 (french) need this too
Potez 633 (french)
Potez 63.11 (french) need!
Heinkel He112 (Rumanian) will be nice flyable. vey used in ODESSA
Heinkel HE177 (need it)
Bachem BA 349 Natter (je)

And some several maps (with all details, big airfields, and trees, very much trees), like:

Middle French Map (paris) (1940)
Holland Map (1940)
Odessa 1941 (rework) (with trees please, miss the trees in this special map)
Middle Germany 1945 (rework)
Only South Italy 1943-1944 (Sicily a south italy) (re-rework)

hope see this in 4.12
i destroy soo many times my IL2 because the unofficials updates:(.

[Ra'Kaan]

Hi,

A few things I wish I could do when I play IL-2 -



In the multiplayer arming screen or QMB I always wish I had a "shortlist" of favorite planes. The list of planes has gotten so massive (and thats a good thing) but sometimes I just wanna swap out planes and head back in quickly without having to scroll through a mile long list. So like a "top 5" plane list, or "Favorite" whatever, would be a cool feature. I'm picturing possibly a tickbox on the planes info page to add to favs. and those would show up on a seperate drop down list or something like that.




HUD optional filters. What would be REALLY cool is to have the ability to toggle what types of messeges show up in the HUD text. The new CEM is great fun, but man... I GET SO SICK AND BLEEPIN' TIRED OF SEEING "OVERHEAT" CONSTANTLY SHOVED IN MY FACE WHEN MY PLANE IS NOT BLEEPING OVERHEATING ... Seriously. Yeah yeah, noHudLog=1 yes. But when I go to playback my ntrk I really want my time speed messages and other messages. So turning HUD entirly off is not 100% a solution. I'm thinking just some conf.ini toggles as to what information we would like the HUD to show or not show would be super handy. Heck, even an in game toggle for HUD on or off would be fine. Like say, a toggle switch in the realism or track playback options - preferably hotkey (on/off) programmable



And on the topic of hot keys. The list has grown so long I always wish I had collapsable sub-lists. For example, I use TrackIR so all of those entries about mapping view keys I'd like to condense so I can get to through the list faster. I am envisioning a simple [+] and [-] style collapsing heirerarchy structure like Windows Explorer with perhaps an "expand all" and "close all" options. Simple and effective.


There you have it, nothing too fancy.

As always, I wish to convey my apreciation to Diadalos Team for keepinig my "old girls" in the air.

[Whacker]

Friends, my requests as of 4.11m as follows:

1. Please make the game more friendly for ATI Crossfire users. I play different games frequently, and having to manually go into the control panel and turn Crossfire off just for IL-2 is a bit tedious.

2. Please incorporate the functionality of San's FOV Switcher into the game, and make the game more multi-monitor friendly. I have tried the other FOV mods and still think San's applet is the best by far.

3. Please incorporate the functionality of the outstanding "Mission Pro Combo" into the game. http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=18353.0 This mini-mod is wonderful, but the menus are always messed up, too small to read, smashed together, etc.

4. Angled-deck carrier with catapults (see pt 5). The models you guys make are second to none. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Antietam_%28CV-36%29 I realize the core game is WW2 specific with the few 1946 "additions", but post WW2/Korean War mods are great and just scream a need for these.

5. Catapults and specific keys for catapults (NOT chocks in/out). The mini-mod with HSFX that uses chocks is decent, but something officially and built into the game by TD would be wonderful.

6. The ability to 'back up' an aircraft. This one may be a bit controversial, but it's something I've consistently wanted, especially after landing on an aircraft carrier. Maybe think of it logically as the deck crew or ground crew pushing or tractoring the plane around. Maybe make it so that the engine needs to be off and this mode is "toggled", when on the plane moves very slowly and is controlled by rudder and throttle? A logically extension of this idea would be the simple ability to fine tune an aircraft's position when on the ground and power off. I am NOT in favor of a simple "reset position" key combo that puts the plane back into a take off position on the carrier, as again I'd like this to be useable on land as well.

7. Option for "rearm", "repair", "refuel" through comms menu to ground ctrl when landed. I think UP3 has this, and thought it was a great idea. This could potentially be mission specific, only available at one's home airport, at friendly airports, etc. The level of "repair" could be variable, such as quick repairs only, full repairs, etc etc. "Re-arm" could be guns only, bombs only, both, etc. "Refuel" could be the same, 100%, 75%, 50%, external stores, all, etc.

And finally another big THANK YOU for TD for their continued support over the years!

[Whacker]

8. A "lean out window" key to angle view to partially see around the nose for tail draggers, like pilot does in this vid here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQxb-V-rZqA

[Treetop64]

Someone else mentioned this, but it would be nice to have filter options for HUD messages, including an option to disable the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED message.

For example, most planes in the sim require you to keep a mental note on what manual radiator setting you're at, since they have no cockpit indication for it. If you forget what radiator setting you last used, and you have external views disabled, well..

[fenbeuduo]

SB2C! usnavy late time divebomber

USS Enterprise

IJN Yamamoto

tail warning radar.(P-38,P-47,P-51...)

[SaQSoN]

USS Enterprise
Immediately after you pay license fees to Northrop-Grumman. I bet, DT could even make a special release with it's own number and your name on it, with just that ship in it, if you do.

IJN Yamamoto

A one man navy?

:lol:

[IceFire]

Immediately after you pay license fees to Northrop-Grumman. I bet, DT could even make a special release with it's own number and your name on it, with just that ship in it, if you do.



A one man navy?

:lol:

IJN Yamamoto would have to be at least 40 feet tall and laser beams come from his eyes :)

The Yamato on the other hand would be a great ship to have. I wouldn't mind seeing a sprinkling of a few other types. Transports... or a German or British destroyer would be handy.

[baldeagle72]

Please explain the procedure to get my game in the 4.11m English Version to "see" an EVO force feedback stick... thanks in advance. And thanks for making this great upgrade for us!

[Whacker]

9. Please increase the number of available aircraft slots for modders by a large amount. It would appear some of the larger mods are approaching or at the limit and are having to "prune" some aircraft here and there in order to be able to fit them all.

[Aviar]

9. Please increase the number of available aircraft slots for modders by a large amount. It would appear some of the larger mods are approaching or at the limit and are having to "prune" some aircraft here and there in order to be able to fit them all.

Somebody please give Whacker a 'reality' pill. ;)

Aviar

[Whacker]

Do tell, why is that last request unreasonable?

[Aviar]

You will learn, young grasshopper. ;-)

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


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080123142947AA6p7D9

Aviar

[Pursuivant]

Do tell, why is that last request unreasonable?

First, I believe that the maximum number of planes available is "hard coded" into the game. I'm not sure if it would be possible to expand the number of slots any further.

Second, although I'm not a member of DT and don't presume to speak for them, historically, DT has had a somewhat strained relationship with the modding community.

DT produces extremely high-quality add-ons for IL2 with 1C's sanction. That means that anything that DT releases in their "patches" to the game is official; it's as good as anything that 1C's employees produced and 1C stands behind their work.

By contrast, what modders are doing - messing with the IL2 source code without permission - is in violation of the IL2 software license and is possibly illegal.

The quality of mods ranges from occasionally good to mostly mediocre; 95% of the stuff out there isn't up to DT's standards. While the difference in quality might not be obvious when you play the game, it becomes clear when you look at the 3d modeling or coding.

Also, because there is no formal organization to the modding community, there's no way that DT can anticipate what modders will do to the game.

So, if DT were to work with modders, they would have to lower their standards and violate the terms of their agreement with 1C to do it.

[Whacker]

First, I believe that the maximum number of planes available is "hard coded" into the game. I'm not sure if it would be possible to expand the number of slots any further.

Second, although I'm not a member of DT and don't presume to speak for them, historically, DT has had a somewhat strained relationship with the modding community.

DT produces extremely high-quality add-ons for IL2 with 1C's sanction. That means that anything that DT releases in their "patches" to the game is official; it's as good as anything that 1C's employees produced and 1C stands behind their work.

By contrast, what modders are doing - messing with the IL2 source code without permission - is in violation of the IL2 software license and is possibly illegal.

The quality of mods ranges from occasionally good to mostly mediocre; 95% of the stuff out there isn't up to DT's standards. While the difference in quality might not be obvious when you play the game, it becomes clear when you look at the 3d modeling or coding.

Also, because there is no formal organization to the modding community, there's no way that DT can anticipate what modders will do to the game.

So, if DT were to work with modders, they would have to lower their standards and violate the terms of their agreement with 1C to do it.

Sorry mate, i didn't see your response until now.

My understanding is that TD has access to the game source, which is how they've been releasing patches and fixes over the past few years. If they have access to the source code, they can modify it so that this limitation wouldn't exist. I've no idea how complicated that would be, if it's a function of array sizes, memory limitations... dunno.

As to the community, I don't believe anyone has access to the game source code except TD and the original developers. Modders have access to the game FILES through tools, such as the aircraft models, textures, various config/def files, etc.

In general to the rest, my response would be that if the relationship is strained, then that makes me very sad to hear. Modding and a health mod community is a surefire sign of a loyal following and continued existence of a game well past it's prime. IL2 is a perfect example of this for those reasons. Modding one's game and tinkering with the innards and workings is a labor of love and should be viewed as such by the developers.

My requests still stand though. The game as of 4.11 is still great fun and I'm loving the new changes. There's still a number of areas in terms of base functionality and useability that really TD are the only folks who can truly make effective changes to resolve these. I've also got to believe that a number of these changes are pretty simple stuff that don't require a ton of time or effort to realize. The user interface mods, widescreen game interface and FOV mods all fall into this category.

[German@six]

TRIGGERS FOR FMB.
Missions would be so much more interesting with them. Why is the FMB in IL2 so basic?
Triggers are much needed. Infact they have working triggers, they showed us in a video but they won't give us any triggers?

[Aviar]

TRIGGERS FOR FMB.
Missions would be so much more interesting with them. Why is the FMB in IL2 so basic?
Triggers are much needed. Infact they have working triggers, they showed us in a video but they won't give us any triggers?

I believe I saw one of the DT members address this issue. Basically, they were having some problems with the feature and so it has been put on hold.

Aviar

[German@six]

That is the only thing bad about IL2, more complex missions would be great so there isn't one primary target every round but a possible chart of events could really make it more dynamic.

[German@six]

Give the ability for players to spot enemy planes just like AI's can with the coms menu.

[Luno13]

Please be sure to read the manual! ;)

You can call out enemy aircraft by pressing F4 (padlock) when they are within a 15 degree field of view from the center of the player's viewing position. This works even if padlocking is disabled.

[MrKilroy]

Hello,

Our squad has come up with a slight problem. We play co-ops. Would there be any way to switch the commands to the next player if the flight lead dies or bails out. We fly with a few AI sometimes.

When the lead is out,or tells the flight to return to base #3and #4 will latch on to #2. #2 has no control over the AI. The AI will end up following #2 and crash.

It would be nice if when the lead is out of action the next plane would take command.

Thanks!

[Phabius]

Yeah, triggers...
One of the very few things that I miss from my old days of CFS2 before moving to IL2.
If you've worked with the CFS2 Mission Builder, you know what I mean.
Almost endless dynamic possibilities for a single mission.
Difficult task for IL2 though...

[Zorin]

Hi TD,

could you give us a short description of what you are working on at the moment? We haven't had an official anouncement in a while.

[SPITACE]

hi all in the 4.11 update there is "working blind landing instrument in the Mosquito cockpit" how does it work? :???:

[IvanK]

The 2 needles provide both directional and pseudo range indication.

The directional side is indicated by the point at which the needles intersect. If this intersection is LEFT of the centreline of the instrument then the aircraft is displaced to the right. and vice versa.

Pseudo range is provided by the distance the the intersection point is from the base of the instrument. The closer the intersection point is to the base of the instrument the closer to the runway threshold you are. This pseudo range is based on signal strength. There is an auto change in receiver sensitivity during the approach. In the real instrument this sensitivity change was selected manually.

A Lorenz installation needs to be placed by the map builder for this unit to work.

[MicroWave]

Hi TD,

could you give us a short description of what you are working on at the moment? We haven't had an official anouncement in a while.


We are trying to make a fix patch. It is a frustrating experience.

[Luno13]

Thanks for the news. Sorry to hear that it's a tough one. You guys do deserve a vacation though :cool:

[Zorin]

We are trying to make a fix patch. It is a frustrating experience.

Thanks for the heads-up. Don't let it get to you and take a break if necessary.

[jlan5031]

Has anyone noticed that USN AC F4Fs and F6Fs have oddly colored wheels? Any solutions, or help?