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

[Azimech]

My guess is that wading through 182 pages in the other topic is quite enough. Let's start fresh.

I have a few ideas:

*Possibility for creating a personalized trim setting, for the few who feel their favourite plane has the wrong setting. I would keep it simple: a small pointer at a folder with files for the appropriate a/c which can be edited by hand. No file or folder? Standard 4.10 setting. This way people will just shut up, and do it themselves.

*Probably recycled lots of times but maybe there could be an option for people wanting to install their own sounds, but with the disclaimer that there will be no support from TD for any modification by any user, and not a single sound will be provided. This way it's the user's own responsibility if he fracks up his game and the whole 10 year old discussion will finally end, and no-one will have to pay for anything. Again, a pointer at a folder with subfolders/files, no modification of the original sound engine of any kind. No folders or files found? Then Original sound. A bit like custom skins.
"Slow frame rate? Strange antenna growing out of your head(s)? Your cannons sounding like Star Trek phasers? Try the Original sounds. Problem solved? Tough luck partner, you're on your own."

*I'd like a japanese and american generic carrier especially for online play, where the deck doesn't get damaged due to torpedo strikes. Right now landing or taking off is impossible with those holes, but the whole thing still floats and is useless. Probably the deletion of a few lines of data?

[Oktoberfest]

Please give us the possibility to jettison rocket launchers from the Bf109/110/FW190 after firing them, as historical.

[DD_crash]

Any chance of getting map re-paints like Redkos desert map?

[HarryM]

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.

[csThor]

Please give us the possibility to jettison rocket launchers from the Bf109/110/FW190 after firing them, as historical.

That already works in 4.10. You need to have a button mapped to the command "Jettison Stores" (or something like this).

[TeeJay82]

More loadouts..

and the ability to be able to carry both bombs and rockets simultainosly into battle

il2 p47 as examples

as historical :P

[Azimech]

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.

I saw the movie Memphis Belle yesterday. Not a bad idea.

[SUP / Revan]

1) add these third party mods, the first [url removed[ to correct fw190 cowling system by default

the second [url removed[ to replace the original fugly pilot mesh with these new ones, *no FPS drop*

2) as said add at least redko sands of time map, great one frankly massively amazing map to default ones

3) add a more "oilish" look to the oil paths on teh cockpit when hit, we're still flying 400km/h, it should move (i'm sure i saw a mod video featuring this) and have more drops allover.

4) dim the pilot blooding a bit, we're not equipped with medikits as they did, a bit at least.

5) wind settings in QM? separate gun convergence? TANK FLIPPIN AND ROLLIN? UNICORNS ON RAINBOWS?

ok, apart from point 5, i foresee everything else as possible

thanks!

[Azimech]

SUP / Revan, discussion about mods and pointers to mod sites are not allowed. Please edit your post and remove those references.

[SUP / Revan]

SUP / Revan, discussion about mods and pointers to mod sites are not allowed. Please edit your post and remove those references.

done, i was only a lot willing to be helpful saving precious time and providing immediate proof of my saying i wasn't aware of this limitation - may i least point out the full name of the mod then? guess not.

[Azimech]

You probably can send an email or PM to them. Look in the other similarly named topic, you could find something there.

[Fafnir_6]

My guess is that wading through 182 pages in the other topic is quite enough. Let's start fresh.

I have a few ideas:

*Possibility for creating a personalized trim setting, for the few who feel their favourite plane has the wrong setting. I would keep it simple: a small pointer at a folder with files for the appropriate a/c which can be edited by hand. No file or folder? Standard 4.10 setting. This way people will just shut up, and do it themselves.

*Probably recycled lots of times but maybe there could be an option for people wanting to install their own sounds, but with the disclaimer that there will be no support from TD for any modification by any user, and not a single sound will be provided. This way it's the user's own responsibility if he fracks up his game and the whole 10 year old discussion will finally end, and no-one will have to pay for anything. Again, a pointer at a folder with subfolders/files, no modification of the original sound engine of any kind. No folders or files found? Then Original sound. A bit like custom skins.
"Slow frame rate? Strange antenna growing out of your head(s)? Your cannons sounding like Star Trek phasers? Try the Original sounds. Problem solved? Tough luck partner, you're on your own."

*I'd like a japanese and american generic carrier especially for online play, where the deck doesn't get damaged due to torpedo strikes. Right now landing or taking off is impossible with those holes, but the whole thing still floats and is useless. Probably the deletion of a few lines of data?

+1 All the way...

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Seeker]

1) 6DOF
2) 4 engine heavies
3) Canon's map
4) A way of annotating the ingame map, both in the briefing room and the knee board. Maybe a couple of movable stock icons and the ability to draw a route between them?
5) The ability to browse the full file system from the FMB's file browser and a "favourites" list
6) "AI only" as a switch on individual planes, not just whole flights
7) FMB object viewer and file browser to remember their last size and position.
8) alphabetical plane listings
9) change the "edit description" dialogue box in FMB to "Both"; "Red" and "Blue"
10) Update the dynamic mission generator to include the new planes or make a proper plug in for DCG
11) A better way of seeing what's been deployed on an FMB map. Maybe a drop down list under the "View" menu. Trying to find the one remaining waypoint you forgot to delete which stops you from assigning flight 1, sdn 2 can be.....time consuming.
12) Brighter lights
13) Free kittens.
14) in 1920 resolution, at least, the "tab" dialogue list in flight overlays the text buffer, making the upper two options illegible.
15) Update the video card list in IL-2 setup.
16) Seperate keys for gear up/gear down
17) Leave the rear view mirror graphic in place regardless of wether the lens is active or not.
18) Documentation on RCU file commands would be great!
19) A "Start" or "runways closed/open" switch for hosts.
18) More countries online. Unused countries can act as radar/ATC
19) smaller font icons
20) More options for exterior view (wheels down, or in chute only?)
21) same icon settings online and offline
22) Record a track on each flight by default, make a "save track?" dialogue box at flight exit, delete if not saved. Or an option to do this.
23) More icon types. Just a dot would be nice, size (font?) and colour configurable.
24) audio event for full open/closed radiators; or a more configurable HUD
25) A sign post "Runway This Way" for Spits v 109's mission builders.

[Tempest123]

Some requests (some reasonable, some pie in the sky :cool:)

1) More pacific theater content
2) 3d and/or cockpit improvements for some aircraft (Mig 3 {this is particularly horrid looking}, Yaks, Il2, P-47, P-40 come to mind) and a fix for the spitfire vc cockpit, dunno why but this bugs me
3) AI improvements (this is a topic unto itself)
4) It would be nice to incorporate some more new maps, if they are available by, er... lets say "third party" members. The Salomons map is gorgeous, and finally has realistic looking jungles and airstrips, and usable mission distances (i.e possible to fly longish bomber missions), I'm kicking myself because I started making a Guadalcanal campaign just prior to 4.10 release on the old map. I don't know if the restrictions still apply for "Channel maps" and accurate "MTO" maps, but we have so many new Italian and British fighters now it would be nice.
5) British heavy bombers, just AI is fine for me because I know what an undertaking making a flyable bomber is. But because I think we can now say that Il2 is not just a Eastern Front or Pacific sim, there is a huge gap here.
6) okay this is a small thing, but flames shooting from guns during the daytime has always been so cartoony in Il2, I know DT modified the effects for 4.10 but Its not enough, when shooting a heavy gun in daylight you would see a tongue of gunsmoke and not much else, The Hs 129 has nice gunsmoke, but too much flame. Night of course is different.
7) More work on night fighters/electronic warfare, not sure if the G-4 is still an ongoing project, but with real Airborne Intercept radar, the Mosquito and others would only need to be modified (albeit more than a bit), this is a whole other aspect to Il2 that could be explored.
8) An object in the FMB that is a preset group of runway lights ready for use, it is very time consuming after each new map to make a new set of runway lights. Once the first is done you can copy and paste, but it would be nice to have a predefined set.
9)TRIGGERS, this is essential for mission building IMHO, if DCG ever becomes and official part of Il2, or if MDS keeps growing, having triggers will add to the immersion.
10)....which brings me to my final point... can we ditch DGEN and use DCG? DGEN is such a dead program.

One more thing, I was wondering if any of the "restrictions" on IL2 could be reconsidered, because they are really holding back certain parts of it. The map restrictions I would like to see gone (honestly, I don't think CoD sales will suffer with an Il2 channel map, its just too different). The NG restrictions are another, is the pacific theater stillborn here, or is there a plan for the future? Is there a restriction on Chinese aircraft/maps? I think some of these have to be reconsidered because Il2 is 10 years old, has a smallish user base, has just been superceded by CoD, and TD is working on a not-for profit basis.

[OrangeYoshi]

That already works in 4.10. You need to have a button mapped to the command "Jettison Stores" (or something like this).

What are all the things that drop off your plane when you hit that button?

[bf-110]

Do Patch 4.11 development started already? :eek:
I only have "material" things to ask.Perharps some better and easier way to change the video quality insted of having to edit a .txt. :mad:

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Do Patch 4.11 development started already? :eek:
I only have "material" things to ask.Perharps some better and easier way to change the video quality insted of having to edit a .txt. :mad:

I guess, the IL2setup.exe and the ingame hardware setup options is enough for most players. Editing TXT files is for cracks anyway, kicking the last bits out of it.

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

A wishlist:

1. Beaufighter Radio Navigator's position, as discussed elsewhere on these forums
2. The Default skin on the P40E corrected - you get a desert Camo on the older pacific maps and a green camo on the older desert maps (excluding the new MTO)
3. FMB ability to select different objects and use the menus while in 3D mode. Currently you have to switch back and forth between 3D and plan mode continuously which doesnt facilitate quick modelling.

[AlleyViper]

I guess, the IL2setup.exe and the ingame hardware setup options is enough for most players. Editing TXT files is for cracks anyway, kicking the last bits out of it.

I guess today more than ever, people have to resort to text editing at least due to wide screen monitors. This could be fixed by allowing more options, or detecting possible resolutions on windows as some games do, due to the vast mix of 16:10 and 16:9 resolutions nowadays. The same could be done to add newer generations of GPUs and APUs on the list to make it easier for newcomers.

[stugumby]

1. campaign and single mission folders with medals etc for the Italians, lots of new Italian planes, no folders. But they are out there on m4t

2. some type of hud display with TAS in all aplicable settings, and a open /close bomb bay doors switch.

3. some type of fuel selector switch for drop tanks/main tanks etc

4. ordnance updates on most of the allied planes, b-25 and hurricanes especially. and the performance data fm of the hellcat looked at for possible updating.

5. zero length rockets for all that apply

6. Mosquito with rockets and molins gun

7. tweak/review the 2 sec fusing and torpedo fail in water a bit

8. enable jettison for vap 250 cannisters.

9. tweak/review the neg g cut outs, it seems a bit overdone on more modern planes such as hurricane and spitfire, what year etc.

10. more Japanese planes and ordnance loadouts tweaked on existing

11. pe-2 and pe-3 to have rearwards defense rs -82, update existing ordnance loadouts

12. hurricane updates and add in the 40mm tank busters

13. map upgrades if possible

all in all im happy with 410!!

[ImpalerNL]

Smaller patches.

Bf109k4C3 without mw50.

Bf109K4 with 2000 hp DC engine+mw50, 1,98 ata version.

Bf109G10 with 2000 hp DC engine+mw50, 1,98 ata version.

Bigger Normandy map.

West Germany map.

Bigger smoke collumns that follow the direction of the wind, instead of going straight up.

Smoke plume effect after a bomb hits the ground or building.

Tanks with AA mg guns.

Onboard rectangular mirror for p-51D and the p-47D with bubble canopy.

P-47D40 version.

Gyro gunsight for p-47.

p-51K version.

6DOF track IR.

Spitfire IXV version.

Red or green smoke flares for ground target marking.

Destroyable runways.

Flakpanzer IV ostwind.

2cm flakvierling.

Bigger dust clouds on desert maps when taking off.

More cloudcover, and with different shades instead of just white.

Coolant leaks.

Pitot blockages, when flying trough an explosion or a cloud of debris.

Headshake or pov shaking on landing, depending on airspeed and rate of descent, during rough landings.


Im sure this is to much for a single patch though.
:rolleyes:;)

[Azimech]

From the movie "The Aviator":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1AGhdJB3A

The cause was an oil leak.

I've read of more occasions of propellor governors that went cuckoo in flight due to oil leakage or contamination by metallic particles due to engine wear or damage. Currently we have governor problems on multiple planes but only due to direct combat damage. Imagine a chance where props suddenly feather or like in this clip, reverse pitch (for the types that were able). On one of the occasions there was a prop that went to 100% pitch, overspeeding the engine, trashing it and at one point suddenly locked completely and the sudden forces applied on the gearbox resulted in rupture of the propellor shaft. Imagine damaged engine mounts so the whole engine-prop unit shears off.

A good warning could be a propellor that starts to hunt, less response to pilot input; suddenly increasing or lowering RPM.

Do you guys like this?

[swiss]

nope, I don't.

[41Sqn_Banks]

Bomb loadouts for Spitfire V.

[Azazello]

Please reduce the size of armour plate that obscures the rear view in the Tempest.

I'd like to see the Spit XIVc (+18ilbs) - I had a payware version in FS9 and it was a lot of fun. Would be great to see such a fantastic aircraft in the official Il2-46.

[Furio]

First of all, a smaller patch so it could be completed sooner (thank you in any case, TD!).

[FlyingShark]

I would like to see more variants of the P40 like the N and K and also some Merlin powered P40's (the F and the L).

Furtheron, I would like to have more options for noseart. The Corsair and Hellcat had noseart, still we can't use it ingame with those planes. Also maybe a possibility to make it viewable when playing online, even if skindownload is off at the server where you play.

~S~

[Seeker]

I guess today more than ever, people have to resort to text editing at least due to wide screen monitors. This could be fixed by allowing more options, or detecting possible resolutions on windows as some games do, due to the vast mix of 16:10 and 16:9 resolutions nowadays. The same could be done to add newer generations of GPUs and APUs on the list to make it easier for newcomers.


Quoted for truth.

I was rabidly against the "mods"; until I saw that much of the orthodoxy I'd swallowed through the years was false.

6DOF didn't mean the world would end through video clipping, video has always clipped on 109's anyway.

Not having the last button in the right place in a B-29 cockpit didn't mean the end of the world, I've never been in a B-29 anyway.

Not having a map with England in it DID REALLY MATTER! The rest of you German subjects might not notice, but a lack of England does actually rather reshape how WWII was run.

Believe it or not.

[Sven]

Quoted for truth.
Not having a map with England in it DID REALLY MATTER! The rest of you German subjects might not notice, but a lack of England does actually rather reshape how WWII was run.

Believe it or not.

IL2 fixates on the eastern front and the pacific front. These fronts started in 1941, by then the Battle of Britain was over. till 44' there was little interest in fighting over the channel, there was no point in doing so, interest where in the east. BUT you do have a point if it's about bombers if English heavy bombers would be in the game, a giant map of England all the way to Germany would make very much sense! Combined with the new 4.10 content. But this was never the goal of IL2, there is no real support for big bomber formations or night raids, this all will have to be included as well to make it complete. I'd rather have them focused on IL2's home ground though, the eastern front, we have other sims for long range bombing and channel fighting.

Sven

[_RAAF_Smouch]

+1 on Firestorm's post,

also agree with the latter variants of the P-40.

Map of Northern Australia, ie Darwin area of Ops.

More westerly area map of France ie Cherbourg Peninsula

[Pooka]

Less dust on takeoffs, especially on concrete runways. No dust on concrete and little on grass fields.

[secretone]

A Redko Map.

[ckolonko]

I think Cannons Cross channel map should be included. Its the only mod I want.

[LukeFF]

I think Cannons Cross channel map should be included. Its the only mod I want.

Not gonna happen, and I think you know why. ;)

[ckolonko]

Lol. :)

[jameson]

Only flew Cannon's map once, could see the Eiffel Tower from over Dover. There are better maps.

[Hunger]

Wishful thinking for 4.11

Planewise:

I would love to see more fleshed out Japanese aircraft my personal favorites being The Ki-44 Shoki and the Ki-45 Toryu (Both planes had versions that used this weird smooth-bore 40mm shell).

A flyable B5n or B6n would also be cool, Yokosuka D4Y would also be a nice addition.

The Japanese had a wide twin engined aircraft plane-pool, my favorite being the Ki-67 Hiryu (Served with both Japanese army and Navy) yet I understand that twin engined aircraft have a greater workload than single engined ones (Incredibly we got a Pe-8 on its way) not taking into account the multiple crew positions I think there is more to gain from a focus towards single engine airplanes.

Since the biggest part of the American allied pacific is locked due to the "Nonstop Grimman" issue one could look around British aircraft, making the venerable Swordfish flyable and bringing over the Fairey Barracuda which flew in the pacific too although it didn't distinguish itself much in that theater.
The same goes for British and Japanese ships (It would be nice to sink the Yamato).

Featurewise:

I would like to be able to jump to ground targets just like I jump to planes with the external camera, I guess such a feature would be also liked by movie makers.

Of course improved Ai but this has already been mentioned as being in the works.

Regards
Hunger

PS: I still hope that the Westland Whirlwind makes it into COD somehow maybe as a future addition, it looks so darn cool.

[SEE]

Only flew Cannon's map once, could see the Eiffel Tower from over Dover. There are better maps.

Its a 'half scale map' (IIRC) and currently being re-worked by Cannon to reduce resource demands. Nice map though as is the 352nd's Channel map but I doubt that any map with the 'white cliffs of dover' would be included ............:grin:

6DOF for me is about it!

[steppie]

be able to change set the value in point for a target aircraft or ground targets.

6 DOF

A wind sock would be nice

B5N2 kate to fly

P80

Gloster Meteor jet would be nice

c17 or B24 or both

IA ship that will turn when being attacked or attacking.

zig zag setting for ships in mission builder

be able to have a second target if the main target is destroyed for AI to attack

be able to sett random flight path for aircraft when making a map or mission to hoist.

be able to plot a flight path into the mimi map in as a pilot i can use or share with other pilots.

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

S O U N D :evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:

[W32Blaster]

jeeeeez

How charming!

[Flanker35M]

S!

Some mentioned already but putting my wish list to the TD for 4.11 and beyond :) In no particular order.

1) 6DOF. Really adds to the game.

2) Updated GUI for IL-2 Setup with more options. Easier for many rather than edit conf.ini and it's myriad of commands.

3) Widescreen support. Most people use 16:9 or 16:10 screens already.

4) 3D updates to planes, some are really hideous like Mig3 etc.

5) Cockpit updates. Older ones not really on par with Hs129, Tempest etc.

6) Refreshed map textures.

7) AMD graphics card support update/communication with AMD.

8.) Effects revamp. Smokes, hits, explosions etc.

9) More FM revisions to other planes too.

10) Airfields revamp. Like grass fields in France or Russia. Makes possible takeoff to all directions as historically. Not all were aerodromes with runways.

11) GUI for editing the texts shown on screen etc. Look at IL-2 setup, maybe a part of that?

12) Of course bug fixes :)

Have a nice weekend.

[SturmKreator]

Would very much interesting if you guys could revised the FM of Fw190
and his acceleration.

[LukeFF]

Would very much interesting if you guys could revised the FM of Fw190
and his acceleration.

Why?

[JG52Uther]

Why?
Because its c*ap.
;)

[Azimech]

Agreed.

[W32Blaster]

ABSOLUTELY AGREED

190 is behaving like a lorry. This should be looked over, wether perfomance Data is correct. Especially when compared with other Fighter Planes of the Aera it seems to be messed up.

Since I have no Data to proof this
I just can politely ask for checking,
whether my 'feeling' about the various types of the 190 is correct.

[Kye]

From the sources I have come across, the 190 (the captured A series) could take off within the same distance as a Spit. It might be me, but I sure as hell can't get a 190 up in the same distance.

I read this in Alfred Price' 'Spitfire story'

[Kwiatek]

Yes tested Fw 190 at 1.6 Ata had similar take off runing to Spitfie Mark IX Merlin 66 engine.

Stock Fw 190 A series in IL2 had reduced acceleration ( intentionaly or not) but at least in ultrapack we corrected these issue many time ago with all new FM's Fw190s :)

[SturmKreator]

I tested the new slots of Fw 190 but I think the acceleration was improved a little, but I still feeling slow the acceleration

[Kwiatek]

I tested the new slots of Fw 190 but I think the acceleration was improved a little, but I still feeling slow the acceleration

New FM's Fw 190 A-3/A-4 have very close accelearion in take off runing to 109 F-4 :) ( We tested it online) So i think they have very good acceleration now and in dive it is even much more noticable.

[SturmKreator]

As far as i know the Fw190A had a similar acceleration compared to bf109g in flight

[Falke]

New engine sounds. PLEASE!

[Azimech]

Falke please read the first post, I think there's a better solution.

[Xilon_x]

daidalos team in the next patch i have one simple request yes ia want multi color smoke to the wings red blue grenn white black yellow pink purple ecc.ec.
tank you

[swiss]

Autopilot for Ta152H

Source: www.flightjournal.com/Media/MediaManager/fw-190.pdf

Last page.


The Ta 152H version

[.]an autopilot was fitted, as the Ta 152H had a
range of 755 miles at 33,000 feet and 1,250 miles at 23,000 feet
when equipped with a 54-gallon (218-liter) drop tank.[.]

[Rainmaker]

would very much interesting if you guys could revised the fm of fw190
and his acceleration.

absolutely agreed about that!

I got 1 idea, it could be cool but I don't know if it's possible with the il-2 engine. When you connect to the server and kill 2-3 planes, on the landing when you hit refly, server/computer paint these kills on your tail. And do that every time you down a plane and return alive to homebase. Normally these painting kills on tail would be removed when you disconnect or next time you connect on the server...

It's nothing complicated, it's just cool... but I don't know if it is possible to make this happen with this game engine.

~S~ Rainmaker

[FlyingShark]

That's a cool idea, RainMaker but I think that the engine would not cope with it, you see, score markings are part of the skins, not something seperate. On the other hand, they might use the same system as noseart on a seperate place to get those victory markings but then again, what with all the skins that already have them.

~S~

[swiss]

No, actually it's a silly idea - almost all servers have skin download disabled.
It's useless.

[Xilon_x]

daisalos team you make in patch 4.10 fuel
10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80-90-100
please modific
5-10-15-20-25-30-35-40-45-50-55-60-65-70-75-80-85-90-95-100.

[TheGrunch]

No, actually it's a silly idea - almost all servers have skin download disabled.
It's useless.
Not if it was done as part of the aircraft markings. Very time consuming though, setting the location of the kill-markers on each plane, no doubt about that.

[swiss]

Not if it was done as part of the aircraft markings. Very time consuming though, setting the location of the kill-markers on each plane, no doubt about that.

Cool, go ahead.

Let us know when you're done.


(And wtf should it be good for? I could only enjoy the marks on the empennage/fuselage in the playback, and on enemy planes they would be too small to notice)

[bf-110]

daidalos team in the next patch i have one simple request yes ia want multi color smoke to the wings red blue grenn white black yellow pink purple ecc.ec.
tank you

I´d rather also have single and thicker smoke for the aerobats.

And,as always,more polish stuff,french,japanese and italian (the later only the things that Oleg allow) (need to say that before they come...)

[rollnloop]

remove SONAR

[Qpassa]

fix bombs mount ( we should be able to setup it)

[Xilon_x]

bf 110 oooooo tank you single aereobats smoke but i like also double smoke
if you insert new option for select single smoke or double smoke and different colour is fantastic.
if you inserte also object race pilons is very very fantastic.

[ckolonko]

Ricocheting tracer rounds. As seen in gun camera footage of ground attacks. T'Would be nice.

[FlyingShark]

No, actually it's a silly idea - almost all servers have skin download disabled.
It's useless.
It still is a great idea, if TD would impliment the option of disabling skindoawnload BUT with an extra option of keeping things like markings, noseart, squadron insigna and the above idea enabled. That way, you can see those things online without the need to download the whole skin.
Less is more that way.


~S~

[K_Freddie]

More of an AI weakness than a bug, but is it possible to adjust the AI's low level fighting ability. This track (http://www.vanjast.com/IL2Pics/M109vs4Spit.trk (2.5MB)) show's that I can survive 4 ace AI's in Spits, if I keep my altitude about 10m - 20m.

It seems that the AI can fly down to this level, but it cannot DF/Fight. It even lacks the ability to come down from height and straffe me at this level.
Is there any way to change this.

[K_Freddie]

absolutely agreed about that!
I got 1 idea, it could be cool but I don't know if it's possible with the il-2 engine. When you connect to the server and kill 2-3 planes, on the landing when you hit refly, server/computer paint these kills on your tail. And do that every time you down a plane and return alive to homebase. Normally these painting kills on tail would be removed when you disconnect or next time you connect on the server...
~S~ Rainmaker
If your willing to have a Red Orchestra type map download, where you wait a gazillion years for that to complete. Also not to mention the lag/hiccups in the gameplay that skin downloads cause, besides nobody sees the markings inflight anyway.
:)

[Holgersson]

New planes: Su-2, SB-2

Retextured maps

Increase engine torque effect on single-engine fighters

[Xilon_x]

mmmmmm su-2 but exist in il-2 only ai
http://www.cptfarrels.com/Sundin/Su-2-210BBAP-no1s.jpg
this is the fictiol cockpit in fs2004 (i not find real photo of cockpit SU-2)
http://f01.cdn.avsim.su/forum/uploads/monthly_07_2009/post-10505-124809861814_thumb.jpg
http://f01.cdn.avsim.su/forum/uploads/monthly_07_2009/post-10505-124809853773_thumb.jpg

TUPOLEV SB-2
http://vonoben.free.fr/Faw/CW_SB2_Fin.jpg
loock this link for the cockpit
http://modelingmadness.com/others/books/bakersb.htm
http://community.livejournal.com/ru_aviation/1505468.html

[Xilon_x]

sukhoy SU-2 use RS82 roket http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSd56P4yDO_iWx2pcfqXilB0wKY3mdDk zLco7ypTUmZnzUJYt6k

[-=MadCat=-]

Since we have dual throttle now, I wonder if it's possible to rework or add some didicated commands for engine selection.

Let's say you have all engines deselected and by pressing 1, 2, 3, 4 you add engines 1 to 4 to your selection.
Now you only want to taxi with the inboard engines and press for example shift+1 and shift+4 to remove the outboard engines from your selection.
It somehow is the same as we have now with toggle engine selection, but it would give dedicated commands for selecting and deselecting engines.
That way people could use 2 position switches for engine x selected and deselected.

[Rainmaker]

It could be awesome if you can add fuel mixture on HOTAS control (throttle slider...) !!!

[LennysCopilot]

How about a flyable Morane-Saulnier 406 and Hawk 75? It would be in keeping with the game's Eastern Front theme, given that the Finns flew both.

[ImpalerNL]

How about adding all aircraft produced in ww2?
;)

[Holgersson]

To be honest, now that CoD has been announced for April and with regard to the development time for 4.10 I seriously doubt that we will ever see a 4.11 patch :-x

[Ventura]

@Azimech - wow, incredible clip of that fx crash. And first time I've seen head injuries rendered so realistically. I may have to rent that one.

[Azimech]

It could be awesome if you can add fuel mixture on HOTAS control (throttle slider...) !!!

Or at least increase the resolution from 20% steps to 5%.

[Azimech]

@Azimech - wow, incredible clip of that fx crash. And first time I've seen head injuries rendered so realistically. I may have to rent that one.

And the sad thing is: it really happened that way. Information on that flight and crash can be found on the internet. If Howard Hughes were a real trained test pilot, he would've cut off that engine after trying to feather it. Only the sequence of the wheel ploughing through the roof was done in slo-mo.
What didn't happen was the ground controller instructing to raise gear, that never happens on a maiden flight. Howard did it himself.

[Azimech]

feature request: search lights that scan for a/c below 250 meters. And if possible: scanning due to sound production instead of proximity. Currently you can switch off your engine and feather prop and still the lights switch on and find you. And an engine running at idle with a very course prop pitch doesn't produce a lot of noise compared to cruise or full power.

[Xilon_x]

Daidalos team i request airplane.
Imam ro 44/43
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/e/e5/Ro44.jpg/250px-Ro44.jpg
reggiane 2001 falcoII
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/0/0e/Reggiane_Re.2001.jpg/250px-Reggiane_Re.2001.jpg
Reggiane 2002 Ariete
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/0/0f/Reggiane_Re.2002.jpg/250px-Reggiane_Re.2002.jpg
Reggiane 2005 sagittario
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/9/92/Reggiane_Re.2005_Sagittario.jpg/250px-Reggiane_Re.2005_Sagittario.jpg
Breda Ba 65 nibbio
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/f/fb/BredaBa.65.jpg/250px-BredaBa.65.jpg
Breda Ba 88 lince
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/6/62/Breda_Ba.88_%281939%29.jpg/250px-Breda_Ba.88_%281939%29.jpg
Fiat Br20 cicogna
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/BR.20M_242_Squadriglia_Colori.jpg/250px-BR.20M_242_Squadriglia_Colori.jpg
Piaggio p108
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/P108_in_volo_3.jpg/250px-P108_in_volo_3.jpg
Savoia Marchetti Sm 82 marsupiale
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/b/bc/Sm82.jpg/250px-Sm82.jpg
Savoia marchetti sm 84
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/8/88/Savoia-Marchetti_S.M.84_torpedo.jpg/250px-Savoia-Marchetti_S.M.84_torpedo.jpg
Caproni Z501 Gabbiano
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/7/7a/Cant_Z.501_beached.jpg/250px-Cant_Z.501_beached.jpg
CANT Z 506 Airone
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/a/a9/CantZ506.jpg/250px-CantZ506.jpg
Dewoitine D520
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Dewoitine_D.520_Le_Bourget_02.JPG/250px-Dewoitine_D.520_Le_Bourget_02.JPG
Morane Suliner Ms406
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Morane_D-3801_J-143.jpg/250px-Morane_D-3801_J-143.jpg
Martin B26 Marauder
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/386bg-b-26c-552bg-41-31737.jpg/250px-386bg-b-26c-552bg-41-31737.jpg
Northrop P-61 Black Widow
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Northrop_P-61_green_airborne.jpg/250px-Northrop_P-61_green_airborne.jpg
Dauglas TBT DEVASTATOR
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/TBD_Devastator_2.jpg/250px-TBD_Devastator_2.jpg

[csThor]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/wtf.gif

[Azimech]

In one post requesting 17 planes? Is that a record?

Is it a "pick your favorite" request or do you feel all of them need to be added?

Personally, I feel we have enough planes as it is.

[ImpalerNL]

Most people only fly their favorite type, and mostly fighter aircraft. Adding tons of new aircraft isnt going to change this.

Improving popular existing aircraft (p-51,Spitfire,Bf109,Fw190,Ju88,Bf110, etc.) and adding or improving effects will give much more direct result.

Things like adding a gyro gunsight for the p-47 is going to make more people happy than adding a new aircraft.

[Xilon_x]

ok i chose only 3 airplane
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/e/e5/Ro44.jpg/250px-Ro44.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Dewoitine_D.520_Le_Bourget_02.JPG/250px-Dewoitine_D.520_Le_Bourget_02.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/386bg-b-26c-552bg-41-31737.jpg/250px-386bg-b-26c-552bg-41-31737.jpg

[char_aznable]

Daidalos team i request airplane.
Reggiane Re.2002 and Morane-Saulnier MS.406 are already in game... What kind of game are you playing? Birds of Prey?:confused:

[I/JG53_Witt]

Like many other members of the Italian community... FIAT G.55 Centauro flyable!!!:)
It was one of the best Italian fighter and there are already 4 versions ready with a beautiful 3D model !

...I really hope to enjoy it in 4.11!

[dFrog]

...Morane-Saulnier MS.406...

F L Y A B L E, please...

[Fenice_1965]

It would be interesting to have different buttons or axis mapping in the joystick choice, expecially useful when it's switched from single engines to twin engines.

[bf-110]

Daidalos team i request airplane.
Imam ro 44/43
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/e/e5/Ro44.jpg/250px-Ro44.jpg
reggiane 2001 falcoII
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/0/0e/Reggiane_Re.2001.jpg/250px-Reggiane_Re.2001.jpg
Reggiane 2002 Ariete
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/0/0f/Reggiane_Re.2002.jpg/250px-Reggiane_Re.2002.jpg
Reggiane 2005 sagittario
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/9/92/Reggiane_Re.2005_Sagittario.jpg/250px-Reggiane_Re.2005_Sagittario.jpg
Breda Ba 65 nibbio
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/f/fb/BredaBa.65.jpg/250px-BredaBa.65.jpg
Breda Ba 88 lince
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/6/62/Breda_Ba.88_%281939%29.jpg/250px-Breda_Ba.88_%281939%29.jpg
Fiat Br20 cicogna
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/BR.20M_242_Squadriglia_Colori.jpg/250px-BR.20M_242_Squadriglia_Colori.jpg
Piaggio p108
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/P108_in_volo_3.jpg/250px-P108_in_volo_3.jpg
Savoia Marchetti Sm 82 marsupiale
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/b/bc/Sm82.jpg/250px-Sm82.jpg
Savoia marchetti sm 84
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/8/88/Savoia-Marchetti_S.M.84_torpedo.jpg/250px-Savoia-Marchetti_S.M.84_torpedo.jpg
Caproni Z501 Gabbiano
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/7/7a/Cant_Z.501_beached.jpg/250px-Cant_Z.501_beached.jpg
CANT Z 506 Airone
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/thumb/a/a9/CantZ506.jpg/250px-CantZ506.jpg
Dewoitine D520
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Dewoitine_D.520_Le_Bourget_02.JPG/250px-Dewoitine_D.520_Le_Bourget_02.JPG
Morane Suliner Ms406
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Morane_D-3801_J-143.jpg/250px-Morane_D-3801_J-143.jpg
Martin B26 Marauder
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/386bg-b-26c-552bg-41-31737.jpg/250px-386bg-b-26c-552bg-41-31737.jpg
Northrop P-61 Black Widow
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/Northrop_P-61_green_airborne.jpg/250px-Northrop_P-61_green_airborne.jpg
Dauglas TBT DEVASTATOR
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/TBD_Devastator_2.jpg/250px-TBD_Devastator_2.jpg

Imam ro 44/43[/COLOR
]Makes no sense

[COLOR="red"]reggiane 2001 falcoII
Interesting to have ingame

Reggiane 2002 Ariete
Ingame,interesting to be flyabe

Reggiane 2005 sagittario
Needed

Breda Ba 65 nibbio
Needed

Breda Ba 88 lince
Interesting to have ingame

Fiat Br20 cicogna
SoW affairs.Can´t

Piaggio p108
Needed,and its artillery version.

Savoia Marchetti Sm 82 marsupiale
Good plane to be added!Was used as tranport and bomber for Italy and Germany

Savoia marchetti sm 84
IDK

Caproni Z501 Gabbiano
Not the biggest prioity,but interesting to have ingame

CANT Z 506 Airone
Interesting to have ingame

Dewoitine D520
Really needed!

Morane Suliner Ms406
Ingame,flyable you mean

Martin B26 Marauder
Can´t be ingame,but IDK exactly why

Northrop P-61 Black Widow
Grumman,no chance.

Douglas TBT DEVASTATOR
A good substitute for the flyable TBF.

[Wolkenbeisser]

Maybe this place is better than the other one (I posted this in the bug reports 4.10m). Sorry for doubleposting. Anyway, here is what I would like to see in 4.11m:

Three very old bugs (older than 4.09m), and maybe almost forgotten...
...but maybe easy to fix/change:


1. With P-51B, P-51C and Mustang MkIII, smoke only comes out of the left smokestaks of engine (you can see it best from external view). P-51D's are fine.


2. P-47D-27 (and the newer one) have a red seat if you look at it inside the cockpit.


3. Wings of P-40's (except P-40B/C) have a to great angle in relation to the fuselage. If you use external views and watch from the nose, you can see, that the Wingtips are to high compared to the wingroot. Meaning the "V" of the wings is too much bent skywards. Best viewable if you compare it with real pictures or the P-40B/C in game.


Would be nice, if one could do this. Anyway: Very good job TD. Thank you very much for your work.

[Romanator21]

I think some Thunderbolts did have red seats. I could be wrong though. The 3D model of the P40 has more wrong with it than just the wing dihedral, according to some.

Regarding the Devastator - a 3d model was made for the game, but something happened to the project. Maybe someone could enlighten us.

Anyway, I love making wish-lists. Here are some of mine:

- Editable HUD log (being able to choose which messages appear based on something like a conf.ini).

- Mossie MkIV with option of auxiliary slipper fuel tanks. Tse Tse variant would be interesting too.

- Earlier B-25 variants (currently AI).

- Earlier P-38 variants.

- Flyable Su-2 and R-10 would be amazing, but I understand no info exists.

- Ju-88 C-6. I imagine someone is working on this already. Possible other Junkers variants (apparently the A-4 had many modifications over its career resulting in what could be called A-4 late, etc.)

-Observer position in Beaufighter to act as the pilot's eyes. This can be AI shouting enemy positions.

- Flight model changes to our beloved TB-3 if possible. It can do all sorts of strange things currently. Currently the pilot only has access to the throttles, but the plane carried an engineer. This would be an interesting position to have modeled (low priority).

- Change of awkward AI behavior when elevators are shot off, resulting in incredibly violent tumbling. This is also applicable to planes which lose a wing and flutter to and fro like a leaf. If tumbling is a necessary part of the FM, then break-up should occur.

- Updating physics calculations to model inertia (including rotational inertia). Rapid roll reversals would be more difficult.

- Gun jams based on historical failure rates and from mishandling (firing when pulling G's for some weapons) as a difficulty option.

- Ability to set custom "Default" skin. If this is not feasible, then it would be nice if you continued to replace some for the older models: B-239, R-10, SBs, Tu-2s, U-2s etc, etc.

- "Face-lift" for the game's namesake :)

- Photo-recon features (not an easy task, but would add a great element to game-play). For instance, with new FoW, some "targets" will not appear in online briefing until photographed by a player.

- More as I think of it!! :-P

[orangefood]

1 ~ Higher power to weight ratio for FW-190's

2 ~ Dover Map

3 ~ Fix for "banding" on water with Nvidia cards

4 ~ 'More better' clouds

5 ~ I need a snack, hang on...

6 ~ Optional Bomb fusing

7 ~ Ability to move multiple waypoints of tanks or planes at once

8 ~ Less bouncy landy gear

9 ~ None red runways

10 ~ Less powerful I-185

11 ~ Fix lighting on FW-190 A - Looks like shiat.

12 ~ FW-190A8 Smoth Canopy version -That means 2 A8's Bubble, and A6-like canopy

13 ~ A ingame toggle that loads up to 3 conf.ini settings

14 ~ More roundy FW-190's - WHILE KEEPING SAME BITMAP LAYOUT!!

15 ~ Ricochetable bullets

16 ~ "Fush" noises when bullets hit water

If I think of anything else I will tell you.

Thanks TD, you rock. :)

[1.JaVA_Sjonnie]

A proper Fokker G-1 Mercury would be nice :) even as AI only.

[TeeJay82]

1. 16:9/16:10 res selection in the IL2SETUP.exe
2. Fix settings on maximum settings in il2setup.exe so no editing of conf.ini is nessecary to achive max resolution/Textures
3. More loadouts/more pylon selectors (3 would be awesome) center inner outer
4. The ability to toggle autopilot/time acceleration in multiplayer coop campaigns
5. More populated standard airfields... everthing feels kinda "dead" (more planes/aaa/structures around the strip) h*fx offline campaign / channel map is a awesome example on how it should look

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Separate pedals for brakes.

i.e. left pedal = left brake, right pedal = right brake. At the moment only one pedal is mappable.

I'm using rudder pedals for X-52

Cheers.

[_79_Chairman]

~S~

1. Please find a way to prevent the sound settings exploit where players can hear extremely distant sounds, aircraft at their six, etc....

2. Please fix the rear view in the Tempest Mk5.

[Romanator21]

A few more items:

Enhancement of kill credits - At the end of a single mission or campaign sortie, the player has the option of claiming a desired number of aircraft damaged, and aircraft killed. A kill becomes confirmed if a friendly is in the vicinity of the player shooting at an aircraft and in the vicinity of that plane when it is destroyed. A kill in which both the player and AI contribute becomes a shared kill.

This would work better if static aircraft had a more complex DM (but necessarily as advanced as in flying aircraft) so that it is less obvious when it is destroyed or simply damaged. Typically, aircraft ground kills could only be claimed if the aircraft caught fire or was obliterated. Currently they simply turn dark.

The same principle could also apply to cars, trucks, tanks, etc. Kill credit sharing is especially important when it comes to ships, which take a cooperative effort to damage or destroy.

The above feature could be enabled in the difficulty menu for those who prefer not to have it.

- P-51 A
- Hurricane Trop variants (w/ filter) and Hurri IID.
- possible fix for Pe-2 DM. Currently the wings are very frail and don't absorb damage well despite the fact that the plane had the ability to dive bomb. I don't have any references concerning - it's just a "feeling" but maybe this can be investigated further.

[Sturm_Williger]

Any chance of looking at late-war 109's "concrete elevator(tm)" ?

I recall some long threads which suggested that it was implemented for a km/h speed when it should have been for the same speed in mph. I don't know how true this is, but it has always seemed a rather unlikely "feature".

[robtek]

I think the "concrete Elevator" of the Bf's is related to TAS instead IAS as it should be.

[Blackdog_kt]

That was my impression too. I haven't flown them much apart from single player campaigns (i usually fly 190As), but recently i was practicing coops with a friend of mine who's a new convert to IL2 and i got some stick time with various models.

My numbers here are approximate because i just hopped in and started flying, i didn't do any detailed tests. In any case and with some approximation, it seems that down on the deck and up to 3000m of altitude it starts getting heavy around 400km/h IAS. If you go higher however, for example 6000m or more, it gets heavy at 300km/h IAS or less which doesn't make much sense since the air is actually thinner up there, so that leads me to believe that it's probably triggered by TAS and not IAS as it should be.

If i remember to do it later on tonight i'll try to run a rough test on QMB: start a mission at 3000m, go to wonder woman view where TAS is displayed, dive and try to pull out at 400km/h TAS or so, then repeat the same starting at 7500m.

[ImpalerNL]

Ive tested this with the Bf109G10 with 50% fuel, but this is probably the same for the other G/K 109s.

At 1630 m i get 4.8 G when pulling out of the dive at 400 km/h TAS.
At 6730 m i get 3.0 G when pulling out of the dive at 400 km/h TAS.

This gets worse when altitude increases.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

And what does that mean to you?

[Ernst]

And what does that mean to you?

The 109 elevator becomes heavy at high speeds, but 400 km/h is not high speed. Some 109 elevators and ailerons (later ones) are becoming too much heavy and too early. I think his concerns is about that. And IL2 manual asks for fly the 109 above 450 km/h when attacking.

Frequently i have my controls stuck at speed around 450 (or 500 km/h considering TAS at 4k). I do not think 450~500 (or even 550) km/h are high speeds (to me medium range speeds).

Maybe 109 model was made considering Carson appointments, but that was too much controversial and he contradicts its own info:

http://mitglied.multimania.de/luftwaffe1/Carson/Carson.html

Carson says that at 400 mph = 640 km/h the stick force (for ailerons) is 20 pound= 9,2 kg per g. Lets consider the same for the elevators. Then to pull 5g ~ 45 6g ~ 55 kg (Ow what "incredible" force), and to pull the stick back is even more easy that to push it to sides since you can add the strenght of your entire body. Even i, and i am not very well fit can pull this weight in such position (109 had inclined sit position, this would help). Weekend gym users can pull much more easyl. And if you consider fighter pilots are well fit, pull even 70 kg is not difficult (ok, if not sustained at least for the duration of the manouver, we must differ hold a force for longer period and few seconds in a brake manouver).

And since you are constraining all your muscles, this would help the pilot not to blackout.

I suggest you take some force measurement device put it in the wal, put yourself in cockpit like position and see how much you can pull using only the force your arms, then use your torso too.

[JHartikka]

6 ~ Optional Bomb fusing



I agree with you! Here is the fusing bug among three main cases related to improving IL sim to get 'bomber work' properly realistic as it was during the harsh years back then:

1. Bomb SALVO settings.
2. Fuse settings for pilot.
3. Missing bomb damage after pilot hit.

Nr 1 means that this otherways truthful sim has a queer property of dropping bombs as pairs. I guess that we are rather unanimous that back in those days bomb effect was with all efforts maximized. It would have been unprecedentedly foolish to waste bomb effect by dropping bombs as pairs into the same spot! Luckily, there already is a fix available (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=209454&posted=1#post209454) for this IL sim 'idiot pairs of bombs' dilemma so it should not be very difficult to set correct with some future patch, I hope! :)

Nr 2 means of course that for every mission bombs were funished with a fuse best suited for that particular mission. Again, bombs were never carried to be wasted in those days! It was crew's choice to say the last word about fuse that would be best for the mission. Pilot select should be the case with this sim, too, if we wish to further keep the sim historically accurate instead of becoming just another fancy game?

Nr 3 is the IL sim curious feature that bombs released before but exploding after flak or enemy interceptor has hit the bomber pilot do not cause any damage. In reality, bombs of course were quite as dangerous even after the aircraft that dropped them was hit!


Best regards,

- J. Hartikka -

Finland

Attached a wartime photo of men gathered to a supply of 1000 kg bombs on airfield of Joensuu. There is a collection of other original wartime photos that I have scanned on messages http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=210220&posted=1#post210220 and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=213782#post213782 and http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=216588#post216588

[Ernst]

80kg would be quite a pull, especially if one hand was on the throttle/flaps/whatever else. I don't think they can simulate that with any of the current FF sticks, so lowering the amount of g's being pulled is the compromise. Your test indicates that they have modelled it in-game. Now whether or not its at the correct historical rate is debateable and at the same time, something we'll never be able to provide a definitive answer for.

Ok. But for the manouver you can use both hands. I think i can pull 50 kg for some seconds. At 500 km/h the force must be somewhat less for 6g.

[Blackdog_kt]

Without going into how the game models forces on stick (i think it's a fixed amount for one hand only for all aircraft), i think the main issue is that the 109's elevators lock up in almost level flight above 6000km but they don't do the same at lower altitudes, even at higher IAS values.

This is what's causing me to think that maybe TAS is being factored into the "stiffness" calculations instead of IAS as it should probably be in reality.

At high altitudes TAS is much higher than IAS. With the sim's 109s you can maneuver just fine at more than 400km/h IAS on the deck, but you can't do the same up at 7000km or so. I'm not an aerodynamics expert but i've studied physics in university for a few years, so i treated it as a deductive experiment, started comparing the two situations and tried to find out what's similar and what's different in each one.

Well, if the maneuver is similar, the G pulled is about the same and IAS is the same, what else is there that changes when you go from low to high altitude? Air density, which is actually why your IAS gauge shows lower than what you're really doing (TAS).

It seems like the speed threshold for elevator stiffness is based on TAS in the sim, which is like ignoring the air density at the given altitude. This also seems contrary to some well established aviation standards. Nowadays, in the age of inertial navigation systems, GPS and automated flight management systems, it's easy as pie to know an airplane's true airspeed and even it's ground speed.
Even a cessna pilot has this much information available to him: the IAS and compass readings (which provide the indicated speed vector) are fed to the GPS unit, the GPS unit already knows the aircraft's true path from the satellite and its rate of change (the real speed over the ground), so by subtracting these two vectors the GPS can also tell you the wind direction and speed.

And yet, even today, the primary speed indicator on all aircraft, from cessnas to airliners to fighters, shows IAS even when it's easy to show TAS or GS. Why? Because IAS tells us how the aircraft feels the air around it, which is a direct measure of how well it will respond to a given maneuver. If the air is not thick enough at high altitude and the pilots sees a GS or TAS of 400km/h, he might be tricked into pulling hard into a maneuver and stalling, but if he sees an IAS of less than 200km/h this is his indication that the aircraft will feel mushy. In a sense, IAS is not so much about how fast you travel but if the air around you is dense enough to support a given maneuver.

I have the feeling that in general, aircraft who fly at different altitudes and true airspeeds will more or less fly the same if they can maintain the same IAS. Ok, maybe a higher altitude/higher TAS scenario means more Gs needed for the same change of path, but that's just what it says: you will need to pull harder or for a longer time. It doesn't however reflect on the actual effectiveness of the controls to let you do that. Simply put, if there's enough air particles to hit a deflected control surface the aircraft turns around a certain axis at a proportional rate.

In fact, i've seen some manuals for high flying general aviation aircraft that advise the pilot to always use the autopilot above a certain altitude, because the thin air presents less resistance to control deflection and thus makes it easier for the pilot to overcontrol. So for example, if it needs a force of 5kg to move the ailerons to the stops at 5000ft, it could only need a force of 1kg to do the same at 25000ft. This balances out and in fact overcomes the reduced efficiency of the controls, to the point that autopilot use is mandatory in order not to over control the airplane: it's harder for the control to effect the same change of roll/pitch/yaw for a given deflection due to the thin air, but it's easier for the pilot to reach and surpass that deflection, again because of the thin air.

To sum up, it feels like in IL2 the 109's controls need a higher force to be deflected when flying at higher altitudes due to TAS being factored into the calculations. From reading those manuals it seems that airplane control stiffness in general is mostly dependent on air density/IAS and not TAS, actually making it easier to deflect the controls at higher altitude, but not as effective for the same amount of deflection. Of course, the big question is "how much does each effect cancel the other out, or under what conditions does one of them prevail?", i wish i knew the answer to that ;)

If all this is true (corrections are more than welcome, i'm not claiming any expertise here, just a basic understanding of a few physics variables), the way it would be modeled in IL2 would be that when flying high our aircraft would need bigger inputs but it would be easier to reach them. Essentially, the maneuvering cap during high altitude flight would not be the needed forces on the stick but the control stops.

[ImpalerNL]

And what does that mean to you?

Me 109 F/G:
"- What's the fastest you ever had a 109 in a dive?
I've taken it to about 680 to 750 km/hr at which point you needed 2 hands to pull it out of the dive."

-Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.

Asuming this is true airspeed. Currently when flying a bf109G at 7000m, at 600 km/h TAS or ~410 km/h IAS, the elevator/aileron controls stiffen considerably, making maneurvering impossible. This is ~80km/h below the speed stated by Franz Stigler.

At all altitudes the bf109F/G/K elevator becomes unusable between 550-600 TAS.
This should be at least 680 TAS, because at 680 TAS speed the stick force increased but the controls didnt lock up.

[Ernst]

Blackdog explained all in his last post.

[SturmKreator]

everything has to do with the speed provided no real speed, or perhaps think that a pilot is calculated at all times the real speed to make a move, that is really dumb

[ImpalerNL]

everything has to do with the speed provided no real speed, or perhaps think that a pilot is calculated at all times the real speed to make a move, that is really dumb

The TA152H does 750km/h at 12km alt.
If this where indicated airspeed, then it could break the sound barrier.

[Ernst]

Yes, if you observe in IL2 your stall IAS is quite the same at any altitude. Why not elevator stiffness based on IAS?

[Falke]

A few more maps for QMB. I'm gettng bored flying over the same terrain as I do my warm up and practice flights.

Thanks.
S!

[wheelsup_cavu]

A few more maps for QMB. I'm gettng bored flying over the same terrain as I do my warm up and practice flights.

Thanks.
S!

You can create your own using the FMB if you don't want to wait.
A little help about new QMB (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=11604) | Adding your favorite map to the Quick Mission Builder (http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=621)

I don't think Daidalos Team would mind the help if anyone feels inclined to create more missions for the QMB. ;)


Wheels

[DC338]

Blackdog your are correct. it is TAS related not IAS related as it should be. I don't think it can be easily fixed however. Probably an entire FM engine rewrite. This has been known about for sometime but not sure if admitted too. It is not just a 109 issue it is an issue for every aircraft. Test for yourself in any aircraft. The G that can be generated at 400km/h at 5000m and 400km/h at 100m is very different. High speed aerodynamics are not a factor at these altitudes or speeds. The problem that this creates is that you have variable G v stick position for a constant IAS with increasing alt. Not ideal for fighting and if not fixed in CoD is a glaring error.

As for fixes. Get rid of sonar sounds. The only thing you should hear in a WW2 piston engined fighter is the engine, radio and perhaps the sound of taking a hit.

[LukeFF]

Can the fuselage crosses on the K-4 be changed to white instead of the current black?

[csThor]

Not at the moment. Unfortunately Il-2 doesn't allow for three individual national marking types on an aircraft (fuselage and wings underside share the same NM). To change that would take a lot of work and if that workload is justified is questionable now that the successor is in sight. :-?

[Xilon_x]

because not added the missing nation in the mission and campain?
because not added new pilot skin it uk us jp- to ru fr hu de?
this work i simple.

[Sita]

some interesting pictures... may be will be useful...
http://777avg.com/omegasquad/

[SUP / Revan]

an "anti shipping" slot in QUICK MISSION

[Fenrir]

Not at the moment. Unfortunately Il-2 doesn't allow for three individual national marking types on an aircraft (fuselage and wings underside share the same NM). To change that would take a lot of work and if that workload is justified is questionable now that the successor is in sight. :-?

At the risk of suggesting something that makes for a massive workload, how about the defaults of the the default country have insignia 'on skin', i.e like the current Tempest or the P-47/P-51 amongst others, but keep a separate 'blank' default skin for other countries which apply the MATS as per usual, but keep the MAT applied lettering/numbers for both. This would also sort out dodgy roundels on most RAF types too.

Any benefit to this?

[Kittle]

Hmmm, my wishlist......... Well then
1.) The Re-2002 and Fiat G.55 (all models, especially the new ones) Flyable
2.) All B-25s Flyable
3.) Gyro gunsight for late model P-47s
4.) TBF Avenger flyable
5.) Proper load outs for late P47s concearning rockets on zero length launchers
6.) The DD-652 Ingersoll skinned on one of the Fletcher class DDs (my grandfathers Tin Can) ;) said it was a wish list
7.) An official Typhoon
8.) More ships of all types
9.) Merchant ships with their own AA guns, as was historical

That does it for me, if half of the stuff here made it in, I would never whine again, promise ;)

[csThor]

At the risk of suggesting something that makes for a massive workload, how about the defaults of the the default country have insignia 'on skin', i.e like the current Tempest or the P-47/P-51 amongst others, but keep a separate 'blank' default skin for other countries which apply the MATS as per usual, but keep the MAT applied lettering/numbers for both. This would also sort out dodgy roundels on most RAF types too.

Any benefit to this?

Unfortunately not. It would involve the very same amount of work in fact to modify the overlays. There's a bit of "devil in the details" so to speak ... :-?

[LukeFF]

Not at the moment. Unfortunately Il-2 doesn't allow for three individual national marking types on an aircraft (fuselage and wings underside share the same NM). To change that would take a lot of work and if that workload is justified is questionable now that the successor is in sight. :-?

Okay.

Any thought given to changing the fuselage and underwing crosses to the black/white cross? It seems to have been a valid marking for K-4s.

[csThor]

Not really. Historically the background colour decided which simplified Balkenkreuz was to be used - light background (i.e. RLM 76) means black simplified Balkenkreuz and dark background (i.e. RLM 83) means white simplified Balkenkreuz. To be historical we'd need to have three separate NM slots per aircraft ... but as I said this is questionable ATM. :(

[Gunshi091]

Hello TD and thanks a lot for your work ;

So my question is : Will you add Japanese planes in future updates ? just a question

My request is : Please change the AI , it really kills immersion as it is , i'm aware of the cpu limitation and that the AI will never be in the same conditions than the player , but i'm' sure it is possible to make it less ridiculous as it currently is , it is great that they don't see through clouds now , i'm grateful , but i think we should go further , what needs to be improved is to cut the ability of the AI to fly like UFO's as much as possible ( dives at mach 1 with fragile airplanes , climb like a helicopter at low speed with a 6 ton aircraft or when they overstep by a huge margin the speed limits and maintain ridiculous energy while doing crazy manoeuvres etc )

I'm not asking for a perfect AI respecting law of physics rigourously like the player has to , or having black outs etc ... , i know it is technically not feasible , i just ask for an AI using better tactics , for instance an AI that boom and zoom with Any plane like real pilots , an AI that is possible to surprise (veteran or not , pilots were humans ) and an AI that doesn't have the UFO zoom climbing script Veteran/Ace currently have which is a complete immersion killer . AI has to be smarter or at least if it 's not possible to make it smarter , make it so it doesn't cheat physics as much as it does currently and still make us believe we are in World War II and not star wars , the skill level "rookie-average-veteran-ace" should reflect the AI pilot skill and not the ability of his plane to enter the matrix :)


Anyway I know many posters here play online and may not bother about my request , but really i"m pretty sure more than 2/3 rd of players are offliners and changing the AI would make a HUGE difference for the majority of the community , many of us work and have a family life with demanding schedule , so we play essentially when we can and offline is where we spend by far the most time , so please anything that improves the offline experience would be amazing , thank you very much for your work TD and good luck ;)

[wildwillie]

My WishList:

Updated eventlog output that lists:

When a player damages a ship(Chief or static) with bomb/rocket. Currently you only get an eventlog entry when the ship is destroyed. Something like: "xyz_static damaged by pilot:plane at xcoord ycoord"


More damaged by messages when a pilot damages another aircraft. Currently it shows a lot of damage messages in chat, but it would be great to have those in the eventlog as well.


Flyable B5N2


Thanks for all the updates you have delivered so far...

[SPITACE]

i love to see a flyable wellington and halifax bomber in the sim :) i also like to see some of the older cockpits made better and some new gun sounds in 4.11

[TeeJay82]

There are mods that gives you the opportunity to fly em, i just dont dare to post the name of em here :P

i wish the modders and TD could merge and focus on keeping this sim truly alive, rather waging wars on what to use :/ cause thats whats going on right now

[orangefood]

P-39 F

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n505/vff7/p-39f1_953.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n505/vff7/p-39f2_151.jpg

http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n505/vff7/p-39f3_195.jpg

P-39F

P-39F-1
Bell Model 15B, production variant with three-bladed Aeroproducts constant speed propeller, 12 exhaust stacks; 229 built.

TP-39F-1
One P-39F converted as a two-seat training version with additional cockpit added in nose— no armament.

P-39F-2
27 conversions from P-39F-1 with additional belly armor and cameras in rear fuselage.

Name: Bell P-39F Airacobra Bell P-39F Airacobra
Original title:
Original Name: Bell P-39F Airacobra
Category:
Category: Fighter Fighter Aeroplane
Manufacturer:
Producer: Bell Aircraft Corporation, Buffalo , New York , USA (USA)
Production Period:
Production Period: DD.MM.1942-DD.MM.YYYY
Built pieces:
Number of Produced: 229
The first take-off:
Maiden Flight: DD.MM.YYYY
Crew:
Crew: 1
Basic charaketeristika:
Basic Characteristics:
Takeoff and landing:
Take-Off and Landing: CTOL - Conventional Take-Off and Landing CTOL - conventional take-off and landing
Leaf arrangement:
Arrangement of Wing: monoplane monoplane
Arrangement of the airplane:
Concept Aircraft: Classical conventional
Chassis:
Undercarriage: Retractable Retractable
Landing gear:
Landing Gear: Round Wheels
Technical data:
Technical Data:
Empty weight:
Empty Weight: 2460 kg 5423 lb
Takeoff Weight:
Take-off Weight: 3558 kg 7845 lb
Maximum takeoff weight:
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 3719 kg 8200 lb
Wingspan:
Wingspan: 10.36 m 34 feet
Length:
Length: 9.19 m 30 ft 2in
Height:
Height: 3.78 m 12 ft 5in
Wing area:
Wing Area: 19.79 m 2 213 ft 2
Wing loading:
Wing Loading: ? kg / m 2 ? lb / ft 2
Propulsion:
Propulsion:
Category:
Category: Piston piston
Number of engines:
Number of Engines: 1
Type:
Type: Allison V-1710-35 on the performance of 846 kW
three blade propeller adjustable Aeroproduct 0-35 "target =" _blank "> Allison V-1710-35 power 1150 hp
three blade propeller adjustable Aeroproduct
Fuel tanks capacity:
Fuel Tank Capacity: ? ?
Outputs:
Performance:
Maximum speed:
Maximum Speed: 579.4 1) km / h 4572 m 360 1) miles in 15000 ft
Cruising speed:
Cruise Speed: ? km / h? m ? in mph? ft
Rate of climb:
Climb Rate: 12.9 m / s 2540 ft / min
Time to exit height:
Time to Climb to: 9.1 min to 6096 m 9.1 min to 20000 ft
Operational ceiling:
Service Ceiling: 9784 m 32100 ft
Range:
Range: 965.6 km 600 mi
Maximum range:
Maximum Range: ? km ? me
Armament:
Armament: 1x 37 mm cannon fixed Oldsmobile T-9 in the axis of the propeller
2x 12.7 mm machine guns fixed Browning M2 into trunk
4 x 7.62 mm machine gun fixed in the wing Browning

226 kg bombs 1x fixed 37-mm Oldsmobile T-9 cannonn
2x fixed fuselage-mounted .50 caliber Browning M2 machine gun
4x fixed wing-mounted .30 Browning Machine Gun

500-lb bombs
User states:
User States: USA (USA)
USA (USA)
Note:
Note: 1) 539 km / h in 1525 m, 521 km / h 7625 m 1) 335 mph at 5000 ft, 324 mph at 25000 ft

The F to D differed from the version using a new hydraulic propeller Aeroproduct maintaining a constant speed. Another noticeable change on sight was modified exhaust system, which accounted for Model F series of 12-exhaust openings on each side of the engine.

I would very much like it if you guys touched up the model greatly, smoothing it more, and perfecting shapes, thinning the radio line, and fixing the tessellation in some areas such as near the prop cone. Thanks guys - Oh yeah and make sure it gets its own FM!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

[LukeFF]

Not really. Historically the background colour decided which simplified Balkenkreuz was to be used - light background (i.e. RLM 76) means black simplified Balkenkreuz and dark background (i.e. RLM 83) means white simplified Balkenkreuz. To be historical we'd need to have three separate NM slots per aircraft ... but as I said this is questionable ATM. :(

Just curious - do you happen to have access to a copy of JaPo's book on K-4 camo and markings? There is, for instance, a K-4 of 9./JG 77 (White 3) which has the black/white fuselage cross. Nothing can be seen of the underwing crosses, but the authors have also interpreted is a black/white cross.

EDIT: there are other photos in the book which show underwing black/white crosses.

[csThor]

No I don't but TBH arranging the markings is always going to be an exercise in making a generic application which will not fit all possible exceptions.

[Krt_Bong]

I saw a post on the first page requesting the inclusion of Canons map, nothing against Canon but his map contains too many "Mod" and "borrowed objects" to be used by TD.
I would suggest the 352nd map for two reasons 1. less objects (better framerates) 2. textures are closer to IL-2 standards. The only way you will see any Modded content from outside of TD is if they submit it to TD themselves, you can't just request they include it and in this there may be some difficulty as there are some Modders in the community who are unlikely to cooperate this way even though some of these are quite attractive. I would suggest if some of you want these things bad enough that you contact them and request they do so properly rather than make suggestions here. Just my 2 cents

[Oktoberfest]

What I would like to see is the inclusion of work made out of the limits of the original limitations, for example, number of polygons on an aircraft or in the cockpits, to include planes and remade cockpits WELL ABOVE the standard of the game. The fact that PCs are now much more powerful that what was available in 2001 or 2003 would make this changes available, even for today's average PC. Mine is 3 years old and runs with mods like remade cockpits and 3D of new models without trouble.

[SPITACE]

hi all what is the best setting for the joystick dead band and filtering??:?

[csThor]

I would suggest the 352nd map for two reasons 1. less objects (better framerates) 2. textures are closer to IL-2 standards

To pull this particular tooth once and for all there will not be a map of the Channel area in Il-2 in a patch released by TD. This was specifically mentioned in the agreement with 1C.

What I would like to see is the inclusion of work made out of the limits of the original limitations, for example, number of polygons on an aircraft or in the cockpits, to include planes and remade cockpits WELL ABOVE the standard of the game. The fact that PCs are now much more powerful that what was available in 2001 or 2003 would make this changes available, even for today's average PC. Mine is 3 years old and runs with mods like remade cockpits and 3D of new models without trouble.

Not gonna happen. Team policy is to do things by the book and only include stuff that fulfills the tech specifications. 250MB+ cockpit textures or 20000 poligons aircraft are simply a waste of PC ressources, especially when a similar result can be achieved with a lot less texture size and poligons. It just takes more work.

[LukeFF]

hi all what is the best setting for the joystick dead band and filtering??:?

You're in the wrong thread.

[LukeFF]

No I don't but TBH arranging the markings is always going to be an exercise in making a generic application which will not fit all possible exceptions.

OK, no problem.

[silverliu]

1. FW190A8 FW190A9 need correct Revi circle.

Aiming point of all guns on the FW190A8 FW190A9 is below the center of Revi circle.

FW190A6 that is OK.

2. Online sever forbidden wingtip smoke, Review need add the wingtip smoke.

if the records could provide wingtip smoke for aircraft , that would be better to review the quick records of fight.

3. Improve the guns efects (Flash and smoke hit, tracers smoke...), thanks!

4. Navigation need trainning staff ( Movie, Records......).

[mmaruda]

Apart from bug-fixes that have already been mentioned, the only real issue with the game is the AI. It is better with bomber accuracy (no more of that sniper thing), but it would be good to stop AI from constantly flying faster and making those irritating barrel rolls. The friendly AI could use some tweaking as well - bastards keep stealing my kills, no to mention shooting me up in the process.

[Oktoberfest]

Not gonna happen. Team policy is to do things by the book and only include stuff that fulfills the tech specifications. 250MB+ cockpit textures or 20000 poligons aircraft are simply a waste of PC ressources, especially when a similar result can be achieved with a lot less texture size and poligons. It just takes more work.

Claymore's pits are not only about textures, it's about the whole recreation of all the things that are missing in Oleg's cockpits : gauges, lights, switchs, etc.

[csThor]

But still he exceeds texture limits by the factor of 10 to 15. That's the issue here ... ;)

[Oktoberfest]

But they are so niiiiiice ! :P

I mean, really, it's now up to CoD level! With so much detailed informations and everything !

[Gunshi091]

But still he exceeds texture limits by the factor of 10 to 15. That's the issue here ... ;)

What about the AI ? Will you improve it ?

[Bolelas]

Are you planing to put mixture in axis, like you did to radiator?
If you dont, well, at least i want to tank daidalos team for radiator axis and multi throttle! :)

[Phil_K]

Hopefully an easy one - could you please remove the coloured spinners for the Il-2's? This will be a big improvement for us Sturmo flyers.


Not so easy - longer vehicle and tank convoys would be much appreciated by mission builders - especially ones that are longer than the average bridge length, so we can make convoy movements look much more realistic, and not have the pauses/traffic jams between consecutive convoys as they stop at each bridge.


Finally, if you're making more current AI's flyable, I'd most like to see the Me-210, Su-2 and Tu-2 made flyable as they all offer good utility for creating missions.

Anyway, thanks for your work, it's much appreciated.

[Bearcat]

I'd like to see a LAND command for the AI so that your wingman will no longer keep following you down and crash behind you.

[rollnloop]

But still he exceeds texture limits by the factor of 10 to 15. That's the issue here ... ;)

Claymore's FW190 cockpit fit perfectly 2005 PCs. Some other cockpits don't, but his do.

[Alien]

I think we all deserve better AI.

[Fafnir_6]

I'd like to see a LAND command for the AI so that your wingman will no longer keep following you down and crash behind you.

Isn't there a "return to base" command that essentially achieves this?

Please correct me If I'm wrong.

Fafnir_6

[PilotError]

Isn't there a "return to base" command that essentially achieves this?

Please correct me If I'm wrong.

Fafnir_6


You are correct about the return to base command, but it can only be used if you are the leader at the start of the mission.
If the leader is shot down, and you become leader then the ai will follow you (sometimes into the ground) but you can't issue commands to them.

Would be nice if it could be fixed.

[rollnloop]

It exists, but not accessible if you're not flight leader. If your leader dies, other planes follow you, and sometimes land after you do, many times die flying at stall speed without gear with you until you land/they crash. A mod solves this (frog formation mod) btw.

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

A request for TD's consideration in 4.11:

Request for Landing Lights to be usable and confirmed when you're on the ground and stationary? Sometimes you need them to Taxi to the runway and performa a takeoff.

[IceFire]

I'd still love to see a flyable Typhoon Mark IB someday. Maybe in a future IL-2 release or... probably more likely... Cliffs of Dover addon.

Really I love any new content so I'm pretty much happy no matter what gets released. Bring it all on :)

[Fafnir_6]

Ahh, I see about the "return to base" command. It should be added to the Rottflieger menu as well. A worthy request to be sure.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[TinyTim]

Overhaul of damage modelling.

I'm probably barking into the moon I know since it would mean a gargantous amount of work, but DM in my opinion really is lagging badly behind any other major aspect of the sim in term of quality.

[Old_Canuck]

It would be pure joy to see IL-2 in perfect mode on 3 displays without that little flickering black square at the lower left corner. SANS FoV Changer conquered the tie fighter appearance where the wings used to stick forward on the outboard monitors but it would be great to see IL-2 in perfect mode again.

[Pershing]

German and soviet light bombs very needed for night missions.
Could you think about things like these ones:

German light bombs, for example, LC50F
http://bodenplatte-45.narod.ru/fschleuchtbombe-lc50f2.jpg

Soviet light bombs (no pictures, but I'll provide all required data if you have interest):

SAB-15
SAB-25
SAB-50-15
SAB-100-55

[ImpalerNL]

Thanks for 4.101 TD!

I can nag/moan/whine about 4.11 now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smaller patches.

Bf109k4C3 without mw50.

Bf109K4 with 2000 hp DC engine+mw50, 1,98 ata version.

Bf109G10 with 2000 hp DC engine+mw50, 1,98 ata version.

The stiffening elevator syndrome of the bf109s should be at about 500km/h IAS at all altitudes.

Bigger Normandy map.

West Germany map.

Bigger smoke collumns that follow the direction of the wind, instead of going straight up.

Smoke plume effect after a bomb hits the ground or building.

Tanks with AA mg guns.

Onboard rectangular mirror for p-51D.

P47D-40RE version with gyro gunsight.

P-47D with a green seat and armour plate instead of red.

6DOF track IR.

Spitfire XIV version with mark II gyro gunsight.

Improved Spitfire FM handling. (CoG is too much near the tail.)

Flyable Fiat G.55.

Red or green smoke flares for ground target marking.

Improved AI. (AI crashes into the ground too many times.)

Destroyable runways.

Flakpanzer IV ostwind.

2cm flakvierling.

Bigger dust clouds on desert maps when taking off.

More cloudcover, and with different shades instead of just white.

Coolant leaks.

Pitot blockages, when flying trough an explosion or a cloud of debris.

Headshake or pov shaking on landing, depending on airspeed and rate of descent, during rough landings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This might not fit in one patch though.

Again, thanks for the good work TD, its much respected.
:cool:

[Gunshi091]

The F6F speed at altitude could be corrected , would be awesome if Team Daidalos could fix it for their next updates , thanks a bunch for your work TD :cool:

[IceFire]

Impaler - What would the P-51K bring to the table that isn't already covered in the two D versions? Aside from a slightly different bubble canopy and a couple of other differences the only real thing that separates the D and the K is the factory it was made in.

Also I think you mean Spitfire XIV :)

[ImpalerNL]

Yes you are right. P-51D/K versions are the same.
And i mean the XIV spit.

[Fritz X]

I completely stick with Impaler's list some posts above. Great suggestions, very tempting! :grin:

What I'd like to add myself to that list is only one more thing:

- Fiat G.55 (all versions) flyable


DT already made it rather clear that there's worked on cockpit models for this plane already, but I just want to make sure...

[dFrog]

Gyrogunsight for Spitfires as they were first operational planes equiped with it.

[orangefood]

This would really take the cake--

New Engine Sounds

New Map Textures

New Skins

New Effects

[Juri_JS]

I would like to see more Japanese aircraft, at the moment we are missing some important types.

I know it is a lot of work to build a completely new plane, but maybe it is possible to add more variants of planes we already have in the game, this would require only small changes to existing aircraft models.

The plane variants I am thinking about are:
Ki-43-III
Ki-61-I-Tei
Ki-61-II
Ki-100-I-Otsu
D3A2
G4M2
G4M3

Maybe they can be done without too much work.

[Gunshi091]

It's true that with COD looming , it would be great for the IL-2 sim to expand the Pacific Front , as we'll probably have to wait many years before the Pacific theater gets integrated to COD

[P-38L]

Hello
When you are playing on a local network there is a missing parameter. The movement of the surfaces of your plane doesn't show up from the other players.

When you move the ailerons of your plane, the other players doesn't see that animation or movement. I know that there is a lot of information through a network but what about to have the possibility to turn on or off that option?

There is a lot of other games that show all the animation on a network, why this great simulator don't?

And this option could be activated via user, or the decision from players playing on a local network, not from Internet.

Thank you

[Sita]

whats next?))) what 4.11 will bring to us? ))

[[URU]BlackFox]

It would be nice to have a thread in which we can see what's getting into the new patch. And just a suggestion... a few significant upgrades are better than a hole bunch of huge modifications, so if patch 4.11 doesn't bring so many changes it's ok, as long as we don't wait for a whole year to get it.

EDIT: I would appreciate an option to see all icons white in the radar for the MDS. Having friend/foe identification in a melee as in the actual radar seems too much for the time.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Could No. 1 Sqn RAAF be assigned the following code letters:
US (for the period 1939-1942)
NA (for the period 1943-1945)

Here are some references:

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/raaf_codes/codes.asp
http://www.adf-serials.com/units.shtml

[csThor]

Could No. 1 Sqn RAAF be assigned the following code letters:
US (for the period 1939-1942)
NA (for the period 1943-1945)

Here are some references:

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/raaf_codes/codes.asp
http://www.adf-serials.com/units.shtml



Unfortunately one squadron needs one set of files per fuselage code. I'd rather not make any more duplicate entries than there already are. The list is long enough, don't you think? ;)

[Mustang]

1) 6DOF
2) 6DOF
3) 6DOF
4) 6DOF
5) 6DOF
6) 6DOF

AND THE WINNER IS.....

THE ONE 6DOF !!!!

:-P



http://blogs.rpp.com.pe/apuntesdemilibreta/files/2009/02/oscar-166x300.jpg



.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Unfortunately one squadron needs one set of files per fuselage code. I'd rather not make any more duplicate entries than there already are. The list is long enough, don't you think? ;)

Thanks for the reply Thor. Is it then possible to replace the current and not quite correct one of PU to only one of the other mentioned codes?

[P-38L]

Hi :)
Searching for more realism and physics:
The only AI Airplane that has the torque effect when takeoff is the TB-3 (the one with four engines). It is beautiful to see this airplane in takeoff from a static camera, you can see the torque effect.
The rest of the AI Airplanes seems to bee perfectly trimmed and doesn't show or have the torque effect.
Perhaps you can add this effect for the rest of the AI Airplanes.
Thank you ;)

[Bearcat]

I wold love to see some of the better done mod varients added to the sim.. not only Mustangs but some of the others as well..

I would also like to see some different loadouts on the Jugs & Ponies.. How about some rockets for the Mustangs.. and the other rockets for the Jugs as well.. instead of just those tubes..

I would also like to see in the joystick settings.. Instead of Joystick 1, 2 etc... the ability to name the profile whatever you want.. that way you can create a profile and assign it a name according to the plane.. I would also like to see the bi directional minimap function added to the stock sim as well..

[csThor]

Thanks for the reply Thor. Is it then possible to replace the current and not quite correct one of PU to only one of the other mentioned codes?


Actually we only have the No. 1 PRU RAAF in the game ATM. Just took a look and was puzzled that I didn't find No. 1 Sqn RAAF at all until I looked at the PRU and saw the PU fuselage code. ;)

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Here is some information that one of our members found:

The 'PU' code currently used actually applies to No.1 PRU Squadron.

No.1 Squadron used (at various times) A, US and NA. 'A' was allocated to the initial delivery of Hudson's received by Australia in 1939. The code 'US' was assigned to No.1 Squadron in April 1940, just prior to it's move to Singapore in July 1940. It retained that code throughout the disastrous Malayan campaign and it's return to Australia (or what was left of the Squadron) at the end of March 1942; whence due to the very high losses it had suffered the Squadron was disbanded.

Upon it's being reformed with Bristol Beaufort light bombers in December 1943, No.1 Squadron was allocated the code 'NA'. It operated the Beaufort out of Darwin against the Islands to the north until January 1945, whence it was the first RAAF Squadron to convert to the de Havilland Mosquito FB.VI.

The 'NA' code saw the longest use with No.1 Squadron, although 'US' certainly reflects the more dramatic and tumultuous period of it's service in WWII.

The "PU" code was allocated to No.1 Photo Reconnaissance Unit (PRU). This Unit was formed at Laverton, Victoria in June 1942. It's role was to perform long-range strategic or tactical photographic reconnaissance missions. It's initial equipment was six Brewster Buffalo fighters with guns and armour removed and extra fuel tanks installed. The Unit moved to 32 Mile Airfield at Coomalie Creek, Darwin (later named Hughes Field) on 19 Agust 1942. From there it conducted reconn flights over the Timor Sea and DEI Japanese-held Islands to the north west. In time it collected a motley selection of aircraft including the above mentioned Buffalo's, plus Wirraway's, P-43 Lancers and P-38 Lightnings. Rarely did it's TOC inlcude more than six aircraft at any one time.

In May 1944 No.1 PRU received it's first PR.40 Mosquito's. The greatly increased range of the Mosquito allowed 1 PRU to fly as far afield as the Balikpapan. And when it moved to Biak it could overfly the Halmaheras and the Philippines.

On 9 September 1944 No.1 PRU was disbanded and from it No.87 (PRU) Squadron was formed. At this time the Squadron code was changed from 'PU' to 'QK'. No.87 (PRU) Squadron performed the same role as 1 PRU for the remainder of the War.


The information was in two separate posts. So I guess that the game in a sense is historically correct if you were to fly as No. 1 PRU.

If you were to visit our Squad's site (www.raafsquad.com) you would see that we use four different squadrons with No1 Sqdrn being our CO's squadron.

So with this information would it still be possible to either, add a No1 Squadron, and leave the current No. 1 PRU as is. Or remove the PRU and replace it with a new No. 1 Sqn RAAF?

We thought we would just ask and see how things went.

~S~

[csThor]

Adding No. 1 Sqn RAAF isn't a problem, but we can't remove any unit already in the game due to backward compatibility issues.

So which code should I use for No. 1 Sqn RAAF? ;)

[Pips]

Ignore.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Adding No. 1 Sqn RAAF isn't a problem, but we can't remove any unit already in the game due to backward compatibility issues.

So which code should I use for No. 1 Sqn RAAF? ;)

Good news, and thanks Thor and TD.

I have sent our CO an email, hope to have an answer soon.

~S~

[Pips]

I would like to request the following "improved payloads" for the FB.VI Mosquito, the P-47D-10 series onwards and the P-51D-5 series onwards (including the Mustang Mk.III).

FB.VI Mosquito
It's current loadout in the game is:
extra ammo;
2 x 250lb bombs (interior);
4 x 250lb bombs (2 interior, 2 exterior);
2 x 500lb bombs (interior);
4 x 500lb bombs (2 interior, 2 exterior).

In reality the FB.VI was also equipped to carry, in lieu of the external bomb loads (but in addition to the internal bomb loads):
8 x 60lb rockets OR
2 x 50 imp gal external underwing fuel tanks (droppable) OR
2 x 100 imp gal external underwing fuel tanks (droppable).

The P-47D-10 Onwards
Too numerous to mention all the various loadouts in the game (which is quite comphrehensive). However there are some loadouts missing, such as:

108 gal tank - introduced in September 1943
150 gal tank - introduced from 20 Feb 1944.
10 x 5" HVAR rocket.
First trialled by the 513th Squadron, 406th Fighter Group on 29 July 1944 against ammunition trucks at Gavray, France. The 5" HVAR was developed in response to the poor showing of the M8 4.5" tube rockets, which were hard to aim, had poor flight characteristics and had an noticable impact on the aircraft's flight performance.
The success of the 5" HVAR led to their being widely used, the usual load being 8 rockets per wing (although 10 could be carried). This did preclude any bombs or underwing fuel tanks being carried, although a centreline fuel tank or up to a 1000lb could be carried.

P-51D-5 Onwards
Current loadout in the game is:
2 x 250lb bombs
2 x 500lb bombs
2 x 1000lb bombs
2 x 75 gal tanks

In addition to the above the P-51D-5 onwards and the Mustang Mk.III could carry the following:
6 x 5" HVAR rockets
6 x 60lb rockets (Mustang Mk.III)
(Plus a centerline fuel tank or up to a centerline 1000lb bomb)
2 x 75 gal tanks
2 x 108 gal tanks (also used by the P-51 C model)

No.260 Squadron RAF was the first Mustang unit to use rockets (British 60lb version) in April 1944 over Italy.No's 213 and 112 Squadrons followed suit in July.

The USAAF P-51 equipped units commenced using the 5" HVAR's about the same time as the P-47 units ie from August 1944 onwards.

Hope these armament additions can be included in 4.11.
Cheers :)

[kennel]

Request for the FW 190 F8

Would it be possible to include panzershrek rockets as a loadout option for the 190 F8? Or would this require a new 190 F9 jabo variant?

[SEE]

'Redout' when inverted in normal flight, full 'redout' seems to come on very quickly.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Adding No. 1 Sqn RAAF isn't a problem, but we can't remove any unit already in the game due to backward compatibility issues.

So which code should I use for No. 1 Sqn RAAF? ;)

We'd be happy with the code US.

If it does make the next patch, again thank you very much :grin::grin:

~S~

[Bearcat]

I would like to request the following "improved payloads" for the FB.VI Mosquito, the P-47D-10 series onwards and the P-51D-5 series onwards (including the Mustang Mk.III).

FB.VI Mosquito
It's current loadout in the game is:
extra ammo;
2 x 250lb bombs (interior);
4 x 250lb bombs (2 interior, 2 exterior);
2 x 500lb bombs (interior);
4 x 500lb bombs (2 interior, 2 exterior).

In reality the FB.VI was also equipped to carry, in lieu of the external bomb loads (but in addition to the internal bomb loads):
8 x 60lb rockets OR
2 x 50 imp gal external underwing fuel tanks (droppable) OR
2 x 100 imp gal external underwing fuel tanks (droppable).

The P-47D-10 Onwards
Too numerous to mention all the various loadouts in the game (which is quite comphrehensive). However there are some loadouts missing, such as:

108 gal tank - introduced in September 1943
150 gal tank - introduced from 20 Feb 1944.
10 x 5" HVAR rocket.
First trialled by the 513th Squadron, 406th Fighter Group on 29 July 1944 against ammunition trucks at Gavray, France. The 5" HVAR was developed in response to the poor showing of the M8 4.5" tube rockets, which were hard to aim, had poor flight characteristics and had an noticable impact on the aircraft's flight performance.
The success of the 5" HVAR led to their being widely used, the usual load being 8 rockets per wing (although 10 could be carried). This did preclude any bombs or underwing fuel tanks being carried, although a centreline fuel tank or up to a 1000lb could be carried.

P-51D-5 Onwards
Current loadout in the game is:
2 x 250lb bombs
2 x 500lb bombs
2 x 1000lb bombs
2 x 75 gal tanks

In addition to the above the P-51D-5 onwards and the Mustang Mk.III could carry the following:
6 x 5" HVAR rockets
6 x 60lb rockets (Mustang Mk.III)
(Plus a centerline fuel tank or up to a centerline 1000lb bomb)
2 x 75 gal tanks
2 x 108 gal tanks (also used by the P-51 C model)

No.260 Squadron RAF was the first Mustang unit to use rockets (British 60lb version) in April 1944 over Italy.No's 213 and 112 Squadrons followed suit in July.

The USAAF P-51 equipped units commenced using the 5" HVAR's about the same time as the P-47 units ie from August 1944 onwards.

Hope these armament additions can be included in 4.11.
Cheers :)

You said it better than I did..

[IceFire]

I wanted to draw attention to another issue that is worth looking at.

R_Target has done some very good research (as far as I can tell) on the F6F and it's top speeds. It's been long held in my head (and based one some preliminary tests) that the F6F was a little on the slow side. Target has gone and done some good research and has some specific numbers:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5041070725/p/1

It's definitely on the slow side and not by a little bit. Worth looking over the data.

[Fenrir]

Hi Thor. Just spotted some RAF squadron codes that are incorrect:

No. 487 Sqn RNZAF (FB): currently 'OU' (duplicate of 485 Sqn) -> should be 'EG'

No. 601 Sqn RAF (F): currently 'LO' (duplicate of 602 Sqn) -> should be 'UF'

Also any chance of getting the regiment badges removed from all RAF a/c? They were the exception during wartime.

[csThor]

Fenrir, Smouch ... Thx. Will modify the incorrect codes and add No 1 Sqn RAAF. :)

[_RAAF_Smouch]

http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/icon_pray.gif

Cheers mate

~S~

[iMattheush]

It would be nice, if you add forgotten Polish planes - PZL.37 "Los" or PZL.23 "Karas", ald flyable french MS.406. Cheers, best regards!

[secretone]

I'd still love to see a flyable Typhoon Mark IB someday. Maybe in a future IL-2 release or... probably more likely... Cliffs of Dover addon.

Really I love any new content so I'm pretty much happy no matter what gets released. Bring it all on :)


I agree that the Typhoon would be a worthy addition to the game if only because of its great historical importance. But I would like any computer model we get to properly reflect the "warts" of this flawed aircraft - relatively unreliable motor, vibrations, weak tail sections, cockpit fumes etc.

[klem]

Please revise the Spitfire landing characteristics to improve energy absorption and prevent it kicking into ever-increasing lurches to destruction (and some other aircraft ?)

Please revise the size of the Tempest backplate to give a more realistic rear view. The result may not be 'to scale' but the inability to look around it is not realistic, it is said to have had a very good all-round view).

If it won't condemn my other requests to the bin, 6DOF. Much work has already been done in the community. There is another thread and poll demonstrating the majority feeling of the community and it's acceptance of very minor graphics oddities over the obsolete fixed-head view which simply no longer rates a place alongside all the other great improvements to this wonderful old sim.

[28_Condor]

Hi!

I dont know if this request was already posted: to make V-1s a target creating a entry into the eventlog when a rocket is destroyed ;)

It is possible?

:)

[Stealth_Eagle]

The thing that I want the most is often the most forggetten part of IL-2. I wish to have more advance ship damage models. Also how about make it possible to choose a skin for a ship so you could have USS Essex class as a ship and then choose a skin. I would want t so you could make custome ship paint schemes. I would love to see the USS Enterprise class in IL-2 since it is so famous yet not in the game. Also I would request more ship functions like catapults fir carriers that have them. Also if possible deck elevators so you could take off 32 planes off one carrier with the aircraft being brought from below decks. It would be extremely cool to have a flyable Helldiver. I want more ships like the USS North Carolina, IJN Yamato etc etc etc. Also instead of just sleep for the ships add stages of alert so you can control the total number of guns on the ship. I personally want more ship upgrades. :grin: please put these in future updates and hopefully by 4.2 we will have all these features. Thanks.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

With the flyable NON-ILS fitted aircraft that have two radios, is it possible to be able to "tune" them both to different YG/YE beacons?

This could further aid in night navigation. By hearing two different Morse code outputs may help pinpoint your position on a map.

Does that make sense?

[[URU]BlackFox]

Another request: more variants of the bf-110. As I understand, it was used on the esatern front in decent numbers up to 1942, and in versions prior to G as well.

[JAMF]

I would love to see the USS Enterprise class in IL-2 since it is so famous yet not in the game.It's one of those bits in the game that are from the manufacturer which took legal action against Pacific Fighters, so it's not likely to be in an official patch.

[_RAAF_Furball]

Fenrir, Smouch ... Thx. Will modify the incorrect codes and add No 1 Sqn RAAF. :)

(as US-x)

You beauty - thank you !

[Stealth_Eagle]

It's one of those bits in the game that are from the manufacturer which took legal action against Pacific Fighters, so it's not likely to be in an official patch.
Why would they do that? :evil:
It actually helps the company.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Explain it to them. :(

[JAMF]

Why would they do that? :evil:
It actually helps the company.
One of those "overeager legal departments" / "because we can" things and Ubi not using their legal department for the preventive side of things. :rolleyes:

[Stealth_Eagle]

Explain it to them. :(

Which company do I need to contact? I will see what stings I can pull to help you. How about my request? I just prefer the things that don't get as much attention but will dramatically improve gaming experience. Do you think you can make some early gen spitfires so I can create a Battle of Britain map for a server that I am part of so the people with PC's that can't handle cliffs of Dover at the moment can have a stand in until they upgrade their computers to get the full effect of the Battle of Britain in Cliffs of Dover. Please and thank you.

[iMattheush]

So, what about Polish PZL's ?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Stealth Eagle... this is very old knowledge, but I see you are new here (welcome!), so I will explain: Our team has signed a contract with 1C to be able do what we do. Part of that contract are among other things following restrictions:

1. No implementing of things, that is owned in reallife by Northrop-Grumman (this is the place to go to, if you think you can help us - I hope you are a billionaire!)
2. No implementing of content, that may thematically interfer with the future plans of 1C, regarding their new flight sim - which excludes explicitly any Battle Of Britain content.

This is all a very fact and nothing can be done against it (especially not from our side).

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

So, what about Polish PZL's ?

Nice idea (like any of the missing planes). But no plans from our side regarding these yet.

[28_Condor]

S!

Well, I did a search and I didint anythig about V-1s, then I will repeat my question here:

It is possible to make V-1s a target creating a entry into the eventlog when a rocket is destroyed?

In a older version destroying a V-1 that event was count as a AA object destroyed, but in later patchs no more :(

In greatergreen.com I asked about this subject a time ago:

http://www.greatergreen.com/forum/index.php?topic=35.0

Sorry, if my English is not intelligible :(

Cheers!

[Stealth_Eagle]

Stealth Eagle... this is very old knowledge, but I see you are new here (welcome!), so I will explain: Our team has signed a contract with 1C to be able do what we do. Part of that contract are among other things following restrictions:

1. No implementing of things, that is owned in reallife by Northrop-Grumman (this is the place to go to, if you think you can help us - I hope you are a billionaire!)
2. No implementing of content, that may thematically interfer with the future plans of 1C, regarding their new flight sim - which excludes explicitly any Battle Of Britain content.

This is all a very fact and nothing can be done against it (especially not from our side).

I am contacting Northtop Grumman and see if I can get this for your rights for it. Wish me luck. :grin:

Message has been sent and I have a copy of the message if needed.

[Grach]

First I'd like to thank TD for all their hard work and dedication in keeping Il-2/FB a very fine game with all this excellent new content.

Can you guys please check the armament of the H8K1 'Emily' if you have a moment?
Currently it seems to have a mix of MG-151/20 and MG-81(!)
I know that there are better simulators for IJN weapons as the G4M1 seems somewhat more acceptable in this manner... (MG-FF/M & .303 Browning?)

Toughening up the big (4 engine) bombers a bit might not go astray either.
I've been shooting down B-17(F&G)s in IAR-80 (4x rifle calibre mg) lately which shouldn't be that easy, surely??? Aim between the engines and even rcmg will light them up quite quickly. It is like they have no fuel tank protection at all. :o
I'm trying to replicate these results with IAR-80 vs Pe-8 but they seem harder to light up and of course 20mm ShVAK in the face is also a problem too! ;)

Cheers!

[[URU]BlackFox]

- Having an option to see all icons in white (or the same color) when radar is active. Friend /Foe identification is just too detailed.

- A system that registers attacks on ships so that the kills for big ships can be shared.

- A Flyable Japanese torpedo bomber

- Possibility to select different formations for flights in FMB.

- Revised Ground Attack routine for attack/jabos/fighters. They make long turns before attacking and abandon the target before destroyed, even if they still have ammo.

- I know this is too much, but some kind of evasive maneuvers for ships would be great.

Just wishing. Thx for all.

[Pershing]

...
2. No implementing of content, that may thematically interfer with the future plans of 1C, regarding their new flight sim - which excludes explicitly any Battle Of Britain content.
....

So, we can forget about light bombs? Or not?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

So, we can forget about light bombs? Or not?

Not sure, what you mean (if you posted it already in this thread, just give me a link... I didn't read every page personally). :rolleyes:

[scallywag]

This only effects the dynamic campaigns but its happened to me more than enough.

Our sqd improves over missions and then gets gutted by stupidity.

two things. On big missions all aircraft involved are landing at the same airfield. I am sure this happened sometimes, but not always. Getting into that crazy pattern with the fighters and bombers is a mess. Some way to sort that out more would be nice, or have the fighters go to one airfield and the bombers another.

The other is some sort of priority would be cool. The flight might have damaged/smoking/losing fuel planes and they go in the pattern the same as anyone else. A form of priority would be cool. Damaged planes landing first. Another thing would be to have all friendly airfields available. Not active per say but available. Flying back with a wingman who is badly damaged it would be cool to be able to send a message to land at the nearest friendly airfield. This might save some of the pilots who should not get killed but do because they tend to fly all the way back and then go into the pattern and eventually crash into trees.

[[URU]BlackFox]

One more thing:

Having external views while on ground/dead, or to see friendly aircraft only, is a great addition for the ones who fly coop missions (me and my squad for one).

[klem]

(as US-x)

You beauty - thank you !

'US' was used by 56 Sqdn in the European theatre.

Was the 1 Sdn RAAF 'US' only used in the Pacific?

[Xilon_x]

U.S.A. army enter in europe from gibraltar and from north of France(dd-day) Two way of enter in europe ww2 conflict.
What is the third way? From Ejipt (canal of suez) or from BORDEAUX whest of france and u boat italy base?

[Pershing]

Not sure, what you mean (if you posted it already in this thread, just give me a link... I didn't read every page personally). :rolleyes:

Oh, sorry) I meant "illuminating" or "flare" bombs. In ohter words - bombs for an illumitaing or a targets marking in night time. Not sure what is their right name in English. In German it sounds "Leuchtbombe", in russian "SAB" or "САБ" - "светящая авиационная бомба". See here - http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=223168&postcount=161

[klem]

U.S.A. army enter in europe from gibraltar and from north of France(dd-day) Two way of enter in europe ww2 conflict.
What is the third way? From Ejipt (canal of suez) or from BORDEAUX whest of france and u boat italy base?

First the US/British Armies invaded North Africa (1) and after they (and the British 8th Army from the East) drove the Axis out through Tunisia the Allied armies then invaded Sicily (2) from North Africa and on into Italy. Later they invaded Normandy, D-Day (3).

Does that answer your question?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Oh, sorry) I meant "illuminating" or "flare" bombs....

Well... we have flares with other planes too, so I see no reason, why it shouldn't be implemented (I suppose it was used during the whole war) - even more, if we are going to expand the nightfighting scenario.

I think, such general armament options aren't as critical as planes (regarding 1C and CoD).

[Zorin]

1. Can you create a Ju88 A-4 field mod.? That would mean th inclusion of the A-17 forward MG FF installation, exhaust covers and the upper rearward firing MGs siwtched for MG131s. Should give us a decent mid war version for the Eastern front.
2. Could the 300l and 900l fuel tanks be given to the Ju88 and He111 bombers?
3. Will the Beaufighter get a british torpedo or will the American MK13 stay?

P.S.: Please, also check the Ju88 Jumos for correct specifications. I do remember that there was something not quite correct with them.

[Pips]

'US' was used by 56 Sqdn in the European theatre.

Was the 1 Sdn RAAF 'US' only used in the Pacific?

Yes, No.1 Squadron RAAF only operated over Malaya from 1940 to 1942 using the 'US' code.

[Xilon_x]

you not understand me.....to me not interessing U.S.A. army invaded first north africa ecc.ec..............me interessing if U.S.A. during WW2 have alternative WAY for ENTER in EUROPE.
Repeat U.S.A. enter in EUROPE from GIBRALTAR and from NORMANDY two WAY repeat 2 way for enter in EUROPE from ATLANTIC OCEAN TO EUROPE my question is U.S.A. have another alternative way for enter in EUROPE?
from EJIPT ( canal of suez ) or from another way?

[Tempest123]

...even more, if we are going to expand the nightfighting scenario.




Yes, that would be awesome, those night missions are some of my faves.

[klem]

Yes, No.1 Squadron RAAF only operated over Malaya from 1940 to 1942 using the 'US' code.

Thanks :)

[klem]

you not understand me.....to me not interessing U.S.A. army invaded first north africa ecc.ec..............me interessing if U.S.A. during WW2 have alternative WAY for ENTER in EUROPE.
Repeat U.S.A. enter in EUROPE from GIBRALTAR and from NORMANDY two WAY repeat 2 way for enter in EUROPE from ATLANTIC OCEAN TO EUROPE my question is U.S.A. have another alternative way for enter in EUROPE?
from EJIPT ( canal of suez ) or from another way?

I think we are getting off-topic and I'm not sure I understand the question but USA could have considered any Axis coastline for entry into Europe (by the way, going in through Gibralta would have violated Spain's neutrality). Of course many options were probably strategically impossible.

Take your pick from the Map attached. Blue is Axis territory.

[LukeFF]

What in the world is Xilon going on about? :confused:

[JG53Frankyboy]

i guess he is asking what seaway the US forces should use to reach european soil-

With Gibraltar he ment the sea strait as entrance to the mediteranien sea. Only other way to enter the Med is via the Suezchannel

But please, dont quote him, its just hard to read his stuff - i have him on my ignore list (and he is the only one in this forum :D )

[Mustang]

MY REQUEST FOR FMB!

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/6386/fmbl.jpg


GOOD LUCK
:rolleyes:

[Mustang]

I hate imageshack !!!

Wait please...

[Mustang]

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


:rolleyes:

[Mustang]

:confused:

[RPS69]

Well... we have flares with other planes too, so I see no reason, why it shouldn't be implemented (I suppose it was used during the whole war) - even more, if we are going to expand the nightfighting scenario.

I think, such general armament options aren't as critical as planes (regarding 1C and CoD).

Sorry for the quote, but I am really puzlled about which planes have flares on 4.101.

But if you are really on it, I may ask for them to be visible from far up on clear skyes. Something around 10000m perhaps... Normal lights and fires on il2 don't show that far away. The 10000 mark on the assumption that I must see the flares not only directly from above, but at least from a 45º position at 7000m.

Now, also on flares, they were used as formations signaling, better understood than any radio chatter. They were fired from the cockpit with a flare hand gun. This would be far more apropriate than people firing smoke, or using landing lights on full daylight as a signaling method. Flares are limited on availability as ammunition, and hangs around for a while suspendend on parachutes before flaming out.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Interesting suggestions. :)

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

[JG52Karaya]

Interesting suggestions. :)

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

The Swordfish has flares as well IIRC..

[albx]

Probably is silly, but can TD include Freetrack support? Just include a freetrack=1 and use the FreeTrackClient.dll instead of Trackir or 1C can't include any other device that is not TrackIR? (please avoid any comment that it works right now, I know...)

thanks
Alberto

[dFrog]

Will we ever see Mark II GGS gyro gunsight in later model Spitfires ? Not to mention Griffon powered ones...?

[Rickusty]

I would really like to fly in a Z.1007bis!
I remember there was a cockpit made by someone ... somewhere ... ;)

It's a real beauty; today I tried to fly it on externals only, and it seems a good performer, and quite fast for a bomber.
And it's very cool looking.

Some pictures:
http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/cantz/cantz1007_230.jpg

http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/cantz/cantz1007_210a.jpg

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2250/cantz1007alcionebiscopi.jpg

And a great video here, where you can see nice footages of Z.1007 in action (even if made for propaganda...) Gunners firing, etc etc...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwrl0II-wsM

Cheers
Rick

[Xilon_x]

Strange because OLEG MADDOX not put in CoD the CANT1007 bis?
this airplane bomber go to belgium whit the:
this is CAI in battle of brittain
Aircraft
Fiat CR.42 of 18° Gruppo, 56° Stormo. The Italian CR.42 was a manoeuvrable and fast biplane fighter. Despite its good manoeuvrability and speed (440+ km/h) it was technically outclassed by the faster Hurricane and Spitfire of the British Royal Air Force.
Fiat G.50 of 20° Gruppo, 56° Stormo. The Italian G.50 monoplane fighter was restricted by its range of 400 miles (640 km) (roughly the same as that of Bf 109E models used by the Luftwaffe) and the lack of a radio unit in most participating aircraft.
Fiat BR.20 bombers of 13° and 43° Stormo. The Italian BR.20 was a twin engined bomber capable of carrying 1600 kg (3,528 lb) of bombs.
Supporting aircraft included five CANT Z.1007 used for reconnaissance and Caproni Ca.133 transport planes.
this is Caproni Ca.133
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/airliners/images5/88.jpg

[goshikisen]

I'd be grateful if we could see TD develop:

1. The B-26
2. The Martin Marauder
3. The "Widowmaker"
4. The "Flying Prostitute"
5. A U.S. Medium Bomber that isn't already in the game and isn't an A-26.
6. A Medium Bomber that wasn't built by Northrop-Grumman (or whatever conglomeration they are now).

Thank you and keep up the outstanding work.

[Xilon_x]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRIKsj3DRhzewPkFmtCH_vkKdCUGaqxm y_UE7dCRoWqtlXTKSNux5OcUTY1AQDaidalos team loock this photo this is cant 1007 two version i request the version whit one rudder tank you if is possible.

[Bionde]

1- remove that smoke on startup engine, and add flames on exhaust during start, and a bit of smoke on startup, and some flames on exhaust at full power engine.

2- some fuel gauge corrections in all planes, and add a control swtch for tank selection.

3- ajustable mixture for all planes (0%-100%) with this feature (to cruise)

4- blood on cockpit without any mods

5- english channel map

6- propeller tip contrail, and more quality on contrails (begin in exhaust, etc)

7- blades of propellers rotating when the prop pitch is changed

8- ajustable trims on ground (spit, etc. as historical)

9- more features in DM... radiators, oil tank, hydraulics, fluids, more frequency in failures in the system (gears not retracting, power of engine cannot be ajusted, engine most sensitive at ovespeed, pressure of supercharger in low alt etc)

10- more option in QMB, like ships quantity, tanks, units and FoW settings, and radio beacons for navigation in all generated missions.

11- option to change the type of ammunition, standard, incendiary, tracer, etc.

PS: 12- solid model of planes under effects (flames, smoke), and more quality of landing lights effect, etc.

[RPS69]

Interesting suggestions. :)

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

Take a look on the diferent cockpits. You will see them hanging near the window on all the airplanes that do have them.

At least all Bf109 have, and I believe that almost all early allied airplanes also do.

On the 109 in particular, flares are the special motive behind the triangle slider.

Anyway, this is just a wild sugestion, I will be really happy with just having this as a pathfinder weapon. The mosquito was the main user of this.

But germans used something similar, with incendiary bombs dropped by KG100 on England, KG100 being a special unit radio guided over the target.

The radio vectoring we allready have, but the incendiary bombas aren't there.

[ImpalerNL]

I'd be grateful if we could see TD develop:

1. The B-26
2. The Martin Marauder
3. The "Widowmaker"
4. The "Flying Prostitute"
5. A U.S. Medium Bomber that isn't already in the game and isn't an A-26.
6. A Medium Bomber that wasn't built by Northrop-Grumman (or whatever conglomeration they are now).

Thank you and keep up the outstanding work.

The B-26=Martin Marauder.

I like to see a bf109K4 with a 2000 hp DB605DC 1,9(8 ) ata engine to counter all the allied fighter power. Because for 4.11 they might add the spit XIV possibly with gyro gunsight, wich could use some competition.

[Daniël]

The B-26=Martin Marauder.



B-26 can be Martin B-26 Marauder or Douglas A-26 (B-26) Invader. From 1948-1965 the A-26 was called B-26.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-26_Invader
It's a bit confusing.

[DD_crash]

The B-26=Martin Marauder.

I think he knows that ;)

[stu babes]

could we have a typhoon and westland whirlwind also can we kill rear gunners when they are shot at

[ImpalerNL]

B-26 can be Martin B-26 Marauder or Douglas A-26 (B-26) Invader. From 1948-1965 the A-26 was called B-26.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-26_Invader
It's a bit confusing.

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

[goshikisen]

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

Since the A-26 didn't become a B-26 until after WWII I think the distinction is a moot point when talking about a WWII sim. A B-26, in this case, is a Marauder and nothing else.

All of the suggestions I made point to the same aircraft... exaggeration for effect.... hopefully.