4.11 Development Update

[ElAurens]

Could you please fix the FM Focke Wulf?


Pretty open ended statement, don't you think?

No indication of what needs "fixed".

No evidence to back up what you want "fixed".

Translation: "I got shot down and didn't like it much."

[SturmKreator]

Acceleration, energy retention and final velocities are wrong

[Grach]

Acceleration, energy retention and final velocities are wrong

That doesn't really answer his question you know... :rolleyes:
There are quite a few of the Fw-190 family in game, are they all wrong? What about the Ta-152s?

"Translation: "I got shot down and didn't like it much." Nail on the head perhaps? ;)

Good news about the camo nets, I've bounced bullets off the damn things often enough trying to get at the prizes lurking within. :cool:

[IceFire]

Acceleration, energy retention and final velocities are wrong

I'm sure if you can provide all of the relevant details including the numbers and figures as well as the sources for the data they will get right on that.

[Treetop64]

I'm sure if you can provide all of the relevant details including the numbers and figures as well as the sources for the data they will get right on that.

I think you might be asking a bit much of the guy... http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/21.gif

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

We will include a new difficulty option: 'sensitive matters' (if activated, it includes new FMs, DMs and anything else, that can be based on feelings... polished with a random pattern - for bad days and good days). :D

[Romanator21]

:grin::grin:

[DD_crash]

Acceleration, energy retention and final velocities are wrong

When I was flying FW190s during the war they were never as in the game. Or was it they arn`t like I expect them to be?

[Ace1staller]

New question,

If you request more planes in combat from the home base, would the Stationary aircraft would be moving from its position.

[Avimimus]

We did originally have "No Paratrooper Views" in the diff UI, but it was removed since it doesn't really feel like difficulty option. More like personal preference. So it is now as additional conf.ini parameter which player can set and exclude parachutes from external views.


Excellent, good to hear.

Thanks for the reply,

[SturmKreator]

I'm sure if you can provide all of the relevant details including the numbers and figures as well as the sources for the data they will get right on that.

Look, Im not a english speaker, so its a little difficult to me explain many things, but I speak spanish, if someone could translated would be great, I have 3 books were you see all Fockes FM all wrong, but WRONG, Doras, TAs, Antons, etc...

[JtD]

Data is numbers, and numbers have no language. Feel free to post them.

Or as google would say:
Datos son números, y números no tienen idioma.

[SturmKreator]

Data is numbers, and numbers have no language. Feel free to post them.

Or as google would say:
Datos son números, y números no tienen idioma.

Or as google would say:

Los datos son números, y los números no tienen habla.

Thats the rigth form, In the last case the books was reviced by focke wulf pilots ;)

[ECV56_Guevara]

Or as google would say:

Los datos son números, y los números no tienen habla.

Thats the rigth form, In the last case the books was reviced by focke wulf pilots ;)

Sorry Sturm, the original google translation is ok. It talks about the universal understanding of maths. There s no need of translation where we talk about numbers.
Los numeros no tienen "idioma".
Y si, Sturm , es una de las pocas veces que el google la pega. Saludos!

[SturmKreator]

Sorry Sturm, the original google translation is ok. It talks about the universal understanding of maths. There s no need of translation where we talk about numbers.
Los numeros no tienen "idioma".
Y si, Sturm , es una de las pocas veces que el google la pega. Saludos!

Se guevara que estaba bien, pero para que se de a entender que aunque quiera expresar el conocimiento de los libros, testimonios, datos etc... necesito un nivel mucho mayor de ingles, la idea es apoyar los datos con testimonios, pero me dare el trabajo uno de estos dias de postearlo S!

[IceFire]

Look, Im not a english speaker, so its a little difficult to me explain many things, but I speak spanish, if someone could translated would be great, I have 3 books were you see all Fockes FM all wrong, but WRONG, Doras, TAs, Antons, etc...

Although the forums are in English there are a great many speakers of all different languages. Not myself but numbers are numbers and explanations can be translated.

For the Yak-9UT armament and ammo corrections I ran a couple of documents through Google translate from Russian to English. Different alphabet even. But the translator made it make enough sense to establish what they were saying and data is data...so it was "easy" enough after the documentation was tracked.

No matter what language... if you just pop over and say "Hey it's wrong" with nothing else. Magic isn't going to happen, on the other hand, something substantive would be really interesting.

[Grach]

Indeed, or you could perhaps name these books and provide ISBN so that others can look at the data for themselves.
Is that too hard to do?

[Ace1staller]

Dear IL-2 fans.

We would like to show a small development update of the 4.11 patch and some of its features.

New AI planes:
Henschel Hs 123
Rogožarski IK-3
Douglas TBD Devastator

New flyable planes:
Pe-8
IL-4

Other features:
Bomb fuzes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zY6X10zo4E

Notice that this is not the complete features list of 4.11. Just few things that can be shown now on video.

Daidalos Team would like to thank the following community members for their contributions.

IK-3: Zimbower & Turelio
IL-4: Vert
TBD: Jason from 777 Studios


Update 12 May 2011

Here is one of the new features in 4.11. Ability to use stationary planes as spawning points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNjbe2GqHB4


Update 3 June 2011

Today we would like to introduce two new features in 4.11. Sorry no video this time. Later we might do more these mini updates with text only.

Difficulty menu changes:

In 4.11 the difficulty options are divided and grouped logically into five separate sub-pages for easier navigation. "Weapons & Stores" page has two new options and "Views" page has five new difficulty options.

Bomb Fuzes option:
When Bomb Fuzes is enabled, the arming dialog shows the new fuze selection combo boxes that were shown in earlier update and fuzes are active in the sim. When the option is disabled, the arming dialog shows same components as in 4.09 and bombs behave same way as in 4.09.

Fragile Torpedoes option:
When this options is enabled, the torpedoes can be broken easily when dropped and all the constraints introduced in 4.10 apply.

No Players Own View option:
When this options is enabled, the player cannot view his own plane in external view. However this has one exception. When player is on ground, he still can access the external view for easier taxing. As soon as the player gets airborne, he is forced back to cockpit view.

No Enemy Views option:
When this option is enabled, player cannot view any enemy external views. This also includes any static cameras which have different army color than player's own army.

No Friendly Views option:
Basically same thing as above, but for friendly external views.

No Aircraft Views option:
When this option is enabled, all aircraft (excluding player’s own) views are disabled.

No Carrier Views:
Normally the external views have always included aircraft carriers too. In some cases these views might reveal too much information for the players. When this option is enabled, the carrier views are not available.

Static cameras in 4.11 have new “army” parameter, so for example it is possible to add “red” camera to red home base which blue players cannot access. Later this might be used to create “recon cameras” that are enabled by certain triggered event or presence of recon plane.


Smart Axis feature:

Many players with dual throttle setup have realized that flying planes with more engines than two can be little hassle. If engine power 1 & power 2 axis are mapped the throttles, that still leaves two unmapped throttle axis 3 & 4 if player is flying 4 engine plane. In this case players usually needs to go to controls menu and map one throttle axis to the old power which controls all engines.

The smart axis feature notices the situation when player’s aircraft has more engines than mapped axis (both throttle and prop pitch). For example with four engines and two mapped axis, both left engines are controlled by one mapped axis and both right engines are controlled by the other mapped axis. In case of three engines and two axis, the center engine gets the average value between left & right engines, so all three engines are throttled up/down roughly same way.

Thanks for the June 3rd update but, I take off blindly from the cockpit view, I'm praticing the cockpit only view on some missions.

[SturmKreator]

Indeed, or you could perhaps name these books and provide ISBN so that others can look at the data for themselves.
Is that too hard to do?

Dietmar Hermman series, the best in this kind

[nimitstexan]

It's a measure of the quality of TD's work that I'm looking more forward to their IL-2 patches than CoD.

Great that we finally have the TBD. Long overdue. All we need now is the Curtis SB2-C and Mitsubishi G3M, and we're all set in the Pacific as far as planes are concerned. Maybe the Japanese types that served in China might be included later (the Ki-36 "Ida" and Ki-51 "Sonia")?



Unfortunately, not ability to use them in DGen . . .

[Treetop64]

Unfortunately, not ability to use them in DGen . . .

Well, technically, you could use them in DGen if you know how to amend the .mis, .dat, etc files in the specific campaign DGen folders...;)

[nimitstexan]

Well, technically, you could use them in DGen if you know how to amend the .mis, .dat, etc files in the specific campaign DGen folders...;)

I know how to edit the .mis, .dat, etc. files, but there are issues with getting things to work which aren't hardcoded in DGen.

Last time I tried to mod/build campaigns for DGen, it was somewhat dodgy getting planes to be used properly if they were not already programmed into DGen, which doesn't happen anymore since Starshoy dissappeared.

[_RAAF_Mini]

A question about the static planes and FMB.

Can we get an option to see where the default spawn points are on a specific base within each map.

This will allow Mission Builders to see where default spawn points are so that when static spawn plane spawn points are exhausted the default ones are not blocked with static objects. Haulting play for some pilots.

Cheers
Mini

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Can we get an option to see where the default spawn points are on a specific base within each map.



Thats already done and will be in 4.11. ;)

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/GR_field.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/SEA_field.jpg

[ElAurens]

Excellent!!!!

[Ace1staller]

Is there any more planes that are Ai only and new flyable aircraft added to 4.11 that is not include in the update ?

[IceFire]

Thats already done and will be in 4.11. ;)

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/GR_field.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/SEA_field.jpg

Now THAT is amazingly useful! Thanks!

[ovrucm]

[B]Difficulty menu changes:

In 4.11 the difficulty options are divided and grouped logically into five separate sub-pages for easier navigation. "Weapons & Stores" page has two new options and "Views" page has five new difficulty options.

Bomb Fuzes option:
When Bomb Fuzes is enabled, the arming dialog shows the new fuze selection combo boxes that were shown in earlier update and fuzes are active in the sim. When the option is disabled, the arming dialog shows same components as in 4.09 and bombs behave same way as in 4.09.

Fragile Torpedoes option:
When this options is enabled, the torpedoes can be broken easily when dropped and all the constraints introduced in 4.10 apply.

No Players Own View option:
When this options is enabled, the player cannot view his own plane in external view. However this has one exception. When player is on ground, he still can access the external view for easier taxing. As soon as the player gets airborne, he is forced back to cockpit view.

No Enemy Views option:
When this option is enabled, player cannot view any enemy external views. This also includes any static cameras which have different army color than player's own army.

No Friendly Views option:
Basically same thing as above, but for friendly external views.

No Aircraft Views option:
When this option is enabled, all aircraft (excluding player’s own) views are disabled.

No Carrier Views:
Normally the external views have always included aircraft carriers too. In some cases these views might reveal too much information for the players. When this option is enabled, the carrier views are not available.

Static cameras in 4.11 have new “army” parameter, so for example it is possible to add “red” camera to red home base which blue players cannot access. Later this might be used to create “recon cameras” that are enabled by certain triggered event or presence of recon plane.

In the Flight Model options do you really mean "Flutter Effect” (aerodynamic structural interaction phenomenon) or "Buffeting Effect" (pure aerodynamic phenomenon)?

[Stealth_Eagle]

Thats already done and will be in 4.11. ;)

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/GR_field.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/Hot31Rod/Il2/SEA_field.jpg

Good job, you taught the AI how to taxi to runways. Thanks a bunch.

[_RAAF_Mini]

Thanks TD!

Mini

[daidalos.team]

Update at first page.

[Fighterace]

Great work TD, you never cease to amaze us with your hard work and effort. Keep up the great work and keep the updates coming :)

[PilotError]

Thanks for the update DT.
The dated skins feature looks really good.:grin:
I was wondering if this feature will also address the the occasional problem in an offline campaign when your own plane's skin is different from the rest of your squadron ?

Again, thanks for all your hard (and it should be remembered unpaid) work.

[csThor]

Thanks for the update DT.
The dated skins feature looks really good.:grin:
I was wondering if this feature will also address the the occasional problem in an offline campaign when your own plane's skin is different from the rest of your squadron ?

Again, thanks for all your hard (and it should be remembered unpaid) work.

I am not aware of such an issue. But then it sounds as if the campaign maker designated a certain 3rd Party skin to the aircraft in question, but due to the way Il-2 handles player skins it is not enforced on the player's aircraft. As such the player needs to choose a skin if the campaign maker wants him to use it. It does not work automatically.

[Sita]

Verrrrrry Nice!!!

on the last pictures, Gladiator with three-blade propeller, he will be flyable?)

[Ace1staller]

Nice, I would look forward to the patch even more.

[MrBaato]

Nice work! Good looking Finnish skins with the MS.406 included, (sorry for asking but..) any chance it will be flyable? :rolleyes:

[Romanator21]

Excellent update! Wow, this is far and beyond anything I imagined was possible in this game, great idea!

EDIT - looking at the Brewster, I see it has grey undersides. According to my research, they were initially left in the factory applied silver-dope. At least some Brewsters even had the original serial codes on the wing bottoms. Later on, when some were serviced, they were repainted on the bottom with grey, covering up the serials as well. Not a huge issue, and I don't think it's possible to get codes on the wings, but it would be nice to see silver-bottomed Brewsters :)

[anikollag]

Thanks for update!
Camo & marking are a real good addition!

[Majo]

lots of small details make a great improvement!!!

Thank you again.

[Phil_K]

With the new default skins, will it be possible to have proper RAF SEAC markings for the Burma map?

[_1SMV_Gitano]

With the new default skins, will it be possible to have proper RAF SEAC markings for the Burma map?

A new camouflage option will be associated to the Burma map but at the moment no dedicated skins are planned.

[Ace1staller]

yeah, and with the IK-3, now I can make the invasion of Yugoslavia.

[IceFire]

With the new default skins, will it be possible to have proper RAF SEAC markings for the Burma map?

Good one! I was thinking about that... and the Royal Navy markings on Seafires, Corsairs and Hellcats in the Pacific versus in Europe.

I guess we all have too many interests :) Obviously it'll take time to follow through on even a few of these.

[Tempest123]

Hoo-ee guys, looks great. Love the new default skins, that TBD will be a nice addition. The new view options are something I've wanted to see for while, instead of having to cycle through all the aircraft, It will be nice to play a mission with external views without 'compromising' the objective of the mission.

[Fafnir_6]

Hello,

Great updates, DT! I have one small question concerning the new default skin management scheme. Will it be possible to have the option to set the date for quick missions and multi-play dogfight servers so that a specific default skins can be selected by the user/server admin?

Thanks,

Fafnir_6

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

That has to be set in mission file, when a mission is build/generated, then yes, its working in all situations.

[JaboMan]

Will it be possible to have stationary planes assigned into regiments?
It would be really cool with the regiment-specific skins.

[Aviar]

Will the Static Plane Spawn be available for Dogfight servers? UP 3.0 RC already has this (it's called Stand Alone Home Base) and it's one of my favorite features. Very simply, you can designate spawn point locations on Home Bases. Not only is it very easy to accomplish in the FMB, it gives you a lot of cool options that were not available before.

Personally, I like to place spawn points in more conveniant locations, such as near the end of runways. This cuts down on taxi time and encourages players to actually USE the runway. Sometimes I like to place hangars and have players spawn inside of them. They get a kick out of that as well as a little extra protection from vulchers.

Aviar

[Fafnir_6]

That has to be set in mission file, when a mission is build/generated, then yes, its working in all situations.

...But not selectable in the QMB? The advantage for period dogfight servers is obvious. Thanks for the response.

Fafnir_6

[IceFire]

Hello,

Great updates, DT! I have one small question concerning the new default skin management scheme. Will it be possible to have the option to set the date for quick missions and multi-play dogfight servers so that a specific default skins can be selected by the user/server admin?

Thanks,

Fafnir_6

In some cases you should already be setting the dates in your missions as the German and Russian markings are, in some cases, determined by what date the map is set at. Actually sometimes so are armaments such as the MG151/20 field modification for Bf109F-2s for example which is only available if the date is 1942 if I'm not mistaken.

That feature is being extended to default skins... and maybe other markings at some point too. Very cool stuff but you can already prepare for it :)

[Fafnir_6]

In some cases you should already be setting the dates in your missions as the German and Russian markings are, in some cases, determined by what date the map is set at. Actually sometimes so are armaments such as the MG151/20 field modification for Bf109F-2s for example which is only available if the date is 1942 if I'm not mistaken.

That feature is being extended to default skins... and maybe other markings at some point too. Very cool stuff but you can already prepare for it :)

Understood :). What you speak of certainly pertains to the maps used on a dogfight server. The second part of my question to DT asked if there could be a date-setting function built into the QMB.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Spinnetti]

Very nice.... I appreciate all your efforts on my all time favorite game!

[IceFire]

Understood :). What you speak of certainly pertains to the maps used on a dogfight server. The second part of my question to DT asked if there could be a date-setting function built into the QMB.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6
Good question and I totally missed it! :)

I believe it goes along with whatever was set for the date in the QMB templates right now. Perhaps that could be made changable... Good question!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

That would mean a mission file for each year/season (or maybe a selection) per each map in QMB.

[Romanator21]

We can certainly add maps to the QMB ourselves, so I don't see that it's critical for DT to do it for us. Keep 'em busy on the good stuff. ;)

[Fafnir_6]

Hello,

Is it not possible to make a drop-down selection in the QMB where a date could be selected? Obviously making numerous copies of the QMB maps is not a good place to spend so much of DT's limited time & resources.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Is it not possible to make a drop-down selection in the QMB where a date could be selected? Obviously making numerous copies of the QMB maps is not a good place to spend so much of DT's limited time & resources.



Maybe. But more important, it must be assured that the dropdown is working with ALL user made Quick Missions. It surely was possible, but I'm not sure if the solution was more handy than relying on users ability to make copies of their missions themself and name it with a years suffix.

[Stealth_Eagle]

Watched the video to the half way point and noticed 2 new things. Waypoint options and the rocket fuse time has been increased to a max of 60 seconds or greater. I'll edit this post with other new features I notice and if these have already been stated, sorry for restating them.

[ataribaby]

If we are on skins, can be this done? Now player aircraft ingnores skin setup from mission file. Player needs to go to aircraft setup screen to select corect one to override default skin. Can be this skin override reversed?
so skin specified in mission for player craft overrides default and user need select different one if he wish just for that one session? How it is now it not makes sense and always irritates me.

[Avimimus]

Maybe. But more important, it must be assured that the dropdown is working with ALL user made Quick Missions. It surely was possible, but I'm not sure if the solution was more handy than relying on users ability to make copies of their missions themself and name it with a years suffix.

It would be neat if we could select a script that would conduct a replacement on all objects (ie. change the template).

However, creating new templates may be the way to go (if you guys don't release an AAA option and it remains suicide to fly an I-15 on most maps).

[Pursuivant]

If we are on skins, can be this done? Now player aircraft ingnores skin setup from mission file. Player needs to go to aircraft setup screen to select corect one to override default skin. Can be this skin override reversed?

Isn't this the same as choosing a custom skin? Or, did you mean that you wanted the option of choosing the same custom skin for all aircraft in a flight or in a QMB mission?

[SPITACE]

how long is daidalos going to do these updates for IL2 1946? when will they stop?? [i hope they do not] :???:

[Kittle]

Bring on the TBD!!!!

[ElAurens]

I wish there was a cockpit for the TBD so it could be flyable.

It served in more actions than just the debacle they had at Midway, and that was not the fault of the aircraft itself, and had a fairly good record otherwise. It is good to remember that when introduced it was, by far, the most advanced torpedo bomber on the planet. It just shared the fate of so many interwar designs, to wit, technology was advancing so rapidly that it was very quickly outdated for it's intended role.

As a flyable it would fill a gigantic gap in the USN plane set.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Same as the Kate, huh? ;-)

[IceFire]

If we are on skins, can be this done? Now player aircraft ingnores skin setup from mission file. Player needs to go to aircraft setup screen to select corect one to override default skin. Can be this skin override reversed?
so skin specified in mission for player craft overrides default and user need select different one if he wish just for that one session? How it is now it not makes sense and always irritates me.

What are you saying? It doesn't really make too much sense to me.

If you want the default skin then you select Default. If you want the custom skin then you select from any number of customize skins so long as they are on your computer.

In single player the player has control over their skin but the mission builder has control over all other skins. This is to be expected and a reasonable way to deal with the situation. In multiplayer each player has the ability to change theirs to whatever they want... or stick with the default.

TD's adaptation for default skins is to provide a time or theater specific default which is huge because:

1) Static aircraft are not skinnable and therefore rely on the default markings.
1) Some multiplayer servers don't allow skin downloads meaning that the default skin is valuable for overall immersion.

[csThor]

He means that currently a skin selected by the mission creator is being overwritten by the player's choice. If he wants the player to use a specific texture the player has to choose it in the loadout screen. What he asks for is that the mission creators choice is being used and the player has to consciously change skin selection if he does not wish to use the skin chosen by the mission creator.

[IceFire]

He means that currently a skin selected by the mission creator is being overwritten by the player's choice. If he wants the player to use a specific texture the player has to choose it in the loadout screen. What he asks for is that the mission creators choice is being used and the player has to consciously change skin selection if he does not wish to use the skin chosen by the mission creator.
Hrmm well that's an interesting feature then. It sounded like he was asking for someone that already existed. I suppose if loadouts can be locked then skin choices could be too... but then you have to deal with a situation where that skin isn't available. I suppose it could default back to the default.

[ElAurens]

Same as the Kate, huh? ;-)

Yes sir.

[MOG_Hammer]

I LOOOOOOOVE the new bomb fusing options. Perfect. IL2 will also be on my HD for some time to come.

IL2 should stay on your HD forever m8t xD

[Ace1staller]

I think Team Daidalos is adding the fixes to the bugs from the 4.10.1 patch

[FrankB]

In a couple of days it will have been a whole month since the last update.

Considering this release cycle was supposed to be shorter - any progress report? Like still developing/ hunting down the very last remaining bug / already uploading the patch to the mirrors... ?

[SPITACE]

two weeks be sure!:lol:

[Bat*21]

I fear I may explode if I wait any longer for the Pe-8!

[Mysticpuma]

Actually TD I was hoping as you are a little more 'independent' of the Cliffs of Dover group that we could hear a little snippet of how things are going?

I have to say that IL2:1946 and updates will for the long-term be on my HD and I have so much more to explore with all the campaigns and missions that have been created I think it'll survive forever!

Is there any chance you could give us a rough idea of what to expect in the next patch and again a rough idea of when it may appear?

I hope your resources aren't too concentrated on CLoD at the moment and you have time to work on this?

Cheers, MP

[Bat*21]

...Is there any chance you could give us a rough idea of what to expect in the next patch...
Cheers, MP

You did read the first page, right?

[Mysticpuma]

You did read the first page, right?

Yes, bu they are constantly working on new additions but not all of these are expected for 4.11 they are looking at making them for 4.12, so a list of "this is what we expect you to see in 4.11" would be really great?

Yes?

Cheers

[Bat*21]

a list of "this is what we expect you to see in 4.11" would be really great?

Yes?

It was my understanding that the purpose of this thread is to provide exactly what you have described, unless "4.11 Development Update" does not mean "developments for patch 4.11" as I initially suspected...

[Mysticpuma]

Hmmm, but currently we get a video which is nice, but it would really be great to see a visible text list on the First page saying what is expected for 4.11, I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just making a request for a text list of what is expected in the next release, there isn't any reason to be so agitated?

MP

[Bat*21]

Hmmm, but currently we get a video which is nice, but it would really be great to see a visible text list on the First page saying what is expected for 4.11, I'm not being confrontational here, I'm just making a request for a text list of what is expected in the next release, there isn't any reason to be so agitated?

MP

My apologies if I'm coming across as agitated/confrontational, I just don't see how a text list would be any different to what is already on page one.

From what I've gathered so far, we'll have:

New AI planes:
Henschel Hs 123
Rogožarski IK-3
Douglas TBD Devastator

New flyable planes:
Pe-8
IL-4

Other features:
Bomb fuzes
Ability to use stationary planes as spawning points.
Changes to the Difficulty menu.
"Smart Axis" feature for using dual+ throttled flight sticks with multi-engined planes
Control Surfaces/Pilot's Head position visible over network (online play)
Mouse-wheel zooming in FMB
Country and Date specific default skins for aircraft.

[Vierzinger]

Feature Request
(I don't know where else to post)

Level stabalizer for SBD-3 and SBD-5 Dauntless.

My realworld manual states that it had an autopilot

Source: Pilot's Handbook Model SBD-3 1942

PM me and I will mail it to you.

[bf-110]

All quiet on all the fronts...Long time I don't come here,but still,no updates since then?

[Bat*21]

All quiet on all the fronts...Long time I don't come here,but still,no updates since then?

They're building suspense ;)

[Eggtooth]

Is it possible to make Me-323, He-111H Zwilling flyable aircrafts?

I am really waiting for this aircrafts to come as official ones. I like them so much.

Please if you can- do them playable ;) :grin:

[IceFire]

Is it possible to make Me-323, He-111H Zwilling flyable aircrafts?

I am really waiting for this aircrafts to come as official ones. I like them so much.

Please if you can- do them playable ;) :grin:

I guess the question would be... what would you do with them?

The Me-323 is a transport aircraft. The Zwilling He-111 was designed to tow the Me-321. I'm a huge fan of all aviation but realistically if time and resources are limited (and they are) then efforts to recreate something useful in a combat simulator, at least in my mind, should take priority.

Not just specific to your request either. Lots of people seem to want the C-47 to fly for example.

It's why I argue for types that play a bigger role. The Me410 for example would be fantastic to add. It was a bomber, bomber destroyer, night fighter, fighter-bomber... and with minimal modifications between versions it means that limited resources go a long way to plugging a gap in the plane set.

Less versatile but no less important would be types like the Ki-44 fighter interceptor, Ki-45 heavy fighter and fighter-bomber, Typhoon Mark IB used extensively during the Normandy campaign, Beaufighter Mark X or other models, etc. Lots of bang for the buck so to speak. Not that we can't have more rare stuff... but I question how interesting and worthwhile it would be to fly a transport. It has that wow cool moment... and then what? Flying cargo missions sounds interesting for only a very short period of time and only for a minority of people.

I'm making any sense? :)

[Eggtooth]

I guess the question would be... what would you do with them?

The Me-323 is a transport aircraft. The Zwilling He-111 was designed to tow the Me-321. I'm a huge fan of all aviation but realistically if time and resources are limited (and they are) then efforts to recreate something useful in a combat simulator, at least in my mind, should take priority.

Not just specific to your request either. Lots of people seem to want the C-47 to fly for example.

It's why I argue for types that play a bigger role. The Me410 for example would be fantastic to add. It was a bomber, bomber destroyer, night fighter, fighter-bomber... and with minimal modifications between versions it means that limited resources go a long way to plugging a gap in the plane set.

Less versatile but no less important would be types like the Ki-44 fighter interceptor, Ki-45 heavy fighter and fighter-bomber, Typhoon Mark IB used extensively during the Normandy campaign, Beaufighter Mark X or other models, etc. Lots of bang for the buck so to speak. Not that we can't have more rare stuff... but I question how interesting and worthwhile it would be to fly a transport. It has that wow cool moment... and then what? Flying cargo missions sounds interesting for only a very short period of time and only for a minority of people.

I'm making any sense? :)

So tell me point of view of existance as flyable:
Go-229
Do-335
YP-80
TB-3 4M-34R

???

You know, just to have fun in free mode, by flying some nice planes. That's why I wanted to see them...

[IceFire]

So tell me point of view of existance as flyable:
Go-229
Do-335
YP-80
TB-3 4M-34R

???

You know, just to have fun in free mode, by flying some nice planes. That's why I wanted to see them...
All of those are combat aircraft even if one of them didn't exist in finished form, one flew recon patrols, one flew combat patrols in Italy, and as for the TB-3... it was in use until sometime in 1942. In other words no non-combat aircraft. Fighter, destroyer, fighter and bomber.

Of the four there I'd have only really wanted to see the TB-3 and would gladly trade those others. They were made... so the work is already done. But if it's up to volunteer modelers and not people necessarily getting paid for their efforts... I'd rather see types that we can use.

It's absolutely fun to fly in free mode. I do that a fair bit actually... it's very soothing sometimes to just skim along the landscape and enjoy some of the scenery. You can do that in all of the combat aircraft too! :)

[Eggtooth]

All of those are combat aircraft even if one of them didn't exist in finished form, one flew recon patrols, one flew combat patrols in Italy, and as for the TB-3... it was in use until sometime in 1942. In other words no non-combat aircraft. Fighter, destroyer, fighter and bomber.

Of the four there I'd have only really wanted to see the TB-3 and would gladly trade those others. They were made... so the work is already done. But if it's up to volunteer modelers and not people necessarily getting paid for their efforts... I'd rather see types that we can use.

It's absolutely fun to fly in free mode. I do that a fair bit actually... it's very soothing sometimes to just skim along the landscape and enjoy some of the scenery. You can do that in all of the combat aircraft too! :)

I am just waiting for Pe-8 because i love bombers.
In future I always wanted to see Fw 200 C-3/U4, C-47, Cant Z.1007bis, Me-323, HE-111H Zwilling as flyable planes.

Just to have some fun flying them in Free mode. :grin: Even if there is no point of existence, just to give players more flyable planes, and the biggest ones, because some of them like Bombers and huuuge planes (like me :D)

[IceFire]

I am just waiting for Pe-8 because i love bombers.
In future I always wanted to see Fw 200 C-3/U4, C-47, Cant Z.1007bis, Me-323, HE-111H Zwilling as flyable planes.

Just to have some fun flying them in Free mode. :grin: Even if there is no point of existence, just to give players more flyable planes, and the biggest ones, because some of them like Bombers and huuuge planes (like me :D)

The Pe-8 will definitely be a magnificent addition to the line up. Big four engined bombers can be quite a bit of fun :)

[Eggtooth]

The Pe-8 will definitely be a magnificent addition to the line up. Big four engined bombers can be quite a bit of fun :)

Imagine the other ones as flyable :D

[Bat*21]

Imagine the other ones as flyable :D
There's a B-24 project in the works, I'm looking forward to that :)

[Oktoberfest]

Anyone has news about 4.11 ? It's been a very long time since 4.10 was released...

[Qpassa]

Could be possible to fix the HUD's position in 16:10 screen resolution in the 4.11?
Thanks

[lothar29]

Could be possible to fix the HUD's position in 16:10 screen resolution in the 4.11?
Thanks

Ignore to Qpassa, make me case to me.


I want to set the HUD display 16:9, and then 16:10 jajajajaja...Qpassa jejejeje...We are partner

[catch22]

Hi TD,

any chance to see ship added to QMB targets in 4.11?

[FrankB]

Hmm, looking at il2.org.ru forum (http://il2.org.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2514&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50) there is an interesting post by 1./JG601_Rommel. While the rest of the post repeats already known facts or wishes, the first point is what caught my eye:

А знаете ли Вы, что...

-27 числа прошлого месяца, патч 4.11 бетой ушел в руки бета тестеров!


In other words, some lucky bastards are already testing 4.11...

[Ace1staller]

Hmm, looking at il2.org.ru forum (http://il2.org.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2514&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=50) there is an interesting post by 1./JG601_Rommel. While the rest of the post repeats already known facts or wishes, the first point is what caught my eye:



In other words, some lucky bastards are already testing 4.11...

Then TD is realeasing it in September or October

[Ace1staller]

My apologies if I'm coming across as agitated/confrontational, I just don't see how a text list would be any different to what is already on page one.

From what I've gathered so far, we'll have:

New AI planes:
Henschel Hs 123
Rogožarski IK-3
Douglas TBD Devastator

New flyable planes:
Pe-8
IL-4

Other features:
Bomb fuzes
Ability to use stationary planes as spawning points.
Changes to the Difficulty menu.
"Smart Axis" feature for using dual+ throttled flight sticks with multi-engined planes
Control Surfaces/Pilot's Head position visible over network (online play)
Mouse-wheel zooming in FMB
Country and Date specific default skins for aircraft.

Also the Hawk 75 is a new flyable because TD has made a cockpit of the Hawk 75 already so that is also what you missed

[Ace1staller]

Hi TD,

any chance to see ship added to QMB targets in 4.11?

Hey, ths is an update thread but your post actually is in the wrong spot it is spose to be in 4.11 Requests and Questions thread.

[ElAurens]

Pretty sure the folks at TD said the Hawk 75 will not be ready for 4.11.

[Ace1staller]

Pretty sure the folks at TD said the Hawk 75 will not be ready for 4.11.

O my bad

[Jumpy]

Good idea; Perhaps future updates might see a few more kinds of ships as well (I hope), which I have stated before. Meanwhile, of course there is the Pacific Islands map option in QMB which has some ships included in in it. Of course, the game really becomes fun once you start to play with the FMB, which enables you to place the existing ships where you want them.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hi there! No time for updates currently. Just wanted to say, that we are still alive and all is well proceeding. It will gonna be a fine patch. Some of the latest rumors about Beta testing could probably be true. Hehe!

Good night!

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Thanks for the news Caspar...

Waiting with baited breath.

[Bearcat]

That is good news... I am looking forward to this patch.

[Feathered_IV]

Very much looking forward to it here too. Love yer work. ;-)

[anikollag]

Thanks for the news! Looking forward for the maybe true rumor ;)

[Tempest123]

Great news, looking forward to running around in that Pe-8. I never thought I'd get 10 years from Il2, lol.

[Kittle]

Probably the best $/play hour ratio I have ever had from a game. Can't wait for the new patch, keep up the excellent work!!!

[aquila26]

Why no KI 21 fliable?

[SaQSoN]

Why no KI 21 fliable?

Because, you didn't build cockpits for it yet.

[martinistripes]

Because, you didn't build cockpits for it yet.

Good response.

[Bearcat]

Probably the best $/play hour ratio I have ever had from a game. Can't wait for the new patch, keep up the excellent work!!!

No bout a doubt it.. ;) Bang for bucks wise.. this sim beats Disney World, Universal Studios and 6 Flags by miles..

[TedStryker]

Probably the best $/play hour ratio I have ever had from a game. Can't wait for the new patch, keep up the excellent work!!!

Roger that! I think theres still alot of life left in the old girl yet, as this and future patches (inc the new 3rd party SB and B-24D) proves. I see IL2 '46 as the huge encyclopedia to CloD's detailed study; i think theres plenty of room for them to both happily co-exist for many years to come.

Really excited to hear 4.11 is (allegedly) in beta....even more so as theres been hints over at ubi and SimHQ about AI improvements and Italian armour - fantastic news!

Also saw the sukhoi pictures of an old Ki-10 model, SaQSon....would be over the moon if that ever made it into a future patch! I-15bis vs Ki-10 - tastey!

Thanks for all the hard work team, and good luck with the testing.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Well since there is no update thread for 4.12 yet, I'll leave this here.

The finnish (ex french) version is almost done now and will go into 4.12 definitly:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3385/render20h.th.jpg (http://img189.imageshack.us/i/render20h.jpg/)

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/2958/render21.th.jpg (http://img851.imageshack.us/i/render21.jpg/)

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6719/render16.th.jpg (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/render16.jpg/)

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2340/render22.th.jpg (http://img62.imageshack.us/i/render22.jpg/)


The trained eye can tell the difference to P-40s now.
Any hints/help/opinion/references welcome.


So far we would like to include also P-36C (maybe also P-36A.. that depends on available references) as well as french Hawk 75A-1 and A-2.
If time is friendly with us, an overhaul of the P-40 cockpits could follow on base of the H75 cockpit. Still future sound... ;-)


C.

[Romanator21]

Simply awesome! I can't wait to fly it!

[ElAurens]

This Curtiss fan boy thanks you from the bottom of his heart.

I realize how hard it is to make/import new aircraft into the sim, but I must humbly ask about the following versions of the Hawk 75 because of their tremendous historic significance...

Hawk 75 H or M. The fixed gear version used by China. The demonstrator H model was purchased personally by Madame Chiang Kai-shek and presented to Claire Chennault for use as his personal aircraft.


http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1156/hawk753hd7.jpg

And the second would be the Hawk 75A-7 as used by the Dutch in the defense of the Netherlands East Indies.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/7818/hawka7.jpg

Both are little seen versions that fought as the under dog and hence deserve some consideration.

And thanks for making my day.

[Tempest123]

Nice! that'll be a sweet ride. Kudos to TD for their research.

[Sita]

Nice!!!)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Thanks for your response ElAurens!

While I am not sure about the word 'tremendous' being right for the 'fixed fear' version, taking only the 30 from China and the 12 from Thailand, which saw real combat, that alone wouldn't stop us from implementing it as flyable (Finnland had only around 44 total). But I have very few references about its cockpit.

A-7 and also A-8 have the same problem. Most references available are from earlier versions. However, since beside the Dutch, also Norway (-and later Finnland) recieved these versions, its likely, that we will consider them.

The versions, that I named in my previous posting, are just the most easy to implement. You know... time is eating us.

[ElAurens]

Thanks for your response ElAurens!

While I am not sure about the word 'tremendous' being right for the 'fixed fear' version, taking only the 30 from China and the 12 from Thailand, which saw real combat, that alone wouldn't stop us from implementing it as flyable (Finnland had only around 44 total). But I have very few references about its cockpit.

A-7 and also A-8 have the same problem. Most references available are from earlier versions. However, since beside the Dutch, also Norway (-and later Finnland) recieved these versions, its likely, that we will consider them.

The versions, that I named in my previous posting, are just the most easy to implement. You know... time is eating us.

I understand why so many things are not going to happen. Sometimes my love of the real thing takes over. Hehe. I don't have any refernces to the H/M cockpits either. I'll see if any are around somewhere.

[Fighterace]

I cant wait for the 4.11 patch...The anticipation is killing me lol :P

[Treetop64]

Well since there is no update thread for 4.12 yet, I'll leave this here.

The finnish (ex french) version is almost done now and will go into 4.12 definitly:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3385/render20h.th.jpg (http://img189.imageshack.us/i/render20h.jpg/)

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/2958/render21.th.jpg (http://img851.imageshack.us/i/render21.jpg/)

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6719/render16.th.jpg (http://img94.imageshack.us/i/render16.jpg/)

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2340/render22.th.jpg (http://img62.imageshack.us/i/render22.jpg/)


The trained eye can tell the difference to P-40s now.
Any hints/help/opinion/references welcome.


So far we would like to include also P-36C (maybe also P-36A.. that depends on available references) as well as french Hawk 75A-1 and A-2.
If time is friendly with us, an overhaul of the P-40 cockpits could follow on base of the H75 cockpit. Still future sound... ;-)


C.


Those look nice. :D

I'm wondering; will the French version have the "backwards" throttle...?

[Fighterace]

This patch gets better and better :)

[Lagarto]

And how about overhaul of the Bf 109 cockpits? Any chances? :)

[Fighterace]

And how about overhaul of the Bf 109 cockpits? Any chances? :)

Or update the Me 109 or FW 190 3d models ?!?

[aquila26]

I believed that DT were formed by volunteers
indeed i was mistaken

[aquila26]

I guess the question would be... what would you do with them?

The Me-323 is a transport aircraft. The Zwilling He-111 was designed to tow the Me-321. I'm a huge fan of all aviation but realistically if time and resources are limited (and they are) then efforts to recreate something useful in a combat simulator, at least in my mind, should take priority.

Not just specific to your request either. Lots of people seem to want the C-47 to fly for example.

It's why I argue for types that play a bigger role. The Me410 for example would be fantastic to add. It was a bomber, bomber destroyer, night fighter, fighter-bomber... and with minimal modifications between versions it means that limited resources go a long way to plugging a gap in the plane set.

Less versatile but no less important would be types like the Ki-44 fighter interceptor, Ki-45 heavy fighter and fighter-bomber, Typhoon Mark IB used extensively during the Normandy campaign, Beaufighter Mark X or other models, etc. Lots of bang for the buck so to speak. Not that we can't have more rare stuff... but I question how interesting and worthwhile it would be to fly a transport. It has that wow cool moment... and then what? Flying cargo missions sounds interesting for only a very short period of time and only for a minority of people.

I'm making any sense? :)
It is possibile to use C47 and Ju52 as a parachutes transport for example not only for transpot supplies or other the logidtic is very importantant in the whole strathegy, Ike said that the last one wewrw the most importante see the battle o Atlantic

[Fighterace]

Does Team Daidalos have a website or something where you can find out where they came from, what restrictions they have to work with and what they are working on atm?

[Pursuivant]

Does Team Daidalos have a website or something where you can find out where they came from, what restrictions they have to work with and what they are working on atm?

No, but they should. The DT discussions forum is as close they've gotten so far to having an official web presence.

For restrictions on aircraft polygons, naming conventions, etc. The IL2 Modeling Bible is a decent start:

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=357.0

or

https://rs270tl2.rapidshare.com/#!download|270l34|171790142|3d_modeling_biblia.7z| 3306|R~A0A2C3AE0086629EB83C2C498CC3CAE9|0|0

For restrictions on what can be modeled, close reading of past DT discussion forum threads will get you up to speed. Basically:

No Battle of Britain era equipment or maps (so, basically 1939-40 British and German planes are off-limits, with the exception of planes already in the game, or exported to other countries, like the Blenheim and the Hurricane Mk I. This means no realistic maps of Great Britain, and probably no Do-17, Bf-109E-1, Spitfire Mk I or Defiant).

No Mediterranean Theater planes or maps (so, no realistic maps of Italy, Greece, North Africa, Iraq or the Holy Land and no planes which just served in the MTO. The has been some slippage on this point, though, since so far Oleg hasn't objected to the inclusion of a number of Italian planes which mostly served in the MTO.)

No Korean War planes or maps (so, no realistic maps of the Korean peninsula. No MiG-15, F-86, F9F Panther, AD-1 Skyraider or P-82 Twin Mustang).

No equipment made by Northrop-Grumman or companies merged into NG (e.g., Ryan Aerospace, Newport News Shipbuilding). No improvements to NG equipment already in the game. This means there will never be an official flyable TBF/TBM Avenger, nor will planes like the P-61 Black Widow or the Ryan FR1 Fireball, or ships like the USS Arizona, ever get into the game.

No changes or updates to DGEN. This isn't a restriction, just a fact of life, since "Starshoy" the programmer who developed the DGEN code, has literally vanished and he's the only one who knows how to decompile it so it can be rewritten.

[Romanator21]

I wonder what happened to that Ar-196. As far as I recall, it was supposed to have a cockpit. Was the project dropped?

with the exception of planes already in the game, or exported to other countries, like the Blenheim and the Hurricane Mk I

Does that mean I can still hope for a Blenheim Mk.I pit? :P

[Alan Grey]

No changes or updates to DGEN. This isn't a restriction, just a fact of life, since "Starshoy" the programmer who developed the DGEN code, has literally vanished and he's the only one who knows how to decompile it so it can be rewritten.

Good day
The DGen the works:
http://forum.aviaskins.com/showthread.php?t=2337

[Lagarto]

Good day
The DGen the works:
http://forum.aviaskins.com/showthread.php?t=2337

Now, that's BIG news! Thank you for letting us know. I keep my fingers crossed.

[Romanator21]

Wow! Great news!

[Fighterace]

For restrictions on what can be modeled, close reading of past DT discussionforum threads will get you up to speed. Basically:

No Battle of Britain era equipment or maps (so, basically 1939-40 British and German planes are off-limits, with the exception of planes already in the game, or exported to other countries, like the Blenheim and the Hurricane Mk I. This means no realistic maps of Great Britain, and probably no Do-17, Bf-109E-1, Spitfire Mk I or Defiant).

No Mediterranean Theater planes or maps (so, no realistic maps of Italy, Greece, North Africa, Iraq or the Holy Land and no planes which just served in the MTO. The has been some slippage on this point, though, since so far Oleg hasn't objected to the inclusion of a number of Italian planes which mostly served in the MTO.)

No Korean War planes or maps (so, no realistic maps of the Korean peninsula. No MiG-15, F-86, F9F Panther, AD-1 Skyraider or P-82 Twin Mustang).

No equipment made by Northrop-Grumman or companies merged into NG (e.g., Ryan Aerospace, Newport News Shipbuilding). No improvements to NG equipment already in the game. This means there will never be an official
flyable TBF/TBM Avenger, nor will planes like the P-61 Black Widow or the Ryan FR1 Fireball, or ships like the USS Arizona, ever get into the game.

No changes or updates to DGEN. This isn't a restriction, just a fact of life, since "Starshoy" the programmer who developed the DGEN code, has literally
vanished and he's the only one who knows how to decompile it so it can be rewritten.[/QUOTE]

If Ng has placed certain restrictions for certain planes ie TBF Avenger, P-61 and F7F Tigercat. Then why do they allow the F6F Hellcats and Wildcats? They are Grumman aircraft aren't they ????

[Juri_JS]

Good day
The DGen the works:
http://forum.aviaskins.com/showthread.php?t=2337

Thank you for the link Alan Grey, that's a very interesting information. Maybe you can convince Asura to present his project here at the forum, this would allow a discussion that's not limited to the Russian community.

[csThor]

If Ng has placed certain restrictions for certain planes ie TBF Avenger, P-61 and F7F Tigercat. Then why do they allow the F6F Hellcats and Wildcats? They are Grumman aircraft aren't they ????

Because they were already paid for - any further changes, such as a new sub-version, making an existing plane flyable or adding ships built on yards now under the NG umbrella, would result in new payments by 1C and it should be obvious that 1C/MG doesn't want that.

[Fighterace]

Because they were already paid for - any further changes, such as a new sub-version, making an existing plane flyable or adding ships built on yards now under the NG umbrella, would result in new payments by 1C and it should be obvious that 1C/MG doesn't want that.

Well that's certainly a kick in the guts...The Aviation industry sucks :(

[ElAurens]

The Aviation industry sucks :(

NO, lawyers do.

[Romanator21]

Without the aviation industry, you wouldn't even have this game! :grin:

[Fighterace]

It's just so frustrating that we cannot have all those NG aircraft that are sorely missed in this game. Maybe one day we might be given the green light to do so.

[ElAurens]

All it will take is hundreds of thousands of US dollars.

If IL2 or Cliffs of Dover had budgets like Mass Effect we could have all the fun stuff.

[Asheshouse]

No equipment made by Northrop-Grumman or companies merged into NG (e.g., Ryan Aerospace, Newport News Shipbuilding).........USS Arizona, will ever get into the game.USS Arizona was built at Brooklyn Navy Yard, not Newport News Shipbuilding. Design of the ship class was by the General Board of the USN. USS Pennsylvania, the other ship of the class was built at Newport News Shipbuilding to the General Boards design.

Ashe

[ElAurens]

The Brooklyn Navy Yard is now owned by NG, hence any ship built there, ever, falls under NG's draconian ownership rights plan.

[Asheshouse]

The Brooklyn Navy Yard is now owned by NG, hence any ship built there, ever, falls under NG's draconian ownership rights plan.

I don't think that's true. The yard closed for ship building in 1966. Ownership was transferred to New York City in 1967, and it now operates as a business park under the control of a local development corporation.

At no time was it owned and operated by NG.

In any case Brooklyn Navy Yard had no rights over the design of warships like USS Arizona and therefore would not have had any rights to transfer to a third party.

In any case USS Arizona is too old for any patent or trademark claims to still have any vestige of validity.

Ashe

[Fighterace]

Anyways.....What else is being added to 4.11 patch?

[Lagarto]

Anyways.....What else is being added to 4.11 patch?

Any changes to the AI (hopefully)?

[MOH_Hirth]

In next patch, please dont let any antimod incompatible like was did in 410, all friendly ok? Thanks!

[Fighterace]

I found this TD 4.11 thread over at All Aircraft Simulations

http://allaircraftsimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=32864

[robday]

I found this TD 4.11 thread over at All Aircraft Simulations

http://allaircraftsimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=32864

If only a half of what is shown in this thread makes it into the game I'm gonna be one happy guy!

[Psy06]

it's just arhive pictures during at least 8 years of 1C/TD development. It's leaked from image hoster accounts.

[bf-110]

I found this TD 4.11 thread over at All Aircraft Simulations

http://allaircraftsimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=132&t=32864

Wow!

That Avia should have a place at the game.And italian and brit tanks.
And what armored car is that one under the carrier?

[pupo162]

is this dead?

[ElAurens]

Lots of very old development shots there.

The US carrier and the float equipped Wildcat will never see the light of day owing to the NG settlement. End of story there.

Personally I'm more interested in the IJN ships, though the Yamato was a weak choice in terms of use as it was a bit player in the war. Also the Ki10, the Sonia and Lily would be great to have.

[Fighterace]

Lots of very old development shots there.

The US carrier and the float equipped Wildcat will never see the light of day owing to the NG settlement. End of story there.

Personally I'm more interested in the IJN ships, though the Yamato was a weak choice in terms of use as it was a bit player in the war. Also the Ki10, the Sonia and Lily would be great to have.

Damn you Northrop Grumman...Arrgghh!!! :evil:

[Lagarto]

Personally I'm more interested in the IJN ships, though the Yamato was a weak choice in terms of use as it was a bit player in the war. Also the Ki10, the Sonia and Lily would be great to have.

A generic IJN cruiser for Guadalcanal scenarios, please. And the H6K Mavis flying boat - what a juicy target! :grin:

[ElAurens]

Fully agree.

The Japanese were the foremost users of cruisers in the Pacific. Or perhaps I should say the best tactical deployers of them, especially early in the war.

A Takao class heavy cruiser and a Kongo class battleship would make the IJN's "fleet" in IL2 a lot more realistic.

[Asheshouse]

A Takao class heavy cruiser and a Kongo class battleship would make the IJN's "fleet" in IL2 a lot more realistic.

The dream team --- a perfect choice.

Ashe

[stugumby]

Just curious if a read me is ready for release highlighting the 4-11 goodies??

[Romanator21]

A read-me would probably indicate that the patch would be out in a few days after that. :grin:

It's my birthday next week...maybe it'll be out by then :grin::grin:

[Alien]

Happy birthday then m8!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Thats too early... for the birthday wishes as well as for the ReadMe. :D

[SPITACE]

are there any goodies in 4.11 that we dont now about yet?? [ not on the list] :grin:

[ECV56_Guevara]

Hey Caspar, can you tell us something about the airborne radar? Is still in development? Maybe for the 4.11? or triggers? Thanks in advance.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Airborne radar will not be with 4.11. Its a complex issue and I'm not even sure, if it will be with 4.12. Same for triggers (but I expect it to be in). However, the content for the 4.12 patch isn't set yet internally, the only things, that I know about now for sure, are a few flyables.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

are there any goodies in 4.11 that we dont now about yet?? [ not on the list] :grin:

Yes... for sure! The best things saved for last! :cool:

[Lagarto]

Are there any changes to AI behavior?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Yes.

[harryRIEDL]

Yes.
praise the lord :) hopefully getting rid of of a load of dodgy AI behavior and making it a harder fight

[Moritz]

Unfortunately, Ubi did not have a historian in their legal team. NG does not have a right to prevent a WWII from being modeled. ALL US Navy vessels designed prior to 1966 were designed by the US Navy Bureau of Ships, a government institution. All the shipyard did was contract to build per US government designs. The naming of such vessels was by the Navy.

NG has absolutely '0' in the way of intellectual property in the vessel. Someone should have called the bluff.

[ElAurens]

Even calling their bluff would have cost many thousands of dollars in legal fees, which a small development studio like Maddox Games simply cannot afford, and a publisher like UBI or 1C will not tolerate on a small sales title like a flight sim.

[Moritz]

Point of the matter is that NG has no rights to a bureau of ships design and they should have been reminded of that. The fact that the NG lawyer played that card was either ignorance or over reaching.

[Moritz]

Admittedly, I am still grumbling as I would like to have had the Yorktown and more importantly the Essex carriers in the game.

FWIW, here is a link to a site with some images of the original Bureau of Ships drawings: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4759&start=120

[wiaf941aelj]

Daidalos Team would like to thank the following community members for their contributions
http://www.makemoneymakemoney.net/huang4.jpg
http://www.makemoneymakemoney.net/huang2.jpg
http://www.makemoneymakemoney.net/huang3.jpg

[Lagarto]

praise the lord :) hopefully getting rid of of a load of dodgy AI behavior and making it a harder fight

AI has been object of ridicule since I remember, and the original developer team never addressed the issue satisfactorily. The AI still 'enjoys' many supernatural attributes - never overheats, never blackouts, has no structural limits I know of (meaning it can pull +/- 10G), no 'blind spots', hardly ever bleeds energy in violent maneuvers, can see through clouds and so on.
I guess it was just a cheap way of making the AI more 'challenging' but an unfair challenge is just frustrating and kills much of the fun. I sincerely hope Daidalos Team will address at least some of these faults.

[ElAurens]

Admittedly, I am still grumbling as I would like to have had the Yorktown and more importantly the Essex carriers in the game.

FWIW, here is a link to a site with some images of the original Bureau of Ships drawings: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4759&start=120


The Essex class are in the sim.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

...hehe! :D

[Asheshouse]

Point of the matter is that NG has no rights to a bureau of ships design and they should have been reminded of that. The fact that the NG lawyer played that card was either ignorance or over reaching.

I emailed NG's department that deals with copyright issues a few months ago to ask them whether they claimed any copyright over images or models of USS Yorktown CV5. Funnily enough I got no reply.

If anyone else wants to enquire:

Intellectual Asset Management
Northrop Grumman Corporation
1840 Century Park East, 0181/CC
Los Angeles, CA 90067
E-mail: ip.licensing@ngc.com

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

You have to be at least a few million dollars large company to recieve answers... :D

[Jumpy]

Probably on the wrong page, and I know it has bee mentioned before.
Will a future patch increase the destructive power of the .,50 cal armament.
When you consider old gun camera footage of American Strafing causing transport ships to explode etc, they seem a little weak against aircraft in IL2- '46. I just spent about 40 minutes (single player) putting dents in a FW190
with the .50 cal potato guns on a P-38. Even point-blank didn't make much difference. The Focke-Wulf collected enough ammo to make a stew with!
In the end ramming was the only option. I am quite exhausted.

[ElAurens]

That's an old bug with the FW 190's DM. From dead six you can shoot your whole ammo belt or even the 37mm cannon from a P39 into the fuselage with little to no effect.

Aim for the wing root or cockpit.

[Fighterace]

What else do you guys have planned for 4.12?

[iMattheush]

When the 4.11 patch will be done?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Easter 2011.

Thats what our schedule said... :D

[hraban#35]

Easter 2011.
Thats what our schedule said... :D

Well, easter is that with the eggs and rabbits, not with the balls, candles and stars on the tree :-P

[Jumpy]

That's an old bug with the FW 190's DM. From dead six you can shoot your whole ammo belt or even the 37mm cannon from a P39 into the fuselage with little to no effect.

Aim for the wing root or cockpit.

Thanks for the advice. :) I am off the clip some wings!;)

[KG26_Alpha]

That's an old bug with the FW 190's DM. From dead six you can shoot your whole ammo belt or even the 37mm cannon from a P39 into the fuselage with little to no effect.

Aim for the wing root or cockpit.

The only bug I know of is................
Having been on the receiving end of gunfire in a FW190 many times, a few MG hits in the wing will drasticaly reduce performance, getting cut in half or exploding from cannon fire is a regular ocurrance too especialy from P39 37mm

Perhaps some tracks of pilolts experience of bugs woulld be better for DT and in the correct bug report thread also :)

[daidalos.team]

New devl. update in the first posting (scroll down!). :cool:

[Sita]

Beautiful!)

[Tempest123]

Amazing, thanks for the update. Aside from the shooting improvements, the breaking from formation behavior is great. You guys just made my day with the new mosquito.

[Artist]

Great! Thank you!

[Juri_JS]

Thank you DT, a change of the AI was long overdue.

Will there also be a change to the ground attack behaviour? In 4.10 rocket attacks on ships are almost impossible because the AI pulls up to late and will often crash into the ships masts.

[Pershing]

Great job! Keep it up, guys

[Kittle]

Did someone say Ki-45!!!! I am going to have to sit down someplace quiet and dark after all this excitement!!! Not to mention the AI improvements, no more 2G turn evasions of Ace AI pilots eh???

[ElAurens]

Having the ki 45 flyable will be a big boost to the Japanese plane set.

Be sure.

[Treetop64]

Thanks for the update.

"General overhaul of AI-behaviour"

This can only be a good thing. Impossible to stress just how exceedingly long overdue AI behavioral tweaks are.

Nice to see the AI peel off separately when going after their target. Wasn't expecting that, and it was a nice touch.

Hope we get some tweaks to the AI evasive behavior soon, as that aspect really needs some work, particularly in regards to addressing the oft-mentioned and maligned "perpetual, negative-G opposite rudder reverse chandelle maneuver thingy" that the higher skilled AI likes to use.

I like the "Dragon Killer". Another gaping hole of the pacific plane set gets filled by yet another important participant.:mrgreen:

[Fafnir_6]

Great update, guys! I was wondering if we would see the Z.506 (it being so similar to the Z.1007, after all). GUI/AI changes and the addition of of flyable twins (esp. Ki-45) are huge bonuses, as well.

Cheers and thanks for all the hard work,

Fafnir_6

[Lagarto]

Thank you guys, I was about to ask for the Z.506, and voila!, here it is

[Aracno]

Great update, guys! I was wondering if we would see the Z.506 (it being so similar to the Z.1007, after all).

Looks similar, but need to be done from scratch, no way to convert the 1007, different dimensions, shape ......

[Fafnir_6]

DT, please tell me a cockpit for the Hs123 is under development. That would such a fun plane to bound around in.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

[Sven]

The Japanese get some love too! Nice!

I loved flying for the IJA/IJN in IL2 :)

[Luno13]

Awesome update! It gets better and better ;)

[anikollag]

Thanks for update! Great stuff :) Looking forward :) :)

[Alan Grey]

Thanks for update!

[felix_the_fat]

thanks for the update guys.
all items of true beauty - especially the "Airone" !
what an elegant fowl !!

[Juri_JS]

Did anyone notice the difference between the aircraft icons in the 4.10 and the 4.11 video scenes?

[Pursuivant]

Welcome news, both the planes and the AI update.

I just hope that work on the "AI not seeing through clouds/dark" mod is on track and that AI gunners will be more affected by velocity (wind buffeting) and g-forces than they currently are.

A nice tweak to AI, which might be really easy to implement, would be to give rookie AI planes greater distance between planes in formation, and more "ragged" formations. By contrast, ace and veteran AI would have slightly tighter formations.

[Romanator21]

"Tightness" of formations might have more to do with the time period. Early on for instance, the allies preferred tight formations, but the effort in maintaining this led to decreased situational awareness. Later, planes in an element would be 500 meters apart or more.

[Daniël]

The Japanese get some love too! Nice!

I loved flying for the IJA/IJN in IL2 :)

Japanese planes are good, until you get an enemy behind you... They should have put some more armor on those planes.
And I hate the tube sight on the Ki-43. That just doesn't work well in a dogfight :confused:

And thanks for the update Team Daidalos! :grin:

[FrankB]

Dear DT,

I definitely welcome the AI changes scheduled for 4.11, but let me ask a small question:
are you going to adjust also other parameters of AI opponents?

We know that AI in 4.10 flies using the best trim, never overheats, etc. The gunners are snipers. Now based on the last video we are enhancing these killer machines even more.

It would be fair to make them unaware you are approaching them from the dead angle of their low six, maybe limit the maximum speed to, say, 95%...

On behalf of lousy beginner pilots,
Frank

[addman]

Great stuff TD! Now let's get that patch out before the new year has arrived. ;)

P.S Flyable TBD would be a nice surprise.....:)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I definitely welcome the AI changes scheduled for 4.11, but let me ask a small question:
are you going to adjust also other parameters of AI opponents?




Yes, AI has got a whole larger rework than only shooting issues. Pls let keep us something for later. ;)

[FrankB]

Yes, AI has got a whole larger rework than only shooting issues. Pls let keep us something for later. ;)

Absolutely fair answer, this is exactly what I wanted to know!

Thank you Caspar!

[Grach]

This is incredible stuff! Well done TD, well done! :!:

The TseTse Mosquito looks great! Is the 57mm loadout going to be purely AP-T for anti-sub use or will it include HE-T as well? Also will there be rockets? :grin:

The AI reworking looks amazing too, I'm really looking forward to this "little" patch! :cool:

Finally, would it be improper to plead for another FB.IV Mossie, this one with 1944 boost levels and the option of rockets? I don't mind being surprised. ;)

[T}{OR]

Yes, AI has got a whole larger rework than only shooting issues. Pls let keep us something for later. ;)

Please tell me you fixed that awful team killing issue when flying in bomber formaiton??

[Bearcat]

I don't know if this has been discussed ... but could the trigger feature be used to tie the number of AI planes that actually spawn to the number of live pilots on either side.. or both? Also with a feature that will let planes spawn in according to how many of the same side are left.. That way you could build a mission with a full compliment of planes.. but have them spawn in according to whether you were alone or had help.. if there is only one pilot in the mission then x number of enemy planes will spawn at once..

[Feathered_IV]

Wonderful AI revisions
If I could add one more suggestion to those above, it would be for AI squad mates to recognise/acknowledge Ships from further out, so that they respond to orders and begin an attack when outside of flak range. Not finally break formation, only when they are already on top of the ships and being cut to pieces.

[aquila26]

Spero che cia sia qualche notizia sui swordfish or kate or alri aerei siluranti?

[aquila26]

Sempre grazie per la vostra dedizione urrahh per TD

[Jumpy]

This is incredible stuff! Well done TD, well done! :!:

The TseTse Mosquito looks great! Is the 57mm loadout going to be purely AP-T for anti-sub use or will it include HE-T as well? Also will there be rockets? :grin:
Finally, would it be improper to plead for another FB.IV Mossie, this one with 1944 boost levels and the option of rockets? I don't mind being surprised. ;)

Hey, Venerable DT, I hope the 4,000 lb 'Cookie' is included. (I read on the 'net that they found an unexploded one in Germany a few weeks ago).
And don't forget the Hawker Hurricane variants! Many thanks, humble, humble.:grin: Oh, yeah, and one day, perhaps V4.20, a flyable Focke-Wulf 189 Uhu. An unusual but overlooked aircraft, in my opinion.:-P

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Hey, Venerable DT, I hope the 4,000 lb 'Cookie' is included. (I read on the 'net that they found an unexploded one in Germany a few weeks ago).

The 4000 lb. 'Cookie' was carried by specially modified bomber variants of the Mosquito. These are not planned at the moment.

[Lagarto]

Team, have you ever considered dealing with engine/gun sounds? Apparently there are people who like the stock stuff, so maybe the best solution would be to 'de-hardcode' these sounds and put them in folders, like the current speech packs, so that everybody has a choice? I'm sure people would quickly come up with downloadable replacement sounds, to everyone's joy :)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

This can be misused by players (cheating)... it, however, can influence the gameplay.

Its the same with default skins.

[Jumpy]

The 4000 lb. 'Cookie' was carried by specially modified bomber variants of the Mosquito. These are not planned at the moment.

Woo-hoo! DT actually read my junk! Thanks for keeping this sim alive! I also have COD and Wings of Prey in order to support Maddox Co. But I hope
IL-2 '46 never fades away. :grin:

[Aracno]

Please tell me you fixed that awful team killing issue when flying in bomber formaiton??

Thanks for highlight this problem, you found a bug we thought fixed.
There is more than this for the bombers but, you know, if I tell you what, then I have to kill you ..... ;)

[Fergal69]

Hey, Venerable DT, I hope the 4,000 lb 'Cookie' is included. (I read on the 'net that they found an unexploded one in Germany a few weeks ago).
And don't forget the Hawker Hurricane variants! Many thanks, humble, humble.:grin: Oh, yeah, and one day, perhaps V4.20, a flyable Focke-Wulf 189 Uhu. An unusual but overlooked aircraft, in my opinion.:-P

The FW 189 is flyable in UP3 - although the tail gunner isn't a manned postition, just have pilot & top gunner

[SPITACE]

will the Mosquito FB Mk. XVIII 'Tse Tse' (flyable)be in the 4.11 update?

[JimmyBlonde]

Apparently there are people who like the stock stuff,


You must be joking right?

[IceFire]

will the Mosquito FB Mk. XVIII 'Tse Tse' (flyable)be in the 4.11 update?
The update says: Mosquito FB Mk. XVIII 'Tse Tse' (flyable)

[IceFire]

Team, have you ever considered dealing with engine/gun sounds? Apparently there are people who like the stock stuff, so maybe the best solution would be to 'de-hardcode' these sounds and put them in folders, like the current speech packs, so that everybody has a choice? I'm sure people would quickly come up with downloadable replacement sounds, to everyone's joy :)

It's not that the stock sounds are the "best ever"... it's that they are acoustically done in a proper way. They may sound aweful but they are done right. Whereas many sound mods sound great but they don't sound right from all angles or when a plane is flying in a specific situation.

Recently I've heard some better ones...but I haven't really checked them all out yet.

The other problem is that some sound samples are copyrighted (the recording, not the sound) and while it's ok for a mod team to take and modify... it's much harder for TD to authorize that officially. Not to mention that being allowed to modify sounds in the stock game could lead to cheating in competitive (or even non competitive) circles. The lengths that people will go to cheat is often incredible.

[Lagarto]

Being a dedicated offline campaigner, with practically no online flying experience, I don't quite understand how one can cheat by using a different sound engine. Anyway, it's tragic that such people through their behavior impose limitations on the game development.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Being a dedicated offline campaigner, with practically no online flying experience, I don't quite understand how one can cheat by using a different sound engine. Anyway, it's tragic that such people through their behavior impose limitations on the game development.

I'd first just disable own engine sound, so I cannot be surprised anymore.
I agree, that this wouldn't be as intense as a pink default skin for enemy planes and I don't say, that anyone would be doing it at all... but we do care, not to leave such ways open.

[Lagarto]

Thank you Caspar very much for the explanation. It still beats me how anyone can enjoy flying with no sound and shooting at pink planes :)
Let me modify my original question then - is there any chance that the Team improve the hardcoded engine/gun sounds, or is it outside your scope?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Its mainly, what IceFire said. We have technical and - even more - legal restrictions. If we could handle these problems, I'd be very happy, but currently its out of our possibility.
What we need is a WW2-airwar-enthousiast, who is at the same time sound expert (means who can provide and work with legal samples - preferably recorded by himself).

EDIT: I recently bought a Medusa NX headset to work with my simple 5.1 onboard sound device, instead of my old stereo desktop speaker.
I was astonished, how nice the in game sounds are with this now! They are not only more intense on treble and bass, but I can also hear more different sounds.

I know, it is still not sounding like a true airplane, but you can do a lot already with such a low budged setup.

[Lagarto]

Maybe David Gilmour of Pink Floyd? He used to own a P-51 Mustang :)

[Fenrir]

Bear in mind that it's not only the problem of copyright that makes this difficult; getting good quality sound recordings themselves. I'm a reasonably experienced amateur sound engineer, though only with music, but even that can be tough. Here's my particular thoughts on the problems I'd think about before I ran out the door with a mic in hand:

1) Is there a prototype flying? Ok for P-40s, Mustangs, Spitfires and Hurricanes and even Bf109s but what about original flying Klimovs? Or Napier Sabre? Or nearly any of the Japanese a/c for that matter?

2) Getting to said aircraft - whilst I have a nice selection here in the UK I'd need a sizeable travel budget to get out to some of the rarer birds.

3) Most do not operate at anywhere near wartime rated boost/pressure settings - you might extrapolate and synthesise but difficult to get right the true full power symphony from these motors.

4) Recording. In cockpit provides challenges - damping the vibration from the airframe being one - but we still run into problem 3). Also how do you get good external? From ground for fly-bys might be ok but for true non-dopplar recording? Ever tried shoving a mic into a 200mph+ gale? Lol! Guess what you're gonna hear and in won't be much engine noise!

Not trying to be defeatist, but just illuminate some of the issues TD has regards getting good, authentic and legal sound for an overhaul.

[Treetop64]

It's not that the stock sounds are the "best ever"... it's that they are acoustically done in a proper way. They may sound aweful but they are done right. Whereas many sound mods sound great but they don't sound right from all angles or when a plane is flying in a specific situation.

Recently I've heard some better ones...but I haven't really checked them all out yet.

The other problem is that some sound samples are copyrighted (the recording, not the sound) and while it's ok for a mod team to take and modify... it's much harder for TD to authorize that officially. Not to mention that being allowed to modify sounds in the stock game could lead to cheating in competitive (or even non competitive) circles. The lengths that people will go to cheat is often incredible.

^^ This ^^

Most of the mod sounds are good if you're watching YouTube videos, but just doesn't sound right in the game.

Moreover, the default sounds are decent with an aftermarket sound card and adjustments. As it is I prefer the default sounds to modded sounds for now, but that may change in the future if some real quality stuff is made, either by mod or by TD.

[Luno13]

I agree with the above. Listening through good quality headphones also helps a lot.

[Fafnir_6]

Hello,

The sound scheme in IL-2 has been discussed before. The community is clearly divided between the two camps of "modded sounds or bust" or "there is no subsitiute for stock sounds". My lengthy participation in these discussions has led me to believe that these two camps cannot be reconciled. I know the stock sounds are still one of the biggest reasons many people turn to the mods. The solution for the problem is to make the sound scheme selectable by the user. I understand the concerns about cheating and I think the way forward is for DT to come up with a sound scheme format that the makers of the various sound mods could conform to. These sound makers could then submit their new sounds in said format to DT for inclusion in the next patch. Then, in the sound setup menu, you could have a drop-down menu where the user could select the sound scheme that best suits their preference (stock, Jafa, Tiger33, etc). This way, sound schemes can be selected by the user (satisfying everyone's beef with the stock sounds one way or another) and game integrity is not compromised because the various sound schemes are locked up in the closed architecture of the game.

Just a thought,

Fafnir_6

[Pursuivant]

"Tightness" of formations might have more to do with the time period. Early on for instance, the allies preferred tight formations, but the effort in maintaining this led to decreased situational awareness. Later, planes in an element would be 500 meters apart or more.

True.

I was thinking more along the lines of bomber formations, where experienced pilots could keep formation better, which led to better defensive fire coordination. Also, really raw pilots, like Japanese kamikazes, allegedly had trouble keeping any sort of formation.

Of course, if DT wants to develop the AI to simulate formations and tactical doctrine for each air force for each year of the war, I won't complain!

[Pursuivant]

It seems to me that a possible source of good sounds would be old movies, like training films. Since they're mostly made by companies which no longer exist, or were made by governments, they should be out of copyright.

While some of the sound on those films was dubbed or otherwise modified, there's probably enough real sounds to make a decent sound pack, although they'd need a LOT of clean-up!

[rollnloop]

The main problem with IL2 sound has always been the SONAR, wich allows players to evade an incoming attack from an unseen ennemy just by the sound of its approching plane.

Another one is the uniformity of sounds, when IL2 "the original" had some variety, since "forgotten battle" it's uniformity, only modified by rpm range.

Soundmods all correct n°2, one only (Tiger's) corrected n°1 but is now discontinued thanks to 4.10 heavy java classes modifications.

Should DT at least correct the SONAR problem, a giant bound for IL2manity would be accomplished.

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Any news from the coal face?:?:

[daidalos.team]

Hi Gents!
New update in first posting (scroll down!). ;)

Click me! (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=249644)

[ElAurens]

The GUI selections are a great idea.

Always good to have more armor as well.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The GUI selections are from an older update. Maybe we can better integrate it into the posting.

[Treetop64]

I've always liked the choice of music you guys make for these video updates. As always, updates on AI improvements are most welcome, and the new desert armor is a nice surprise.

Thanks again for posting.

NOW RELEASE THE DAMNED PATCH ALREADY!!! :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:

[Lagarto]

Lovely update, thank you. Any AI improvement is very welcome. Now, if you could only make the darn AI 'blackout' just like a human being, and give them some structural limits, so that they don't pull so many Gs!

[PilotError]

Thanks for the update D.T. :grin:

Nice to see the AI gunners get a bit of common sense now.

Does this AI tweak have any effect on "sniper" gunners ?

The video says "white lines are old ricochet effects". Are you teasing us with a hint that we are going to get new ricochet effects ? :wink:

Once again a big thankyou to Daidalos Team and contributing third parties for all your hard work.