4.11 Development Update

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Thanks TD,

Great news, awaiting with baited breath :)

[wheelsup_cavu]

Looking forward to all the new goodies. :cool:


Wheels

[batistadk]

Ok, all about this update is awesome, for a long time now.

But now, with Italian armored vehicles, what can I say??? Thanks Team Daidalos and 3rd parties everywhere. IL2 is achieving a status never seen before, about details and historical accuracy. Thank you very much for all the effort involved in this amazing patch. Looking forward to it!!!

Cheers!!!

batistadk

[anikollag]

Thanks for update!
Looking nice to have gunners with a brain! :) Like Piloterror, wish to have less snipers!
Looking forward for 4.11!

[SPITACE]

thanks for the update! love the tanks.:-P also how about putting the missing rear bottom/side gunner/ro in the PE2? can it be done maybe in 4.12?

[T}{OR]

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

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

Thank you so much for this! This will revolutionize formation bombing in IL2. Those TK gunners made for over 50% of all out losses with flak, enemy fighters and collisions combined.

[C6_Krasno]

Hi !

Thanks a lot for the updates, as always much appreciated for the "deep" work you're doing. Just a question about A.I. gunners : it is an issue which is quite similar to the issue existing with ground units, where for ex. flak can destroy friendly vehicles all around in order to try and get some low-flying ennemy plane. I think it would be an interesting fix in the future (assuming that it is not already in the plans 8) ).

Again, nice work !

[Tolwyn]

No, he had invulnerability on, which invokes the "old" effect.

[d67epipadjlg]

This looks like its going to be an amazing update. Many thanks, gents!


S!
__________________
My whole life, all I've wanted to do is fly. Bomb stuff. Shoot people down. - - Topper Harley
http://www.quandulps.info/5.jpg
http://www.bingertoday.info/huang4.jpg
http://www.bingertoday.info/huang3.jpg

[Pershing]

Thanks DT!
But how about AAA gunners? Very often ААА gunners (especially on airfields) shoot like hell and destroy everything around them (like static planes, other AA-guns and so on). Will new feature work for them as well as for AI-gunners of aircraft crews?

[Tempest123]

Thanks for the update, the gunner awareness is welcome. Have you guys found or addressed the issue of the AI only pursuing the lead aircraft in a flight?
I have noticed this many times, where an AI flight will circle endlessly with another enemy fight (AI) behind, often the opposing planes (the AI wingmen) are flying wingtip to wingtip but unaware of any other enemy plane except the leader.

[Fighterace]

Any new updates for 4.11 coming along?

[Vulcanel]

Thanks TD for your constant support ;)

Regarding this new IA fire friendly behaviour, did you checked it already including the 3rd dimension? I mean, your test is showing us this feature at land level, but it is going to happen the same at 21.000 feet, with a devil Fw190 just in the middle of a B17´s mega-box formation, and gunners not shooting it?? Just wondering... :-P

Regards.

[IceFire]

Thanks TD for your constant support ;)

Regarding this new IA fire friendly behaviour, did you checked it already including the 3rd dimension? I mean, your test is showing us this feature at land level, but it is going to happen the same at 21.000 feet, with a devil Fw190 just in the middle of a B17´s mega-box formation, and gunners not shooting it?? Just wondering... :-P

Regards.

The way the calculations are done... it doesn't matter. Doing it at ground level is just as complicated as in flight with different altitudes.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

In a perfect formation box and a Fw190 positioned perfectly in it, theoretically noone would shoot, indeed.
But be sure, that will never happen.
1st: AI is not able to do a perfect formation - its oscillating all the time
2nd: you woulnd't recognise, where the perfect position for you was
and 3rd: you woulnd't be able to reach it, because you would already been shot then. :D

[Zorin]

In a perfect formation box and a Fw190 positioned perfectly in it, theoretically noone would shoot, indeed.
But be sure, that will never happen.
1st: AI is not able to do a perfect formation - its oscillating all the time
2nd: you woulnd't recognise, where the perfect position for you was
and 3rd: you woulnd't be able to reach it, because you would already been shot then. :D

On a related note, what does happen if we run a recording that shows planes being shot by AI crew members who now would hold fire?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

That may have happend occationally, and will happen so in game. The gunners are not perfect and there is also dispersion for bullets. In case you can race with your fighter all through a box of bombers, its possible, that a very few bullets of gunners will hit nearby friendly planes. But its not as much as before anymore.

[Zorin]

That may have happend occationally, and will happen so in game. The gunners are not perfect and there is also dispersion for bullets. In case you can race with your fighter all through a box of bombers, its possible, that a very few bullets of gunners will hit nearby friendly planes. But its not as much as before anymore.

What I meant was, I have a recording of a mission that shows a bomber formation that is being attack by fighters. Some fighters are hit and explode. What will happen if I replay the same recording in 4.11. Obviously, the bombers would not have scored all the hits neccessary to destroy the attacking fighters in question. So will they keep flying even though the recording does not have further information about their movement as they were destroyed originally?

[T}{OR]

Friendly fire did happen and it was deadly when it did. Though no where near as we have it in 4.10.1. I can not wait for 4.11. :)

Just one more question: do G forces affect gunners now? I used to get hit by a gunner from a torn up bomber spinning and spiraling down to the mother Earth, and I don't even want to mention tail gunners...

What I meant was, I have a recording of a mission that shows a bomber formation that is being attack by fighters. Some fighters are hit and explode. What will happen if I replay the same recording in 4.11. Obviously, the bombers would not have scored all the hits neccessary to destroy the attacking fighters in question. So will they keep flying even though the recording does not have further information about their movement as they were destroyed originally?

Someone correct me please, but... IIRC this was a problem with old track recording system. The current one is just that - a recording. And the old one (.ntrk or .trk, I can't remember) replayed the mission as if you were playing on autopilot.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I see. Yes, there are many problems with the old 'track' format. We try to erase all things from the recording/saving algorythm, that may suffer from changings. Randomisation is a big bugger here. On the other side, we know, 'track' format is a dead horse in fact, there is no help, it will never again work properly. 1C maddox probably came to the same conclusion and thus made a different recording format, that works on all circumstances, namely 'ntrack'.

As T}{OR said, 'track' format is no real recording, its just replaying with the same initial settings. The advantage is, it is small, but since the game has evolved, the 'butterfly effect' have become a much bigger problem.

[Luno13]

Additionally, in the earliest Il-2 versions, the Training tracks would allow the player to take-over.

That was broken and never fixed once FMs and DMs started changing.

Sometimes you just have to let go of a good idea to allow for further progress in other fronts.

However, it would be nice if we could set automatic .ntrk recording. Often I don't save a track unless something interesting happened, and with the current .ntrk system you have to plan ahead when to record. (Of course you can record everything, but sifting through non-descriptive "0001.ntrk" and "0002.ntrk" etc. after a few online sorties isn't fun)

[kennel]

Additionally, in the earliest Il-2 versions, the Training tracks would allow the player to take-over.

That was broken and never fixed once FMs and DMs started changing.

Sometimes you just have to let go of a good idea to allow for further progress in other fronts.

However, it would be nice if we could set automatic .ntrk recording. Often I don't save a track unless something interesting happened, and with the current .ntrk system you have to plan ahead when to record. (Of course you can record everything, but sifting through non-descriptive "0001.ntrk" and "0002.ntrk" etc. after a few online sorties isn't fun)

You can allready assign a key so you can start recording when ever you want, is this what you are refering to is are you thinking of somthing else?
When I want to record I have assigned it to my enter key

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

He means, saving like an old track file - after a mission with custom naming. I don't know, if it is possible.

[MrBaato]

Any update on the G55? :rolleyes:

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

No sorry, postponed to 4.12.

[jermin]

When will get the update?

[Fighterace]

When will get the update?

+1

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

when its done :)

[III/JG52_Torpe]

At least can you advance if this week we will have the 4.11 Readme.txt as a Santa gift ^_^ ? :grin:

[rpgielow]

There is a small bug on Dornier 217k2. When you have 2 fritzx or missiles, you cannot launch them alone. They always drop together and you are only able to control one bomb or one missile. The number two is lost.

Maybe a "salvo" option can solve this or an option where you can take just one missile or bomb to reduce payload.

Keep the good work :)

[Aviar]

There is a small bug on Dornier 217k2. When you have 2 fritzx or missiles, you cannot launch them alone. They always drop together and you are only able to control one bomb or one missile. The number two is lost.

Maybe a "salvo" option can solve this or an option where you can take just one missile or bomb to reduce payload.

Keep the good work :)



Two points. First, you CAN load only one Fritz-X or one Hs-293 + a droptank.

So, you already have what you requested.

Secondly, Daidalos Team only issues patches for STOCK IL-2. You are requesting

something for a MODDED plane. (Since the Do-217 is not flyable in stock IL-2,

you are obviously using a modded game.)

Basically, you posted in the wrong forum. You may want to post your request on the site where you got your mod.

Aviar

[Kittle]

Hmm, it being Christmas and all my interest has been up in the status of the 4.11 patch/add-on. IL2 is on the back burner with all the sales going on, but after this patch, it'll be IL2 fever all over again.

[Fighterace]

Any chance of any video update?

[Aviar]

Any chance of any video update?

This was just released --->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luyogqwVTds&feature=player_embedded

Aviar

[Treetop64]

Al the updates over the months, then the ReadMe today, and now this new vid. I am positively sick with anticipation!

Can we have the patch now? Pleeeze?

[Hawker17]

Me too, looks very impressive!

[310_cibule]

Al the updates over the months, then the ReadMe today, and now this new vid. I am positively sick with anticipation!

Can we have the patch now? Pleeeze?

Take some nausea killers and stay cool, man ;)

This is what the Daidalos team stated in the thread where 4.11 Guide (pre-release version) was published two days ago.

We are planning to release the patch within this holiday season.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28663

[GF_Mastiff]

"We are planning to release the patch within this holiday season."

So some time before Jan 15th 2012. at least well have a whole year almost; with it, before the end of the world.

[TozziFan]

It will be. Pleeeeeeease :confused:

[Bonkers]

It is looking very good,

[RegRag1977]

"We are planning to release the patch within this holiday season."

So some time before Jan 15th 2012. at least well have a whole year almost; with it, before the end of the world.

Counting days from now that makes? 2 weeks!!! i guess it has nothing to do with the 2-weeks-be-sure thing haha :))

[Xilon_x]

Carro Armato L6/40 on Autocarro Fiat 626
http://i38.tinypic.com/157yjnt.jpg

http://www.modellismopiu.net/m+gallerie/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=184385

http://www.modellismopiu.net/m+gallerie/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=184395

FIAT 626
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/5664/peroni.jpg

[BadAim]

LOL! You know your tank doesn't have enough armor when.......it can be carried on a two axle truck!

[hangarrat101]

I'm not exactly sure whether this is the right place for this post, but from elsewhere I understand that because of the Northrop-Grumman debacle, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress is off-limits. If the model still exists somewhere, could it not be cunningly disguised as a Tupolev Tu-4?

[Aviar]

I'm not exactly sure whether this is the right place for this post, but from elsewhere I understand that because of the Northrop-Grumman debacle, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress is off-limits. If the model still exists somewhere, could it not be cunningly disguised as a Tupolev Tu-4?

The B-29 and Tu-4 are already in stock 4.10.1.

Aviar

[hangarrat101]

The B-29 and Tu-4 are already in stock 4.10.1.

Aviar

as player flyable aircraft???

[Luno13]

The gauges would be in Russian :) That, and it was quite a bit heavier than its B-29 counterpart, with a corresponding lack of performance and bomb-carrying ability. ;)

[Treetop64]

as player flyable aircraft???

A. That the B-29 isn't a flyable aircraft has nothing to do with Northrop/Grumman.

B. The B-29 was designed and built by Boeing.

[Aviar]

as player flyable aircraft???

The "Northrop-Grumman debacle" does not differentiate between flyable or AI-only models. Both are equally affected by the copyright issue.

Aviar

[hangarrat101]

But would the Tu-4 be likewise affected, being as it was a carbon copy of the B-29?

[Aviar]

But would the Tu-4 be likewise affected, being as it was a carbon copy of the B-29?

I don't think you understand. Both of those planes are modeled in IL-2. There is no copyright issue with either one.

Aviar

[EAF331 Starfire]

I have read the released ReadMe pdf but....
does anyone know if the Mosquito FB. VI have had its selfsealing tanks fixed?
Currently a fuelleak will emty its tanks within minutes!


According to all records I have read, aircrafts in British services without selfsealing fueltanks was not considered fit for combat which was a major reason for delegating a/c produced for the French in the US, to training duty.

[IvanK]

Just doing some 4.11 Testing FBVI. Took some Frag damage that resulted in Fuel leaks to inboard wing tanks. Self sealed after about 5 mins.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Both of those planes are modeled in IL-2.

Tu-4 is not. Your last sentence is true though. ;)

[EAF331 Starfire]

Just doing some 4.11 Testing FBVI. Took some Frag damage that resulted in Fuel leaks to inboard wing tanks. Self sealed after about 5 mins.

Thanks for the answer and the fix.

:grin:

[Aviar]

Tu-4 is not. Your last sentence is true though. ;)

You're right....it's in UltraPack. So many planes now in IL-2 that it's getting hard to remember.

Aviar

[robday]

I understand that because of the Northrop-Grumman debacle, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress is off-limits.?

When did NG take over Boeing? That's a new one to me!

[WTE_Galway]

When did NG take over Boeing? That's a new one to me!

Actually the rumors were more the other way around, there was talk a while back that Boeing might try and acquire NG. Nothing came of it so far and there is a good chance the US Government would block such a merger anyway.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/11/business/la-fi-northrop-20100911


As far as the B29 goes my uninformed impression from reading the forums was that at the time of the NG scandal all official work on all US aircraft and ships was stopped regardless of manufacturer (possibly there was a concern other companies like Boeing would try and take the outrageous NG settlement as a precedent and also claim royalties).

[302_Wietnam]

Ok! :grin: So, when we will see the new 4.11 patch ? :cool: ;)

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Ok! :grin: So, when we will see the new 4.11 patch ? :cool: ;)

We found another annoying but not critical bug which delayed the release.

Please guys, a little bit more patience. It's getting close... ;)

[pupo162]

musssst...... stoppppp ...... f5's..........


anyway, if i could have an answer on the widescree/multiple screen question ive asked preatty mcuh everywere i could would be nice... pleaaaaaase? :grin:

[_RAAF_Smouch]

It's getting close... ;)


Ahh... the vinegar stroke of patch release...

:-P:-P:-P:-P:-P

[Kittle]

To say that I am excited would be the understatement of the decade. However, take all the time you need TD, I will still be right here waiting!!!

[Aardvark892]

No matter how long it takes, we're all big fans of the Team. I'm sure 4.11 is going to be another game changer, and I'm very excited about the AI changes. Thank you, Team Daidalos!

[Snake]

It will be easier for all of us if we'd know a certain date. In this way we'll not be so stressed and anxious trying to guess the release date! But....knowing the improvement 4.11 will offer...the waiting worth!!!

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Hey snake, is your life so full of stress that you need to know the certain date? Im also waiting but, rember one thing my friend! all they do, is for free and in their free time.....

the game is finished, and all they do is to make it better! its not like Clod, where every patch is a must, just to be able to play the game ;)

cheers :-P

[Snake]

I know they do it for free and on their spare time and I admire and respect them for that! If my life is full of stress is not your concern!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The certain date is already over. Thats the problems with certain dates... you never can keep them.

We first aimed for Easter 2011... then rearranged everything and we didn't set a date for a long time, then we aimed for Chistmas, then for New Year and finally for the last weekend. Now... it still not there, each time some problems forced us to delay.
So how worth was a certain date then? See my point? ;-)

[Sita]

Stop to hurry DT!

[Feathered_IV]

I recall last time there was a pledge to make smaller, more frequent patches that were easier to compile. The urge to add "just that little bit more" must be strong.

[Snake]

Thanks for your answer Caspar! I got the point! ;)

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I recall last time there was a pledge to make smaller, more frequent patches that were easier to compile. The urge to add "just that little bit more" must be strong.

Indeed. But in fact some features need their long time development to be working to our standards... like 6DoF.

[Fearless_1]

Well good on TD for that. I appreciate the thorough approach your team takes.

But one lingering question is how much do you learn/take from the modders and develop on your own?

[Hunden]

Well good on TD for that. I appreciate the thorough approach your team takes.

But one lingering question is how much do you learn/take from the modders and develop on your own?

And this matters why? As long as I get exhaust flames

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

But one lingering question is how much do you learn/take from the modders and develop on your own?

I'd say, its a value of 5:95 %
The 5 % is work from 3rd party, which, if existant before as a mod, had to be reworked partially or completely in cooperation with us.
No mod ever was good or correct enough to be implemented right away. And in most cases, developing a feature on our own has proven to be the best, savest and fastest way.

[JimmyBlonde]

http://rgifs.gifbin.com/2074yu4sw2.gif

[Fearless_1]

I'd say, its a value of 5:95 %
The 5 % is work from 3rd party, which, if existant before as a mod, had to be reworked partially or completely in cooperation with us.
No mod ever was good or correct enough to be implemented right away. And in most cases, developing a feature on our own has proven to be the best, savest and fastest way.

Thanks for posting an answer. Just to be clear, I just wanted to know how much the modders influenced what was being made officially. Also, since we are getting the long needed "Drop on my command" radio call, is there a plan to modify formations of bombers to be like their real world counter parts?

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Thanks for posting an answer. Just to be clear, I just wanted to know how much the modders influenced what was being made officially. Also, since we are getting the long needed "Drop on my command" radio call, is there a plan to modify formations of bombers to be like their real world counter parts?

I think this is worth some investigation. :)

[GF_Mastiff]

I'm just really surprised ubi$oft hasn't stepped in and tried to take over on your developments for DLC?

[ElAurens]

UBI is NOT the developer, why after 10+ years don't people understand that yet.

UBI is merely the publisher for the West.

They have no hand in day to day operations of Maddox Games or IL2 in any way.

We are better off if they just maintain their current "hands off" position reagrding IL2.

[BF-109-Flier]

Hello everyone!
This is my first post.

I noticed there are coming AI changes in the 4.11 patch. This is very interesting. I have one suggestion for a possible AI problem.

When playing Ngen online campaigns with a friend we have noticed problems when an AI flight returns to base early.

For example an AI flight is performing CAP over an airfield or an area and then returns to base with no enemy contact. Then enemy AI flight attacks this group that is landing / circling. The AI planes do not seem to care about being attacked much, but continue circling their home airfield and perform landings. They eventualy get slaughtered on the runways and in the air one by one.

Now the AI planes try to evade when attacked, but do not start a dogfight with the enemy. They act wery passively. That is if 1 AI plane gets attacked while landing the other friendly AI planes just continue waiting for landing clearance and circle the airfield.

Would be much better if the AI flight that is trying to land would cancel their landing and engage as a group against the enemy. And only after the enemy has been driven away / or destroyed would they continue their landing attempts.

Maybe some kind of AI code that tells the AI not to land if there are enemies in the vicinity of the airfield. So they would try to shoot these enemies down before trying to land. Maybe the AI could even take off again if the home airfield was attacked...

Even if they run out of fuel or ammo it would be more realistic, I think, if they would rather bail out or crash-land than try to calmly land on their home airfields with enemies in the air.

P.S. I have also tested this by creating a Full mission builder scenario where an AI flight of 4 planes with full ammo and fuel has a waypoint to land. Then another AI flight with 4 planes has a waypoint over that airfield where the other AI lands. The AI that lands seems wery passive about the fact that it is attacked.


And thank you for making these great updates to this old game! Exelent work!

[GF_Mastiff]

UBI is NOT the developer, why after 10+ years don't people understand that yet.

UBI is merely the publisher for the West.

They have no hand in day to day operations of Maddox Games or IL2 in any way.

We are better off if they just maintain their current "hands off" position reagrding IL2.

Well they do have a foot in the door here in the west, and is our publisher here in the west. so stands to reason. I'm still very surprised they have'nt thought about turning this onto a DLC market.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Well they do have a foot in the door here in the west, and is our publisher here in the west. so stands to reason. I'm still very surprised they have'nt thought about turning this onto a DLC market.

They would have failed.
:twisted:

[ElAurens]

+10000000000000000000

[Pursuivant]

The AI planes do not seem to care about being attacked much, but continue circling their home airfield and perform landings. They eventualy get slaughtered on the runways and in the air one by one.

This is an old AI problem. Perhaps it will be fixed in the 4.11 patch.

If not, while it's fun to have a "turkey shoot" against AI planes circling to land, it's not realistic. Bombers should scatter or try to get back into formation, call for fighter support and/or move so they are protected by flak.

Fighters should go back into fighting formations and try to fight back. If that's not possible, they should behave as bombers do.

Planes damaged on landing approach shouldn't circle endlessly, but should be cleared for an emergency landing and go straight in to land, ahead of their undamaged peers. If necessary, due to fuel leaks, fires, etc. they should not bother with the usual "upwind" and "downwind" legs of the landing pattern.

Finally, it appears that planes circling to land go in a descending circular spiral. And they always land one by one. In some cases, it would be more realistic for planes to orbit at a distance from the airbase, maintaining speed and altitude, and peel off singly or in pairs for landing.

Landing pattern could be changed slightly to have planes flying a more typical "race track" pattern on final approach under visual flight conditions. That is, orbit in a circular holding pattern at altitude until given landing clearance, then do "race track" like upwind and downwind legs to check that the runway is clear, then go in for final approach.

If there were historical variations in landing behavior, it would be cool if they could be modeled in the AI, or at least at an option in the FMB.

[BF-109-Flier]

Looks like the 4.11 patch was released just hours after my post. Unfortunately the AI landing "turkey shoot" still seems to be in the 4.11 version. Oh well, maybe in future versions it will be addressed now that they have started adjusting the AI in other areas.

[EAF331 Starfire]

UBI is NOT the developer, why after 10+ years don't people understand that yet.

UBI is merely the publisher for the West.

They have no hand in day to day operations of Maddox Games or IL2 in any way.

We are better off if they just maintain their current "hands off" position reagrding IL2.

Hear! Hear!

I wish Red Storm haden't sold Rainbow Six to Ubi :(
(long and sad story)

[EAF331 Starfire]

I would like to thank the Daidalos Team for patch 4.11
I found so many exiting features which will help increasing the playablity.

The sorting of feature in the difficulty screen are very indeed.

The ability to disable outside view exept when you are standing still will be a great help in carrier missions when the HSFX/SEOW team get the 4.11 implemented.

The SmartThr to control 4 engines w. a dual throttle setup need a small twitch but I love it allready.

The ability in the FMB to use static a/c as spawnpoint are really making me smile :grin:

The new FM of the Fw190 is a dream, but the it is now impossible to land since I can't loose speed even with gear and flaps out. Finally a -4 can beat a Spit V. As a member of an Allied Sqd I should not be so fond of it. I expect that we will loose a lot of pilots due to lack of respect :rolleyes: We just need to get better ;)


My heart danced when I first flew the IL-4. I have been waiting for good flyable one for years. Finally an alternative to the Pe2/Pe3.


There are so many more changes, but I would just like to say thanks.
Seyou at the Bug report :grin:

Good job guys

[SA_Chaney_475th]

I just don't know where all this is going. Too much is moving too fast. I'm now hearing about 4.12. And besides...what's with DBW? Will DBW and SAS have 4.11 support? Real pilots wanna know. lol. Cheers

[DD_crash]

I just don't know where all this is going. Too much is moving too fast. I'm now hearing about 4.12. And besides...what's with DBW? Will DBW and SAS have 4.11 support? Real pilots wanna know. lol. Cheers
You need to ask this at the SAS site. Although they have said the they are sticking to 4.101 as the base.

[FenbeiduO]

Is there any british to make cromwell or churchhill for IL-2?:)