414 wish list

[stugumby]

just some of my random thoughts

early model beaufighter with rockets and torpedo/bomb options, RAF not RAAF version for early desert and later coastal command action

Rockets for the FM-2, and late 1944 versions of mustang and thunderbolts, and revised bomb loads as needed for SBD TBF etc.

RS 132 rockets for the I-16 and RS 82 repainted to black or olive colors. U2 flares added back in to allow older missions to remain compatable.

Flyable swordfish with some type of depth charge simulation

Hurricane with 40mm guns and tropical filters on hurricanes on desert maps

maps of any kind, or a drop in map pack similar to CUP/BAT method that has the static objects needed in a handy format.

Flyable Su-2 and Tu-2

Flyable bf109/mistle combination

Up to date cockpit guide with R-5 and CCC and U-2 pits explained, still dont know how to use U-2 bomb sight, not much on it on the web.

Keep existing load outs to ensure backwards compatability, add to, but dont take away.

Ship pack 2 imported into game

Ground objects for airfields, bomb trolleys, british trucks of any kind etc

[Music]

Gun Cam Tracers, 50 cal are impossible to see, (though the New p-40 seems to have a bit more red in the stream?)

that's all, everything is fine, just need to be able to see where my bullets are going when firing at aircraft.

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Guys, calm a bit down with the wishes, DT is a handfull of good guys with the intention to keep il2 1946 alive.

And they have a plan...

I`m a developer too, for a different flightsim and all i hate is, when you present a new "product" Some in the crowd start to whine for "more" stuff, and different stuff...

So expect you come home with a good result in an exam, and your parents **** you up, why aren`t you better in this or that, or want more and better results...
It will stop your motivation and you will start to think "F*ck you!"

Thats not what DT is thinking, but lets keep the wishes low and the motivation for the Devs high! Thats all you should do, be thankfull for their free time they are investing into this project!

[Janosch]

- The ability to turn off tracers. When I'm firing .50 cals I always fear that they give away my position.
- There are some dogfight maps with unnamed towns and villages. For immersion, they could be named, e.g. Elysium, Janoschgrad, Abba and so on.
- When working on a project for free, motivation must come from within, not from outside sources. That way, nobody can really take that motivation away from you
- If possible at all, better compatibility for .ntrk files made with earlier game versions.
- Lippisch P.13a

[Verdun1916]

Well knowing what we have to look forwards to in the future: the Channel Map, the D.520, the He-177 Greif, The Ju 52, the C47 and variants and possibly some more BoB related aircraft like the Spitfire Mk.I or Mk.IB and maybe more, the wait for the next update will be both exciting and restless hahaha

I especially look forward to the D.520 for many years! Always hoped it would be added! And the Channel Map of course! :grin:

Well TD, you guys are IL-2 1946 heroes in my book! You do amazing work! And I can only tell you that I love 4.13.3m! The Beutepanzers and the French tanks were both appreciated and needed! And the Bf-110's are my new love interests in the game haha! And the U2 is preddty darn cool and fun to play around with!

If 4.13.4 or 4.14 will be the next update, or what ever it will be called, I know it will be worth the wait! :grin::grin: Two weeks, right guys? ;)

[ddr]

Hello, and THANK YOU VERY MUCH again TD for your great and appreciated work!!
maybe possible in a future fix/pach to clean some descriptions in "objects - aircraft" section? B-24D, Ju88 A1, A4torp, A5, A5late, A6, A17, SB M103 96 and 103A are void (only the plane picture - I think can be deleted, because there are description for similar types), and we lost P-40E, E M105 and M description (related to the old P-40)
bye!

[310thDiablo]

I would love to see the 50 cal loadout to be API-api-api-api-apit

[Bouma004]

I think that the Triggers added to HSFX 7.0.2 and 7.0.3 must be added to the vanilla game. It's a great improvement for FMB and adds huge possibilities to mission makers.

manual : https://1drv.ms/b/s!AutwPlOKpNiE7n3vdQWQqu_-baJb

Keep going guys you're doing great work !

[iMattheush]

1536x1536/2048x2048 texture support :)

[Pursuivant]

I would love to see the 50 cal loadout to be API-api-api-api-apit

Player-controllable ammo loadouts would the be ideal solution, and might be possible given the game's limits.

Even better would be custom loadouts with options for historically realistic loadouts which either prevents the player from using custom loadouts, limits custom loadouts below a certain rank in the campaign, and/or limits availability of certain types of ammo which were historically in short supply (e.g., minengeschoss).

Loadouts could and did vary depending on local supply conditions, tactical doctrine, and intended mission.

For example, some squadrons (and air forces) only used tracer at the end of ammo belts to indicate that the shooter was low on ammo (this was quickly determined to be a bad idea, since it also told the enemy you were low on ammo). Other squadrons discarded tracer ammo altogether and just used a mixture of API and AP.

Another thing that needs to be added is the option of plain "ball" ammo for MG. That is, no HE, AP, API, Incendiary, or Tracer effects. This ammo was often used by AAA MG which also doubled as anti-personnel weapons, and occasionally by air units which were low on supply or which primarily were hunting unarmored ground targets.

[Marabekm]

Here's an idea.
But how about some way to make photo reconnaissance missions. I don't really know how/if you could do it though.
Just some button perhaps so you could take like a screenshot (but of the ground below you) and it could save that file to your game folder?

[Pursuivant]

Here's an idea.
But how about some way to make photo reconnaissance missions. I don't really know how/if you could do it though.

The actual mechanics of adding PR missions to the game would be easy. Adding dedicated PR variants of various planes would be harder. Getting a decent selection of flyable PR planes would be a huge task.

But, if you're willing to add hypothetical camera loadouts to combat aircraft rather than using actual PR aircraft variants, it wouldn't be that hard to add high altitude PR missions to the game.

In FMB, set a waypoint and specify PR mission. Select required altitude, speed, and direction of flight. Mission success is based on how well the player flies that course while flying straight and level and operating the camera, and whether they successfully land back at their base. If you wanted to get fancy, mission success could also be based on how much cloud cover was between the camera and the mission's target area.

In GUI, you'd have to bind a key to turn the PR camera camera on/off (and possibly gun camera, too).

For the player, a high altitude PR mission consists of flying to a specific location on the map. Once there, in order to successfully complete the mission, you must fly absolutely straight (i.e., while compensating for crosswinds) and level at a fixed altitude along a certain course, for a fixed amount of time, while operating the camera.

Optionally, players can view the results of their work as black and white still pictures of the ground taken while the camera was operating.

Low level PR missions using obliquely-mounted cameras would require entirely different mechanics. Success would be based on how long you kept a specific ground object within camera view and within a certain distance while the camera was operating.

[darky1]

Hello I can see everybody wants lots here I also see on my Hurricane already there on my wings are some lovely Navigation Lights and I was hoping that if we are lucky they may be enabled by using the config ini

Yours hopefully No.111_Darky

[Verdun1916]

Hello I can see everybody wants lots here I also see on my Hurricane already there on my wings are some lovely Navigation Lights and I was hoping that if we are lucky they may be enabled by using the config ini

Yours hopefully No.111_Darky

I do believe there are navigation lights in the stock game. You just need to map a key to be able to turn it on and off.

[RPS69]

Here's an idea.
But how about some way to make photo reconnaissance missions. I don't really know how/if you could do it though.
Just some button perhaps so you could take like a screenshot (but of the ground below you) and it could save that file to your game folder?

There is a recon target available on the full mission builder. It won't generate pictures, but on many developed campaigns, a succesfull recon mission will hilight the units spotted over the recon target on the campaign map.

[Music]

I've been off line the past month, and it has given ma a good spell of 4.13.3 testing.

My request for GunCamTracers is not necessary, veryt good job TD, shooting % is up to 3+ (some days 5%, against Average fighters), and I can see when I have hit by the Cloud of smoke from my target.
And am I seeing random belt startups, seems to be with the fighters, but AA still have tracers grouped. Flack bursts look great, and smoke from GRN targets burning is lush, and dark.

All in all, great job again TD, (Sita).

I still have every enemy fighter chasing ME, but I will be back on the IRSS server soon, lets see if I have learned to "fly fast".;)

FS~Music

**EDIT**
I just finished playing last last few days on the AleXserver, closed pit, w externals, I am not shooting 3%, more like 0.45%. lol

[sturmovikfan101]

the map to follow the plane once it leaves the edge you have to move it up manually.

[major.kudo]

My wish.
Gun shooting of AI's fighter more inaccurately.

Detail.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=229400

I'm still waiting.
I always hope this.
And every time I'm disappointed, when the new version is announced.
But I keep waiting.

[TitusFlavius]

My wish.
Gun shooting of AI's fighter more inaccurately.

Detail.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=229400

I'm still waiting.
I always hope this.
And every time I'm disappointed, when the new version is announced.
But I keep waiting.

I am with you, all AI's are Aces in gun shooting!
Totally unreal and exaggerated good.
They hit always from every situation.
A revision would not be bad.

[idefix44]

Have you never think that the best thing to do is to learn to never be in the ennemi line of sight/fire?...

[henrik]

agree with all members above and wish to add a wish to have Ki 44!

Have you never think that the best thing to do is to learn to never be in the ennemi line of sight/fire?...

it isnt just about a gamer, we cannot reenact a historical situation in a campaign with aces on one side and greens on another because of there is nearly no diffrence between aces and greens.
I'm dreaming of it a lot of years and think now they never fix it because apparently they cant handle it, just they dont know what to do, how to do, or something. They are out of this league.

so now I can only dream about french planes...:rolleyes:

[majorfailure]

My wish.
Gun shooting of AI's fighter more inaccurately.

Detail.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=229400

I'm still waiting.
I always hope this.
And every time I'm disappointed, when the new version is announced.
But I keep waiting.

Watch your own wingmen, at best regular pilots trying to shoot down bombers that are straight and level in front of them. Or shooting at ground targets. They are plainly too "dumb" to correct their aim with tracers.

Concerning AI ace you may be right, but it may also be perception, you always remember when AI killed you with a freak shot. But I can live with AI ace blasting me from ridiculous angles, I do the same to them if I can, though there I get a clear picture of success ratio. If AI can shoot me down, then most likely I was in a place where I should not have been, usually due to some mistake on my side.

If fights end in insane losses for both sides, it is not due to shooting ability it is due to DISABILITY to DISENGAGE. Not helping are their LOUSY EVASIVE MANEUVERS when in front of other AI - it should be a RARE occasion for a Fw190 to get shot down by a I-153, and yet in this game it happens often, and most of the time because AI does not just use its plane's superior speed.

[SPEKTRE76]

If not already stated; the B-26B Marauder. I have the flight training manual if the team needs it. This plane is essential to a Midway scenario.

Flight Training Manual B-26B: http://www.mediafire.com/file/f56uxhfonp7gurq/B-26+Flight+Training+Manual.pdf


B-26B, 44-01373, 69th BS
https://s25.postimg.org/j3h9c7me7/aircraft-b26-lg.jpg



Emblem by me

https://s25.postimg.org/itec6lx5r/69th_BS.png

[SPEKTRE76]

TBM-1D with AN/APS-5


https://s25.postimg.org/4o8j4so4f/TBM-1_D_45473_July_1944.jpg

[Verdun1916]

TBM-1D with AN/APS-5


https://s25.postimg.org/4o8j4so4f/TBM-1_D_45473_July_1944.jpg

Sorry but this will never happen thanks to the Northrop-Grumman issue :(

[SPEKTRE76]

Well, that sucks then.

[iMattheush]

Douglas A-26 :)

And if we talk about smaller updates:

-A-20H Boston
-Bf 110C-1 or maybe even Bf 110C-3, but C-1 is priority by me

[Verdun1916]

Well, that sucks then.

Indeed it does! The only way to get to fly Northrop-Grumman related aircraft not already in the stock game is to play mods. Well...or pay Northrop-Grumman what ever they want in some kind of license fee for the rights to such an aircraft.

[SPEKTRE76]

Yeah the A-26 is a must as well for Normandy missions.


My Grandfather, PFC Gabriel E. Maldonado was a top gunner on both A-20's and A-26's in the 640th Bomb Squadron, 409th Bomb Group.


http://www.americanairmuseum.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/freeman/media-396172.jpg?itok=p4CAk8Dw

[taly001]

the B-26B Marauder. .... This plane is essential to a Midway scenario.

Only for about one hour, and they all missed :P I just read the book "Shattered Sword" on Midway, flight by flight analysis of every attack on the Jap carriers with maps and direction diagrams, and full analysis of CAP in the air over the entire day. Awesome book!

[Pursuivant]

If not already stated; the B-26B Marauder. I have the flight training manual if the team needs it. This plane is essential to a Midway scenario.

In a Midway scenario, its about as essential as the Vought SB2U Vindicator or the B-17.

For SW Pacific, Mediterranean, and NW European campaigns, it's THE major missing USAAF combat aircraft type in terms of numbers built and combat effectiveness. The A-20 sort of fills the same role, but it's not as fast.

[Verdun1916]

In a Midway scenario, its about as essential as the Vought SB2U Vindicator or the B-17.

For SW Pacific, Mediterranean, and NW European campaigns, it's THE major missing USAAF combat aircraft type in terms of numbers built and combat effectiveness. The A-20 sort of fills the same role, but it's not as fast.

I agree with you here Pursivant!

Sure, to have the B-26 in the stock game would be cool! But there are to many other far more important allied aircraft missing.
We already have FOUR American bombers, the two A-20-versions, the B-25 and the B-24 as flyables, but we have NO British bombers at all!!! There is a far more desperate need to fill in for the lack of British bombers in my book.
Especially with the new Channel map comming up.

I'll take the Wellington and the Blenheims as flyables any day over the B-26 to be honest! Off course I would not mind the Beaufort's or the Swordfish reaching flyable status either.

Since the Avengers are out of the question I would love seeing atleast the Swordfish reaching flyable status. And a Sea Hurricane to fill the gap of an early R.N. carrier borne fighter. These are needed for carrier borne operations in the Med especially!

[Marabekm]

Vindicators were used by the French air force, as the V-156F-3. It appears they saw action against the Germans and a few against Italians. So could be used I guess in a battle of France scenario on the English channel map.
Also used in the Royal navy and known as Chesapeakes. Not sure if they saw any combat.
And used by the USMC which saw action at Midway.

But at any rate I am sure we could all name many aircrafts to be added. I know I could. And if any do get added that's great. And if not that's good too. The team daidalos has already done so much.

[Pursuivant]

We already have FOUR American bombers, the two A-20-versions, the B-25 and the B-24 as flyables, but we have NO British bombers at all!!! There is a far more desperate need to fill in for the lack of British bombers in my book.

+1

A flyable Blenheim is at the top of my wish list, for all the reasons you mentioned. Additionally, it gives the Finns an early war bomber type before they got Ju-88s.

A flyable Wellington would be a bigger task, but it would be the natural prey for the Bf-110G-4 NJ, should that plane ever be released.

Off course I would not mind the Beaufort's or the Swordfish reaching flyable status either.

A flyable Beaufort gives the Australians another bomber variant for SW Pacific scenarios. It also gives the UK/Commonwealth a hugely important type for early North African/Mediterranean campaigns.

I would love seeing atleast the Swordfish reaching flyable status. And a Sea Hurricane to fill the gap of an early R.N. carrier borne fighter. These are needed for carrier borne operations in the Med especially!

Agreed. Sea Hurricane would probably be the easier aircraft to add, since it would require just the addition of a tailhook, and slight modifications to the control panel and/or cockpit.

Flyable Beauforts, Blenheims, Swordfish and/or Wellingtons would also open up a lot of possibilities for early to mid-war English Channel scenarios, since all those types were used. Strategically, 1941-43 English Channel Operations were unimportant, but they are an interesting, forgotten portion of the air war.

[SPEKTRE76]

I wonder if they will ever implement Ship skinning?

[Pursuivant]

I wonder if they will ever implement Ship skinning?

I'm not sure it's possible.

But, the ability to create custom skins for objects other than aircraft would vastly expand the game's possibilities.

In particular, custom skins - possibly even the ability for mission builders to assign names to particular ships - would be very helpful. No more generic paint schemes and you can actually assign names to ships which participated in a particular battle.

[Marabekm]

The following added as loadout options:

SBD-3
1 x 500 pound bomb plus 2 x 100 pound bombs

B5N2
1 x 800 Kg bomb
2 x 250 Kg bomb
Also some combination of 60 Kg bombs, but I can not find the number.

Allied Torpedo Bomber:
There are three in game that perhaps can be made flyable: TBD-1, Beaufort, Swordfish

[Music]

couple of features that would be nice.
a rendezvous point with a time stamp and altitude, and direction/heading
so that all planes meet up there, after suitable takeoff time, and are all heading in the same direction.

A way to store/access missions out side of Il-2 game/missions folder.
(I have a modded .ver with only guncam tracers and Cirx's POV, so it would be nice to just have one missions folder, not for space, plenty of that, but for continuity, if I forget to up date a mission in Modded folder, I just end up copying the whole thing rather than looking to see how out of sync they are).
So in my Modded .ver, the directory would direct the computer to look in the original un-modded game Missions folder.

**other good folders to be able to access would be Records(NTRK's), & Skins

A objects template option.
I have a few pieces of air ports that I like to use a lot, AAA gun placements mostly. Now I just go into a older mission and copy, them paste in the newer mission under way. A way to copy the group to a option in the menu. Usually it's a AAA gun or two, and a few sand bags,. and a pillbox &/or tent, a few crates, ...objects from all over.

Have a Great Day

[SPEKTRE76]

How about an Escort Link and a Flight Group Link?


Escort Link: The player selects the aircraft to be escorted in the mission editor. Then the player selects from a drop down 'Escort' > 'Select Target' and picks the A/C or A/C group they want to be escorted by. The player, if flying a bomber can give commands to the fighters to attack enemies or maintain escort and defend.


Group Link: The player can select multiple groups of planes to give commands too. If the player is flying fighters he only has control over what other fighters do. It would be nice to have a feature like the one above. The difference is that you can do true composite squadron operations with AI A/C while in the server. I can select for example 'Green Flight' (FM-2's) and tell them to attack fighters and 'Red Flight' (TBM's) to attack ships. I know sometimes this works in the ME but not all the time.


Smarter AI: Regardless of patrol altitude, your flight or A/C under your command will always attack fighters/bombers and one or two will always come and defend you without asking. It would be nice if also when the RTB'd they didn't try to kill each other.

[stugumby]

For Musics post on storing missions. In your single missions folder create a folder named NN, put all your experimental missions in it, just name them so you can identify them, example RU_Mod Il-2 attack etc, that way your stock in game missions will be in their original folder and your missions to tinker with are all in the NN. Once you create NN insert just one countries example us medals etc. when you open your single mission folder in game it will show as none but will have your special missions in there by country if you follow the naming as i put above, RU-MOD US_MOD whatever it needs to be.

[sturmovikfan101]

I wish for a solution to the problem after you die in a campaign mission you cannot change your weapons to something different, only options are accept or refly. I think there should be a third option to refit weapons so you can refly it with a different load out. instead of going back to main menu then to the pilot career every time you want to get new weapons.

[Marabekm]

I noticed we have lighters (small barges) in the objects list, but they do not show up in the ships list. Can these be made to be moveable?

[hun_77]

The following added as loadout options:

B5N2
1 x 800 Kg bomb
2 x 250 Kg bomb
Also some combination of 60 Kg bombs, but I can not find the number.



In the german wikipedia for the attack on Dutch Harbor, they say the B5N carried each one 250kg-bomb and up to six 60kg-bombs. Increasing the bombloads possibilities of the "Kankoh" would be a really cool thing (f.x. 6*100kg, 2 or even 3*250kg, 1*250kg + 4-6*60kg).

I agree with you here Pursivant!

Sure, to have the B-26 in the stock game would be cool! But there are to many other far more important allied aircraft missing.
We already have FOUR American bombers, the two A-20-versions, the B-25 and the B-24 as flyables, but we have NO British bombers at all!!! There is a far more desperate need to fill in for the lack of British bombers in my book.
Especially with the new Channel map comming up.

I'll take the Wellington and the Blenheims as flyables any day over the B-26 to be honest! Off course I would not mind the Beaufort's or the Swordfish reaching flyable status either.

Since the Avengers are out of the question I would love seeing atleast the Swordfish reaching flyable status. And a Sea Hurricane to fill the gap of an early R.N. carrier borne fighter. These are needed for carrier borne operations in the Med especially!

Maybe it is possible to include a new (british) bombsight into the game, instead of more aircraft (of course I will be glad for EVERY plane that might come in future :grin:). After patch 4.13 with all the beautiful US, german, russian and japanese bombsight, and after investigating what the british used to hit their targets, this might be a "gap" which would be worth to close (in principle, vector bombsights exist in Il-2 since patch 4.09 - in the SM-79). Including a Mk. XIV bombsight into a Mosquito B-version (or a Mk.III for Coastal Command Mosquitos) might be "realtivly easy" (compared to a complete creation of the interior of a Blenheim or even a Wellington) to get a lot of possibilities to bomb the Germans bits and bytes out of France... It also would be a formidable platform for modders to include this bombsight in a modded aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_Setting_Bomb_Sight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilized_Automatic_Bomb_Sight#Vector_bombsights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_XIV_bomb_sight

For low level bombing and U-Boat hunt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Level_Bombsight,_Mark_III

Also two videos for the Mk.XIV and the Mk.III:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F02489/

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F02285/

[Pursuivant]

Maybe it is possible to include a new (british) bombsight into the game

+1

If it ever gets released, the Lancaster will need a British bomb sight.

Additionally, many lend-lease US aircraft - particularly before the USA entered the war - used British-made weapons, ordinance, sights, and crew equipment. Those sorts of conversions, which mostly use standard crew stations, but make changes to equipment and FM, would be very useful.

[Florinm352]

Please show some love for the Bf 109 cockpits that look and sound just like they did in the original game!

[Jumpy]

If not too difficult, I would like to see the ammunition wagons explode as if they contained ammunition, when strafed. Also, could the new AA wagons, armoured train etc become active artillery?;)

[Pursuivant]

If not too difficult, I would like to see the ammunition wagons explode as if they contained ammunition, when strafed. Also, could the new AA wagons, armoured train etc become active artillery?;)

Having the option to have ammo and fuel trucks, train cars, and ships to blow up with more or less force would be nice. A truck loaded with 500 KG of rifle ammunition isn't going to explode with the same force as one loaded with 500 KG of dynamite.

Look at gun camera films of fighters strafing ground targets, and it's clear that a hit on a big ammo dump can produce a massive explosion, which is sometimes lethal to the strafing aircraft!

[KG26_Alpha]

If not too difficult, I would like to see the ammunition wagons explode as if they contained ammunition, when strafed. Also, could the new AA wagons, armored train etc become active artillery?;)

Ammo train cars (usually brown) have this effect and if you are too close you will suffer damage or be killed.

Modelling ammo trucks in columns could be a lottery when attacking as you wont know whats what in the convoy.

Treat all columns as inert supply vehicles troops and food, fuel trucks are modeled Grey German Green Russian iirc and are harder to kill for some reason.

[dimlee]

And besides fuel trucks there are tanker vessels...
Loaded tanker could burn for many hours with impressive flames and smokes while staying afloat. Half laden or empty tanker with tanks not yet ventilated could explode after a minor hit due vapour detonation.

[JacksonsGhost]

I'm happy to support realistic explosions with a realistic danger element provided the frame rate hit isn't too severe.

And thanks again DT for all your good work. I think I'll be sticking with this game for my WWII air combat fix for quite a while yet, mostly thanks to the sheer variety of aircraft and other objects and maps continuing to become available. I enjoy any additions, but particularly the earlier war elements come to mind, like the B-24D a while back, and the AI improvements such as terrain avoidance, taxi to takeoff, etc, etc.

I'd love to see the Martin Baltimore in game too! It's an often overlooked type, but saw squadron service with 7 countries according to my sources.

[idefix44]

Add a new difficulty for online/multiplayers missions:

difficulty LimitedFuelOption XX

where XX can be 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 or 100.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 10
This is the default setting. Online player can choose 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 20
Online player can choose 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 30
Online player can choose 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 40
Online player can choose 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 50
Online player can choose 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 60
Online player can choose 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 70
Online player can choose 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 80
Online player can choose 80%, 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 90
Online player can choose 90% or 100% of fuel at take-off.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 100
This is the realistic setting. All online players take-off with 100% of fuel.

Thanks.

[wheelsup_cavu]

A little confused since I would think a 40% limit would mean the player could not choose a fuel loadout higher than 40%. This would work great on smaller maps making the fuel usage an issue.

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 00
This is the default setting. Online player can choose all fuel settings

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 10
This is the default setting. Online player can only choose 10%

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 20
Online player can only choose 20%

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 30
Online player can only choose 30%

etc.

No need to go past 90% since the 00 option allows 100 percent fuel.


Wheels

[idefix44]

To tell the truth, here is my wish:

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 100
This is the realistic setting. All online players take-off with 100% of fuel. NO LESS!

Thanks.

[RPS69]

Some maps are scaled. They are actually 1/2.
Those maps should have 50% fuel enabled.
At least for the sake of caring about fuel shortage.

[Janosch]

To tell the truth, here is my wish:

difficulty LimitedFuelOption 100
This is the realistic setting. All online players take-off with 100% of fuel. NO LESS!

Thanks.

Unacceptable. Bf 110 and P-51 carry so much fuel that they would be gimped as a result.

[idefix44]

Ok!
Forget the comment about realistic setting. ;).

[KG26_Alpha]

Theres not many maps in IL2 1946 that need 100% fuel.

The game is mainly designed for condensed action not historical length flights,
that's why some maps are chopped down and squashed up eg: Italy

Getting an online piot to fly more than 15 minutes to action is bad enougth let alone a few hours.

[dimlee]

Since both Bf 110 and P-51 were mentioned...

Bomber interception in Bf 110 was one of my favourite tasks in 2016/2017 winter season online. For example on Italy map there:
http://www.letkaorel.eu/fusion7/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=228
A map chopped down, indeed.
But as true hard core interceptor you need a lot of time to wait for your pray. 100% fuel and drop tanks and the heaviest weaponry available... harder the merrier :grin:
After 50 min of cruising you finally spot those 12 x B-17s...patience pays. :twisted: And withdrawing from the last attack with internal tank punctured you were glad that you did not save on the fuel before the take off.

But who was my nemesis? That smart ass P-51 who just scrambled every 20 min with minimum fuel load as soon as bombers began to shout "we are under attack" and who occasionally caught me with my pants down near the bombers formation. I did wish him to carry 100% fuel, damned ! :mad:

Sorry, I have digressed. :cool:

[Music]

you gotta let it go DimLee;)

I have been thinking about that suggestion, it' always on off, so adding it would not effect anyone who did not want it, but it would be good for DF servers, guys would climb to burn fuel, and the Bombers would have a chance to get alt as well while the opposition was burning fuel.

(Though I think all heavy's should get a 6000-8000m spawn when flying online, on servers with externals. What I would love more is the single player "4 for a flight" to be available to Bomber Pilots online, it's too easy for one Fighter to take out one Bomber, and usually it's one bomber vs several fighters. And I would probably hit something with my bombs if there were three more planes dropping in same area).

Anyways, I like it, and I can see some potential uses for it.

**like Max fuel, to create a situation like 109's over the channel, only have enough for 20 min over target. (now most would just fly till empty, or get shot down trying, but it's there for guys who wanna take it seriously that weekend.)

[Marabekm]

Theres not many maps in IL2 1946 that need 100% fuel.

The game is mainly designed for condensed action not historical length flights,
that's why some maps are chopped down and squashed up eg: Italy

Getting an online piot to fly more than 15 minutes to action is bad enougth let alone a few hours.

15 Minutes? I think you are off by about 10. Seriously, I don't know why I even attempt to make co-op missions anymore. Anything more than 5 minutes and half the players start griping and complaining.

[P-38L]

Hello Team
I've always wanted the simulator to have the following:
1) Variable random weather in the middle of the mission.
2) The possibility of having Rearm, Refuel and Repair option. To make it more in line with the simulator this option had three levels of realism.
3) Vehicles with normal traffic in cities or urban areas. This would give you more life and more realism. Fortunately computers are more powerful today and would support this graphical load. This would also include trains.
4) That the landing strips were not so extraordinarily flat, they should have certain irregularities on the ground.

Thank you very much.

[Pursuivant]

1) Variable random weather in the middle of the mission.

This might not be possible given the limits of the IL2 engine.


2) The possibility of having Rearm, Refuel and Repair option. To make it more in line with the simulator this option had three levels of realism.

Would be welcome for online play, as long as the server operator could set length of time for various aspects of RRR - like quicker to get additional ammo for hand-operated guns vs. turrets or fixed guns, or quicker refuel time for fighters vs. heavy bombers (due to easier access to fuel tanks).


3) Vehicles with normal traffic in cities or urban areas. This would give you more life and more realism. Fortunately computers are more powerful today and would support this graphical load. This would also include trains.

Perhaps not so realistic if there are enemy forces about. When air raid sirens went off, it was very common to park vehicles and for the occupants to get out and hide. The game currently models that behavior quite well, at least for unarmored trucks and cars.

Additionally, for towns and cities near the front lines, there wouldn't be any "ordinary" vehicle traffic since civilians were either evacuated or were under military authority. It would just be military traffic, which should be planned by the mission builder.


4) That the landing strips were not so extraordinarily flat, they should have certain irregularities on the ground.

This could vary based on type of runway and weather conditions. If it's possible to have bump effects for a runway, it might also be possible to have slippery conditions for rain/ice/shallow mud, or "bogging" conditions for deep mud, water, or swamp. Either could cause an aircraft to ground loop or nose over.

[Verdun1916]

I've wished for this before but I'd like to do it again.
The Blenheim and Wellington bombers ugraded to flyable status. It's the only major power in the game that has no flyable bombers at all.
Both types would be very useful on many of the already present maps and they will suite the upcoming Channel map perfectly!

And it would be nice to have a few more aircrafts with sliding canopies made openable. Like on the Hurricane for example just to mention one.

[Pursuivant]

The Blenheim and Wellington bombers ugraded to flyable status.

Pictures and details of internal crew stations for the Blenheim here:

http://www.211squadron.org/blenheim_armament.html

Lots of useful data on British turrets/gun mounts here:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=20042[/QUOTE]

Depending on exact mark of Blenheim/Wellington, some turrets, gun mounts, and bomb sights might be common between the various planes.

[dimlee]

This might not be possible given the limits of the IL2 engine.
.

We have it in C&C in BAT and in earlier mod packs, so probably IL2 engine is not a problem.

[Verdun1916]

The Hawker Typhoon would be very nice to have aswell for the upcoming Channel map. :)

[Pursuivant]

We have it in C&C in BAT and in earlier mod packs, so probably IL2 engine is not a problem.

Good to know that it's possible.

I wonder if it is possible to do things like have different levels, types, and percentages for clouds, have precipitation type vary based on altitude, and for players/mission builders to set the exact height of cloud cover, level of visibility, and timing for various weather changes.

Most IL2 maps are too small to have actual weather fronts, but it could be possible to get more realistic, dynamic weather for smaller maps, possibly with the same information you'd get from a METARS report.

[Pursuivant]

The Hawker Typhoon would be very nice to have aswell for the upcoming Channel map. :)

+1 It's on my very short wish list for Western European theater British aircraft. (Along with Griffon-engined Spitfire and Mustang Mk IA).

[Music]

is it possible to set the default view to the view you get when seat is raised. When you switch views, it goes back to center, but I think the raised view is more accurate, you should be able to at least be high enough to see the hood, I looked in config, and found-

LeanF=0.39
LeanS=0.65999997
Raise=0.65999997
RubberBand=0.64

but changing that value did nothing.

Cheers!

[Marabekm]

A bit more realistic turning radius for ships. Right now, they turn instantly to new heading and its a pain to put in 20 or so waypoints to make it look less snappy.

The ability for players to be able to pick a delayed flight in coop missions. IE.. Say I set up a carrier mission, and I want everyone to take-off, the carrier deck can only hold so many planes at a time. So if I got torpedo planes, dive bombers and fighters, I have to stagger the flights take-off time. Fighters and dive bombers spawn and take-off at 1200. Torpedo planes spawn and take off at 1205, etc. But when this is done, the torpedo planes are no longer human flyable. So I am thinking a wait timer or something. Where you can pick a torpedo plane, and just go to external screen and wait the 5 minutes, then you spawn in.

Lastly I heard the other day that perhaps someone had done some work on TBD cockpit at one point a while back or is doing it.... anyone know anything about this?

[RPS69]

A bit more realistic turning radius for ships. Right now, they turn instantly to new heading and its a pain to put in 20 or so waypoints to make it look less snappy.

+1

[Chappi]

First of all I really appreciate the work Daidalos Team is doing still keeping this oldie alive, bringing all of the shiny new content.

But I just have to ask - I know that the modeling process (especially when accuracy is required) is hard and most importantly time consuming but - are there any plans for making the B17's and B29 flyable for the player?

[Volksfürsorge]

Please show some love for the Bf 109 cockpits that look and sound just like they did in the original game!

Yes. This is an absolut must.

[Orangeman]

agree with all members above and wish to add a wish to have Ki 44!



it isnt just about a gamer, we cannot reenact a historical situation in a campaign with aces on one side and greens on another because of there is nearly no diffrence between aces and greens.
I'm dreaming of it a lot of years and think now they never fix it because apparently they cant handle it, just they dont know what to do, how to do, or something. They are out of this league.

so now I can only dream about french planes...:rolleyes:

++++ For the Ki-44

[stugumby]

Another add on for ordnance upgrades would be the P-39 series, currently N-Q only have fab 250 available instead of us 500lb etc.

[baball]

What I'd really like to see implemented in the game would be the ability to trim planes on the ground. This would be useful for planes without aileron trim control such as the R-5 which suffers from excessive right roll or the Ki-27.

Another wish would be to correct the He-111 series' FM which generaly feel too slow and nose heavy for me (at least compared to CloD). I'm just able to maintain an IAS >260 km/H with 32 SC50 at 3000m without risking overheating.

[gaunt1]

Another wish would be to correct the He-111 series' FM which generaly feel too slow and nose heavy for me (at least compared to CloD). I'm just able to maintain an IAS >260 km/H with 32 SC50 at 3000m without risking overheating.

+1

Except the H2, all He-111 variants are at least 20km/h slower than they should be.

[stugumby]

In general it seems prop pitch is quite subjective and infinitley tweakable, SB bombers run along just fine at 4000m at 60% pitch 70 %power, usually 280-300 kph depending on weight of load. Pe-2 zips along at 70-70 at 320 kph with heaviest load. Since patch 411 its almost 10% lower in pitch than throttle setting works best? There was an old engine guide from the forgotton battles cd rom that had usefull info with pitch and rpm guidelines, 2200rpm for stuka, heinkle etc.

[Verdun1916]

Rockets for the P-51 would be nice.

[Tolwyn]

Do not look at the pitch percentage on your screen (text), but rather the RPM gauge when you ADJUST pitch.

It's a sliding scale from a % perspective. Always look at the gauges.

In general it seems prop pitch is quite subjective and infinitley tweakable, SB bombers run along just fine at 4000m at 60% pitch 70 %power, usually 280-300 kph depending on weight of load. Pe-2 zips along at 70-70 at 320 kph with heaviest load. Since patch 411 its almost 10% lower in pitch than throttle setting works best? There was an old engine guide from the forgotton battles cd rom that had usefull info with pitch and rpm guidelines, 2200rpm for stuka, heinkle etc.

[Fhechene]

I always expect that the vanishing treelines 169 and 170 bug be corrected.

[Volksfürsorge]

How about german light bombs? LC and BLC?

Thanks.

[Sita]

you mean that one?)

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/877700/107711741.f/0_158a2b_48e9dc1e_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1411627)

[Tolwyn]

While I'm thinking of it...

Could you add the illustrious Jägermeister Bomb?

you mean that one?)

[Sita]

Jägermeister Bomb?
?

[Janosch]

Fix the La-5FN bug, you know when you pull back on the stick and it doesn't stall, and.... Wait, that thing has a DEFAULT LUFTWAFFE SKIN? :grin:

[Volksfürsorge]

you mean that one?)

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/877700/107711741.f/0_158a2b_48e9dc1e_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1411627)

I mean german flare/flash bombs LC (Licht Cylindrisch) and BLC (Blitzlicht Cylindrisch).

Thanks again.

[Sita]

LC50 on pict

[stugumby]

that seems most illuminating!

[Volksfürsorge]

LC50 on pict

Did not know, what it looks like. Is it WIP? When will it be implemented?
Anyhow. Thanks for your work. Keep going.

[Sita]

hope that it will be added into 4.14 ...

[shelby]

fw189 flyable :)

[Sita]

fw189 flyable :)



agree

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/198998/107711741.e/0_14c1fc_92d251f4_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1360380)

[Volksfürsorge]

agree

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/198998/107711741.e/0_14c1fc_92d251f4_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1360380)

Always wanted this machine.

[Sita]

me too .... but for now it's only ina far dream ... i mean alot other work now...

may be some day ...

[Czary]

Hi, it would be nice to see 2-seater fighters like I-16 UTi flyable as multicrew.

[Sita]

and here i agree too) ...

[GF_Mastiff]

I would like to see the visibility distance increased like it used to be before it was changed back to 5 k. I used to be able to see aircraft taking off from 22k then when you guys took over you dumb it down, now I se building popping up at 8k, and very blurred textures in the distance why did y'all change it?
I remember taking off a hawkinge and could see the enemy taking off over in france from the airfields.

[Janosch]

I remember taking off a hawkinge and could see the enemy taking off over in france from the airfields.
Sacré bleu! There is no Hawkinge in the game, mon ami.

[dimlee]

Sacré bleu! There is no Hawkinge in the game, mon ami.

I used to dance in Pacific skies in my Ki-46 with P-38s, it was so much fun. I used to pilot my Short Sunderland over Biscay and to hunt for submarines. I used to drive my Kubelwagen through the streets of Berlin...
Wait, was it another game?
Damned TD, we'll blame you anyway! :twisted:
:lol:

P.S. Just kidding.

[Pursuivant]

agree

Lovely that there's a flyable Fw-189 in the works. I've always liked that plane and it will be great fun to test its agility in a dogfight.

Does the plan for a flyable Fw-189 include plans to add observation, photo recon and/or artillery spotting missions to the game? Adding those sorts of missions will really allow the Uhu to come into its own.

[Sita]

Lovely that there's a flyable Fw-189 in the works.

for now it's only in dream ..

[shelby]

bombs for the g50 :)

[Czary]

Another small but tasty upgrade - parachute by Ranwers :
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=15538&stc=1&d=1509357855
Transparent silk- awesome !

[stugumby]

also bombs for the mc202 as well as the early ki43 series.

[Verdun1916]

The Hawker Typhoon and the Vickers Wellington for the upcomming Channel Map. And of course the Dewoitine D.520.

[taly001]

Over the years of time ;D the mission builder has changed from using in (imperial navy) to jn (japanese navy) and now neither work, and they default to German markings in game! Work around is to use ja (japanese army).

AI torpedo bomber AI is FUBAR, they try so hard to avoid AAA they either skirt around the ships and don't drop the torps, or climb and divebomb-lob the torpedo!

[Music]

well, I'm glad they updated the chutes, i use those a lot.:-P

[Verdun1916]

I would like to see a larger version of the generic Western Europe map. The one we have is a great map to use as a stand-in for many diffrent areas but I feel it's a bit to small sometimes.

[stugumby]

AI torp fubar?? im not seeing this, is the flight tasked to hit a seperate target ship and at a decent altitude to begin with? if the builder of the mission placed the target icon over a grid box and plane is at 2300m it has to take time to descend etc. If building missions for torp planes, set way point at 800m at 270-300 kph, leave a nearly full grid box away from target icon, but link the flight to that ship, do the same for each flight. set target "destroy ground" to center of expected contact map grid box and enlarge the circle to cover time distance factors. Set goal to 50% or higher so planes will make repeated attacks if still carrying torps. Set planes to veteran. let the ai do its thing. Works for me with all types of torp planes.

Also we need some other countries flares so we can make night torp attacks.

[taly001]

AI torp fubar?? im not seeing this, is the flight tasked to hit a seperate target ship and at a decent altitude to begin with?

Thanks, i've only been using Dgen missions with AttackShips or AttackCarrier.
The AI torpedo flights fly to the warships fleet and seem to start their attack run but never drop, it "appears" they are trying to avoid AAA.....I'm using altitudes 150m flight and 80m attack for B6N2 and G4M with late war torpedo.......hmmmmm

I might have to manually edit the Dgen generated .mission with defined targets just to see it work :)

BTW the jn in plane nation problem I mentioned earlier is with parked planes. (4.13.4)

[shelby]

Italy in both single mission and carrer USMC RAAF RNZAF NL Poland and France in single mission

[Verdun1916]

The Curtiss Helldiver would be a cool addition to the stock game.

[Fhechene]

I know I've posted already, but I've just thought about this.
-Sometimes, in a Dgen generated campaign, you get two missions in the same date. The issue with this is, completing the second mission erases all kills and deaths of the first mission. Like it never happened.

-In the Berlin DGen Campaign you sometimes get help from Americans, but after their participation, these guys go to the southwest corner and loiter there, permanently. It would be nice to have an outside borders airfield, so they can land.
When Americans appear, I just place a test strip, in -5000,-5000 and make them land there.

[stugumby]

havent seen anything in a while, any news for the masses to consume and dribble over?

[Sita]

for now no any big new and any big noticable changes ... but works going forward ...

past week i've show few picts on aviaskins already ... may be not everybody seen it ...


we are reworking pilot pit for He177

infact space for pilot on he 177 is a huge space for 3 -4 person

pilot - copilot - navigator/nose gunner - operator upper turret ... and now we add two turret in gondola from down part of pit ... with mg151 and mg 131 ...


https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/877700/107711741.10/0_15deee_10ae9e43_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1433326)

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/894110/107711741.10/0_15deed_ab65d27c_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1433325)

model of 131 was made by one our new good friend ... you can look at model more closely by link below...

https://sketchfab.com/models/abdcb2726e1b429fabdee3d151ef5894

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/478076/107711741.10/0_15b55c_890bc5e5_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1422684)

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/892702/107711741.10/0_15b55b_51a5509_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1422683)

and compare old low poly mg131 model with new mg131 which low poly btw too ... but how much it looks more nicely ....

and one of our old friend learning 3D modeling ... hew few result of his work ...


https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/509063/107711741.f/0_15a8da_84fabc83_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1419482)

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/893904/107711741.10/0_15a8db_a9503ae8_XXL.jpg (https://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/sitniknikita/album/258267/view/1419483)


https://sketchfab.com/models/d67e0ea2d5a6416487e4391c3cb778da

https://sketchfab.com/models/e1f89597ef8145e788a503aeb7b53140

https://sketchfab.com/models/4ac9df90606f449c9c4b6d47d09d2658

[Verdun1916]

Thanks for the news, Sita!

The guns look great! :)

[shelby]

su-2 and r-10

[Verdun1916]

su-2 and r-10

We have both as AI but off course it would be nice to have them updated to flyable status! :D

[Sita]

Su-2 is one of my dream ...

[Verdun1916]

Su-2 is one of my dream ...

It is a beautyful looking aircraft! It has lovely lines!

I't one of many of the stock AI-planes that would be nice to see updated to playable status one day.

Howver the Wellington, Blenheim, Swordfish and Fulmar is a bit higher up on my personla wishlist. The Avenger to. It's sad that Northrop-Grumman put so much limits on this game! I know new additions of N-G-related aircrafts can't be added without paying license fees for it. Howevr is it possible to upgrade an aircraft to flyable status, like the Avenger, that is already present in the game as an AI- plane? Or does the N-G deal prevent that to?

[shelby]

more 24bit skins

[Bolelas]

I would like to see 2 diferent keys to map for landing gear:
Landing gear UP and landing gear DOWN, for players that have 2position switches... (And the usual toggle)
If it is not too difficult to implement.

Thank you Daidalos team.

[Verdun1916]

The Letov S-328 upgraded to playable would be cool! :)

And it would be nice with the possibility to be able to choos what sight, the tube or the reflector sight, to use before a mission for the Fokker D.XXI. It's very annoying that it changes between the two from mission to mission! And it kind of ruins the fun of flying this perticular aircraft. Atleast it does so for me.

[GROHOT]

The Letov S-328 upgraded to playable would be cool! :)

And it would be nice with the possibility to be able to choos what sight, the tube or the reflector sight, to use before a mission for the Fokker D.XXI. It's very annoying that it changes between the two from mission to mission! And it kind of ruins the fun of flying this perticular aircraft. Atleast it does so for me.

Letov +1.

You can use only needed sight, but only with user skin. I try translate my beta version of manual about this function. But only part on english. I wtight that manual on russian language and not finished yet. But I working on translate. Maybe I can translate before New Year 2018.

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/CwUL/G6FJuoztS

If you read example from link you can use this function. But for now only in russian.

For D.XXI always use tube sight if you choose user skin. Not default. If you want reticle sight for D.XXI you need wright checksum your user skin in section [ReticleSight] at file customization.ini from folder with skins D.XXI

Best regards, GROHOT

[Marabekm]

I know everyone gets tired of hearing planes, but ehh... Its a wish list right. :grin:
I really would like an A6M3-22. We have the A6M3-32 already. The model 22 is really the only zero not in game.

And for non plane request:
Allow level stab to be used for all aircraft, not just bombers......... BUT, add a difficulty setting allowing the host to choose if he wants to allow level stab or not in the mission.

[stugumby]

I would like to see a single seater Il2 with 37mm gun pods and the earlier DB bombers made flyable. The A6m3-22 would be interesting as well.

[Verdun1916]

Letov +1.

You can use only needed sight, but only with user skin. I try translate my beta version of manual about this function. But only part on english. I wtight that manual on russian language and not finished yet. But I working on translate. Maybe I can translate before New Year 2018.

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/CwUL/G6FJuoztS

If you read example from link you can use this function. But for now only in russian.

For D.XXI always use tube sight if you choose user skin. Not default. If you want reticle sight for D.XXI you need wright checksum your user skin in section [ReticleSight] at file customization.ini from folder with skins D.XXI

Best regards, GROHOT

Yeah, I know. And that's why I would like a SIMPLE way to choose between the tube and reflective sight ingame.

[RPS69]

Su-2 is one of my dream ...

This plane is one of the "forgotten" ones from year 1941.
It wasn't the starish il2 who battled the invading Germans, but the modest SU-2.
Pilots didn't understood how to use the il2, and it suffered heavy losses at the beginning of Barbarossa. The blunt of operations was overtaken by the SU-2.

We played a 1941 campaign from the Russian side with modded SU-2.
The plane may be almost too good, but we enjoyed it a lot.

[Sita]

in fact few years ago i almost start work on it.... but at that moment wasn't enough info about it ...

http://forum.aviaskins.com/showpost.php?p=143001&postcount=1

[Verdun1916]

in fact few years ago i almost start work on it.... but at that moment wasn't enough info about it ...

http://forum.aviaskins.com/showpost.php?p=143001&postcount=1

Well, when the info lacks it's difficult to continue working.
Anyway I, and many with em appreciate the work you and the rest of TD do to keep the updates comming!

Well done, sir! And a merry x-mas, or what ever holiday you may celebrate, to you and to the rest of TD! :)

[greybeard1]

Good day and happy New Year to all.

Forced by DGen which requires mandatory at least a "Reconplane" and a "Staff" planes to mate Normandie-Niemen fighters (if undefined it gives two randomly picked Russian aircraft) - while the "Reconplane" could easily be the Po-2, I had no idea about the "Staff" one. After a brief search, I saw Normandie-Niemen used the Yak-6 in this role, so i got intrigued into this for me so far unknown aircraft.

Here follows, in short, what I found:

From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-6):

"The Yakovlev Yak-6 was a Soviet twin-engined utility aircraft, developed and built during World War II. It was used as a short-range light night bomber and a light transport.
...
The design was required to be simple to build and operate... the first prototype Yak-6 flying in June 1942... powered by two 140 hp Shvetsov M-11F radial engines driving two-bladed wooden propellers... the aircraft's fuel tanks were made of chemical-impregnated plywood rather than metal or rubber. Many Yak-6s were fitted with fixed landing gear... two versions, one as a transport and utility aircraft for the supply of partisans, transport of the wounded, and for liaison and courier services... The second version was a light night bomber (designated NBB - nochnoy blizhniy bombardirovshchik - Short Range Night Bomber), capable of carrying up to 500 kg of bombs on racks under the wing centre sections and with a defensive armament of a single ShKAS machine gun in a dorsal mounting. A total of 381 examples were built with production ending in 1943.
The Yak-6 was used with great effect at the front lines in the Great Patriotic War both as a transport and as a bomber, proving popular with its crews, although the potential for the aircraft to enter a spin if overloaded or carelessly handled resulting in production ending in 1943... By 1944, most operational units of the VVS had a Yak-6 as a utility aircraft. In the Battle for Berlin, the Yak-6 was fitted with rocket launchers under the wings for ten 82-mm RS-82 missiles for use against ground targets. After the end of the Second World War, some Yak-6s were supplied to allies, while it remained in large scale service with Soviet forces until 1950."

http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/yak-6/yak6ccr.jpg

At the excellent Massimo Tessitori's site (http://massimotessitori.altervista.org/sovietwarplanes/pages/yak-6/yak-6.htm) many useful references and links about Yak-6 are provided. Here follow some drawings:

http://hobbyport.ru/mkmagazin/avia/yak_6_07.gif
http://hobbyport.ru/mkmagazin/avia/yak_6_08.gif
http://hobbyport.ru/mkmagazin/avia/yak_6_09.gif
http://hobbyport.ru/mkmagazin/avia/yak_6_10.gif

all drawings are downloadable in printable form clicking on THIS link (http://hobbyport.ru/mkmagazin/avia/draw/yak_6.rar).

I would like to ask TD here to realize this plane, not necessarily flyable, for game versions 4.14: that would be a significant contribute to historical inventory.

Thanks for your attention,
GB

[Pursuivant]

Su-2 is one of my dream ...

I'm guessing that the problem is lack of pictures of the interior, especially the gunner's position.

There is a replica at the Central Air Force Museum in Moscow, but I doubt it's complete.

Is there any chance that Sukhoi still retains blueprints?

[Pursuivant]

all drawings are downloadable in printable form.


Thanks for the link and the information about a "rare bird".

Compared to many other countries, the USSR is well represented in the game (which is only fair . . .) but there are some minor gaps. Most of the missing planes are planes which were rushed into service in 1941. They had serious problems and were mostly destroyed by the Luftwaffe during the early days of Barbarossa. Data regarding performance was lost during the confusion of the Russian retreat and the evacuation of critical industries to the East.

While performance data might have been lost for some Soviet early war planes, at least for the Su-2 factory photographs and partial blueprints of the BB-1 and both Su-2 engine variants appear to exist. They have been reprinted, at least in part, in several specialist books that I've been able to find. Additionally, there was a series of articles in Modelist Konstructor in 1974 which probably had lots of good information. People who live in Russia might have better luck finding these issues.

I have found:

- schematics for the turret.

- pictures of the plane in various states of assembly/disassembly showing the engine firewall, engine mounts, wing roots, and rudder frame.

- some pictures of the gunner's compartment, including control panel, radio equipment, good views of the ventral gun station, no views of the inside of the fuselage around the turret, though.

- some pictures of the pilot's compartment, including cockpit and rudders, cockpit combing, and some pictures of the interior of the cockpit (sadly, not complete).

- very good pictures of the bomb bay and various armament loadouts.

- decent pictures of the landing gear (no pictures of the landing gear wheel well, though).

- a diagram showing the positions of the fuel (and possibly oil) tanks.

Assuming that Sita has found the same resources that I have, it just might be possible to create a full Su-2 interior by making a few guesses as to missing equipment based on cockpit photos of contemporary Soviet planes, and by extrapolating from the excellent Modelist Konstructor side-view which is available online.

There are also scale model cockpits for the Su-2, so either the designers are guessing too, or there actually is enough documentation out there to do a full cockpit.

[JacksonsGhost]

As we begin the new year I’ll be happy to see any improvements that Daidalos bring our way as always!

But for what it's worth, my personal number ones on the wish list are still the same as last year really...

Aircraft: Heinkel He 115 (non-flyable is fine)

Ship: USS Ranger (CV-4)

Gameplay: More realistic AI behaviour in general is always greatly appreciated if someone has the know-how to do it. Plenty of room for improvement still, as often discussed in the forums.

Functionality: Not so important, but I haven’t mentioned this before. Having a Full Mission Builder that forgets where you were on the mission building map every time you return from play test mode is really annoying when you’re fine tuning missions in the far corner of a larger map. It would save heaps of time if we had an FMB that automatically returned to the same location and zoom on the map when you exit the play test mode. I don’t know if that’s a difficult ask or not.

Thanks anyway, and happy new year!

[Marabekm]

1. Waypoint headings for the way points in FMB.

IE---- I want to build a mission, and I want my ship on course say 135 Degrees
Currently I have to put in the ship, on what my best guess is to 135. Then put in an aircraft over the ships waypoints, save mission, go out, launch co-op, pick airplane, see its waypoints. Oh.. Its 117 Degrees. Go back out, pull up FMB. Adjust ship a little more to the south. Move aircraft waypoint to match ships again... and repeat and repeat and repeat. A very time consuming process.

2. New loadouts:
for SBD-3/5 ------ two 100 lb bombs on wings with one 500 lb under center
For B5N2 ---- one 800 Kg bomb
two 250 Kg bombs

3. More players :grin:

[Verdun1916]

Ship convoys!

We have land based road columns. It would be great do have something similar for the ships. And it would makes it alot easier every time you want to add a convoy of ships instead of having to make it ourself one ship at a time.

[dimlee]

Ship convoys!

We have land based road columns. It would be great do have something similar for the ships. And it would makes it alot easier every time you want to add a convoy of ships instead of having to make it ourself one ship at a time.

I agree wholeheartedly. Probably, the feature one of the most desired by mission makers.

[Pursuivant]

Ship convoys!

We have land based road columns. It would be great do have something similar for the ships. And it would makes it a lot easier every time you want to add a convoy of ships instead of having to make it ourself one ship at a time.

And if you've got the code to do ship convoys (to make ships "follow the leader" while in formation), it would be easy to program simple movement patterns for the convoy, like zig-zag, or left or right turn, as well as straight ahead.

[JacksonsGhost]

Oh, and while we're talking ships...

We already have the facility in Full Mission Builder to rotate stationary ships on their axes, giving the hope that we might be able to simulate a listing ship, or even a capsized one (think 2nd wave at Pearl Harbor), yet we don't currently have the facility to SAVE those rotations when the mission is saved. Rather frustrating and seemingly pointless ... it would be nice if there was a simple fix for that! But once again I really don't know if that's a big ask.

[Marabekm]

Vought SB2U-3 also served with the French as V-156F

Here is cockpit from surviving SB2U-2

http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/nnam/virtualtour/?s=pano725

[Pursuivant]

Vought SB2U-3 also served with the French as V-156F

That's effectively two different cockpits because the V-156F and SB2U-3 had different instruments, crew equipment, and guns.

[Verdun1916]

Vought SB2U-3 also served with the French as V-156F

Here is cockpit from surviving SB2U-2

http://www.navalaviationmuseum.org/nnam/virtualtour/?s=pano725

Does Vought designed and manufactured aircraft circumvent the whole Northrop-Grumman issue? Apparantly N-G bought Vought in 1994. However in 2000 The Carlyle Group bought Vought from N-G.

If there is no N-G issues the Vought OS2U Kingfisher would be a cool edition to fill the gap of the lack of an western allied floatplane.

[gaunt1]

My wish list is just about every plane in ww2, flyable.

No, seriously. Just the Ju-88C6. Hopefully with cockpit.

[Pursuivant]

Does Vought designed and manufactured aircraft circumvent the whole Northrop-Grumman issue? Apparently, N-G bought Vought in 1994. However, in 2000 The Carlyle Group bought Vought from N-G.

It depends on the exact wording of the consent decree, but I'm guessing that Vought aircraft are officially off-limits. That would explain the lack of improvements to the Corsair series over the years.

That means that, for American catapult-launched float planes, our only options are the horrible Curtiss SO3C Sea Mew or the reliable, if obsolescent, Curtiss SOC Seagull.

[Verdun1916]

It depends on the exact wording of the consent decree, but I'm guessing that Vought aircraft are officially off-limits. That would explain the lack of improvements to the Corsair series over the years.

That means that, for American catapult-launched float planes, our only options are the horrible Curtiss SO3C Sea Mew or the reliable, if obsolescent, Curtiss SOC Seagull.

You are most likely right.

well, a US floatplane would be nice. But luckely it's not at the top o my wishlist, the Blenheim, Wellington, Swordfish, SeaHurricane and the D.520 are. :P

I'm also looking forward to the MDR-2 and the BoB-era Spitfire.

[Pursuivant]

well, a US floatplane would be nice. But luckily it's not at the top o my wishlist, the Blenheim, Wellington, Swordfish, SeaHurricane and the D.520 are. :P

A flyable Blenheim is at the top of my list since it fills the most "holes" - early war, British bomber, widely-produced, used on all fronts, used in multiple roles, used by several Air Forces other than the RAF, historically important role in multiple aerial campaigns.

[Verdun1916]

A flyable Blenheim is at the top of my list since it fills the most "holes" - early war, British bomber, widely-produced, used on all fronts, used in multiple roles, used by several Air Forces other than the RAF, historically important role in multiple aerial campaigns.

I can only agree with you! It would fill the gap of an Winter War and early Continuation War bomber for the Finns, something very dear to my heart.
And besides I've always found the long nosed version to be a very good looking aircraft hehe :D

[Verdun1916]

A flyable, Heinkel He 115 would be a cool addition for a future update.

[dedogist]

Personally, I would absolutely love to see a minor revamp to the existing classic DGen campaigns to make them take advantage of some of the newer additions we have had.

It would also be fantastic if the classic DGen grand campaigns could be upgraded with more units and detail populating airfields and stuff as they feel a bit bare-bones now that they have aged. :grin:

[Fhechene]

I always expect that the vanishing treelines 169 and 170 bug be corrected.

Playing with mods I realised that the issue is not with those trees alone. For example, in Asura's modpack, 1149, 1150, 3103, 3114 and 3127 treelines also don't show. Curiously, multiple palm trees do show. It seems it's something in the game itself. So maybe, how about giving us the individual trees of those treelines?

[Verdun1916]

It would be nice to have the eight five-inch HVAR rockets added.
A flyable B-25H or J with a solid nose would be really cool to.

Rockets for the P-51 would be nice to.

[Music]

a couple of features I would like too see added.

The Head left and Right and Up are not available if you use a head tracking device, (as far as i can tell). Using only a one point cap, that would be a nice thing to have. And ability to set your head height along a axis as a default position.

Ability to deselected individual planes (A.I.) from external camera view, and visibility on in_game map. Lock a camera on to a column of tanks/vehicles or non carrier ships.

Time out on Cameras, on and off

Ability to select Country, restore if wrecked, plane type/Object/tank(s) available, like only Russian from 1943, German from 1943, or even individual planes, tanks, vehicles, Artillery, & objects available, so only they show up in objects list when building mission. And of course, the ability to change mid stream if you want.

A way to cloak unwanted airfields.

Ground vehicles that have speed variable. And tank columns that disperse when enemy planes are attacking, or enemy tanks are near enough to fire at, really get some distance between them.

Tanks that only fire when a target is in line of sight. Right now, they will shoot through every building, looks realistic, all the columns of smoke and explosions in the city, but I'd like to have them play cat and mouse in the buildings, with me hunting them from the air.

Ability to move the clouds when building a mission.

sub categories for Objects, runways, buildings, winter, German tanks, or even axis tanks allied tanks, ect. And one for sand bags, I can never find them.

Dreams....
Don't know if it's possible, I though one was in the works, but a jeep, or truck with AAA, or even one tank that the player can use. I was watching ships run through a mission, and thought it would be cool to control the big guns, or a AAA battery and steer the ship like a plane. (graphics do not have to be photo realistic, the way things move is perfect, the game feels real in that way)

Flying a mission makes a ghost track for a A.I. plane you can add. Or at least sets way points, maybe a key to leave a anchor.

Some things I have mentioned in other posts.

Gun stats and the Map at end of campaign mode that shows your flight path at end of all mission types would be nice.

Players on line can fly a flight of four bombers like in QMB, and with the ability jump from one to the other as they get shot down, if they do.

to that, AI gunners in bombers that don't all fire at once, and continuously. especially the heavies. Had a flight of b-29's run out of ammo the other day, Was setting up freetrack, getting the turning the head to be fluid and realistic, just flying along with the stream. They never stopped firing at me.

Update old maps with new textures, especially the Pacific, those dark textures from the Solomons would look great on Pacific islands, or any of the old maps, and the few European ones.
Thats off the top of my head, :-P

Cheers.

[Verdun1916]

The Halifax B.III would be a nice addition. Both for AI and as a playable one.

[KG26_Alpha]

Playing with mods I realised that the issue is not with those trees alone. For example, in Asura's modpack, 1149, 1150, 3103, 3114 and 3127 treelines also don't show. Curiously, multiple palm trees do show. It seems it's something in the game itself. So maybe, how about giving us the individual trees of those treelines?

Check perfect mode is enabled.

[Fhechene]

Check perfect mode is enabled.

I know I can do that, thanks. I can also reduce tree texture via conf.ini. Those are two fixes that I know of. At what I'm pointing at it's that given what I posted we may have a clue about the issue(s?) that makes treelines invisible at high resolutions and tree texture quality.


And at what I pointed at in my previous post is that I'd like a fix that doesn't entail reducing graphics quality.

[KG26_Alpha]

Makers of modded maps infer that the use of perfect mode is necessary.

Canonuk Channel map is one example where its been modded many times by different people using different textures and techniques.

One of our squad was getting kicked from loading the map until some graphic settings were applied.

Some talk about textures etc.
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=8364

[Music]

A couple of additional features that would be nice,

Ability to adjust HOTAS while in cockpit, flying. Never really fine tuned it, just set to something that seemed ok, or the best after a few tries, and left it. I have a basic curve I know works for every re_install, but increments of 1 here and 2 there might make a difference.

A QMB mission where your plane is set up on a stand, so your tail is up while stationary, level to the ground, to set up gun convergence, with a target that you can move forward and back. Maybe just a Traditional circle, but why not a stationary plane, even be able to pivot it to see what different hits do.

They also had a bit of lee way with up and down apparently, a half inch spacer at either end of the length of the Gun would change the angle at 200 yards by quite a bit. If you are targeting Ground stuff you'd put a spacer under the back of gun, to keep your nose up while straffing And dog fighting spacer at front of Gun. so you were shooting high. I don't know if they did that, but it would make sense.

And the ability to sit in cockpit and change settings. (That might be a problem as far as security goes), but even just to quit back to QMB, and change it and reload game would be easier than taking off and strafing watching the alt meter trying to gauge things.

:idea:
Any thoughts on convergence Pilots. I have mine set to 175m for wep 1 and 200m for wep 2. I figure thats 500 feet and 600 feet, Just at 2 foot ball fields away, or little further than the next row of houses behind the the ones across the street from me, something tangible.

The best shots seem to come when target is between .75 .50 on the tag when turning and burning, moves less in the screen, and you can see the flaps moving by then, and plane is clear enough to see when pilot is slipping side ways. and is close enough to see where bullets are going. Mine go wide

It's the same with Ground Stuff, my convergence seems to be right for the Gun cam footage that is high res enough to see where the convergence is in ground strikes. Namely B-29's over japan, when the P-1's go strafing, and P-47's over Italy.

Both are good quality color USSAF official releases, The Fighting Lady also is in good shape, and has a lot of Pacific footage to go by. All three of those titles should bring you right to those movies on uTube.

I've had it down to 100w1 and 120w2, and as wide as 650w1 700w2. But I find the .75 .50 is the best shot as far as taking one with confidence that you might hit it, so have had it around there for a while now.

i think my guns have a device like the one that stops props from getting shot off, except mine stops the guns when a target might get hit. ;)



Cheers!

[JacksonsGhost]

If considering modelling the Heinkel He-115 here's an extensive thread from Storm of War devoted to drawings and discussion for doing just that.

http://www.stormofwar.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=5252

I didn't realize there is already an AI He-115 modelled in Cliffs of Dover. I'm not sure if that helps or hinders our chances of getting it in 1946.

[Sita]

in fact DT have own unfinished He115

https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,55259.msg600681.html#msg600681

[Verdun1916]

in fact DT have own unfinished He115

https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,55259.msg600681.html#msg600681

Cool! :grin: Is it a work in progress for a future update?

I just have a think for float planes and sea planes in this game. We have so many great maps were they can be employed so it would be awesome to have more of them as flyables to take advantage of that!

I'm really looking forward to the MBR-2! And the HE-115 would be a great addition for the Axis side. And so would the Catalina/Nomad be for the allies.

[Sita]

we have a lot unfinished projects ... Magot have somewhere even PBY ... in dark DT Hangar)

[Music]

Hey, ever heard of this, a buoyant runway, this would be cool.

https://youtu.be/aBBVcMB9yqY?t=472
wait, Il-2 updating notice??

info buble says "stationary Buoyant runways added to D//:Il-2/objects/stationary ships."

ummmmmm, thanks, Sita, DT Oleg, what service...

https://youtu.be/aBBVcMB9yqY?t=472

[JacksonsGhost]

in fact DT have own unfinished He115

https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,55259.msg600681.html#msg600681

Excellent! Thank you! You've probably already seen or contributed to the info in that storm of war thread then.

I have a half finished historical mission in dire need of the He-115! I was starting to think I'd just have to pretend by using the CANT Z.506 in German markings as a poor substitute! I guess in the short term that will have to do as I will hopefully be completing that mission fairly soon.

[shelby]

we have a lot unfinished projects ... Magot have somewhere even PBY ... in dark DT Hangar)sometime i saw ki-44 beaufighter os2u more p40s.

[shelby]

i wish for the bluckburn skua and roc

[kalsonic]

Something that I've hoped for to be in both 1946 and BoX. Any chance this would be implemented for 4.14? It is does somewhat exist for 1946 due to realistic navigation (you have to be in a certain range and altitude for ship/YG beacons to work), but there's not much of this for the earlier years of the war (1942 and previous).

Not only would this difficulty option add more depth to the sim, but also provide a better overall performance outlook for some aircrafts which seem to have gain weight throughout the years without much noticeable improvement in engine, durability and firepower. Heavier radio equipment with its own communication performance would've justified the increased weight and add to the gameplay experience.

And then there's the carrier catapults. So far the only way to fly off a fully loaded Corsair from a CVL is by giving enough wind speed. CVEs are for the most part a worse option due to it not having catapult capabilty to compensate for its short deck.

I really hope these two suggestions would be featured in 4.14. Thank Team Daidalos for your support all these years.

[Verdun1916]

Armed merchants would be nice. Versions of the already present merchant and tanker ships with a gun or two for self protection.

[JacksonsGhost]

Armed merchants would be nice. Versions of the already present merchant and tanker ships with a gun or two for self protection.

+1 to that.

[Marabekm]

Something that I've hoped for to be in both 1946 and BoX. Any chance this would be implemented for 4.14? It is does somewhat exist for 1946 due to realistic navigation (you have to be in a certain range and altitude for ship/YG beacons to work), but there's not much of this for the earlier years of the war (1942 and previous).

Not only would this difficulty option add more depth to the sim, but also provide a better overall performance outlook for some aircrafts which seem to have gain weight throughout the years without much noticeable improvement in engine, durability and firepower. Heavier radio equipment with its own communication performance would've justified the increased weight and add to the gameplay experience.

And then there's the carrier catapults. So far the only way to fly off a fully loaded Corsair from a CVL is by giving enough wind speed. CVEs are for the most part a worse option due to it not having catapult capabilty to compensate for its short deck.

I really hope these two suggestions would be featured in 4.14. Thank Team Daidalos for your support all these years.


We don't have any CVLs in the stock game. (And there is a reason no Corsairs ever operated from a CVL or CVE) Make sure your carrier is going full speed, or around 25 - 30 kts (45 - 55 kph). Also they need to be going into the wind.

I would also highly, highly recommend against Corsair operation from a CVE. CVEs, cant reach as high of speeds. Around 18 kts I believe is the max. (30 kph) . Stick with the FM-2.
Catapults would still be a good idea of course, and we have them in HSFX. (Which since your talking about CVLs, I assume your already using!


Ok, I am excited for the Ju-52 and Gooney Bird (C-47)!!!!
Maybe not the most exciting to fly a cargo plane, but opens up a whole new range of missions I can make. Also the flying boat is very cool. Time to go hunting for Kriegsmarine! Recon missions, are also,not the most exciting but necessary and as a mission builder, it gives me opportunity to build new and different missions!!!

Now for my wish list: (For some later patch)
Flyable TBD-1
Flyable Blenheim Mk I and/or Mk IV
New armament for SBD-3 and -5 ---- 1 x 500 and 2 x 100 pound bombs
New armament for B5N2 ----- 2 x 250 Kg bombs
1 x 250 Kg and 6 x 60 Kg bombs
1 x 800 Kg bomb
Japanese Cruisers!!!!
One day ... LOL
Cr-32
Ba. 65
Sm. 81
F1M1 Pete
A6M2-22
D3A2
Any of the Ki-bombers for IJA (Ki-48,Ki-49, Ki-51,etc.)

[inglishpl]

From september 1939:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.37_Łoś

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZL.23_Karaś

[Fighterace]

Possible for more US aircraft

[iMattheush]

He 111 H-1 or early H-2 (with only 3 MG 15s)

[Verdun1916]

After reading a bit in Hannu Valtonens book "Luftwaffe saved Finland" about Gefechtsverband Kuhlmeys and their role in stopping the Soviet summer offensive in 1944 on the Karelian Istmus I started looking through all the diffrent battlefield maps in the book and realised there is an area that would be great to have represented in the stock IL-2 1946.

The Southern part of Eastern Karelia (Ladoga Karelia and Aunus), were the front ran along the Svir between Ladoga and Onega for the most part of the Continuation War of 1941-1944.

The area saw heavy fighting during the Winter War in 1939-1940 when the Soviets invaded Finland. Then again during the summer and fall of 1941 as the Finns launched their offensive to recapture what they had lost during the Winter War. After the Finnish offensive the front stabalized along the Svir between Ladoga and Onega and a war of position commenced that lasted until the summer of 1944. Then the Red Army launched it's summer offensive to push the Finns back.

This area was spacely populated with few larger towns or cities, few roads, vast forrests and lot's of lakes, rivers and streams, from small to big and.

This would be a great area for a new summer and winter map. And it would give the Finnish Curtiss Hawk 75's a home since most of them saw service in this area of operation.
The countless lakes would be perfect for secret missions with the upcomming MBR-2 aswell.

I'd love to see this area added as a summer and Winter map sometime in the future.

[Sita]

http://waralbum.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Finni-s-sovetskim-MBR_2_M_34.jpg

)

[Verdun1916]

Great photo, Sita! Thanks for sharing! :D

[Pursuivant]

After reading a bit in Hannu Valtonens book "Luftwaffe saved Finland" about Gefechtsverband Kuhlmeys and their role in stopping the Soviet summer offensive in 1944 on the Karelian Istmus I started looking through all the diffrent battlefield maps in the book and realised there is an area that would be great to have represented in the stock IL-2 1946.

One of the first modded maps for IL2 was Kapteeni's Svir Map which covers exactly the area you're asking for.

IIRC, it was pretty good.

I wonder if it would be possible to adapt it to stock IL2?

[Verdun1916]

One of the first modded maps for IL2 was Kapteeni's Svir Map which covers exactly the area you're asking for.

IIRC, it was pretty good.

I wonder if it would be possible to adapt it to stock IL2?

I hope it would since I only play the stock game.

[dimlee]

Looking at the photo above.
Those Finns, they put anything on skis, don't they?
Give them B-29 and... :grin:

[idefix44]

To be able to increase the engine(s) sound volume heard from the cockpit without increasing all the other objects sound volume (no ear radar).

Thanks.

[Pursuivant]

Looking at the photo above.
Those Finns, they put anything on skis, don't they?
Give them B-29 and... :grin:

And VERY thick ice on a VERY big lake and enough vodka . . .

[shelby]

swordfish or tbd flyable

[Sita]

swordfish

another one bird from my dream((

[shelby]

he177a5 for the guided bombs

[saldy]

he177a5 for the guided bombs

Yeeeees:idea:

WpZl2e8MzPI&

[shelby]

CAC Wirraway for RAAF

[stugumby]

Since there are 2 engines coupled to each other, which engine is 1,2 etc, is it outer first, inner first etc. And for engine start, same thing is it prop wont rotate until engine 2 is started etc? just curious as its a duplex drive arrangement. Same for prop pitch is it automatic?

Also a question on the MBR, is it fixed pitch or variable pitched?

[JacksonsGhost]

CAC Wirraway for RAAF

That would be nice from an Australian historical mission perspective. It would certainly make for some not-so-nice challenges as a pilot flying it in air combat missions against the Japanese! Although primarily a trainer, it was used quite a bit as a combat aircraft in the early desperate actions against the Japanese.

If anyone with the skills is keen to make it a project I'm pretty much a one stop shop for any historical, photographic, or tech data you would like to have for it. Just message me. Generally speaking, the aerial actions of the Pacific in 1942 are my most specialized area of historical expertise so you're welcome to quiz me on that anytime if it helps to improve the sim. :)

[stugumby]

wasnt there a Boomerang made several years ago, from the aviator mod team in new zealand??

[Sita]

i saw only a render... and some picts on SAS ...

[Pursuivant]

wasnt there a Boomerang made several years ago, from the aviator mod team in new zealand??

It was a victim of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. IIRC, Team Pacific had the project well along, plus a few other projects, when they lost everything.

Moral: Backups. Multiple backups in multiple locations.

After that, I have no idea what happened to them. I think that they lost interest in modding IL2 and moved on to other things.

[Music]

more of a question than a request....
Is it possible to have the Net part of the game load random versions of say "MTO", like you can do in QMB by changing the suffix.
MTODogfight00, MTODogfight01, MTODogfight02 ect.

[Fhechene]

I remember that there were some buildings that couldn't be destroyed if attacked. I mean, 16 fully loaded B-29's. I can't remember which ones, exactly, but, maybe Reichstag or Stella or Brandemburg Gate? I'm sure there are others.

[Pursuivant]

I remember that there were some buildings that couldn't be destroyed if attacked. I mean, 16 fully loaded B-29's. I can't remember which ones, exactly, but, maybe Reichstag or Stella or Brandemburg Gate? I'm sure there are others.

That might be intentional. All those objects are more or less solid stone and they survived countless air raids during the war.

Also, the Reichstag was destroyed before WW2 started, so in the game, it should already show up as destroyed! :)

[dimlee]

That might be intentional. All those objects are more or less solid stone and they survived countless air raids during the war.

Also, the Reichstag was destroyed before WW2 started, so in the game, it should already show up as destroyed! :)

Reichstag was damaged but "destroyed" would be exaggeration in my opinion.

[Fhechene]

That might be intentional. All those objects are more or less solid stone and they survived countless air raids during the war.

Also, the Reichstag was destroyed before WW2 started, so in the game, it should already show up as destroyed! :)

I understand that some of those building were super tough in reality, but still, shouldn't they at least have a charred sprite after being destroyed? I can't remember too well, but I believe the Reichstag had a charred sprite, but the Brandenburg gate didn't. Or maybe it was the other way around, I can't really remember.

[Pursuivant]

I understand that some of those building were super tough in reality, but still, shouldn't they at least have a charred sprite after being destroyed? I can't remember too well, but I believe the Reichstag had a charred sprite, but the Brandenburg gate didn't. Or maybe it was the other way around, I can't really remember.

Not much to burn on a big stone arch, but a "broken" model seems appropriate.

FWIW, the Reichstag did suffer additional damage during WW2, and for many years the central dome wasn't replaced. After German unification, the original dome was replaced with a clear glass one.

Given the famous Soviet film of Russian troops raising the red banner over the ruins of the Reichstag, it seems like a major oversight by 1C if they didn' include a destroyed model.

I guess I'll have to go and virtually bomb Berlin to make sure. . . :)

[Fhechene]

Not much to burn on a big stone arch, but a "broken" model seems appropriate.

FWIW, the Reichstag did suffer additional damage during WW2, and for many years the central dome wasn't replaced. After German unification, the original dome was replaced with a clear glass one.

Given the famous Soviet film of Russian troops raising the red banner over the ruins of the Reichstag, it seems like a major oversight by 1C if they didn' include a destroyed model.

I guess I'll have to go and virtually bomb Berlin to make sure. . . :)

Now that you are bombing Berlin, I can't see for myself right now, so, I'll ask you. Is the Reich Chancellery building present in Berlin? I can't really remember.

[Marabekm]

All the new aircraft added since 4.11 are not in the Temperature guide. Can we get this guide updated?

[ddr]

Hello! I hope is possible to adjust the text for new planes in "wiew object" section - yes, it isn't a priority, I know...

[cstaunton92]

These documents suggest that the He 177 A-3/R-2 could be armed with guided bombs:

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/h/Heinkel/He%20177/He%20177%20A_2%20R_2%20Flugstrecke.pdf

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/he-177a-jpg.358397/

[taly001]

My main gripe with the game is the formation spacing is too close - every 4th mission or so some planes collide - could the default spacing be put into conf.ini - or just increased even + extra 5m each may be enough!

Also when using 2x 4x time could it be set to drop back to 1x when enemy is 10km of player (or any plane). Could even play Klaxon alarm then too so if out of room you are alerted!


Hello! I hope is possible to adjust the text for new planes in "wiew object" section - yes, it isn't a priority, I know...

A plane data viewer would be nice even with just with show engine name, guns types nose wing etc (how did they make the old "il2 Compare" programs with flight data?).

[idefix44]

To taly001,

May be do you need a Tesla plane, with Ace autopilot skill level switched on full auto?

[taly001]

May be do you need a Tesla plane, with Ace autopilot skill level switched on full auto?

He He I do enjoy watching the AI fight, but no one has time to fly 200km in real time and leaving it in normal 2x 4x it will do all the fights without player even knowing.

[idefix44]

..., but no one has time to fly 200km in real time ...

If you were right no need of big nice maps...
You aren't a simer, may be just a little gamer.

[wheelsup_cavu]

He He I do enjoy watching the AI fight, but no one has time to fly 200km in real time and leaving it in normal 2x 4x it will do all the fights without player even knowing.

Set a key for the time skip function. It is in the Time Compression area of the Controls as are the other time speed up options. This option gives you a black screen with a timer in the lower right corner while it is running but if an enemy appears in your area you will get kicked out of the Time skip option and back into the game.


Wheels

[Oh Chute!]

My main gripe with the game is the formation spacing is too close - every 4th mission or so some planes collide - could the default spacing be put into conf.ini - or just increased even + extra 5m each may be enough!

Since 4.13, 4.13.1 the flight formation has been broken. You are good with three or four AI aircraft but with six AI aircraft, two flight squadron, planes five and six want to cover position three and four of first flight. With (fighters) carrying bomb loads, Igenerally lose planes four and five before finishing circling the field after take off.
Same with some escort missions in German and Russian fighter campaigns. Fighter escort lead tries to take up position of number two bomber. That’s good for three or four mid air collisions. Because the routing over every enemy ack ack position isn’t enough to deal with. :-)

[Marabekm]

If you were right no need of big nice maps...
You aren't a simer, may be just a little gamer.

Some people prefer to fly one 200 km length mission a night, while others want to fly twenty 10 km length missions a night. Everyone likes different things.

[taly001]

I can get by using time skip but the I don't like watching a black screen ;) I don't know what depth TD has to code access but if the Time Skip auto return at enemy contact could be added to 4x 8x code blocks it would be nice.

With (fighters) carrying bomb loads, I generally lose planes four and five before finishing circling the field after take off.

I see some similar happenings sometimes with the AI slug heavy bombers, but i've also seen fighters break into each other not the best way to start a mission. It does seem to be some formation configurations are wrong as exactly the same thing usually happens if you replay the mission!

[Oh Chute!]

I see some similar happenings sometimes with the AI slug heavy bombers, but i've also seen fighters break into each other not the best way to start a mission. It does seem to be some formation configurations are wrong as exactly the same thing usually happens if you replay the mission!

Yes. Replay changes little. Though once having lost four AI in my squadron to this ‘bug’ I hit replay and was rewarded with having then lost only two. :-)

I lose AI to the ‘standing on the wing tip’ to check 6 o’clock. Eventually in formation, plane a and plane b stand on near wings and collide. :-(

[DavidHayabusa]

Hi all this is my first post here on this forum. I have been playing Il-2 since it came out and I really enjoy the fact the game is still alive thanks to the team still working on it and mods that enhanced the game.

I was wondering whether it is possible to correct the FM of the Lavockhin series. When I fly these planes I find them to be to easy to control. They pick up speed quite fast, they can maneuver without stalling. In fact they can do really tight turns especially the La 7. You can shoot down anything with them even jets.

Is their FM really realistic? I feel they need to be nerfed.

The other thing is the AI. They really do not know to how used the the different strengths of their aircraft. For the example they fly the FW-190 like it was a Yak or a Spit which in turn they are slaughtered easily by the enemy. The Ai or the game in general favors turning battles an we know that not all fighter planes are suitable for this.

Maybe something can be done to help the AI acknowledge the different strengths and tactics needed for the aircraft.

[DavidHayabusa]

??

[greybeard1]

From "Fighter Combat - TACTICS AND MANEUVERING, By Robert L. Shaw":

"It has been estimated that throughout the history of air combat 80 to 90 percent of downed fighter pilots were unaware of their danger until the moment of the attack."

From 4.11 Guide:

"AI planes will no longer detect enemy planes automatically inside certain radius. Position and size of enemy plane is the main factor here. Bigger plane will obviously produce a bigger and more visible "dot" and it will be more visible to AI. AI skill will generally determine how well AI can spot targets. Also every gunner on board will contribute to enemy spotting by covering their own sectors. Generally pilots will keep looking more forwards than backwards. Occasionally fighters execute fishtail maneuver to get better view behind. Planes will be less visible against dark background like land, but more visible against brighter background like sky and clouds. Clouds & land mass blocks AI's ability to see other planes behind them. For example it is possible to evade attacking AI plane by hiding in clouds. AI planes will also try to hide in clouds in certain conditions. AI's own plane will block their line of sight. This is calculated from the plane's collision model. For example basically all planes cannot see directly below them, unless the plane has ventral/bottom gunner that can cover the underside. For example plane like Blenheim has blind spot rear & behind since it has no tail/bottom gunner. Plane like B-17 with bottom/rear gunners cannot be surprised from rear & behind like Blenheim (during daylight). Occasionally fighters will execute roll maneuvers to get a look directly below them. When fighter is pulling positive G's to get a lead shot and target goes invisible under nose, AI will not see the target. Instead of aiming at the actual target, AI is shooting at estimated target which position is extrapolated based on the last real observations. Much like human brain would do."

Well, I would really like these features to be efficiently implemented, since, so far (4.13.4), I still fail to make an "ambush" to any enemy aircraft. Invariably, even if it is alone, when I reach a distance from it of less than a few hundred meters (let's say 400) it snaps into a series of incredible evasive maneuvers, sometimes so unreal that I burst out laughing (like the "false stall", recovered only a few meters from the ground). If I attack a Blenheim from rear and below (as mentioned in the previous guide) the tail gunner not only sees me, but also manages to shoot me! I am puzzled when, in a formation of C-47, I see the last of the row twists and turns "to see what's behind". Even hiding inside the clouds does not seem to work; according to Storebror (who can read the code) it is true that the AI ​​does not see the opponent inside the clouds, but continues to look for him so aggressively that sooner or later he finds it the same!

In the game "Red Baron" (the first, of 1990) you could really hide in a cloud and veering inside a couple of times, the enemy AI could not find you anymore. As for the "ambushes", in the game Falcon 3.0 of 1991, were one of its features: approaching from below at six o'clock with the radar off you could get to knock down the opponent without being seen.

It's a pity that these old game features are not capitalized on new ones and the new developer teams always start from scratch.

Respectfully,
GB

[greybeard1]

In previous game versions (4.11/4.12) were introduced both "JazzPlayer" and reduction of AI visual identification range at night.

I wonder if any of developers checked if they could work AT NIGHT. Actually, you may easily realize that AI visual identification range at night is so much reduced that, after first contact, AI loses sight of its target and IS UNABLE TO REGAIN for the rest of flight. This way all night fightings end up in a "nothing done".

The problem could be solved easily playing game earlier versions (e.g.: 4.10), but it's a pity to lose the possibility to fight WITH AI firing at enemy bombers from underneath.

[Verdun1916]

I would love to see a Dewoitine D.520 added one day! :)
Not sure how authentic this one is but it does look good:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=829gWdVUjJE (www.youtube.com/watch?v=829gWdVUjJE")

[Sita]

will be .. already maded preimport in game, external model by Macwan and Pit by Kashiide... but still a lot of work it... so won't be include in 4.14 ...

[Verdun1916]

will be .. already maded preimport in game, external model by Macwan and Pit by Kashiide... but still a lot of work it... so won't be include in 4.14 ...

Sita, you guys do amazing work! And you have given me and many others something to look forward, not just for 4.14, but for the next upcoming updates! :D

The D.520 has always been a plane I wanted to see in the stock game. And I can't thank you guys enough for adding it. No matter if it will be in 4.15 or later! :D

[stugumby]

Has the He-177 load out list been finalized,and will there be a engine guide?

[Jumpy]

Sita, you guys do amazing work! And you have given me and many others something to look forward, not just for 4.14, but for the next upcoming updates! :D

The D.520 has always been a plane I wanted to see in the stock game. And I can't thank you guys enough for adding it. No matter if it will be in 4.15 or later! :D

I agree that Sita and the other members of Daidalos Team do great work. More than keeping Il2 still going it might be said that they have rebuilt it. Thankyou. Bolshoui Spasiba!

I thought some might be interested in the following news item:


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-lincolnshire-46003133/the-dunkirk-veteran-who-escaped-to-sea-on-a-shed-door-celebrates-his-100th-birthday I hope the link works.

[baball]

Has the He-177 load out list been finalized,and will there be a engine guide?

The He-177 A3/R2's loadouts are divided in three categories : heavy (Rüstsätze A), medium (Rüstsätze B) and light (Rüstsätze C). For example, SC50s will be divided in loads of 48, 32 and 16 bombs for each category.

As for engine management you can take a look at this page : http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/h/Heinkel/He%20177/He%20177%20A_2%20R_2%20Flugstrecke.pdf (only for Rüstsatze C for now. I'll upload the one for Rüstsatze B later). I've done some testing on the beta while using this manual and I can safely say that you can pretty much fly by the book on the He-177.:)

[ddr]

Hello! I can wait for release of your work!!
maybe in a future patch we can see a flyable Hs-123?
Thanks for your effort, TD! :-)

[stugumby]

Ok seems the load out wont include what was previously out there with fritz x and torpedoes etc. Still quite a load carrier for short range missions.

[Marabekm]

Hmm. Christmas wishlist. :rolleyes:

Cr.32
Ba. 65
Flyable TBD-1
Flyable Blenheim

Some Italian and British ships and ground objects, such as artillery and AA guns, trucks, etc.

New armament on SBDs ---- 1 x 500 and 2 x 100 bombs
B5N2 ----- 2 x 250 Kg bombs
1 x 800 Kg bomb

And for Daidalos team to get whatever they want/need to keep up the work.

[Barti]

Hi. You could fix P.11c. There are several things in the game that are incorrect:
- the date of construction 1939, it should be 1933
- the underside of the wings should be blue
- lower chessboards on patches should not have white fields, only red colors were painted
- the speedometer indicator disappears when the engine is turned off, after landing
- the gear should not fall off in a diving flight, history doesn't know such cases
- it was possible to refuse a fuel tank in a plane in the event of a fire
- a fuel gauge should be on the left side of the instrument panel
- add a mirror on the windshield
- some planes had an additional mirror on the right side of the cabin
- some of the aircrafts had an on-board radio station; add antenna links
- pilot could see the 2 mg on the hawks from the inside of the cabin
- on the left side of the cabin there was a rocket in the holder; on both sides of the control stick shaft of the cartridge box
- the emblem of the units appears in the wrong place, they should move a bit forward, so as not to cover the serial number of the aircraft.
- 303 Squadron (polish unit in UK) used the 111 emblem from Cracow
- radio signals are missing at the bottom of the panel
- in polish aviation, planes in the border protection corps had other designation like that https://www.thenostalgiashop.co.uk/Polish-P.Z.L.-P-11c-Aircraft.-Print-(ref-PR583)/3783.htm
- there was also another experimental camouflage in sharpheads https://modelwork.pl/topic/10717-pzl-p24-a-mirage-148/?page=4

Rifle weapons are 2 mg in the fuselage or 2 in the fuselage and additionally 2 on the hawks. Both variants carried the same designation P.11c. Airplanes with 4 mg were rising slowly and had less maneuverability.

[dedogist]

The Current AI in 1946 is the only thing i find (as someone who still plays a lot) that has a majorly negative impact on the game. At various difficulty levels the AI is always making ridiculous high deflection campaign-ending shots from 100s of meters away without hardly ever missing. These shots are often performed while they wouldn't even be able to see you over their nose. If they start missing, they'll correct instantly even if they couldn't realistically see you.

The second issue with the AI i have is that often the fighters can be somewhat predictable in both their defensive maneuvering as well as when entering a fight. When entering an air battle, the AI loves to do weird stuff that puts them (often) under their opponents with low energy states. It would be awesome if they would be more conservative in their maneuverings until they actually engaged.

[Marabekm]

Hmm. How about adding bomb armaments to the P-400? At least a 500 pound bomb option.

[JacksonsGhost]

Hmm. How about adding bomb armaments to the P-400? At least a 500 pound bomb option.

+1 for that, if the P-400 did have bomb capability. Does your research indicate this? I know the P-39D introduced the bomb armament for the P-39, and they all had it thereafter. Now although the P-400 was produced generally in parallel with the P-39D it did have a different armament, so I'm not 100% sure it included the bomb carrying ability. Numerous pictures showing them with drop tanks would seem to suggest bomb carrying ability was there also, so you're probably quite right. :)

I would definitely like to see the US manufactured bombs available for the later P-39 load outs, which only have the FAB-250 for some reason. The later versions of the P-39 were definitely used with bombs by the USAAF as late as 1944 in Italy on P-39N and Q of the 350th Fighter Group in Italy. One of these attacks will feature in an upcoming Fw 190 historical mission which I'm currently working on and plan to upload on M4T, so it would be nice to be able to feature the correct US manufacture bombs. I doubt this would be too difficult since the earlier P-39 models already have the US 500 pound bombs available.

[Marabekm]

+1 for that, if the P-400 did have bomb capability. Does your research indicate this? I know the P-39D introduced the bomb armament for the P-39, and they all had it thereafter. Now although the P-400 was produced generally in parallel with the P-39D it did have a different armament, so I'm not 100% sure it included the bomb carrying ability. Numerous pictures showing them with drop tanks would seem to suggest bomb carrying ability was there also, so you're probably quite right. :)

I would definitely like to see the US manufactured bombs available for the later P-39 load outs, which only have the FAB-250 for some reason. The later versions of the P-39 were definitely used with bombs by the USAAF as late as 1944 in Italy on P-39N and Q of the 350th Fighter Group in Italy. One of these attacks will feature in an upcoming Fw 190 historical mission which I'm currently working on and plan to upload on M4T, so it would be nice to be able to feature the correct US manufacture bombs. I doubt this would be too difficult since the earlier P-39 models already have the US 500 pound bombs available.

Since you asked.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/heroic-airacobras-of-the-cactus-air-force/

What would really give us the answer, is if anyone could dig up a pilots handbook/manual for the P-400/P-39.

Notice where it says they used bombs for ground attack after failing to compete as fighters. For now, I can use the P-39 and P-400 interchangeably, but... Its a wishlist so I wished. lol

[JacksonsGhost]

[QUOTE=Marabekm;718330]Since you asked.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/heroic-airacobras-of-the-cactus-air-force/]

Good job! That's a detailed account of the P-400s using 500 pound bombs at Guadalcanal. In fact I've added it to my bookmarks!

However, the author's lack of source quotation is annoying.

I did some digging through my own research papers and found a chapter which was basically devoted to P-400 operations at Guadalcanal from "Pacific Sweep" by William N. Hess, published in 1974. It backs up your article in stating that the Airacobras at Guadalcanal were initially 14 P-400s, not P-39s, so I assume the two P-39Fs mentioned in your link were gone by then (or not sent to Guadalcanal). And in the context of September 1942 it speaks of P-400 bombing missions and says "When replacement aircraft came up they were still P-400s. There was nothing else to send". So that's pretty firm support for the P-400 using bombs. Hess refers to the P-400 using 500 pound and 100 pound bombs.


In summary I'm convinced that all of the current Airacobra types in the game should be capable of carrying a single bomb of any of the standard US sizes up to 500 pound (or even 600 pound according to some reputable sources). Same goes for the drop tank option instead of a bomb.

Just having the existing US 500 pound bomb and 75 gal drop tank options available across all the Airacobra types would be enough to satisfy most situations I think!

[JacksonsGhost]

As we begin the new year I’ll be thankful for any improvements that Daidalos brings our way once again!

But for what it's worth, here's the top of my wish list this year (some old, some new) ...

Aircraft: Heinkel He 115, Yokosuka D4Y please (non-flyable for both is fine by me)

Object: USS Ranger (CV-4)

Map: A true-scale correct geography Central Italy map (centred around Grosseto would be wonderful, including a good amount of the Tyrrhenian Sea).

Air Force: China (an official complete Nationalist Chinese Air Force setup including default aircraft markings and default pilot skins etc would be great)

Gameplay: Daidalos have been awesome in giving some love to the AI behaviour in previous patches, and this is greatly appreciated, but I'd still love to see more improvements in the obvious things like forced-landing behaviour and return-to-base when damaged behaviour if possible (as often discussed in the forums). One more specific request from me is common sense jettison actions by AI fighters engaging in dogfights. As human pilots we already have the ability in some aircraft to jettison rocket stores intended for bomber or ground attacks before engaging in dogfights with enemy fighters. However, our AI friends and foes don’t seem to have been trained in this most basic of actions to improve aircraft performance (for example R6 rocket fit on FW-190). And we don’t have a radio command to tell them to do it either. Instead they attempt to engage in full on fighter vs fighter combat while weighed and dragged down by these stores. It would be great if the AI pilots either jettisoned such stores before engaging enemy fighters, or alternatively fired them all off in the first pass and then jettisoned the launcher (for experienced pilots at least).

[stugumby]

The flares available in game cant be dropped sequentially by AI, if you task a flare equipped plane to orbit and drop flares it will drop all at once. Would like to see a flare offset that allows a patrol pattern and at each waypoint it drops a flare etc.

Also would like to see some type of illuminated reticle for the bomb sights, for now its squint and hope your aligned correctly.

AI has a bad habit of breaking off from intended mission to chase enemy planes, HS 129 dumped bombs and went sturmovik hunting, stukas as well went after a su-2. My favorite was in a rabaul mission, the TBD Devestators went all out to engage a jake float plane.

Need some B-25 and A-20 strafer gunships with appropriate ground attack behavior. Currently they will drop all their bombs way to low and blow themselves up unless you use parafrags. B-25C and D models with nose guns and flyable cockpits?