PDA

View Full Version : My wonder list


greybeard1
11-09-2011, 09:01 AM
Yes, wonder since I ask myself following things since I started playing IL-2 a few time ago and also because I fear they are impossible to make.


To make an aerodrome requires two things: an airfield and a windsock; taking-off and landing without it would be suicidal, especially with strong cross winds often active in game. It should be doable since present e.g. in Joint Strike Fighter combat sim (Eidos - 1997).
WWII era runways were often "airfields" allowing taking-off almost in any direction, according to wind. If not feasible, at least runway should be along prevalent direction of local wind: why in IL-2 wind is always across runway?
A realistic runway should be at least twice wide the current one in IL-2 and free from obstacle in the vicinity: why control tower (and a lot of vehicles, trees and any kind of obstacles) are always alongside?
Aircrafts should take-off at quinconce: since set in line astern, how player can SEE to be cleared for take-off?
Why was decided to distress player with loss of padlocked view shortly after it is "masked" also by a tiny cockpit frame? In RL pilot should move his head or repeat search until retaking visual contact. Since this can't be performed by a PC monitor, the right thing was to keep still padlock view.
Why forcing player to fill sky with icons, so disrupting immersion? Since visual identification by a 500 dpi eye can't be modeled on a 96 dpi screen, would be effective to set "selective" keys to point at different target - e.g. "F" for friend, "M" for mate of same flight, "E" for enemy and so on, like in Red Baron 3D (Dynamix - 1998 ).
Why not implementing internal views with some "panning" along the four directions (up, down, left, and right) WHILE PADLOCKED on friend or enemy (or ground object): this would help reading instruments, e.g., that currently can't be done hitting 5 on NumPad without adjusting also FOV.
Why player isn't provided with a serious flight plan? How can I lead a flight if I don't know altitude of each waypoint?
Why ground control assistance is so poor? Germans, for instance, did have radars in a net informing pilots about enemy flights (this was present in European Air War - Microprose, 1998 )
Also ground object padlocking should be fixed, so not forcing player to keep it in external view to keep track of runway during approach.
Control tower should give a safer assistance to landing operation and not allow another plane to land just after having authorized player to do.


Pardon me if I seem not grateful for 1C and Daidalos work, that's not so.

Best regards,
GB

Aviar
11-09-2011, 05:07 PM
6. You can do that now by using custom icons.

7. Try the 'Instant View Forward With Padlock' command. It does what you want except you can't pan while looking forward. However, you should be able to see most of your instruments.

10. So you are asking for a 'Padlock Runway' command. That would be nice. What I do now is padlock a friendly unit near the runway. This basically has the same affect and keeps the runway in your padlocked view.

Aviar

IceFire
11-10-2011, 04:38 AM
Since 4.10 the wind direction is directly specified by the mission builder including speed, direction, gust level and turbulence.

Runways on older maps tend to be fairly generic while on newer maps they tend to be specific to the real airfield. Some WWII airfields were very small grass fields while others were large and expansive. We see a mix of both. If you check out the airfields on the Slovakia, Bessarabia, Solomons, Burma, and Kurland maps (just to name a few) you will see very historical airfields.

If you don't like icons...they can be turned off.

greybeard1
11-10-2011, 11:07 AM
Thanks for replies.

About custom icons, I know they could be turned off and anyway "customized". What I meant was totally different: since actually average player CANNOT perform visual identification like in RL, because in RL he use an eyeball having a 500 dpi resolution, in game resolution is bottle-necked by 96 dpi screen - five times less!

As a consequence, older games like Red Baron 3D gave to different letters on keyboard, different effect in searching and padlocking in sky various aircrafts: "E" for enemy, "F" for friend and much more. This allowed to get rid of icons, because when e.g. player hit "T" key, nearest threat is found and padlocked. THIS IS NOT unrealistic, because, given limitation mentioned above, that replicates what in RL pilot would do - this is called cybernetics (study of human behaviour applied to machines) a science vastly forgot lately. Unfortunately, more often, instead of cybernetics, we apply personal opinion (always arguable), so e.g. we think: "keeping visual track, into cockpit, thru' canopy frames is impossible, SO we make padlock view lost when this happen". Actual pilot behaviour, instead, is move is head so to keep still track of his target and, if visual track is lost, he restart search until he track again! This, in front of (again) a 96 dpi screen can be performed only by selective key, if we do not want read banners in the sky attached to various aircraft, that is HIGHLY unreal.

This also mean that padlock view should NEVER be lost if not intentionally by player. This for runway too, since currently padlocked view on a ground object is lost as well as soon as a visual obstruction gets in the mid.

Sorry for my poor english and lenght of message, I'm only trying to make myself understood; maybe something better for this sim gets through.

Cheers,
GB

Aviar
11-10-2011, 05:59 PM
I understand exactly what you are saying. However, IL-2 still has some of what you are looking for. As I mentioned earlier, you can use custom icons so that you really couldn't see them at all. As far as this part you mentioned...."different effect in searching and padlocking in sky various aircrafts: "E" for enemy, "F" for friend and much more."....IL-2 already has the following Padlock commands:

Padlock Enemy
Padlock Friendly
Padlock Enemy Ground
Padlock Friendly Ground
Padlock Next
Padlock Previous

All of the above are INTERNAL (in-cockpit) commands. They seem to do exactly as you have described above.

I do understand that you would like your virtual pilot's viewing system to be more human-like. I agree. That would be great. (Be aware that there is a large percentage of IL-2 players who are totally against Padlock and disable this feature altogether from their server(s).)

Personally, I use Padlock. Could it be improved? Just about anything in IL-2 could be improved. However, I have been playing flight sims for many years and in my opinion, the Padlock implementation in IL-2 is the best I have ever seen. (Yes, I also played Red Baron 3D.)

Aviar

greybeard1
11-11-2011, 12:47 PM
Hi Aviar,

you're forgetting an important difference about padlocking in respect of RB3D: when you hit, for instance, "M" key, RB3D performs search for you and then padlocks! To padlock on a flight mate in IL-2 you must have it in front sight, first, not to mention that IL-2 does not distinguish between "mate" and generic "friendly". So if you want padlock a mate, you must first perform his visual identification, which is impossible if he'sn't very close, that's to say you need (again) icons!:(

I'm always for maximum available customization, let no-padlock fans free to play the way they like. This does not force to have icons, if more effective devices are implemented.

I respect your opinion, although would be curious to know what's worse in RB3D system.

Cheers,
GB

jameson
11-11-2011, 01:03 PM
Did it have an 'S' key you could press and then it shot it down? :)
Agree about difficulties with identification, but then I don't use icons...

Aviar
11-11-2011, 05:06 PM
I understand exactly what you are requesting. Basically you want what we already have now (External Padlock Friend/Enemy), but you want it to be implemented INTERNALLY (in-cockpit). That is exactly what you are wishing for.

In other words, the padlock command will do all the work for the player. They don't even have to look around. That's fine. We can all wish for anything we like.

Just remember, we have exactly what you are reqesting right now. The only difference is that NOW you simply need to have the plane to be padlocked in your cockpit view.

Personally I wouldn't use the padlock you are requesting because it's a Wonder Woman' padlock. It would padlock a plane that your virtual pilot could not even see (behind, under or hidden by your plane's fuselage or wings.)

Like I said earlier, that's just an External Padlock implemented within the cockpit.

Aviar

greybeard1
11-12-2011, 06:45 PM
Basically you want what we already have now (External Padlock Friend/Enemy), but you want it to be implemented INTERNALLY (in-cockpit). That is exactly what you are wishing for.

Correct! You understood perfectly.


In other words, the padlock command will do all the work for the player. They don't even have to look around.

And HOW, in your opinion, player should look around? Please start from a basic hardware, don't give for sure all have Track-IR. One should be able to play even with KB only - otherwise on IL-2 box must be written: required mandatory Track-IR to play this game! And even if player does have Track-IR, HOW he should identify a blob in the sky as, e.g., his mate No.5 at 500 m of distance; this would be in RL, but please remember the 1/5 ratio in resolution between eye and screen. Not to mention that game is sold to be played also with 640x480 resolution which worsen things furtherly...



Personally I wouldn't use the padlock you are requesting because it's a Wonder Woman' padlock. It would padlock a plane that your virtual pilot could not even see (behind, under or hidden by your plane's fuselage or wings.)


I agree. That's the inconvenience, but, again, you should have the choice to have or not. TD is working on 4.11 to customize external views (enemy and friends, only friends, none), why not customize also internal padlock?

Cheers,
GB

Aviar
11-12-2011, 08:59 PM
If we're talking Padlock, I wish that they would re-implement the ability to padlock ships. It was in the original IL-2 and then for some reason removed very early on.

Aviar

greybeard1
11-13-2011, 11:29 AM
If we're talking Padlock, I wish that they would re-implement the ability to padlock ships.

Yes, Padlock.

I think it was a major improvement when introduced about twenty years ago. It meets player's impossibility to change his point of view simply rotating his head and became indispensable for all combat sims to keep track of target, virtually rotating view direction exactly like pilot moves his look.

Although more realistically implemented, recently, by Track-IR, still remains the big gap between reality and screen available resolution to detect what player is looking for, not to mention cost that not everyone can afford and personal idiosyncrasies which may hamper its use.

I think a good compromise to keep realistic enough internal padlocked view, would be get rid at least of canopy frame obstructions, since not really causing loss of visual contact. I agree that ship and ANY object visible in "View Objects" preview should be padlockable for obvious reasons.

I just hope that some clever boy of Daidalos Team read this thread, maybe at least one of these dreams can be realized!:rolleyes:

Regards,
GB

Fafnir_6
11-16-2011, 05:16 PM
Yes, Padlock.

I think it was a major improvement when introduced about twenty years ago. It meets player's impossibility to change his point of view simply rotating his head and became indispensable for all combat sims to keep track of target, virtually rotating view direction exactly like pilot moves his look.

Although more realistically implemented, recently, by Track-IR, still remains the big gap between reality and screen available resolution to detect what player is looking for, not to mention cost that not everyone can afford and personal idiosyncrasies which may hamper its use.

I think a good compromise to keep realistic enough internal padlocked view, would be get rid at least of canopy frame obstructions, since not really causing loss of visual contact. I agree that ship and ANY object visible in "View Objects" preview should be padlockable for obvious reasons.

I just hope that some clever boy of Daidalos Team read this thread, maybe at least one of these dreams can be realized!:rolleyes:

Regards,
GB

+1 I still haven't made the jump to Track IR :\.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Pursuivant
11-19-2011, 10:29 AM
Then there's the reason that I hate padlocking ground objects - even after you've made your pass on a ground target, padlock forces you to keep on looking over your shoulder for a moment until it gets around to panning back to forward view!

That really gets your attention when you've just made a fast, low pass and really want your view to be forward!

Setting padlock so that you have the option of snapping back to forward view, or not following the target once it's out of your sight, would be very welcome!

It would also be nice if you had the option of padlocking onto infrastructure like buildings, or choosing a location on the ground to padlock onto, that would be welcome when you need to orbit a location, or when you're making an upwind or downwind leg of a landing pattern and want to keep your eye on the runway.

Aviar
11-19-2011, 04:22 PM
Setting padlock so that you have the option of snapping back to forward view...

There is already a command for this. See my first post (7).

Aviar

WTE_Galway
12-07-2011, 02:43 AM
+1 on checking out the airfields on the Slovakia map.

Tempest123
12-07-2011, 05:35 PM
Good post, these are some of the things that have always confused me about IL2. It's very realistic in certain areas, but not in others. The airfields are a perfect example, with obstacles around the runway, and the thin runways (but that is not always the case on certain maps, or with custom runways). The new Solomons map has great, historically accurate airfields, and I understand its not really feasible to redo all the other maps.
Takeoff needs to be corrected, but spawning from static plane positions should solve this for custom missions. I'm not sure why by default the aircraft would be set up line astern down the runway for takeoff, if you're the leader you're starting your takeoff from 1/4 of the way down the runway, that's bogus, esp. if your carrying bombs.
Flight planning needs work, and this was one thing I noticed immediately back in 2001 when I got Il2, and it has seen a little improvement but not much. There is no altitude shown for waypoints, and that's basic. No time for different legs, no fuel consideration (its a guessing game for the player), no speed listed either, or type of formation and no wind information. It leaves a lot for the player to include in the briefing, and unless you write it down, its missing from the in-flight map anyways. This forces the player to hit auto pilot on missions with no nav-aids because there isn't enough info.
The funny thing is that these are all factors that can be set in the FMB (ex. wind can now be set in great detail), so it's not like IL2 is lacking in realism, they just are hidden on the briefing map.


And the air-ground comms are so bad (expect maybe the vectors, these are okay). Why does the tower yell at aircraft in panic telling them to go around, and why does the tower sound angry when I ask for landing clearance? Sounds like someone left the janitor to run the airfield. I would gladly volunteer my voice to fix some of these things.

Pursuivant
12-09-2011, 09:54 PM
And the air-ground comms are so bad (expect maybe the vectors, these are okay). Why does the tower yell at aircraft in panic telling them to go around, and why does the tower sound angry when I ask for landing clearance?

I think that the "angry" ground controller voice is just for the Germans, and that it's more of the way that that particular German accent sounds to the ears of native English-speakers.

I always mentally imagine the German ground controller as a pompous ass with an invented "von" in front of his surname, who got shipped off to the front lines because his superiors back in Berlin couldn't stand him.

wheelsup_cavu
12-10-2011, 04:02 AM
And the air-ground comms are so bad (expect maybe the vectors, these are okay). Why does the tower yell at aircraft in panic telling them to go around, and why does the tower sound angry when I ask for landing clearance?

We have some Voice Packs at M4T that can be used to help with that problem. http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&c=587


Wheels

P-38L
12-12-2011, 09:18 PM
Just few ideas

1) Long time ago, Daidalos Team said that they were going to implement the Refuel/Repair/Rearm option. I would like to have this in the next update.

2) Another idea: if we are having right now the navigation option, the map should be only a map, nothing more. With no moving objects or your own icon moving across the map. In real life in WWII era while you were airborne you had a map, a paper map, with the location of the airfield, antennas with their own designation.

3) Variable and randmoize weather. You get airborne in a beautiful sunny day, and few minutes later suddenly start raining.

4) The only AI aircraft that is affected for the torque is the TB-3 (the bomber with four engines), the rest of the AI airplanes are always perfectly trimmed, what about to implement torque in all AI airplanes.

5) Key combination for realism in starting engines. Eg: Master, Alt, Avionics, fuel pump, primer, etc.

6) In HOTAS controls we have power and prop. I think MIXTURE should be implemented too.

7) Randomize animation of animals in an area designed in FMB. For example horses, cows and others.

8) Since pilot figure can run, we can get advantage on this to have more "life" in airports, like people (mechanics, pilots, officers) walking, and vehicles moving. I know in FMB you can get moving vehicles, but this option stops when the end of the line finish.

9) Light from an airplanes illuminates the ground. But when you put light icons in FMB they don't illuminate the surfaces or ground around it. Why?

Thank you.

Bionde
12-12-2011, 10:05 PM
topography of map to bombers.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar
12-13-2011, 08:25 AM
Just few ideas

1) Long time ago, Daidalos Team said that they were going to implement the Refuel/Repair/Rearm option. I would like to have this in the next update.



Initial version (mod) was incompatible and had bugs, which we were not able to fix yet. Still possible for future.


2) Another idea: if we are having right now the navigation option, the map should be only a map, nothing more. With no moving objects or your own icon moving across the map. In real life in WWII era while you were airborne you had a map, a paper map, with the location of the airfield, antennas with their own designation.


Thats set by the mission designer and/or your own realism settings. I mean, its all there already, open your eyes.



3) Variable and randmoize weather. You get airborne in a beautiful sunny day, and few minutes later suddenly start raining.


Impossible with current structure of engine. Heavy recoding would be necessary and this will much probably not happen.


4) The only AI aircraft that is affected for the torque is the TB-3 (the bomber with four engines), the rest of the AI airplanes are always perfectly trimmed, what about to implement torque in all AI airplanes.


Thats not true! All planes suffer from torque. Better check your realism settings!


5) Key combination for realism in starting engines. Eg: Master, Alt, Avionics, fuel pump, primer, etc.


The game is not prepared for such details. A global rework would be necessary. It could be maybe done for sinlge new content (planes, cockpits), but as a long it cannot be changed on a global scale, its no use.


6) In HOTAS controls we have power and prop. I think MIXTURE should be implemented too.


I thought, it was. Need to investigate.


7) Randomize animation of animals in an area designed in FMB. For example horses, cows and others.


There has been a long debate of ethics about this. It was left out on purpose by 1C Maddox. Not sure, if we should try to get it up again.
I personally would like to see some fields with cows. Even, if they were undestructable.


8) Since pilot figure can run, we can get advantage on this to have more "life" in airports, like people (mechanics, pilots, officers) walking, and vehicles moving. I know in FMB you can get moving vehicles, but this option stops when the end of the line finish.


Partially same problem as above, plus, that there would be the need of a lot of animation work, which is too much to do and not good for game performance anyway (not to talk about to have it working over network properly). We already have some human objects in game, which can be used as statics. The game is build to be an air sim, not a ground sim and thus has its shortcomings. A personal hint: use your imagination. ;-)


9) Light from an airplanes illuminates the ground. But when you put light icons in FMB they don't illuminate the surfaces or ground around it. Why?


Because they are particle effects and no light source. Later ones could reduce game performance much, if used in large numbers (permanently calculations of light), i.e. as a city illumination at night. But maybe worth to be investigated.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar
12-13-2011, 08:34 AM
Flight planning needs work, and this was one thing I noticed immediately back in 2001 when I got Il2, and it has seen a little improvement but not much. There is no altitude shown for waypoints, and that's basic. No time for different legs, no fuel consideration (its a guessing game for the player), no speed listed either, or type of formation and no wind information. It leaves a lot for the player to include in the briefing, and unless you write it down, its missing from the in-flight map anyways. This forces the player to hit auto pilot on missions with no nav-aids because there isn't enough info.
The funny thing is that these are all factors that can be set in the FMB (ex. wind can now be set in great detail), so it's not like IL2 is lacking in realism, they just are hidden on the briefing map.


Interesting. To be clear, you mean more info text at waypoints in the briefing screen and/or inflight map?

Pursuivant
12-13-2011, 05:17 PM
7) Randomize animation of animals in an area designed in FMB. For example horses, cows and others.

The problem here is that simulating violence to animals, or more obviously simulating violence to humans, might affect IL2's ESRB rating (or the European equivalent).

Currently, IL2 has an ESRB rating of "T" for Teen. Arguably, the ability to shoot up people and animals other than the odd, unlucky pilot or driver would give IL2 an ESRB rating of "M".

More to the point, 1C would have to go through the hassle of submitting material to the ESRB and its ilk and waiting for their review and rating.

illegalBeagle
01-05-2012, 12:29 AM
Interesting. To be clear, you mean more info text at waypoints in the briefing screen and/or inflight map?

Personally, I've always thought a good idea would be to reproduce the briefing and perhaps other stuff on a clipboard in the cockpit like Falcon4. Even...drool...recon photos

Aviar
01-05-2012, 08:30 AM
Personally, I've always thought a good idea would be to reproduce the briefing and perhaps other stuff on a clipboard in the cockpit like Falcon4. Even...drool...recon photos

You can view the briefing via the new inflight map in UP 3.0, so it's not that unthinkable.

Aviar

ECV56_Guevara
01-05-2012, 01:22 PM
Personally, I've always thought a good idea would be to reproduce the briefing and perhaps other stuff on a clipboard in the cockpit like Falcon4. Even...drool...recon photos


+100000
I´m a mission maker and when I need to set a specific target, i.e to level bombers, I need to use a forum to show the recon image. No big deal, but sometimes happen that you want to refly some old missions and don t remember where were the recons..
Thats would be a much preciated addon.

Other thing it´s the Recon objective and the recon AC. It could be very inmersive to have some kind of recon camera, or to have a camera trigger that makes a mission acomplished if pilot detect enemy positions. A remember very good debates about this subject, with a lot of the community knowledge and ideas on how to apply a recon in il2.

WTE_Galway
01-05-2012, 10:44 PM
The problem here is that simulating violence to animals, or more obviously simulating violence to humans, might affect IL2's ESRB rating (or the European equivalent).

Currently, IL2 has an ESRB rating of "T" for Teen. Arguably, the ability to shoot up people and animals other than the odd, unlucky pilot or driver would give IL2 an ESRB rating of "M".

More to the point, 1C would have to go through the hassle of submitting material to the ESRB and its ilk and waiting for their review and rating.

Currently bushes trees and shrubs are immune to all weapon fire in game. Just make random wandering wildlife invulnerable like the shrubbery.


Naturally this would not be realistic for horse drawn artillery limbers, caissons and supply wagons as they would be genuine targets, but that is not an issue here, we are talking about random livestock in the fields.