4.11 General debugging [Archive] - Page 2?login=1 - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

View Full Version : 4.11 General debugging

Pages : 1 [2] 3

pixelbaron

01-27-2012, 04:58 AM

Yeah, the lights are inside a homebase.

Aviar

01-27-2012, 09:43 AM

pixelbaron,

Please consider posting the mission if you really want us to help you with this issue. Being able to view/test the mission itself makes all the difference in the world.

In the meantime, I created a quick test mission which illustrates how to set up runway lights that are able to be turned on by request. See the attached mission.

Aviar

FC99

01-27-2012, 12:59 PM

AI have trouble taking off the carriers in some situations:

Please,provide more info about the problem, more details you provide , easier is for us to solve the problem.

GF_Mastiff

01-27-2012, 01:52 PM

Some times my wing man and AI squadron will not rejoin after a fight.

hafu1939

01-27-2012, 04:56 PM

Before the 4.11 patch last rows looked in the user’s settings.ini file e. g. so:
[skin]
A/Ctype1=skin1.bmp
A/Ctype2=skin2.bmp
A/Ctype3=skin3.bmp
Now, after closing the game, look these rows so:
[skin]
__A/Ctype1=skin1.bmp
__A/Ctype2=skin2.bmp
__A/Ctype3=skin3.bmp
The difference is in two spaces at beginning of every row defining aircraft and skin. In the old form the game “reads” user-defined skins and uses this for user’s aircraft. In the new form the player has to define his own skin every time again, the game does not “read” the definition from the settings.ini file. If the player manually overwrites the settings.ini file to the old form, all skins will be accepted by the game, but only till the end of session, when the game overwrites the settings.ini file to the “new” form.
I cannot judge, if this is a bug or it is made intentionally. This new behavior of the settings.ini file is in any case more uncomfortable for the player then the older one.
If this “new” behavior can guarantee originally supposed user-defined skins for playing of older records, no matter which skin the player has defined last, I understand this as a new feature and I agree with it. Please, can I get some information?
And many thanks and all my respect to the DT for their amazing work! :grin:

MR_G

01-28-2012, 12:54 AM

I've looked through this entire thread, but couldn't find any mention of this small bug.
I've found that when a TBD-1 rear gunner is killed, he grows an extra head. One head drops down to his chest (as it should), but there is also a "live" head in it's normal position. This is no big deal, but I thought that I would mention it.
If someone else has mentioned this, you can delete this.

RaptorRage

01-28-2012, 01:05 AM

Are there plans for a followup 4.11.1 patch in the near term or are reported bugfixes from the 4.11 release planned for the full 4.12 patch?

MicroWave

01-28-2012, 09:58 PM

I wanted to add another thought to Patrol waypoints. It appears that the 'Radio Silence' setting does not affect the 'added' Patrol waypoints.

As you know, when an AI flight reaches a waypoint, they will call out their altitude and heading. Personally, I use the Radio Silence setting for many AI flight waypoints so these many radio messages do not clutter up the mission.

However, this does not appear to work on Patrol waypoints. It still works on the 'original' waypoint but once the flight starts it's Patrol, it starts calling out each waypoint. (Depending on the settings, this could be a lot of waypoints.)

If you have 4 or 5 AI flights flying Patrol, that could be a LOT of radio calls. Is there any way this issue might be addressed?

Aviar

Confirmed. That was a bug.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-29-2012, 03:25 PM

Are there plans for a followup 4.11.1 patch in the near term or are reported bugfixes from the 4.11 release planned for the full 4.12 patch?

Yes, we are currently working on a bugfix patch, similar to 4.10.1 which will be released before we start work on a the brand new content patch 4.12.

swiss

01-29-2012, 04:39 PM

TA152 C overrevs in a dive ~2900rpm, engine temp ok.

ntrk: http://www.mediafire.com/?9b4asyzzt25uyyz

Still waiting for a reply.:confused:
Is it a bug, or...?
one more: http://www.mediafire.com/?1gfyt3tydrjj9gn

IceFire

01-29-2012, 04:56 PM

Still waiting for a reply.:confused:
Is it a bug, or...?
one more: http://www.mediafire.com/?1gfyt3tydrjj9gn

That overrev for the Ta152C is very interesting. Any other planes that do it? I just tested from 10000 meters and yeah it over revved and then died on me. I tried it again with a Ta152H-1 and the plane fell apart but the engine remained running.

JtD

01-29-2012, 06:32 PM

It's neither a bug nor intended. The engine behaviour is correct, but it wasn't supposed to be released that way. It needs to be dumbed down to the level of all other planes.

Luno13

01-29-2012, 06:35 PM

Do I sense a future update? :o :)

JG26_EZ

01-29-2012, 09:48 PM

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not..
I can only get my throttle in a FW190A4 up to 88%.
I'm not the only one that has encountered this in my mission.

Tolwyn

01-29-2012, 09:48 PM

When *I* host a mission with a buddy flying the lead position...

AND when my buddy is flying the waypoints... he WILL NEVER see the waypoints change appropriately... especially when the waypoints change to a patrol configuration.

Please try to host/fly the following mission with the HOST flying the number TWO position. And your friend flying the LEAD position. When he follows the waypoints, he will NOT see the patrol waypoints materialize.

The board won't let me paste the mission.. see next post.

Tolwyn

01-29-2012, 09:49 PM

Here's the mission.

[MAIN]
MAP Kiev/load.ini
TIME 17.0
WEAPONSCONSTANT 1
CloudType 1
CloudHeight 2000.0
army 1
playerNum 0
[SEASON]
Year 1941
Month 7
Day 8
[WEATHER]
WindDirection 0.0
WindSpeed 0.0
Gust 0
Turbulence 0
[MDS]
MDS_Radar_SetRadarToAdvanceMode 0
MDS_Radar_RefreshInterval 0
MDS_Radar_DisableVectoring 0
MDS_Radar_EnableTowerCommunications 1
MDS_Radar_ShipsAsRadar 0
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MaxRange 100
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MinHeight 100
MDS_Radar_ShipRadar_MaxHeight 5000
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MaxRange 25
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MinHeight 0
MDS_Radar_ShipSmallRadar_MaxHeight 2000
MDS_Radar_ScoutsAsRadar 0
MDS_Radar_ScoutRadar_MaxRange 2
MDS_Radar_ScoutRadar_DeltaHeight 1500
MDS_Radar_HideUnpopulatedAirstripsFromMinimap 0
MDS_Radar_ScoutGroundObjects_Alpha 5
MDS_Radar_ScoutCompleteRecon 0
MDS_Misc_DisableAIRadioChatter 0
MDS_Misc_DespawnAIPlanesAfterLanding 1
MDS_Misc_HidePlayersCountOnHomeBase 0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat1_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat2_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat3_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 1.0
[RespawnTime]
Bigship 1800
Ship 1800
Aeroanchored 1800
Artillery 1800
Searchlight 1800
[Wing]
28IAP02
I_KG51a31
r0130
g0120
[28IAP02]
Planes 3
Skill 1
Class air.I_15BIS
Fuel 80
weapons default
[28IAP02_Way]
TAKEOFF_002 38312.20 83327.47 0 0 &1
TRIGGERS 0 1 20 0
NORMFLY 34254.09 83309.77 400.00 280.00 &0
NORMFLY 29794.53 82074.26 600.00 280.00 &1
NORMFLY_401 36572.56 79110.37 800.00 280.00 &0
TRIGGERS 1 0 45 5 0
NORMFLY_401 44057.25 75235.52 800.00 280.00 &0
TRIGGERS 1 0 0 5 0
NORMFLY 50096.92 73013.56 600.00 280.00 &0
LANDING_104 38470.40 83332.64 0 0 &0
[I_KG51a31]
Planes 3
OnlyAI 1
Skill0 1
Skill1 1
Skill2 0
Skill3 1
Class air.HE_111H2
Fuel 70
weapons 4xSC250
[I_KG51a31_Way]
NORMFLY 5064.79 96021.96 500.00 250.00 &0
NORMFLY 28011.82 84000.04 500.00 250.00 &0
GATTACK 43321.76 75906.08 500.00 250.00 0_Chief 0 &0
NORMFLY 46960.87 73933.80 500.00 250.00 &0
NORMFLY 788.77 110105.84 1000.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 853.30 190222.67 1000.00 300.00 &0
[r0130]
Planes 1
Skill 3
Class air.IL_4_DB3M
Fuel 10
weapons default
[r0130_Way]
NORMFLY 34408.52 82792.96 300.00 250.00 &0
LANDING_102 38482.43 83333.75 0 0 &0
[g0120]
Planes 3
Skill 1
Class air.HS_123B1
Fuel 100
weapons 4xSC50
[g0120_Way]
NORMFLY 2685.15 37927.61 300.00 280.00 &0
NORMFLY 6628.10 76778.74 300.00 280.00 &0
NORMFLY 27000.54 81028.39 300.00 280.00 &0
GATTACK 31269.28 81905.80 300.00 280.00 &0
NORMFLY 1515.63 10352.72 300.00 280.00 &0
[Chiefs]
0_Chief Trains.USSR_CargoTrain 1
1_Chief Vehicles.GAZ_55 1
2_Chief Vehicles.GAZ_Bus 1
[0_Chief_Road]
31300.00 81900.00 20.00 0 19 5.555555820465088
31500.00 81700.00 20.00
32100.00 81700.00 20.00
32900.00 80900.00 20.00
33100.00 81100.00 20.00
35700.00 81100.00 20.00
37500.00 79300.00 20.00
37700.00 79100.00 -164.00
38100.00 78700.00 -164.00
38300.00 78500.00 20.00
39500.00 77300.00 20.00
40900.00 77300.00 20.00
42100.00 76100.00 20.00
43500.00 76100.00 20.00
44500.00 75100.00 20.00
45500.00 75100.00 20.00
46900.00 73700.00 20.00
49300.00 73700.00 20.00
50300.00 72700.00 20.00
[1_Chief_Road]
37405.05 83372.29 120.00 0 2 3.055555582046509
37239.71 83307.19 120.00 0 2 3.055555582046509
36775.70 83295.27 120.00
[2_Chief_Road]
37420.68 83378.80 120.00 0 2 3.055555582046509
37247.52 83309.80 120.00 0 2 3.055555582046509
36789.14 83296.77 120.00
[NStationary]
0_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 37363.57 83591.45 480.00 91.30
1_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 37649.36 84178.52 480.00 88.18
2_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 37257.18 83202.56 540.00 0.0
3_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 37258.40 83181.23 570.00 0.0
4_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 38339.43 83178.36 600.00 0.0
5_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 37845.94 84078.87 570.00 0.0
6_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 37852.31 84084.48 585.00 0.0
7_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_medic 1 37417.66 83526.84 435.00 0.0
8_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_medic 1 37423.50 83531.90 435.00 0.0
9_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_radio 1 37367.87 83502.26 450.00 0.0
46_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_10 1 37607.64 83427.49 490.00 0.0
47_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_10 1 38338.89 83168.35 535.00 0.0
48_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_10 1 37258.62 83173.44 535.00 0.0
49_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_10 1 37360.81 83491.19 535.00 0.0
50_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_10 1 37837.93 84072.50 580.00 0.0
51_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit61K 1 36542.84 83207.11 400.00 0.0 0
52_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit61K 1 37875.43 83692.46 535.00 0.0 0
53_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit25mm_1940 1 37618.65 83417.61 535.00 0.0 0
54_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit25mm_1940 1 37246.16 84319.28 610.00 0.0 0
55_Static vehicles.stationary.Siren$SirenCity 1 37621.93 83417.98 610.00 0.0
56_Static vehicles.stationary.Siren$SirenCity 1 37287.78 83508.78 610.00 0.0
57_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Maxime 1 106398.58 109647.75 495.00 0.0 0
87_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 105942.55 109274.02 285.00 0.0 null 2
88_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 105914.18 109280.78 285.00 0.0 null 2
89_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 105999.66 109256.43 285.00 0.0 null 2
90_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 106029.97 109249.90 285.00 0.0 null 2
91_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 105971.80 109265.55 285.00 0.0 null 2
92_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 107226.60 109372.16 195.00 0.0 null 2
93_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 107220.43 109354.38 195.00 0.0 null 2
94_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 107215.61 109334.81 195.00 0.0 null 2
95_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 107041.32 109381.09 375.00 0.0 null 2
96_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 107046.33 109399.09 375.00 0.0 null 2
97_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$U_2VS 1 107046.56 109449.86 405.00 0.0 null 2
98_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$U_2VS 1 106153.54 109244.60 405.00 0.0 null 2
99_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$U_2VS 1 106150.97 109336.54 210.00 0.0 null 2
100_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$U_2VS 1 106146.44 109322.73 210.00 0.0 null 2
101_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$U_2VS 1 106140.92 109307.37 210.00 0.0 null 2
102_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit61K 1 130041.91 101923.11 615.00 0.0 0
103_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit61K 1 130725.75 100197.97 705.00 0.0 0
104_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit25mm_1940 1 130300.08 100783.35 630.00 0.0 0
105_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit25mm_1940 1 129510.56 101630.06 555.00 0.0 0
106_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit25mm_1940 1 130894.94 101758.45 630.00 0.0 0
107_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit25mm_1940 1 130675.62 101286.52 630.00 0.0 0
108_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$DShKAA 1 130896.04 101767.61 630.00 0.0 0
109_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$DShKAA 1 130205.89 101505.79 630.00 0.0 0
110_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$DShKAA 1 130299.63 100788.79 630.00 0.0 0
132_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 130714.62 101718.64 375.00 0.0
156_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$TB_3_4M_17 1 129868.28 101304.48 315.00 0.0 null 2
157_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$TB_3_4M_17 1 129811.46 101364.99 315.00 0.0 null 2
158_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$TB_3_4M_17 1 129752.41 101425.42 315.00 0.0 null 2
159_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$PE_2SERIES1 1 130704.51 101655.98 180.00 0.0 null 2
160_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$PE_2SERIES1 1 130702.91 101603.90 180.00 0.0 null 2
161_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$PE_2SERIES1 1 130702.77 101547.04 180.00 0.0 null 2
162_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$PE_2SERIES1 1 130701.84 101513.08 180.00 0.0 null 2
163_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$PE_2SERIES1 1 130700.33 101484.18 180.00 0.0 null 2
164_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$PE_2SERIES1 1 130698.65 101453.30 180.00 0.0 null 2
165_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 129823.11 101513.59 404.10 0.0 null 2
166_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 129800.11 101494.34 404.10 0.0 null 2
167_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 129778.53 101476.82 404.10 0.0 null 2
168_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 129840.45 101534.90 404.10 0.0 null 2
169_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 129861.33 101556.05 404.10 0.0 null 2
170_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 129878.18 101572.97 404.10 0.0 null 2
171_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$PE_8 1 129941.60 101463.06 494.10 0.0 null 2
172_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$PE_8 1 129979.82 101424.08 494.10 0.0 null 2
204_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ZIS5_AA 1 123046.40 96634.16 540.00 0.0 0
205_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ZIS5_AA 1 123298.29 96886.32 540.00 0.0 0
206_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ZIS5_AA 1 122209.17 96491.17 540.00 0.0 0
207_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$R_10 1 123535.56 96807.60 539.10 0.0 null 2
208_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$R_10 1 123535.78 96793.09 539.10 0.0 null 2
209_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 122224.65 96533.48 405.00 0.0 null 2
210_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 122223.64 96443.98 330.00 0.0 null 2
211_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 122312.29 96394.72 270.00 0.0 null 2
212_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 122343.34 96393.25 270.00 0.0 null 2
213_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 122373.35 96393.75 270.00 0.0 null 2
214_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 122432.40 96392.76 270.00 0.0 null 2
215_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 122471.85 96425.52 195.00 0.0 null 2
216_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 122472.38 96441.51 180.00 0.0 null 2
217_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 122476.83 96457.64 180.00 0.0 null 2
218_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 123482.99 96874.77 449.10 0.0 null 2
219_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 123527.16 96875.92 449.10 0.0 null 2
220_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 123432.36 96877.42 449.10 0.0 null 2
221_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 130548.35 93683.16 405.00 0.0 null 2
222_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 130571.67 93709.83 405.00 0.0 null 2
223_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 130590.01 93733.82 405.00 0.0 null 2
224_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 130609.98 93756.27 405.00 0.0 null 2
225_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 130629.27 93779.97 405.00 0.0 null 2
226_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 130640.61 93581.84 434.10 0.0 null 2
227_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 130650.75 93561.09 480.00 0.0 null 2
228_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$MIG_3UD 1 130305.32 92769.79 480.00 0.0 null 2
229_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$MIG_3UD 1 130316.56 92759.12 495.00 0.0 null 2
230_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$MIG_3UD 1 130328.46 92748.36 495.00 0.0 null 2
231_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$MIG_3UD 1 130192.25 92632.84 300.00 0.0 null 2
232_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$MIG_3UD 1 130205.50 92622.05 315.00 0.0 null 2
233_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$MIG_3UD 1 130217.31 92609.79 315.00 0.0 null 2
234_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ZIS5_AA 1 130371.64 93103.71 405.00 0.0 0
235_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ZIS5_AA 1 130544.48 93642.66 450.00 0.0 0
236_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_M1 1 130413.76 93150.47 450.00 0.0
237_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 130573.12 93629.05 450.00 0.0
238_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 130344.71 92777.13 450.00 0.0
239_Static vehicles.stationary.Siren$SirenCity 1 130415.47 93145.47 450.00 0.0
240_Static vehicles.stationary.Siren$SirenCity 1 122994.82 96634.20 450.00 0.0
241_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 130236.94 101776.62 450.00 0.0
242_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 130281.65 101828.92 615.00 0.0
243_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 130266.51 101760.32 509.10 0.0 null 2
244_Static vehicles.stationary.Siren$SirenCity 1 130283.15 101811.67 539.10 0.0
245_Static ships.Ship$MO4 1 139289.14 101150.81 450.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
246_Static ships.Ship$MO4 1 139326.39 101145.15 450.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
247_Static ships.Ship$Tral 1 139182.78 101171.15 450.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
248_Static ships.Ship$Tral 1 138967.91 101168.10 450.00 0.0 0 2 1.0
249_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$IL_4_DB3M 1 28146.88 53435.43 509.10 0.0 null 2
250_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$IL_4_DB3M 1 28177.01 53393.60 509.10 0.0 null 2
251_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$IL_4_DB3M 1 28208.42 53356.21 495.00 0.0 null 2
252_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$IL_4_DB3M 1 27818.44 53099.50 255.00 0.0 null 2
253_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 27902.58 53308.54 420.00 0.0 null 2
254_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 27931.48 53327.85 405.00 0.0 null 2
255_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 27955.70 53346.48 405.00 0.0 null 2
257_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 28180.04 53292.81 390.00 0.0 null 2
258_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 28166.71 53283.83 390.00 0.0 null 2
259_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 28151.46 53273.69 360.00 0.0 null 2
260_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 28078.79 53433.60 405.00 0.0 null 2
261_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 28054.26 53415.38 405.00 0.0 null 2
262_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 28028.69 53399.25 420.00 0.0 null 2
263_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$IL_4_DB3M 1 27239.27 52376.41 315.00 0.0 null 2
264_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$IL_4_DB3M 1 27268.71 52333.78 330.00 0.0 null 2
265_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$IL_4_DB3M 1 27351.41 52322.76 240.00 0.0 null 2
266_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$IL_4_DB3M 1 27387.59 52351.77 225.00 0.0 null 2
267_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 27460.20 52512.23 585.00 0.0
268_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS6_fuel 1 27898.17 53264.10 690.00 0.0
269_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_radio 1 27622.12 52817.88 390.00 0.0
270_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 27469.19 52496.39 390.00 0.0
271_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 27463.13 52402.12 600.00 0.0
272_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 27471.76 52408.76 600.00 0.0
273_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 27467.37 52405.18 600.00 0.0
274_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 28183.32 53363.85 600.00 0.0
275_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 27931.86 53208.28 600.00 0.0
276_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 27945.79 53190.02 360.00 0.0
277_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 27828.28 53095.69 360.00 0.0
278_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_AAA 1 27821.74 53085.92 585.00 0.0
279_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_64 1 27888.64 53280.84 360.00 0.0
280_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_10 1 27888.75 53287.18 705.00 0.0
281_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_10 1 27483.12 52441.88 600.00 0.0
282_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$BA_10 1 27308.91 52326.62 450.00 0.0
283_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 28054.51 52404.87 450.00 114.38
284_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 27865.83 53282.70 360.00 100.46
285_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 106572.06 109700.22 360.00 203.04
286_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 122919.19 96997.53 360.00 148.00
287_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$DShKAA 1 122909.07 96982.43 540.00 0.0 0
288_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 130258.48 93388.89 360.00 87.68
289_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$DShKAA 1 130268.91 93382.14 405.00 0.0 0
290_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_M1 1 130272.46 93388.29 540.00 0.0
291_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 130283.64 93374.39 540.00 0.0
292_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 130267.07 93394.16 540.00 0.0
293_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 122930.34 96974.74 540.00 0.0
294_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 122931.84 96982.94 540.00 0.0
295_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 122929.23 96968.40 540.00 0.0
296_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_M1 1 122917.62 96981.55 630.00 0.0
297_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 130180.66 101528.90 630.00 255.06
298_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 129715.19 101633.40 630.00 255.06
299_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 129911.84 100981.90 630.00 322.14
300_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 129472.58 101116.82 630.00 317.74
301_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 140979.82 97726.32 630.00 197.69
302_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 140999.11 97765.03 630.00 197.69
303_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 141001.92 97816.52 630.00 197.69
304_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 137980.14 97732.76 630.00 216.95
305_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 137690.98 97977.61 630.00 231.35
306_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 136258.78 98210.87 630.00 344.72
307_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 136235.61 98204.33 630.00 351.06
308_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke6 0 135536.45 99023.85 630.00 373.58
309_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_M1 1 28052.70 52418.75 450.00 0.0
310_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 28036.53 52425.38 705.00 0.0
311_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 28033.68 52431.88 705.00 0.0
312_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 28031.13 52436.40 705.00 0.0
313_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 28041.98 52418.64 705.00 0.0
314_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$BA_10 1 27919.94 53241.47 705.00 0.0 0
315_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$BA_10 1 28210.54 53323.98 420.00 0.0 0
316_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ZIS5_AA 1 27643.04 52833.21 420.00 0.0 0
317_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$ZIS5_AA 1 26886.03 52458.15 480.00 0.0 0
318_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$DShKAA 1 28060.41 52422.81 600.00 0.0 0
319_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_18 00m 1 138668.41 101105.61 600.00 0.0
320_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_18 00m 1 139334.54 101093.75 600.00 0.0
321_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_12 00m 1 141013.16 97934.70 600.00 0.0
322_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_60 0m 1 140964.71 97536.63 600.00 0.0
323_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_60 0m 1 138767.86 98221.56 600.00 0.0
324_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_60 0m 1 138000.15 97654.48 600.00 0.0
325_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_60 0m 1 137807.79 97337.41 600.00 0.0
326_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_60 0m 1 137344.80 98128.86 600.00 0.0
327_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_12 00m 1 137693.29 97862.42 600.00 0.0
328_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_12 00m 1 137650.32 97593.70 600.00 0.0
329_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_60 0m 1 139063.72 98929.79 600.00 0.0
330_Static vehicles.aeronautics.Aeronautics$BarrageBalloon_60 0m 1 138864.38 99540.26 600.00 0.0
331_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 38073.89 83213.94 345.00 0.0 null 2
332_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 38134.18 83137.69 270.00 0.0 null 2
333_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 38159.35 83137.18 270.00 0.0 null 2
334_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_16TYPE18 1 38184.52 83137.01 270.00 0.0 null 2
335_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 38337.81 83214.04 180.00 0.0 null 2
336_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 38309.73 83231.89 180.00 0.0 null 2
337_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 38285.56 83231.04 180.00 0.0 null 2
338_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 38234.55 83137.08 270.00 0.0 null 2
339_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 38259.33 83137.04 270.00 0.0 null 2
340_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SU_2 1 38284.32 83136.66 270.00 0.0 null 2
341_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 37068.50 83210.28 375.00 0.0 null 2
342_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 37071.14 83180.36 360.00 0.0 null 2
343_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 37128.29 83197.03 300.00 0.0 null 2
344_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 37147.32 83196.11 285.00 0.0 null 2
345_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 37165.62 83196.09 285.00 0.0 null 2
346_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 37259.21 83218.29 180.00 0.0 null 2
347_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$I_153P 1 37259.13 83157.30 180.00 0.0 null 2
348_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37137.58 83137.48 270.00 0.0 null 2
349_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37637.45 84009.37 205.00 0.0 null 2
350_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37810.06 84165.13 490.00 0.0 null 2
351_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37779.01 84076.49 220.00 0.0 null 2
352_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37750.59 84048.43 220.00 0.0 null 2
353_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37722.16 84022.62 220.00 0.0 null 2
354_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37747.59 83999.43 220.00 0.0 null 2
355_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37776.39 84025.99 220.00 0.0 null 2
356_Static vehicles.planes.Plane$SB_2M103 1 37802.95 84056.29 220.00 0.0 null 2
357_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Maxime 1 31280.44 82035.80 600.00 0.0 0
358_Static vehicles.artillery.Artillery$Zenit25mm_1940 1 31410.28 81911.50 600.00 0.0 0
359_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$Wagon9 1 31330.63 81854.50 405.00 0.0
360_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$Wagon10 1 31322.01 81863.01 405.00 0.0
361_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 31211.90 81945.79 705.00 0.0
362_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 31201.61 81945.20 705.00 0.0
363_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 31189.25 81941.04 705.00 0.0
364_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 31173.81 81940.93 375.00 0.0
365_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 31162.84 81942.83 375.00 0.0
366_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$ZIS5_PC 1 31222.28 81947.46 375.00 0.0
367_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_Bus 1 31254.34 81921.59 405.00 0.0
368_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_Bus 1 31243.22 81931.66 405.00 0.0
369_Static vehicles.stationary.Stationary$GAZ_Bus 1 31266.11 81910.49 405.00 0.0
256_Static vehicles.stationary.Smoke$Smoke1 0 36624.49 83061.57 360.00 81.87
[Buildings]
[Target]
3 0 1 30 501 37517 83535 500 0 2_Chief 37420 83378
[StaticCamera]
37047 83537 100 0
32589 81109 100 0
31032 81913 50 0
[Bridge]
[House]

IceFire

01-29-2012, 09:57 PM

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not..
I can only get my throttle in a FW190A4 up to 88%.
I'm not the only one that has encountered this in my mission.

This is a case of not reading the manual :)

The regular A-4 only goes to 88% as it's meant to simulate the early derated versions that were used on the Eastern Front. The higher boost model that was added in 4.11 goes to 100%.

JG26_EZ

01-29-2012, 10:09 PM

This is a case of not reading the manual :)

A straight answer would have been good enough. It's a big manual, and I DID read it... Over 8 years ago, thanks.

IceFire

01-29-2012, 10:53 PM

A straight answer would have been good enough. It's a big manual, and I DID read it... Over 8 years ago, thanks.

I mean the information that came with the latest patch. I could have just said RTFM and been mean about it but my poor attempt at humoring the situation apparently failed :(

BBR91

01-30-2012, 07:30 AM

Several planes seem to be bugged in my game. I have reinstalled original 4.07->4.08->4.09->4.10->4.10.1->4.11->4.11 hotfix but still the problem persists:

Several planes, I can't name them all, but most of the I-15s and I-16s for example, but many more, are bugged, in the sense that I cannot view them in the aircraft customization screen (pressing the button doesn't do anything), and when starting a mission playing with them, I cannot view the cockpit and I cannot control the plane. The game starts with a view at ground level even if the plane is in flight. External views all work with no problems at all. It's just that I can't see the cockpit (pressing F1 doesn't do anything) and I can't control the plane in any way (engine, surface etc). I can access and use the radio menu though.

While avoiding these planes wouldn't be a problem in quick missions, the trouble is that DCG uses some of these bugged planes in the campaigns.

There's a slight possibility that this issue was also present in 4.10, as I don't think I played Il-2 since 4.09. Btw, great patch, the AI is really demanding.

Asheshouse

01-30-2012, 09:55 AM

I have no problem with the I-15 and I-16 types. I use them regularly.
My install has v4.11 and Hotfix patched on a "working" v4.101

BBR91

01-30-2012, 10:49 AM

A step-by-step reinstallation has revealed that this problem occurs starting with patch 4.10m. I have like 10 I-16 models selectable, and only a couple are playable. I have no idea how to fix this...

Asheshouse

01-30-2012, 10:52 AM

Maybe your v4.10 patch is a corrupted download?

BBR91

01-30-2012, 11:33 AM

I have downloaded the patch 3 times from 3 different sources and it had different sizes and the problem still persists. It would take messing with the game files to fix this and I bet I'll get sick of Il-2 before I find the patience to solve the problem :)
Thank you for your responses!

Asheshouse

01-30-2012, 12:02 PM

Here are the official links for v4.10 http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17765

I have a poor internet service so I always use the torrent link at Mission4Today to download the patches. I find this very reliable. http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=3997

swiss

01-30-2012, 12:35 PM

A straight answer would have been good enough. It's a big manual, and I DID read it... Over 8 years ago, thanks.

Info for next time:
You can find the manuals/readme in the il2 main folder, with each new version come new documents, one pdf plus one word doc.;)

Luno13

01-30-2012, 03:35 PM

Lol, wrong thread mate :grin:

Jure_502

01-30-2012, 04:10 PM

BBR91

01-30-2012, 05:09 PM

Try downloading with the Torrent. Far less risky for getting corrupt data when downloading via browser.

Did that, all the 4.10m patches I found are the same, non were corrupt.
The thing is, some time ago I had the Ultr@ Pack installed (RC3 I think), and even though I properly uninstalled it and the game at that time, I think it may have left some files behind on the system drive or something, and these may be messing with my game. It's my only idea...

swiss

01-30-2012, 05:42 PM

Lol, wrong thread mate :grin:

Are you sure? :-)

II/JG54_Emil

01-30-2012, 05:54 PM

Did that, all the 4.10m patches I found are the same, non were corrupt.
The thing is, some time ago I had the Ultr@ Pack installed (RC3 I think), and even though I properly uninstalled it and the game at that time, I think it may have left some files behind on the system drive or something, and these may be messing with my game. It's my only idea...

Nonsense!

You should look at your installation folder and delete everything there.
UP is certainly not installing any files anywhere on your system.

Basically you should have a stock game if you patch from 4.08m to 4.11 in the correct order, no matter if you uninstalled UP or not.

I suggest you download the Megapatch which is including 4.08m to 4.10.1m:
http://188.40.123.132/IL-2_MegaPatch4.10.1m_EN

Tolwyn

01-30-2012, 07:07 PM

Only the host seems to see the new Patrol Waypoint patterns. Even when other human flights are following the waypoints via instruments.

BBR91

01-30-2012, 07:10 PM

Nonsense!

You should look at your installation folder and delete everything there.
UP is certainly not installing any files anywhere on your system.

Basically you should have a stock game if you patch from 4.08m to 4.11 in the correct order, no matter if you uninstalled UP or not.

I suggest you download the Megapatch which is including 4.08m to 4.10.1m:
http://188.40.123.132/IL-2_MegaPatch4.10.1m_EN

Your link is dead. But nevertheless I solved the problem. It was a mistake on my part.

The problem was I had a beta 4.09 patch which was causing issues when 4.10 was applied.

Thank you everyone for your help!

Luno13

01-30-2012, 09:40 PM

Are you sure? :-)

Ooops, that's what I get for not checking posts three pages back :-P

Luno13

02-02-2012, 08:15 AM

Online, I got my controls shot out in an Il-2. When I reviewed the track, the elevators, etc. moved (it's still my impulse to pull on the stick, even though nothing happens).

There is a bug with the spinner of the Bf-109Z:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0012-1.jpg

The Ammo counters for the Ju87 have disappeared:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0010.jpg

And a little hole:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0011.jpg

Jure_502

02-02-2012, 08:16 AM

Not a ''big deal'' bug, but once I'm killed I can still move head if in cockpit.
These picture was taken after I died and I could still move head. :)

http://shrani.si/f/3w/Rq/ILuj4rf/polish3bug.jpg

-=MadCat=-

02-02-2012, 03:23 PM

Found 2 errors with the SM.79.

1) Gear indicator lights seem to be dependant to throttle 1, as soo ans you move it out of idle power, the lights go out, no matter if green or red lights lit. Plus, as they are lit, the textures behind them become translucent.

2) Going in and out of bomb sight view is bugged. It works the first time going in, after that the camera moves outside the aircraft and then floats into position. You can reset that by F2 view what will give you again 1 working "going in" bomb sight view, after that, same phenomenon.

Greetings,
-=MadCat=-

_1SMV_Gitano

02-02-2012, 03:47 PM

mmaruda

02-02-2012, 09:45 PM

There is a major issue with track inconsistencies. I know it was reported at some point, but then people said it only happens when you use time compression during the mission. However, I have tested over 2 hours today in QMB and almost all tracks were inconsistent with what happened time compression or not.

To cut is short, in the mission I shoot the enemy down, in the track my flight is recorded ok, but the AI does stuff completely different and shoots me down. I think it has to do with the new AI, I know that the same issue appeared on a modded game with an AI mod, cannot remember which one though.

This really needs fixing ASAP - without proper tracks there's no movie making.

csThor

02-03-2012, 05:30 AM

It was said before that the old TRK format is unable to cope with the randomizer and only NTRK should be used. ;)

Blackjack

02-03-2012, 07:11 AM

It was said before that the old TRK format is unable to cope with the randomizer and only NTRK should be used. ;)

Maybe "normal" trk function should be removed from UI if its incompatible with the current state of the game ?
(save track button after ending the mission etc ;))

Ntrk function should work , but it seems to record with the current net settings , even in singleplay (I think that it still is, low net settings, lagging airplanes in singleplay ntrks here)

Luno13

02-03-2012, 08:52 AM

Indeed, I'm having a lot more trouble with Ntrks than ever before. Lots of "lag" behavior (teleporting, etc), even offline.

hraban#35

02-03-2012, 12:37 PM

Hello DT,

thanks again for the long-awaited patch.

Here are a collection of bugs I noticed:

1. Mosquito FB Mk.XVIII 'TseTse' cant spawn without ammo (Pink crashed plane somwhere on the map)
2. On Dedicated Server, Bf-110G-2, IL-4, Hs-129 (both flyable) will stop engines when set the chocks. It's not possible to start the engines when the chocks are set.
3. The pointer of the oiltemperature gauge in N1K2-Ja works counterclockwise.
4. The pointer of watertemp-gauge (A) and oiltemp-gauge (O) in all versions of MC.202 where placed false and goes eratic ways.

will becontinued

AndyJWest

02-03-2012, 01:28 PM

As noted in this thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29484, there is something very weird regarding the taxiing characteristics of the Pe-8/TB-7. If you start it turning with the tailwheel unlocked, it goes into an uncontrollable rapid turn...

JtD

02-03-2012, 03:37 PM

Yes, and that was reported on 16th of January (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=380498&postcount=151). So no worries. ;)

AndyJWest

02-03-2012, 04:56 PM

Yes, and that was reported on 16th of January (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=380498&postcount=151). So no worries. ;)

:oops: Doh! Thought I'd looked...

ElAurens

02-03-2012, 05:02 PM

It's interesting (if slow) in the air though.

jermin

02-03-2012, 06:12 PM

It was said before that the old TRK format is unable to cope with the randomizer and only NTRK should be used. ;)
But there wasn't such a problem in 4.10.1.

TRK is useful because you can choose whether to save track or not after the game. If TRK is not useful anymore, please replace it with the NTRK so that we can save the track after the game.

But even NTRK is still not perfect. Messages regarding WEP are still missing. And the cannon ammo counter on Bf-109s are still empty.

Besides, I'd like to see a auto track recording feature that automatically records every sortie (not entire session) of my online play into an NTRK.

Pfeil

02-03-2012, 10:05 PM

I believe this to be a graphical glitch with the VSI, as the shroud for the needle is present, but the needle is on top of it:
http://s16.postimage.org/g675a6pfl/grab0021.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/g675a6pfl/)

This occurs in all 3 He162 models(A-2, C, D).

Kittle

02-04-2012, 02:40 AM

Correct me if I am wrong, but can't you type in the type of track you want to save at the end of mission. Example, after a QB I want to save I see ALL.TRK in the name box. I then erase it all and type ALL.ntrk and then save, I have had no problems thus far.

Pfeil

02-04-2012, 07:46 PM

I'm afraid that's not the way file extensions work. The extension does not determine the content of the file. In fact, it doesn't even determine the type of file it really is(In theory the header does, even though Windows uses the extension).

To make sure I'm not misinforming anyone, I tested your theory.
As I expected, recording an ntrk manually saves an ntrk file in a binary format. I.E. not a human readable plaintext file.
Saving a track at the end of a mission and renaming it to .ntrk however, doesn't even save as an ntrk extension.
.trk is automatically added to the filename you entered(I.E. test.ntrk.trk).
The resulting file is a text file with a structure similar to an FMB mission.

Edit:
I've noticed what appears to be a bug/inconsistency in the FMB: If the waypoint type is set to landing, both height and speed will be set to 0, when switching the type back to a normal waypoint, only height will be reset.
Speed will remain at 0(though will reset to the lowest speed possible for that type of aircraft if changed to anything below it, as is normal behavior).
This causes the aircraft to fall immediately after spawning(Engines running, can of course be recovered from if altitude is sufficient).

Also, if either an AI or player aircraft is spawned with only a single waypoint, set to landing, the aircraft will spawn on the ground with running engines.
As it is a landing waypoint, speed cannot be set.
Height can be set to any value and will only reset in certain cases to 12000m. However, this will not change the spawning altitude(It remains at 0).

Edit #2:
Not a true bug, but if the screenshot mode(ScreenshotType) is set to 2, a TGA and a Jpeg screenshot are saved with sequential filenames(grab0000.tga, grab0001.jpg). As these screenshots are the same image(with different compression/formatting) would it not make more sense for them to have the same name/number(I.E. grab0000.tga,grab0000.jpg)?
I'm assuming mode 2 calls functions for a tga screenshot and a jpeg screenshot in sequence, causing them to "see" the previous image, regardless of extension, and setting the number ++.
If possible, these could be integrated into a single function or made aware of extensions.

Luno13

02-06-2012, 10:19 PM

Hi,

There's a minor graphic bug with certain jetty and break-water objects.

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0027.jpg

The texture disappears at a certain distance.

Aviar

02-07-2012, 02:43 AM

I've noticed what appears to be a bug/inconsistency in the FMB: If the waypoint type is set to landing, both height and speed will be set to 0, when switching the type back to a normal waypoint, only height will be reset.
Speed will remain at 0(though will reset to the lowest speed possible for that type of aircraft if changed to anything below it, as is normal behavior).
This causes the aircraft to fall immediately after spawning(Engines running, can of course be recovered from if altitude is sufficient).

Also, if either an AI or player aircraft is spawned with only a single waypoint, set to landing, the aircraft will spawn on the ground with running engines.
As it is a landing waypoint, speed cannot be set.
Height can be set to any value and will only reset in certain cases to 12000m. However, this will not change the spawning altitude(It remains at 0).

Concerning the first point, if I remember correctly, it's been like that since day 1. That doesn't mean it couldn't be changed.

Concerning the second point, I believe some mission designers use this 'feature' to attain certain effects in a particular mission. I'm not sure what you would want changed and what you would hope to achieve that cannot be simulated through the FMB right now.

Aviar

IceFire

02-07-2012, 03:10 AM

Aviar

02-07-2012, 12:34 PM

Concerning the Hs 129 B-2. On the Arming screen, when choosing any loadout with either Mk 101 or Mk 103, neither Gunpod shows up on the picture. (See attached screenshots.)

Aviar

csThor

02-07-2012, 12:49 PM

Not a bug. Since the pod is part of the skin and can be skinned it unfortunately doesn't show up in the arming screen. In the mission it's there.

Luno13

02-07-2012, 03:36 PM

Does it also happen on Perfect?

I can't run perfect mode on this machine.

-=MadCat=-

02-07-2012, 11:54 PM

IceFire

02-08-2012, 01:29 AM

Aviar

02-08-2012, 05:27 AM

Just noted an issue with the plane list in online missions.

If you add another plane to an already existing plane set, say 5 planes and you add a 6th one, the "new" plane doesn't fall in its usual place in the list.
Instead it gets just added at the end of the list.
In the plane list in FMB it orders just as usual and how everybody is used to, but contrary to that, in the actual mission itself it's as explained at the end of the list.

So far I wasn't able to work arount this, even to the point of stipping the entire plane set and readding the planes again one by one.
I have to admit though, I didn't build the entire mission again from scratch so don't know if that would "fix" it, but highly doubt that would be worth it.
Neither do I know if this is related to 4.11 or was there earlier.

Thx guys

It seems as though Icefire is thinking you mean one thing and I am thinking you mean something totally different. So I am not sure now what you are saying.

Look at the first screenshot on the left. This is an Aircraft list for a coop mission. You can see how the flights are kind of scrambled...not in order. Is this what you are talking about? If so....read on.

If you look in your mis file near the top, you will see the flights listed here:

[Wing]
USA_BG_307z00
15AF_325FG_0HQ00
15AF_325FG_0HQ01
USA_BG_307z01
8AF_056FG_0HQ02
USA_BG_307z02
USA_BG_307z03
15AF_325FG_0HQ02
8AF_056FG_0HQ03
8AF_056FG_0HQ00
15AF_325FG_0HQ03

So, what I have been doing for many years is basically putting this list in the order that I want. You can take this list and make it look like this:

[Wing]
USA_BG_307z00
USA_BG_307z01
USA_BG_307z02
USA_BG_307z03
15AF_325FG_0HQ00
15AF_325FG_0HQ01
15AF_325FG_0HQ02
15AF_325FG_0HQ03
8AF_056FG_0HQ00
8AF_056FG_0HQ02
8AF_056FG_0HQ03

Now, look at the second screenshot. After you make the changes, this is what the Aircraft list in the coop will look like. I'm thinking that is more to your liking.

So the process is simply using Copy/Paste for individual flights and moving them to the position you want. Just be smart and make a copy of the mis file before making any edits. This way you have a backup in case you make any mistakes.

I do hope this has been a help to you. If I got it all wrong...oh well...maybe it will help someone else.

Aviar

-=MadCat=-

02-08-2012, 04:19 PM

You're right Aviar !

I indeed forgot to mention I'm talking about DF missions, where you access the plane list via the arming screen.

As mentioned by IceFire, the possibility of the plane limitations causing this, I have missions with either type.
Both resulting in the same behavior to as planes getting added to the bottom of the list (inside the mission itself).
Whereas they fall in place in the FMB just as usual.

It's by far not a major issue but this way, looking for a specific plane, you are required checking in its normal spot and at the bottom of the list.

In addition to this, the line in the conf.ini, for either having the planes sorted as usual or alphabetically, seems to only apply to the QMB but not to online missions (again, just tried DF).
Don't know if it's intendet to work that way or not.

Thx for giving your thoughts on this !

Phabius

02-10-2012, 09:54 PM

I don't know if it was mentioned before, but...

In QMB, often there's an aircraft with it's nose stuck in the ground (like it crash landed), since the begining of the mission. If you cicle through enemy planes, there it is. Usually I've seen Bf109s, but today I saw a pink untextured Mosquito. And it was making gun sounds like there were some ground units near it. But it was outside the map area, with nothing nearby. This case was with the Bessarabia map.

Changed the map to Slovakia Summer. The pink untextured Mosquito was still there, but no sounds. Changed to Normandy 1 map, and it was there but with its belly to the ground.

When you reset QMB, and with other configuration of aircraft (both friendly and enemy) strange crashed planes may not appear...

-=MadCat=-

02-10-2012, 11:42 PM

Digged out an old one.

The BK 3.7 for the Bf110 still fires below gunsight center.
Tested with 100, 200, 400, 800 meters convergence, all same result.

The BK 3.7 for Hs129 however seems to be alright, goes high over gunsight center for 100m (crossing center at 100m I'd say), slightly high past 200m (again I guess crossing center at 200m) and further out it's very well centered.

As for the BK 7.5 on the Hs129 B-3, that one behaves the other way round.
It goes low on short convergences and climbs with longer convergences until it hits gunsight center at ~700m.

Tests were done on the ground with chocks set, so slightly elevated barrels. I don't know how much gravity comes into play for this setup, but it was the best way having a still and stable platform to observe the tracers.
If the ballistics are intented this way let me know, else I'd say the BK 3.7 (Hs129) is right, both others are off.

All have a nice weekend !!!

IceFire

02-11-2012, 12:01 AM

Ra'Kaan

02-11-2012, 03:21 AM

TBH I had dismissed this as me being a little bit too OCD... ...

Oh good, it's not just me. :)

Actually, my OCD is the default naming convention in the folder\file view architecture.

One of these days, I'm gonna have a HUGE aircraft re-naming session so all my lists are ordered perhaps by country or manufacturer name...

:razz:

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

02-11-2012, 11:42 AM

Luno13

02-11-2012, 05:23 PM

Hi DT,

Holes are missing in damaged P-40 (I believe M in this case) :

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0028.jpg

Textures of placards by the engine controls in the Pe-2 cockpit are flickering:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0029.jpg

-=MadCat=-

02-11-2012, 06:08 PM

Back from some quick tests I just did.

This time I set up a FMB mission with 4 B-29 as "Target Drones" and a Bf110 / Hs 129 for me (both armed with BK 3.7).

Bf110:
Ordered the 4 B-29 to fly a straight path across the map with 400 km/h at 1000m altitude.
Convergence for cannons was set to my usual 400 meters (didnt test other convergences now).

According to Wikipedia the BK 3.7 used in the Ju87 had a muzzle velocity of 780 - 1170 m/s, so I estimated a rough 950m/s (const.) for this test.
For the projectile to cover 400m it takes ~0.42 seconds, where the B-29 covers ~50m. So I took my shots from ~350m distance, primarily aiming for the engines 2 and 3.
Result was the bullets going too low, no hits unless I aimed over the wing or when my aim was sluggish and I didn't keep the plane stable. I took about 30 to 40 shots.
In addition I discovered a pattern, every 3rd shot goes sligtly low but still low, the 2 shots in between go way low.

Hs 129:
Adjusting the bombers' speed to 300 km/h and after taking the moving system into account again, I took my shots from about 360m.
This time aiming for engines 1 and 4.
5 shots 4 dead or burning engines, with the sight right on the engine nacelles. I give that one missed shot to my sluggish aim again.
In total I did about 10 shots with the Hs 129, but it got clear early that the bullets went where I aimed.

I might do more testing when there is more time, but so far my first impression got confirmed.
I even think taking a moving system into the equasion with muzzle velocity, travel time and bla wouldn't be necessary, but hey.

Once time permits and I did more testing on this, I will report further results.
In the mean time, maybe someone else could try some testing too, so we get more results from more than just 1 person.

So far thx all, have a good evening !

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

02-11-2012, 07:51 PM

I tried all in a fast rough test at ground targets and recieved very high percentage of hits.
There is some random dispersion, which may influence.

However, it will be looked into. Thanks!

-=MadCat=-

02-11-2012, 09:25 PM

Thank you Caspar !

I don't think my tests are the all and end of how to test stuff.
Maybe I'm really missing something or doing something wrong, I'd not take bets that the error isn't on my end.
It's just the the way how well the BK3.7 of the Hs129 alligns with the sight and with the Bf110 I always have the feeling and observe my shots traveling below gunsight center,
that makes me scratch my head.
I just like to point out stuff that I notice, even if this leads to the confirmation that all's right the way it is and it's just me at the end having trouble aiming with the BK3.7.

Thank you all, you do a marvelous job !

Aviar

02-15-2012, 06:28 AM

SPAD-1949

02-16-2012, 03:38 PM

Just wanted to report a small issue with the Do-335A-0.
I've seen them on fire until the end of a mission and they never explode. In the screenshot you will see one where the pilot has already ejected. I watched this one burn for a good 20 minutes until the mission was ended.
But others explode very fast and the sphere of ejected debris is large.
Dont let a I-16 or a Mig3 fill the reticle when you shoot. Prepare for the chute, if you do.

jermin

02-16-2012, 04:53 PM

The slipball of Bf-109s from G6-Late up to K4 C3 won't be centered until their airspeed reached 640 km/h. Historically, the rudder trim tab of Bf-109s should be trimmed for coordinated cruise at 400 km/h.

Pursuivant

02-16-2012, 08:10 PM

I've seen them on fire until the end of a mission and they never explode.

This isn't just the Do-335. A number of planes seem to burn forever without exploding or falling apart. In the past (although, admittedly not with the 4.11 patch), I've seen He-111, Ju-88 and G4M bombers burn for long periods of time.

I think that there's a bug in the programming, since fire either causes an explosion fairly quickly or else it goes on for minutes without damaging the plane.

Realistically, even if there isn't an explosion, a big fire should weaken the plane's structure to the point where it fails. While I believe that it's impossible for fire to spread in IL2, it should be possible to make fire damage the plane in the location where it's burning and adjacent parts, with damage increasing as the plane burns.

FenbeiduO

02-17-2012, 02:59 AM

One thing:We can see in game,when a p-47,fw-190,il-2(some armored plane) get hit----->the effect like fireworks ----bullets were bounced out slowly.Could it be changed in update?

Pfeil

02-17-2012, 02:16 PM

Just wanted to report a small issue with the Do-335A-0.

I've seen them on fire until the end of a mission and they never explode. In the screenshot you will see one where the pilot has already ejected. I watched this one burn for a good 20 minutes until the mission was ended.

Aviar

This actually brings up an interesting question: is the AI aware of fire extinguishers?
The Do-335 has them for both engines, and I've used them to successfully put out fires.

There are a few other planes(TB3 for example) with engine fire extinguishers built in, but I don't know whether the AI uses them.

Aviar

02-17-2012, 06:38 PM

This actually brings up an interesting question: is the AI aware of fire extinguishers?
The Do-335 has them for both engines, and I've used them to successfully put out fires.

There are a few other planes(TB3 for example) with engine fire extinguishers built in, but I don't know whether the AI uses them.

I have to admit that was a very interesting question. You can actually see the extinguishers activate so if the AI did use them I assume we would see evidence of that. However, I haven't ever seen this action from an AI.

Aviar

UWBurn

02-17-2012, 07:22 PM

Hello, first post here, even if i'm a long time Il-2 user.
Congrats for the patch, DT keeps giving new life to Il-2. ;)

Even if it's not strictly related to 4.11 (was already the same in previous patches), the SM.79 damage model should be revised. Currently it's a flying tank, completly off for a plane largely made of wood and fabric. It's really hard shoot down a SM.79 using planes without cannons (i.e. Huricane) and also with 20mm one have to expend a lot of ammo on it. I took a look on the armour values in the fmd and some of them are in fact higher than B-29 ones! The SM.79 has been detailed very much and is very nicely crafted in every other aspect, is a shame the DM has been overlooked.

KG26_Alpha

02-17-2012, 08:09 PM

Lagarto

02-18-2012, 08:50 AM

Aviar

02-18-2012, 09:45 AM

Could you possibly provide a quick fix for the new lighting effects, namely restore the old ones? The new "changes to darkness of night" are terrible. I have to skip every third mission or so because it's too dark to fly. The sky is strangely dark with white clouds or the other way around. Clouds are occasionally solid brown, or white on top and coal black when you look at them from below. Quite distracting.
Yes, I know it's been reported before.

Of course you are correct. This problem has affected a number of my coop missions. As you mentioned, DT is aware and so there is not much more we can do.

I think we need to be patient and let DT handle the situation. We all want 4.11 to be perfect, but these things take time. Hang in there.

Aviar

RPS69

02-18-2012, 04:31 PM

Could you possibly provide a quick fix for the new lighting effects, namely restore the old ones? The new "changes to darkness of night" are terrible. I have to skip every third mission or so because it's too dark to fly. The sky is strangely dark with white clouds or the other way around. Clouds are occasionally solid brown, or white on top and coal black when you look at them from below. Quite distracting.
Yes, I know it's been reported before.

What's wrong with this? Clouds do look clearer from top when there is a full moon. And IL2's nights are always full moon...

Lagarto

02-18-2012, 04:53 PM

What's wrong with this? Clouds do look clearer from top when there is a full moon. And IL2's nights are always full moon...

The start of the mission is at 14:15 (02:15 PM), that's what's wrong with this.

Treetop64

02-18-2012, 06:01 PM

--- Removed and placed in the AI Debugging Thread ---

6BL Bird-Dog

02-19-2012, 11:56 PM

Flying the Beaufighter on the Burma map both Pedro & myself had grey square patches on the cockpit glass instead of the bullet holes.

Also Would it be possible to put a map dimmer in the next update as in night flights the regular lighting on the map messes up your night vision ?

Luno13

02-22-2012, 05:50 AM

This is a bit old, but I was wondering if we could get a proper configuration file for the i-15 in order to select whether or not it carries wheel spats. I think a few other planes are missing this feature, but I can't remember which.

Luno13

02-25-2012, 09:16 AM

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0006-1.jpg

This is achieved by pressing Shift F1 from the bomber's chair ;)

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0005-1.jpg

Iron sight is kinda useless on the MC 202 (not a good photo, but the aim point is too high)

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0004-3.jpg

Large hole in the Yak-9

Luno13

02-26-2012, 06:03 PM

Tanks driving under a bridge:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0000-3.jpg

Tail-wheel retraction issue:

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0001-2.jpg

In the Bf-110, the damage pattern in the wingtip disappears as the camera gets closer. I did not realize anything was wrong with my plane until I zoomed out!

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae325/rboiko1/IL-2%20Sturmovik/grab0003-1.jpg

I've heard it said that the default camera position in the Tempest is too far aft which makes the headrest appear too large.

Whacker

02-26-2012, 09:47 PM

I'm unsure as if this is the right thread or not. If it's not, then I trust the mods will move it as necessary.

I have a part-question/part-seemingly bug/possible feature request to report on.

When I'm flying in offline campaigns in career mode, I've noticed a number of times that I've shot the bejeezus out of other aircraft, yet not been given kill credit when they go down. I started paying more attention during the missions, restarted careers with all the allowable views enabled. What I found was that even if I pumped an enemy full of lead to the point where the engine's quit and they've got the canopy open with arms flapping trying to escape, I still won't get the kill credit if a friendly so much as puts a single shot into them before they go down. In essense, what I see is I do maybe 75% plus of the critical damage to a single plane, and a friendly will come along and do the other 25% after me yet get the credit. I tried the converse a few times as well, wait for a wingman to shoot the piss out of somebody, then as they were heading down I'd swoop in and give them a few shots. In most of the cases I get the credit. Another irritating thing is sometimes I'll shoot up a bad guy enough that they'll go down, but they won't nosedive in, they'll kinda belly flop it on a flat piece of land, maybe a few chunks come off, etc. I don't get kill credit for those, when the plane's clearly a write off and loss.

So, in summary, it *seems* to me that the formulae for calculating who gets credit for kills and when is either wrong in some ways or incomplete.

My questions then become, is it just me? Am I wrong here? I don't think I am, given my highly unscientific testing... Is it handled differently for online and offline play? (I don't play online)

Possible courses of action as I see it:
- Team D could document some kind of short 'n sweet write up on how this mechanic works for our education.
- Fixing any wonky or weird code mechanics so kill accreditation is more accurate. (bug fix request?)
- Fleshing out the code mechanics so that kill accreditation is more accurate. (feature request?)

Cheers all :cool:

IceFire

02-26-2012, 09:53 PM

Whacker: I take it you don't fly online all that much? :)

We call it kill stealing and it's sort of a blight on some online matches. I've observed the AI closely and they behave like humans up to a certain point after which they are much more fair. If the enemy aircraft has initiated the bailout or if the pilot is dead the AI will stop firing and ignore the plane. They will also ignore if there is a wing or the entire tail section is missing.

Otherwise they continue to shoot.

To some degree this "bug" is a historically and very human type response. The bigger problem isn't really the AI doing this but the scoring involved and that's where the game part of this comes in. It would be nice to share points relative to the amount of damage that one aircraft has dealt to another aircraft. So the magic BB for the steal is no longer a problem.

Cloyd

02-27-2012, 12:03 AM

The AI are SUCH point whores! ;-)

Cloyd

Whacker

02-27-2012, 12:42 AM

@ Ice

No mate, I don't fly online at all. But I have certainly read enough around the various forums to get a feel for the big ticket items the online guys deal with. I'm glad you posted though, it somewhat validates in my mind the idea that the kill credit code could use a little massaging and/or tweaking.

Giant wall of text follows:

Core logic ideas:

1. Whomever causes the most damage to critical systems gets the kill credit.

Reasoning/Logic - Seems pretty straightforward to me, whomever caused the most hurt should get the credit. If I've pumped enough lead into the bad guy to the point where he's leaking fuel out of all compartments, engine's seized up, missing huge chunks of control surfaces, and he's coasting trying to get distance, that's one written off plane in my view. If someone comes along after and puts two 20mm rounds into him while he's coasting and doesn't damage or destroy what I've already destroyed, that's not entirely fair to me since I put him out of action to begin with.

Example in numbers. Say I shoot up Mr. bad guy. I cause his engine to 100% quit working. 100% damage to all fuel tanks so they are leaking. 50% damage to all controllable surfaces. 100% damage to the hydraulics system. 66% damage to weapons (4 of 6 guns are broken). My fearless wingman comes along and pops him with those 20mm shells and does another 25% damage to the controllable surfaces, and puts the remaining 33% of weapons out of action. In this case, I should get the kill credit.

2. Whomever kills the pilot gets the kill credit.

Reasoning/Logic - This would be a "final nail in the coffin" kind of scenario. A dead pilot essentially guarantees that the plane is going to crash and burn hard with no potential of repair or salvage. This could POTENTIALLY not be fair. Taking my previous scenario, I do the damage percentages to Mr. Bad Guy. Fearless Wingman comes along and puts 2 20mm shells into his cockpit, doing 100% damage to the pilot and removing him from this cruel, pixelated world. One could argue that even though I shot the crap out of Badguy's ride to begin with, he COULD try and coast it back across enemy lines, belly flop it in such a manner that it's mostly intact, and it COULD get drug back to an enemy airfield and repaired to be back in the action again. I don't know if I like this idea or not. This potentially leads to point 3:

3. Share kill credit under certain circumstances.

Somewhat subjective here. Say Fearless Wingman and I both do roughly the same amount of damage to critical systems in Mr. badguy's plane. He crashes it. Seems logical we should both get credit for that. Say we have the above scenario, where I do tons of damage to critical systems and Fearless Wingman comes along and snipes him dead with 2 shots. Should we share credit? I'm leaning towards probably, he wasn't likely going to get anywhere after I was done with him, Fearless Wingman just sealed his and his ride's fate to be sure.

When should kills NOT be shared? Bears some discussion IMO. Say pilot A gets in a few lucky shots off the first pass and pilot B's engine quits, but everything else is intact. Let's say he did 100 pts of damage total to pilot B. Pilot C could wait for pilot B (who is maybe an AI pilot?) who's now flying nice and level steadily descending as the AI tends to do and not bailing out. He proceeds to do 1000 points of damage to this nice, steady, level target and causes tons of other critical systems to fail and maybe even kills the pilot. Is it fair that he should get full credit or partial credit for the work pilot A did? Should pilot A be penalized for not following up and ensuring pilot B is dead? I don't know.

When should kills not be counted?

Best things I can come up with:

1. Badguy gets shot to bits BUT makes it back to an enemy airbase and lands with gear down. IMO shouldn't be a kill, even if the plane is a write-off.
2. Badguy struggles back to within a certain distance of an enemy airbase and manages to flop it in the grass mostly intact WITHOUT catching it on fire. What defines mostly intact? Dunno, maybe call it a certain percentage of the airframe intact? If he flops it and one wing comes off and it lands upside down with a ruined engine, could they get it back in the air? Possibly. If he flops it and the engine's ruined but the airframe remains intact, could it be back up in the air? Sure.

When should kills always be counted?

1. If they put it in the drink. Yeah, one could theoretically recover a plane from shallow water and get it back in the air, but it's extremely costly, time consuming, and effort intensive. I would submit for our game's purposes that any plane that goes in any body of water as a result of enemy fire gets counted as a kill, plain and simple.

Overall Assumptions - Ignoring certain "reality" aspects such as requiring a witness to claim a kill.

Luno13

02-27-2012, 08:39 AM

Too complicated. 50/50 always.

Pursuivant

02-29-2012, 07:56 PM

Too complicated. 50/50 always.

Historically, some allied units sliced the pie more finely than that, with pilots getting a 1/3 or a 1/4 of a kill. But, whatever works. Any partial kill credit would be an improvement.

Mostly, though, I'd love to see some consistency. Sometimes, I'll kill a plane and I'll get an instant "enemy destroyed" message. Other times, with equivalent damage, and equivalent circumstances, I'll get nothing until the plane actually crashes, giving "friendly" planes ample time for vulching.

It's definitely a bug with the programming. It's a very old bug; it's been the second biggest offliner complain for a decade.

By comparison to the now fixed AI problems (THANK YOU TD!) it should be easy to instantly assign kill credit when a plane catches on fire, blows up, falls apart or has the pilot killed.

WTE_Galway

02-29-2012, 08:35 PM

How about a system where kills are only credited if it can be verified by at least one other friendly pilot or ground troops?

Luno13

03-01-2012, 12:27 AM

That could be cool. You could "claim" a kill in a post-mission drop-down list, and it only counts if an AI was around to see it and survives to "tell" about it.

I suppose humans could verify, but witnesses could leave the game, lie if they have a spite issue, or forget to report, etc. Splitting a kill 50/50 (or even 25/75, etc) automatically based on damage done would be just fine. However, you wouldn't want the guy who gets in a couple peashooter shots just as the opponent hits the ground to get a half, or even quarter, of the pie. :cool: But it's better than nothing.

Also, I think point structure for ground targets could be re-worked. I mean, an aircraft carrier is worth 700 points....a bomber is 400. It's much easier to shoot down two bombers than one carrier, and a carrier could have 2000 points worth of planes in its hangar or on the deck. Fuel stores and "infrastructure" should also count for something and be target-able by AI (and I know about the whole hiding the truck in the building thing, but that's not very cool 8-)).

Whacker

03-01-2012, 06:43 AM

Splitting a kill 50/50 (or even 25/75, etc) automatically based on damage done would be just fine. However, you wouldn't want the guy who gets in a couple peashooter shots just as the opponent hits the ground to get a half, or even quarter, of the pie. :cool: But it's better than nothing.

I disagree completely. Someone who randomly comes along and puts a single 7.92mm round, or two, or three, or ten, into the flaming hulk that I just shot up shouldn't get an iota of credit. Hence my earlier thoughts. If kill stealing is a problem online that others have indicated, then this also would be further argument against a simplistic 50/50 split.

Also, I think point structure for ground targets could be re-worked. I mean, an aircraft carrier is worth 700 points....a bomber is 400. It's much easier to shoot down two bombers than one carrier, and a carrier could have 2000 points worth of planes in its hangar or on the deck. Fuel stores and "infrastructure" should also count for something and be target-able by AI (and I know about the whole hiding the truck in the building thing, but that's not very cool 8-)).

Seconding all of this, great ideas.

Luno13

03-01-2012, 04:46 PM

I disagree completely. Someone who randomly comes along and puts a single 7.92mm round, or two, or three, or ten, into the flaming hulk that I just shot up shouldn't get an iota of credit.

That's what I said ;)

Whacker

03-02-2012, 07:12 AM

That's what I said ;)

My fault then. To be fair to myself, you did kinda contradict yourself a few times, so I was confused. Focused on what I thought the gist of your response was.

-=MadCat=-

03-04-2012, 12:04 PM

I posted this issue before in the 4.10.1 bug report, not much changed, so here I go again for 4.11.

The fuel quantity of the P-51D-20NA is somewhat off.
Inspired by the thread about the wrong fuel for the Betty I did some testing again and notived not much change to the last time I checked it.

In short:
Test was a simple runtime check on the runway with 51" 2600rpm (70% for both).
100% fuel should be a ful auxiliary tank (85gal) and 2 full wing tanks (92gal each), giving 269gal total.
With this much fuel the engine ran at the given settings for ~152 minutes, burning ~1.77gal/min.
The auxiliary tank, from the time the needle started to move emptied in ~55 minutes, saying its 1.55gal/min.
Adding 2 drop tanks and lifting the fuel to 419gal total, engine ran for ~212 minutes, burning 1.98gal/min.

There are some possible error sources. I did the test with all available fuel quantities (100% - 10%) and there are more oddities !

No range tests done yet due to lack of time at the moment.
If you, TD, are interested in all the test results for all fuel quantities, let me know and by the end of the month I will do range tests as good as I can and write a comprehensive summary of all the results.

Wish you all a relaxed sunday !

Cattail

03-04-2012, 05:03 PM

^^^^what he said!!!^^^^^

dFrog

03-05-2012, 04:18 PM

Disappearing of user created bases can be avoided by turning "realistic navigation" off.

RCAF_FB_Bozo

03-06-2012, 03:31 PM

Thank you from the RCAF_FB ~S~

thanks from Air Chief Marshal Bozo for your help ~S~:-P

JG27_PapaFly

03-06-2012, 05:13 PM

The FW190-D9 '44 engine overrevs in power dives, this results in engine damage in prolongued dives. RPM reaches 3400 instead of 3250. This used to happen with the TA152-H in 4.10 and earlier, but never to the D9.

Here's a track: http://www.mediafire.com/file/5jmz9ry4ld6m9ly/JG27_D9_engine_bug.ntrk

No idea whether the D9 '45 has the same issue.
Would be great if you guys could have a look at this.

Luno13

03-07-2012, 12:59 AM

You really shouldn't be doing a "power dive". The air rushing over the propeller is going to impart a pinwheel effect, making it spin faster. If you have the power set to a high level, the Kommandogerat in German aircraft will keep the RPMs high too (reducing prop-pitch with high manifold pressure causes over-boosting and quickly damages or destroys the engine). The Kommandogerat is a mechanical system and probably not "smart" enough to keep power and RPMs at a specified setting when in extreme modes of flight (ie, dive).

Reduce power in a dive; problem solved.

For allied planes you must reduce power and prop-pitch in a dive. However, Il-2 doesn't care if prop-pitch is too low with respect to power. In effect, you only have to adjust prop-pitch and leave power alone.

However, it's not really fun to cheat :-P and it gives one a better impression of how much easier it was to manage German aircraft engines.

I think DT mentioned that at some point this would be fixed, and that "power dives" won't be possible in any aircraft as they are now (don't quote me on that though).

sniperton

03-07-2012, 01:55 PM

Hi, I'm new here. Many thanks to DT for their excellent work!

I've noticed that the CantZ 506B seems grossly underpowered. With a few bombs, and a full tank of gas, the AC can't get more than 10 feet off the water. With no bombs, and 50% fuel, it climbs extremely slow, but does reach proper altitude, but without bombs, the AC isn't much use.

Problem confirmed. Something is seriously not OK with 506B's flight model. With 50% fuel and 50% bomb load it is unable to take off at all. And if the next waypoint is above ground, it continues its way like a land vehicle. Funny to see a floatplane strolling around in the desert... :rolleyes:

Whacker

03-07-2012, 11:24 PM

Luno13

03-08-2012, 01:37 AM

Geez, how big is your monitor? :shock:

That probably a mistake in the alpha-channel. There should be a hole there with a black ring of burnt metal or fabric, like the rudder.

IceFire

03-08-2012, 03:08 AM

Geez, how big is your monitor? :shock:

That probably a mistake in the alpha-channel. There should be a hole there with a black ring of burnt metal or fabric, like the rudder.

We have a winner :)

There are a bunch of much worse damage models if you look closely. Mostly with older aircraft and IL-2 originals. It's somewhat inconsistent... the IL-2 itself and the Bf109E have some great detailing while others are broken or poorly done.

Treetop64

03-08-2012, 03:18 AM

We have a winner :)

There are a bunch of much worse damage models if you look closely. Mostly with older aircraft and IL-2 originals. It's somewhat inconsistent... the IL-2 itself and the Bf109E have some great detailing while others are broken or poorly done.

One of my faves is the misaligned texture for the damaged fuselage access panel on the LaGG-3. :shock:

Whacker

03-08-2012, 03:54 AM

Geez, how big is your monitor? :shock:

That probably a mistake in the alpha-channel. There should be a hole there with a black ring of burnt metal or fabric, like the rudder.

3 x Viewsonic VA2702w's fed delicious pixels by several ATI 6970's. Hence all my clamoring for the much wider FOV range support.

I've also been petitioning for the game to be a bit more ATI friendly. Don't expect miracles and all kinds of optimization, but there shouldn't be any reason why ATI users can't run water=4 when the Nvidia crowd can. :-|

Luno13

03-08-2012, 04:59 AM

Yeah, ATI glitches in IL-2 are a major downer: weird blue glow and impossibility to use perfect water without "blocky text" syndrome.

I doubt DT can do anything, and I doubt ATI will do anything for such an old game.

EDIT - for those with slow connections (not me, but they're out there) it would be nice if you cropped and re-sized the image next time.

Asheshouse

03-08-2012, 08:21 AM

ATI Radeon Sapphire HD3870 512MB -- Water = 2 -- MTO Map
No weird effects. No blocky text etc.

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff113/Asheshouse/Image01-25.jpg

OpenGl entries in conf.ini as follows:

[Render_OpenGL]
TexQual=3
TexMipFilter=1
TexCompress=0
TexFlags.UseDither=1
TexFlags.UseAlpha=0
TexFlags.UseIndex=0
TexFlags.PolygonStipple=0
TexFlags.UseClampedSprites=0
TexFlags.DrawLandByTriangles=0
TexFlags.UseVertexArrays=0
TexFlags.DisableAPIExtensions=0
TexFlags.ARBMultitextureExt=1
TexFlags.TexEnvCombineExt=1
TexFlags.SecondaryColorExt=1
TexFlags.VertexArrayExt=0
TexFlags.ClipHintExt=0
TexFlags.UsePaletteExt=0
TexFlags.TexAnisotropicExt=1
TexFlags.TexCompressARBExt=1

TexFlags.TexEnvCombine4NV=0
TexFlags.TexEnvCombineDot3=1
TexFlags.DepthClampNV=0
TexFlags.SeparateSpecular=1
TexFlags.TextureShaderNV=0

HardwareShaders=1

Shadows=2
Specular=1
SpecularLight=2
DiffuseLight=2
DynamicalLights=1
MeshDetail=2
VisibilityDistance=3

Sky=2
Forest=3
LandShading=3
LandDetails=2

LandGeom=3
TexLarge=1
TexLandQual=3
TexLandLarge=1

VideoSetupId=8
Water=2
Effects=2
ForceShaders1x=0

PolygonOffsetFactor=-0.0625
PolygonOffsetUnits=-3.0

Pursuivant

03-10-2012, 02:38 AM

That probably a mistake in the alpha-channel. There should be a hole there with a black ring of burnt metal or fabric, like the rudder.

That damage texture problem has been there for years. I assumed that it was meant to be that way. A lot of the older planes have really ugly damage textures.

The original skin artists went crazy with the black airbrush tool in Photoshop, so rather than getting realistic "chewed up aluminum" damage textures, damaged planes look like they've been attacked by killer fungus.

And I'd disagree that the Bf-109 has great damage modeling. Sure, on the E series the engine cowl gets knocked askew and you can see the engine, but the perfectly circular "sooty craters" in the wings are neither realistic nor attractive. (Note: I once found a Russian picture of tests of cannon shells against the Bf-109 wing, which is obviously where the original artist got the idea. The only problem is that the tests had the cannon firing at wings turned perpendicular to the cannon shot! So of course the resulting explosion looked nice and round. Entry from a less acute angle would give irregular-shaped entry and exit holes.)

sagittario

03-12-2012, 10:17 PM

Hi,
I noticed this inaccuracy:
The mission was a bombing with a U17-type configuration (see screen shot).
As you can see, the menu choice of weapons, the two guns are visible outside.
As before take off the two cannons are no longer visible (see screen shot).
Why?
I think that in the configuration U17 were removed the guns outside.
In this case the error is only in the menu screen to choose the weapons.

Thank you for reply.

-=MadCat=-

03-17-2012, 11:25 AM

This is going to be a longer one and mostly not related to 4.11 directly, but as there is no other bug report thread I will post it here.

As we all are now required to fly with more attention to our engines and temperatures,
I noticed some things with instruments whereupon I (briefly) checked all cockpits.

The results:

A20:
- Carb Air Temp needles are free floating in the instruments (no attachment to a shaft)

F4F / Fm2:
- Oil Pressure runs counter clockwise
- Fuel Pressure remains low

F6F:
- Underbelly cowl flap "opens" to the inside
- Fuel Pressure gauge works as fuel quantity gauge (on that note I didn't find a dedicated fuel gauge)
- Oil Pressure goes off the limit all the way to maximum indicatable by the instrument

I-250:
- Free floating needles for Oil and Coolant Temperatures
- Oxigen Quantity needle missing

IL-10:
- Oil and Coolant Temperature needles free floating

P-38:
- Fuel needles flicker against each other when overlapping

P-51:
- Free floating RPM needle
- Compass needles flicker against each other when overlapping
- Altimeter needles free floating
- Carb Air Temp needle free floating

Pe-2 (110 + 350) + Pe-3 bis:
- Missing needle for Air Pressure

SBD:
- Oil and Fuel Pressure too high

Yak:
- Fuel Pressure needle low and not moving when engine runs
- (Yak-1B only) Fuel Pressure needle on the wrond side (ccw)

A6M:
- Fuel Pressure needle not moving when engine runs
- Oil Pressure goes all the way to max indicatable
- Oxygen Quantity 0 (maybe intended this way)

Bf109:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs

D3A:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs
- Oil Pressure goes all the way to max indicatable
- Orange lever to the left is translucent from the top, looks like its placed upside down, the bottom wouldn't matter to be translucent

Fw190:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs
- (A-4, -5, -6) MG warning lights are lit until nose ammo is empty (maybe correct, but in my eyes a warning light should indicate the other way around)

He111:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engines run
- Oil Pressure goes all the way to max indicatable
- Bombsight elevation indicator on the LotFe runs the wrong direction (indicates 60° when bombsight actually faces straight downwards)

Hurricane Mk.I:
- No needle for Oil pressure
- Fuel Pressure moves with boost (maybe intended this way)

Ju87:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs

Ju88:
- Oil Pressure goes all the way to max indicatable

Mc202:
- Manifold Pressure needle rotates aroung the wrong axis (Y axis instead of Z axis (Z pointing out the instrument))

Ta152:
- Fuel Pressure low and not moving when engine runs

It may be quite likely that I simply misunderstand how some instruments work or what they are supposed to indicate (quantity wise).
Or if some things fall under the advise "please don't go by cockpit gauges, they aren't always accurate".
Please correct me if things in here are wrong either way !

Good day everyone !

Phil_K

03-22-2012, 03:07 PM

I don't know if this has been already mentioned, but the behaviour of AI escort fighters needs looking at. When enemy fighters attack the bombers they are set to, they go into the same pull-away-and-get-altitude routine they do when they're on a normal patrol point - i.e. they leave the bombers to get blown out of the sky.

Makes all escorted missions unplayable really.

sniperton

03-22-2012, 03:53 PM

Hi all, I put this here although it could also be categorized as a wish-list:

1. As complex engine management has become more crucial than ever before, a bit more technical info on flyable planes would be all the more welcome. (Type of propeller, RPM limits, recommended supercharger stages as per altitude, etc.) I'm sure most of these specs are known and used to model flight characteristics, so why not could they become common knowledge? (BTW, the old object viewer is completely obsolate at the moment, why not to use it for essential info?)

2. It has been reported many times that recorded tracks (also ntrk ones) do not show exactly what was showing in real time. Is there any hope/chance that it could be fixed?

3. I encountered similar problems in 'live' QMB missions. I experimented a bit with various fighters in a 4 to 4 situation, being all other settings equal for both parties. The planes were on AI, I only watched the combat from outside, then changed plane types, and repeated. On the 3rd or 5ft run I observed planes firing into the air while others, being a mile away, reported being shot at. I'll try to document this space warp with Fraps (since game-intern recordings are unreliable).

Anyway, thanks DT!

Aardvark892

03-23-2012, 08:55 AM

I've only been able to find one post that spoke of aircraft (AI) freezing up in flight. Unfortunately, now I can't find that post. Hopefully this isn't beating a dead horse, and instead helping out.

I've got a .ntrk of a QMB mission (I don't remember which map) where the lead Mosquito of the second flight just freezes up. I've also seen this two other times. I don't have the details of map/setting/etc. but I'll make sure to record it if I see it again.

JG27_PapaFly

03-23-2012, 09:09 AM

Dead pilots can move their head.
I reviewed a track recorded online and saw that head motions of the guy i had PKd were still being transmitted.

Whacker

03-27-2012, 09:27 AM

Dead pilots can move their head.
I reviewed a track recorded online and saw that head motions of the guy i had PKd were still being transmitted.

Walking Dead meets IL-2?

Claymore

04-06-2012, 07:35 AM

I saw something recently that struck me as a bit odd.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/7564/grab0000a.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/641/grab0000a.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Black smudge on the right rear stabilizer? Dunno what that means... Damage? Partial damage? Complete damage, shot out (like the rudder)?

Edit - Spoiler tags don't seem to work here, sorry about image size.

Is it better like this ?
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/Claymore-29/Pack%20C6/1001201220-16-09.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/Claymore-29/Pack%20C6/1001201220-16-40.jpg
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa41/Claymore-29/Pack%20C6/1001201220-16-59.jpg

Hi,
I noticed this inaccuracy:
The mission was a bombing with a U17-type configuration (see screen shot).
As you can see, the menu choice of weapons, the two guns are visible outside.
As before take off the two cannons are no longer visible (see screen shot).
Why?
I think that in the configuration U17 were removed the guns outside.
In this case the error is only in the menu screen to choose the weapons.

Thank you for reply.

Hi !

It's not a bug, I experienced this "issue", which is not really one, in my Fw 190 & Ta 152 modpack, the MgFF of the Fw 190 A5 aren't loadouts like external Mg151/20 as on the Fw 190 A8, these are only simple meshes that you make appear-desappear in the java classes regarding the loadout you choose, as you can see it work perfectly ingame, that it's the most important thing, but not in the menu screen where you choose the loadouts because in it you see all the meshes, hidden or not, which compose the plane.

SkyFan

04-22-2012, 02:26 PM

Dear DT Members, yor job is really fantastic, your new putch 4.11 is really great, THANK YOU! However some bugs take place unfortunately. One of them has recently detected by me. Please, see description below and please forgive my possible mistskes in English (I'm not native speaker).
BUG NAME:
Wrong statistic in 4.11 Campaigns if NTRK record is ongoing while exit from the mission.
Error description:
If we play any campaign in 4.11 and NTRK record is ongoing while our exit from the mission, the player will be credited with the loss of his aircraft.
Explanation of error:
The course of "investigative experiment":
1) Start any campaign (screenshot 1)
2) Turn on the NTRK record, immediately turn it off (screenshot 2) or don't make record at all.
3) Exit from the mission and evaluate the results of flight (screenshot 3) - players aircraft lost -0 (that's truth).
4) Repeat the same mission, turn on the NTRK record (screenshot 4) and exit the mission, while the track record is ongoing (as always before)
5) Then evaluate the results of flight (screenshot 5) - aircraft lost players - 1, although we did not turn on the engine at all, and in fact player's aircraft hasn't any damage.
Now (at 4.11), such event has place always, when any player forgets to turn off the NTRK record before exit.
The stability of detection:
Always.
Screenshot or video:
Attached.
Software version, hardware configuration, OS version, third-party software (running at the time of display): not affected. There weren't such cases in previous versions of the game.
Is it possible to fix it?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards.

jlan5031

04-24-2012, 03:50 PM

Has anyone noticed the tires on F4Fs. They look like AC skins look when they no longer fit the airplane. Any solutions, or ideas?
Thanks

fruitbat

04-24-2012, 04:05 PM

Has anyone noticed the tires on F4Fs. They look like AC skins look when they no longer fit the airplane. Any solutions, or ideas?
Thanks

umm, mine are fine:confused:

jlan5031

04-24-2012, 05:33 PM

That's interesting. The tires are flawed, as I said, no matter what skin I add. The tail wheels are merely white, uncolored, outlines. Have you any ideas about causes or solutions?
Thanks for your response.

jlan5031

04-24-2012, 06:19 PM

Just to add, the wheels affected are those, like the F3f and Buffalo varient that visibly retract into the fusilage sides. Also, many tailwheels have no color. I can't see a pattern with the tailwheels. I don't know where to look for a problem.

Luno13

04-24-2012, 07:25 PM

Looks like something got corrupted in your install. You might have to uninstall and re-install.

Whacker

04-24-2012, 11:04 PM

My wheels all look fine as well on F4F and F6F variants.

benson

04-25-2012, 07:15 PM

Thanks for yet more great work. I was wondering about the effectiveness of the 'Limited Ammo' in the Weapons and Stores section of the Difficulty setting. I was hoping it would limit the aircraft ammunition to something around real life level but to me they still seem to have a huge amount of ammo to expend.

JtD

04-25-2012, 07:33 PM

Real life ammo count is exactly the effect of that difficulty switch. Maybe you're lucky to be in aircraft that carry large amounts of ammo, or you're just an incredibly good shot so that you simply don't need a lot of ammo.

Planes that are fairly short on ammo are the Yak's, if you want to try them.

idefix44

04-26-2012, 02:05 PM

In IL2 1946 4.11m version.
Some static objects like AAA guns or cannons respawn after being destroyed.
It happend that I destroy some static objects.
I shoot them.
They burn. Server display Ennemy AAA destroyed.
After some time they respawn and open fire again...
Is it a bug.
If yes is it fixed in 4.11.1m ?

Thx all for your great job.

Luno13

04-26-2012, 04:17 PM

I assume you're playing online.

The host can implement an AI respawn time into the mission. There is no bug.

idefix44

04-26-2012, 08:56 PM

Thanks Luno13.
I found the parameters in the [RespawnTime] section.

FenbeiduO

04-27-2012, 09:30 AM

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/--gwKRIBu3GM/T5psT8eSL_I/AAAAAAAAADo/VSj8UnDTuBw/s568/grab0010.jpgthere always a big squa sign on the left side of plane under canopy. I have never seen so big sign in a historcal photograph before.

Fall_Pink?

04-28-2012, 02:53 PM

Luno13

04-28-2012, 08:21 PM

Fall_Pink?

04-28-2012, 08:26 PM

I just made tests and I have no issues with the jets. Make sure to increase power slowly. Too fast and the engine will catch fire.

Also, I tend not to add more than 80% power, to avoid overheating.

Acceleration is slow, and jerking the plane off the runway won't help. I pull back on the stick just enough to raise the nose. The plane will roll on the main wheels until it's "ready" to fly, and will lift off on its own at the right speed. Raise gear immediately, lower the nose to accelerate and raise flaps in increments.

Luno13,

Manually there will be no problem with any jet I guess and I think it's the auto pilot that messes it up some how.

I tested the he162 'rapid strike mission' with auto pilot enabled for take off. I checked a couple of times and nearly all of them crash into the hillside.

Please check if you get the same behavior with this mission.

Rgs,
Mark

JtD

04-28-2012, 10:32 PM

Aviar

04-29-2012, 12:41 AM

4.11.1 AI / Jet bug:

Jets like He162 and Me262 can't take off anymore. They overheat when they're half way the runway and have diffculties gaining altitude. They fail to climb and/or their engines catch fire. Tested with he162 and single mission 'rapid strike mission'. With the rapid strike mission, the first he162 cannot gain sufficient alititude and crashes into the woods at the end of the runway.

edit: small correction. Bug is also present in 4.11 + hotfix. Base closure with YP80 catches fire when taking off and 'rapid strike' mission produces the same result. I.e. he162 is unabnle to take off and it's engine starts to burn.

Rgs,
Mark

There is no bug here. The jet AI takes off perfectly fine in 4.11.1. Even the Player's plane (in offline missions) will take off correctly if the Autopilot is used. I'm not sure what your problem may be.

I tested the Rapid Strike mission and the jet AI all take off just fine. However, they do crash into the hill. This may be due to new FM's.

I tried a quick workaround and it worked. Just open the mission in the FMB and give all the 262 and 162 flights 65% fuel instead of 100%. This makes them lighter and they don't crash anymore.

Aviar

Fall_Pink?

04-29-2012, 08:43 AM

The Heinkels indeed crash, but it already happened in 4.09. Do you know the last version it worked with? Overheat in 4.11 came too quick for some jets, but this was corrected in 4.11.1 and should no longer be an issue. I haven't seen one catching fire on take off, yet.

I did not test it with 4.09, so I can't confirm that.

I tried the misison on 4.11 + hotfix and 4.11.1 only. With both versions they crash into the hillside. I'm not sure if overheating has been fixed for jets yet when auto pilot is in control. The overheating warning appears too early I guess.

To check overheating and autopilot behavior, I did some other tests with other fighters as well (Do335-v13 and La7 from single mission section all with AP enabled) and they never seem to overheat. Not during take off and not while they fly their waypoints. In this mission La7 never overheats, and if it does then only during engaging enemy fighters and for a very short duration.

With the Do335 mission, it reached 550 IAS all along it's waypoints and an overheating warning message never appeared.

I can't assess if this is 'real' or not. I just find it weird that some planes, when flown by AP do not have any overheating issues, while some others have them so quickly.

Rgs,
Mark

Fall_Pink?

04-29-2012, 08:57 AM

There is no bug here. The jet AI takes off perfectly fine in 4.11.1. Even the Player's plane (in offline missions) will take off correctly if the Autopilot is used. I'm not sure what your problem may be.

I tested the Rapid Strike mission and the jet AI all take off just fine. However, they do crash into the hill. This may be due to new FM's.

I tried a quick workaround and it worked. Just open the mission in the FMB and give all the 262 and 162 flights 65% fuel instead of 100%. This makes them lighter and they don't crash anymore.

Aviar

Aviar,

It looks like these new patches thus created some incompatabilities with older missions which need fixing. Either by changing the missions or having another look at the overheating and AP engine management part.

Is it realistic a He162 overheats when it's only halfway the runway on take off?

I'm not aware of any new FM's for these planes. Did 4.11.1 introduce a new fm for these types?

Rgs,
Mark

JtD

04-29-2012, 10:47 AM

Bug's been present at least since 4.09.
FM's haven't been changed for the He 162 for ages.
Overheat in 4.11 didn't work well with AI for some jets.
Overheat in 4.11.1 works with AI in all jets.
Jet engines overheat differently than piston engines, both in real life and in game.

To sum it up, either the He 162 FM needs to be fixed in which case real life data on low speed acceleration, handling and take off distance would come in handy, or very simple, the mission needs to be adjusted.

Unless you want to research He 162 performance, don't spend sleepless nights over the issue.

Ace1staller

04-29-2012, 10:49 AM

I have a problem with the Quick mission builder. It gives me a blank screen when ever I click the button however this was before the release of 4.11.1 and I'll soon post a picture to show my problem.

JtD

04-29-2012, 10:51 AM

Have you tried deleting the .last.quick file from the Quicks folder in your il-2 installation?

Aviar

04-29-2012, 02:02 PM

Is it realistic a He162 overheats when it's only halfway the runway on take off?

They don't. As I stated earlier, in my version of 4.11.1, the 162's do not overheat and take off with no problems. The AI takes off just fine and you can take off manually with no overheating.

Maybe you have a corrupted install? I don't know.

*Are you sure you installed the 4.11.1 patch correctly? Does it say 4.11.1m when the game is loading? There was an overheat issue with the jets in 4.11 but it's fixed in 4.11.1.

Aviar

Fall_Pink?

04-29-2012, 09:08 PM

They don't. As I stated earlier, in my version of 4.11.1, the 162's do not overheat and take off with no problems. The AI takes off just fine and you can take off manually with no overheating.

Maybe you have a corrupted install? I don't know.

*Are you sure you installed the 4.11.1 patch correctly? Does it say 4.11.1m when the game is loading? There was an overheat issue with the jets in 4.11 but it's fixed in 4.11.1.

Aviar

Okay. To verify I completely reinstalled 4.11 and hotfix and 4.11.1 on top of that. I can confirm the he162 indeed does not overheat on take off, but still crashes into the hills ;-)

Not sure what's different this time and what I saw. I only had the modified exe from mod 4.11 (ton) and the soundpack, nothing else. I'm now back with a completely standard and default install of 4.11.1.

Thanks and regards,
Mark

Ps. If I remember correctly, I was sober at the time I tested this. Can't be sure of course. Too drunk most of the time.

Phabius

04-30-2012, 08:21 PM

I've noticed a strange behavior of AI controlled Fw190 A-4 on the Kuban map in QMB.

Part of the problem happened with other planes on other maps, and also in FMB.

Just choose a flight of one (or even four) Axis Fw 190 A-4 (Ace) and start a QMB Scramble mission in Kuban Map.
The airfield in question is near Anapa.
As soon as the mission starts, let the auto pilot take control.
After the flight, when the aircraft reaches its landing pattern, it will land far before the strip on the descending part of a hill. When it finally reaches the airfield strip, it will take a tour there and visit most parking spots before finding the right one and stops. While it's doing that, the other planes in the flight will follow the pattern landing down the hill, but only untill the airstrip is reached, when they just disappear because the first plane is still fooling around the airfield. They will never reach their parking spots.

I've seen this behavior in other missions. One I can remember was a Heinkel 111 fooling around the airfield and eventually crashing into default airfield objects. But in the case above it seems the problem is the airfield, as the aircraft takes off from one airfield and lands on another (the one by the hill). Tested with Bf 110 G-2 on the Kuban map and the same happened. The same situation in Crimea map, for example, does not happen.

Grach

05-01-2012, 12:12 PM

In other 4.11.1 news, I'm still having quite a bit of trouble getting the AI Tse-Tse Mosquito (Mk.XVIII) to attack ground targets.
Has anyone else had any luck?
In air to air they do okay, except that the .303 and 6pdr don't converge, no matter what you set in the pre-flight... The .303 seem on target but the 6pdr seem to be angled down. (Wasn't there a Bf-110G gunpack that did the same once upon a time?) Is this a feature perhaps? I just want to see a 6pdr shell hit something... ;)

P.S. Great work TD and thanks!

Phabius

05-11-2012, 03:03 PM

I was playing someone's template mission set on the D-Day, the invasion of Normandy...

Although landing crafts and other allied ships do fire on the German artillery standing on the top of the beach hills, these German artillery units cannot fire down on the landing crafts, but only on the ships far away from the shore. Maybe they cannot angle the guns down, to aim at the allied forces down on the beach.

(Sorry, I've posted this reply on the wrong place again - the wish list for 4.12. Should have posted it here in the first place).

chtalaminga

05-14-2012, 04:25 AM

HI…
On Hurricane MkI 1938 when you pouch the throttle full forward, Lbs indicator climb at 22Lbs.
I think you tried to make a 06Lbs load, did you?
Something else, when you’re flying on hurricane MkI at 2850Rpm with a 90% throttle forward, the engine overhead only about three or four minutes later ! It doesn’t sound good.
You’ve made a great job, but please stop trying to improve flight models. I think the one who take care off is a really deep idiot!
Every time you change something there it’s worse than before than we have to fix the those problems on a new bouton or java scripts.

It's a wast of time because you never reply when it concern fight models.

THX!

K_Freddie

05-14-2012, 06:29 AM

Does anybody else get black screen screengrabs.. :confused:
Using Win7 and widescreen.

shelby

05-14-2012, 08:41 AM

the navigation lights of lagg3 all models are missing (expext lagg3 rd)

JtD

05-14-2012, 03:22 PM

On Hurricane MkI 1938 when you pouch the throttle full forward, Lbs indicator climb at 22Lbs.It shows 6.2ish in my version, see attachment. The boost gauge limit is 8, so I don't even know how you can read it 22.

WRT lack of replies, feedback as wrong and rude as yours usually goes right into the trash.

JtD

05-14-2012, 03:26 PM

Does anybody else get black screen screengrabs..I don't, which mode are you in (conf.ini settings)? Does it help if you lower jpg quality?

JtD

05-14-2012, 03:26 PM

the navigation lights of lagg3 all models are missing (expext lagg3 rd)On the skin, the lights as such are there.

shelby

05-14-2012, 04:38 PM

On the skin, the lights as such are there.
Yes. I hope the update to fix this mistake

Sapper

05-14-2012, 09:31 PM

IL4 bomb bay doors open when attacking with parachute torpedo. The doors passing through the torpedo.

stugumby

05-15-2012, 06:33 PM

Just curious but when viewing il-4 on screen in flight with the id tags why does it show as DB-3?

C6_Krasno

05-15-2012, 06:47 PM

The Il-4 was a DB-3F according to Wikipedia (renamed in 1942) ;)

shelby

05-15-2012, 08:36 PM

the navigation lights of lagg3 all models are missing (expext lagg3 rd)
and the cockpit lights when you see the cockpit from outside view of the aircraft. this also happens with mig models

sniperton

05-16-2012, 01:19 PM

Mc.200 series, close external view, there's a greyish something in the upper front part of the cockpit where usually a mirror is fitted in the Mc.202 series. It should be either removed from the 3D model or enabled as a real mirror, if historically correct.

koivis

05-21-2012, 12:26 PM

Together with some other pilots, I have experienced this weird freeze phenomenon, seemingly caused by static runway objects. We have used these objects to form "tunnels" in the valleys for several air racing courses. Whenever one flies close to several of these runways, the screen freezes, all HUD and all text disappears, only the plane icons are left besides the picture itself. Also, as seen in the picture, the cockpit textures also disappear. It happens when you are in cockpit view, or have atleast one other plane in sight in external views.

Here is a screenshot of what happens:
http://i.imgur.com/hymPh.jpg
Screenshot by Tommy-

This must have something to do with the 4.11 patch, since we have used the same racing courses in previous versions without ANY problems like this. If there is a way to solve this, I thank you in advance.

Aviar

05-22-2012, 05:09 AM

I came across a quirky little bug in the FMB in version 4.11.1. It concerns the 'Waypoint Options' feature.

If you use this feature and set a particular waypoint to 'Patrol', the flight (in the MIS file) might look something like this:

[USN_VF_10A00]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.P_38J
Fuel 100
weapons default
[USN_VF_10A00_Way]
TAKEOFF 39257.95 18077.12 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 34876.31 20568.50 500.00 300.00 &0
TRIGGERS 0 0 0 5 0 0 <-----------------------Patrol Settings!
NORMFLY 24124.97 17979.00 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 42218.69 11161.08 500.00 300.00 &0
LANDING 40639.26 17279.62 0 0 &0

In the example above, the 'Triggers' line contains the Patrol settings. So far, no problems.

If you load this mission into the FMB and click on the Patrol waypoint and change it to a 'GAttack' waypoint, you will have problems. If you try to reload the mission, you will get a 'Loading Mission' error (see 1st screenshot). That particular flight will not load into the mission. Also, depending on the particular mission, you may lose other flights or even other units, such as vehicles and ships. Below is what the MIS file will look like if this happens:

[USN_VF_10A00]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.P_38J
Fuel 100
weapons default
[USN_VF_10A00_Way]
TAKEOFF 39257.95 18077.12 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 34876.31 20568.50 500.00 300.00 &0
GATTACK_401 31500.13 28009.22 500.00 300.00 &0
TRIGGERS 0 0 0 5 0 0 <--------------------------This line should not be here!!
NORMFLY 24124.97 17979.00 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 42218.69 11161.08 500.00 300.00 &0
LANDING 40639.26 17279.62 0 0 &0

The bug is that the TRIGGERS line is not deleted when the GATTACK line is added. This leads to the 'LOADING MISSION' error. In any case, this flight will not appear in the mission.

A quick workaround is to manually delete the TRIGGERS line from the MIS file. To prevent this issue from happening in the first place, always change your Patrol waypoints back to normal, SAVE, and then proceed.

*Just a little comment from me; One reason this problem may arise is because the 'Normfly' waypoints and the 'Patrol' waypoints all look the same. I could have sworn we had requested that DT add something to the Patrol waypoints so that the mission builders could tell the difference between the two.

The way it is now, we have to click on every waypoint in order to find out which are Normfly and which are Patrol. Clicking the 'Prev' or 'Next' waypoint buttons does not help because a Patrol waypoint is still displayed as 'Normfly' (see 2nd screenshot). You would need to click on the 'Waypoint Options' tab and then click on each tiny waypoint to find the information (see 3rd screenshot). We really need a graphical clue that a particular waypoint is a Patrol waypoint.....please. Thank you.

Aviar

Aviar

05-22-2012, 08:29 AM

Here is another little map (Kyushu) bug:

Vehicles cannot completely cross the bridge in grid AO-10. They get stuck on the eastern end of the bridge (see screenshot).

Aviar

Tommy544

05-22-2012, 12:24 PM

Together with some other pilots, I have experienced this weird freeze phenomenon, seemingly caused by static runway objects. We have used these objects to form "tunnels" in the valleys for several air racing courses. Whenever one flies close to several of these runways, the screen freezes, all HUD and all text disappears, only the plane icons are left besides the picture itself. Also, as seen in the picture, the cockpit textures also disappear. It happens when you are in cockpit view, or have atleast one other plane in sight in external views.

Here is a screenshot of what happens:
http://i.imgur.com/hymPh.jpg

This must have something to do with the 4.11 patch, since we have used the same racing courses in previous versions without ANY problems like this. If there is a way to solve this, I thank you in advance.

+1

I really appreciate all your hard work you are putting into this simulator, but it would be nice if you could look into this issue. We now have several tracks with the same problem and fixing them isn't always easy, as you need several players flying relatively close together for this bug to occur.

Thanks

Sharkzz

06-03-2012, 05:56 AM

S~
G'day and help,
IL2 clean virginal 4.11 with hotfix, game loads fine.
downloaded and ran 4.11.1 to game. game now doesn't even load, it just sits there. any ideas please ?
thanks
Sharkzz
ps, i have done it 3 times, reinstalled 4.11+ hotfix, run game and loads OK, install 4.11.1 on top and can't even get a % CTD, it just won't start up.
not sure what to do now.

JtD

06-03-2012, 07:29 AM

Have you used the same 4.11.1 download for every installation? Sounds like the download might be broken.

SPAD-1949

06-07-2012, 11:50 AM

I Built a "Operation Vengeance" Mission on the Solomons mid 43 map and find it very difficult to get all flights close on course. If I dont set the waypoint on my leading the other flights just veer off and head directly towards Bougainville instead of heading west after passing Cape Esperance. If I set all the waypoints on my flights waypoints, the the other flights crash partly on the Mountains of Guadalcanal or in best case they are circling above my flight. Until I leave the flight path. Then they just cirkle like lost orientation. I have to command them to the next waypoint but are not able to command them in formation to come with me. Wavetop altitude of 30m leads to crashes. I usually lost up to 8 aircraft on the way towards Treasury Island Worst of all, whenever I head nort and pass Treasury Islansd, Framreate breaks in and I get a crash du to some internal error. Unfortuinately no CTD, I have to kill the application on the hard way. Very unpleasant. Larger Starting delay 20minutes or more sometimes works sometimes does not.

IceFire

06-08-2012, 12:29 AM

I think there are...three... maybe four problems in there.

Lets start with the waypoints. It sounds like your waypoints are too close and the flights are passing and missing them. That or the Select option is set too early. Use that to target the lead flight only after they have taken off and are on the second or even third waypoint. Use the earlier waypoints to get them slightly setup.

The crash is either because you haven't patched to 4.11.1 or something else. Not sure. Frame rate also sounds like a weird problem. I've flown all over the map and had very few frame issues... there are a couple of slightly heavier areas but it's fairly frame friendly.

Maybe a CPU loading issue?

SPAD-1949

06-08-2012, 10:08 AM

I think there are...three... maybe four problems in there.

Lets start with the waypoints. It sounds like your waypoints are too close and the flights are passing and missing them.

With other Missions I dont have the Problem with closer Waypoints

That or the Select option is set too early. Use that to target the lead flight only after they have taken off and are on the second or even third waypoint. Use the earlier waypoints to get them slightly setup.

I think I set them on the second. when I dont set them on each point, they veer of for direct course without the southern detour.

The crash is either because you haven't patched to 4.11.1 or something else.

Its 4.11.1

Not sure. Frame rate also sounds like a weird problem. I've flown all over the map and had very few frame issues... there are a couple of slightly heavier areas but it's fairly frame friendly.

Maybe a CPU loading issue?

Can be... willing to check? ( I hope it is not inpolite to copy the whole .mis text in this forum)
I set the waypoints higher, the original 20m lead to to many losses, when accompanying AC crashed in the sea. When I try to fly Wavetop ca 30ft I loose my flight until Vella Lavella one by one.

Wait for the Follow Me Jeep to lead you to your starting position. You are Leader of the last starting flight, and should take the lead after takeoff

Il-Sturmovik 1946\Missions\Single\US\P-38-J

Operation Vengeance.mis

Aviar

06-08-2012, 06:03 PM

SPAD,

Just for future reference, you can place your mission into a Zip file and then attach it to your post.

I'm sorry I can't test your mission. Since 4.11, I am having trouble with the Solomons maps. In fact, since 4.11.1, I cant even open them in the FMB. Good luck with your problem.

Aviar

KG26_Alpha

06-10-2012, 05:31 PM

Please check the Oxygen masks in the He111 H2 / H6

The old bug is present again they are outside the aircraft or halfway in/out.

Thxz

gaunt1

06-12-2012, 02:22 PM

Some loadout options of the Fw-200 is unrealistic, like 4 1000kg bombs, or 2 1800kg for example. As far as I know, max bombload was 2100kg. There are problems with the defensive weaponry too. I think there are two methods to fix it: 1, simply rename the aricraft to Fw-200C3. Then the defensive guns are OK. 2, For a true C3/U4 change the rear top and the two side machineguns to MG-131.

Btw, there was a cockpit made for it in the ancient times, what happened to it?

idefix44

06-13-2012, 05:55 AM

Here's a part of my MDS settings:
MDS_Misc_BombsCat1_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 90.0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat2_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 90.0
MDS_Misc_BombsCat3_CratersVisibilityMultiplier 90.0
90*80=7200, so the craters visibility is 2h. But they're erased after a little while. 80s ?...
I don't know if the bug exist since 4.10.

Thx all for your great work.

Racoon

06-21-2012, 10:16 PM

In quick mission builder the AAA still fires at you even when you set it to "None"!:shock:

panzer1b

06-21-2012, 11:59 PM

In quick mission builder the AAA still fires at you even when you set it to "None"!:shock:

this is because the missions without flak still have things such as convoys which contain units capable of firing at planes. Also i personally have modded the default maps to fix this somewhat annoying issue.

If you would like the modded quick missions from me please post or send me a PM. I made them for myself and it feels like a very basic mod so i never released it, but if ud like ill upload em for you to SAS1946.

if ud like to do this yourself just open the FMB and go into the quick folder, and edit those without flak to remove them flak. one example ill give is the crimea red airfield mission. open it up and remove the maultierAA or whatever its called as well as either delete or change the convoy cirtcling the airfield to one nopt containing a skdfz7 with 20mm ack-ack.

Treetop64

06-23-2012, 05:46 PM

- Deleted -

Spudkopf

07-04-2012, 01:06 PM

G'day DT

Possible QMB bug!

Not sure if this has already been noted (as could not seem to find it mentioned), but in QMB when selecting any of load options for the Hs-129B2 that includes either the Mk101 or Mk103 gun pods from within the the load out screen, that these items do not appear on the aircraft in the preview window, both alone and when selected in combination with other weapons, yet the other weapons do? (ie: Mk103 Gun Pod + 2x AB23 only the AB23s appear under the wings with no gun pod on the centreline).

It's no major issue as the weapons do appear once in a mission (where they are most needed).

csThor

07-04-2012, 02:03 PM

That is normal since the gunpods are part of the basic aircraft texture (making skinning easier) they don't show up in the arming screen. That's not fixable, though.

Spudkopf

07-05-2012, 02:07 AM

That is normal since the gunpods are part of the basic aircraft texture (making skinning easier) they don't show up in the arming screen. That's not fixable, though.

G'day csThor

Thanks for the reply and clarification in regards the loadout screen.

Lagarto

07-07-2012, 08:26 AM

The B5N2 and B6N2 have ventral racks offset to starboard. Is it supposed to be that way?

ElAurens

07-07-2012, 01:09 PM

Yes.

1. To offset engine torque.

2. And i'm not totally sure of this one, to help a long torpedo clear the prop. (The Stuka used a trapeeze for the same reason).

Lagarto

07-07-2012, 04:09 PM

Not a day passes without learning something new :) Tx

Ace1staller

07-07-2012, 07:10 PM

Can we fix the Japanese icons when selecting another skin than the Defaults because when I select a blank skin on a Japanese fighter like the Ki-61, then I realize a split second later, The Japanese icon that is suppose to be on the skin when you have the markings on option selected is not there. Can you fix that DT ? Just take a look on all other skins in other Japanese planes that isn't defaults including blank skins downloaded from the web and test all Axis markings and you might see the problem.

Spudkopf

07-09-2012, 01:06 PM

Was flying the Ju88 this evening testing out 6dof (5dof) mouse and keyboard when I noticed some visual glitches I'd not noticed until now regarding the pilots side and front quater window frames invollving several tears and polygons out of place as can been seen below, the area with the dashes is were the worst tears can be found:

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l116/305th/ju88ckptglitches2.jpg

I exited and re-strated the game several times, however there was no change so I then launched my backup installation 4.11.1 which does not have any 6dof keys assigned, but the same glitches were also evident here as well.

As I said I had not noticed them until today and the glitches appear on all three 88s, I do not know how long these glitches have existed as I only currently have 4.11.1 (all be it twice) installed so can not check prior releases without doing other re-installations, so does everbody else have the same glitch issues on the 88s?

If so, could TD possibly take a look and maybe even try and fix the issue before the release of 4.12 (pretty please).

Spudkopf

07-09-2012, 10:00 PM

Ok I been searching Google high and low for past images of the Ju88 cockpit. And it would appear most of the frame issued mentioned above have been there for a long, long time and I have even incorrectly labelled the pilots sliding widow handle as a fault “duh”, I will have to edit my original image above to reflect these findings, yet can not access Photobucket during business hours ( can't even see my own images :( ).

That said the tear/holes in the front pillar of the sliding widow seems not to be evident in anything that I have found thus far and is something I just can not recall ever seeing in the past. I guess once I noticed the tear which is now quite distracting my mind starting inventing other problems.

For reference here are the original Ubi pages Ju88 implementation images and as you can see the previously high-lighted pillar seems to have no tears or holes in evidence.

http://il2-sturmovik.de.ubi.com/ss/Ju-88Cockpit_02.jpg

http://il2-sturmovik.de.ubi.com/ss/Ju-88Cockpit_03.jpg

Also, and sorry, but come to think of it, maybe this post should be in the 6DOF debugging thread instead? If so I raise it there instead.

Pfeil

07-09-2012, 10:08 PM

While observing an Fw 189 in flight, I noticed the flaps aren't connected to the wings.

There are flaps "painted" on the underside of the wing, but they are static. The actual flaps are below these, floating in mid air. It appears both use the same texture.

From what I can find, the real aircraft didn't have these offset flaps. So believe it to be a "bug" in the model.

Does everbody else have the same glitch issues on the 88s?

I checked, all 3 variants have this issue in my installation as well.

Bob_Drugstore_Arp

07-19-2012, 08:54 PM

Something wrong with the needle of the boost gauge in the MC.202 cockpit

panzer1b

07-21-2012, 09:00 PM

i was just flying some russian planes in a new mission i was testing, and i came across a fairly huge bug in the yak-7 series

their center of rotation when u pull up is for some reason behind the wings whereas i would believe it should be located more forward like the picture shows

please go into a yak7 (any of them all same problem), and try to pull up or do any elevator motion and notice how the plane doesnt rotate about what would be its center of lift (eg near the wings most likely above them) like all other planes, but instead rotates about a spot behind the wings

also look into the plane choosing window (like advanced loadout section) and notice how it rotates about this weird spot behind the wings, while all other yaks rotate around somewhere near the wings. Although im not a expert or even any good at 3d modeling, im guessing the model's center point determined when its compiled or something determined about what spot it rotates when well rotating or pulling up/down. And the way is now just doesnt make sense. Not sure if someone compiled the center's location right or something but im guessing move it to the green area in the attatched pic

i would reccomend making the yak7s act just like the rest of the yaks instead of the way they are

if this is intended then just disregard this, but i do believe it is not suppost to be this way

KG26_Alpha

08-05-2012, 11:34 AM

Hi

Great work on v4.11 much appreciated.

One small bug/feature I have consistently found is the fighter pilots AI seem to have a strange DM, bomber AI seem to die easy enough but the fighters have a strange anomaly.

Testing offline with Arcade=1

I hit this one a few times in the pilots body from my tail gun I switched to his ac to have a look at the hit points and found him with one in the eye, he carried on and shot down my aircraft and damaged a couple more before making a perfect landing seemingly unaffected by the fatal hits to him.

SaQSoN

08-05-2012, 11:56 AM

I hit this one a few times in the pilots body from my tail gun I switched to his ac to have a look at the hit points and found him with one in the eye, he carried on and shot down my aircraft and damaged a couple more before making a perfect landing seemingly unaffected by the fatal hits to him.

Nothing wrong here. And that's old, really. The arrow does NOT show the bullet path. It shows the bullet hit vector at the moment of impact. Here you can see, your bullets hit the windshield, which is armored glass. Since pilot isn't dead, it's safe to assume, the bullet did not penetrate the armor.

KG26_Alpha

08-05-2012, 04:08 PM

Yep I remembered that

I should have said I was in a Betty tail gun.

It must be very tough glass then thats a 20mm hit to the glass.

SaQSoN

08-05-2012, 04:27 PM

Well, it could be HE shell, so the armored glass could well withstand such hit. Actually, it was designed to stop 12,7 mm bullets, which IMO has higher kinetic energy, then 20mm HE shrapnel.

Either way, pilot wasn't hit here, despite the impact vector image goes right through him.

KG26_Alpha

08-06-2012, 10:17 PM

Thanks I forgot they only show vector and not penetration/damage.

.

Luno13

08-06-2012, 11:25 PM

SPAD-1949

08-11-2012, 04:09 PM

Aviar

08-11-2012, 08:59 PM

Was landing shyness of AI allready mentioned?
I creatded missions where I'm part of a flight ready to start. the rest of my flight is allready in runway 1, I need to Taxi.
Another flight (incomimg reconaissence) has to land first on the parallel runway 2 (Pacific islands map 90-270 runways on northern island) before we can start.

But the aircraft supposed to land won't do so. Rather circle around like drunk skanks on a fair until fuel is over then eventually land or mostly crash.

If I remove the other AC of my flight and don't move from my position at the hinterlandiest part of the Airfield, they mostly land, but allways circle around a few times.

I can't force them with 2 or 3 waypoints just to fricking land straight without just whimpy-pimpy around fpr a while.

Its just for the immersion of seeing them touch down before you cross the runway and join your flight (iE starting eastwards)

AI planes are sensitive to other planes and/or vehicles near their intended touchdown area. You have both near that area.

I suggest moving your aircraft taking off to the other runway...but not changing their takeoff direction. Then, have the AI planes land on the runway you were originally taking off from.

The second alternative is to simply have your planes take off from the other end of the runway. In any event, you don't want your flights sitting on the end of the runway that is near the touchdown area of the returning planes.

*BTW, are you using 4.11? You no longer need to use the old workaround of using vehicles to temporarily 'block' a flight from taking off. In 4.11 you can simply delay the takeoff of a flight, even after it has spawned.

Also, you seem to have other issues as there was an explosion on the runway at the start of the mission.

One more thing....in 4.11 you can now instruct flights to land 'straight in', without the normal circling. However, you still need to clear up the 'sensitive' area near their touchdown zone.

In all, you still have a lot to do if you want everything to play out your way.

Aviar

SPAD-1949

08-12-2012, 01:05 PM

AI planes are sensitive to other planes and/or vehicles near their intended touchdown area. You have both near that area.

Thats what I meant to be reported as a bug

I suggest moving your aircraft taking off to the other runway...but not changing their takeoff direction. Then, have the AI planes land on the runway you were originally taking off from.

It does not change the shy beaviour and my intention of the mmersion was that you have to check, that yousee him coming in and wait for clearance.

The second alternative is to simply have your planes take off from the other end of the runway. In any event, you don't want your flights sitting on the end of the runway that is near the touchdown area of the returning planes.

I hope this will change with 4.12 when we all together taxi for our takeoff. Also here is my intention not to have them alligned in the old fashioned way but have them stowed offset. Just for immersion.

*BTW, are you using 4.11? You no longer need to use the old workaround of using vehicles to temporarily 'block' a flight from taking off. In 4.11 you can simply delay the takeoff of a flight, even after it has spawned.

Yes but then I have the immersion-killing bug, that they start their engines and immediately pushing full throttle without warm up. If I block them, they start their engines and have usual warmup time or their props allready running. The C47 I use as a blocker (the tanks or follow me jeeps did not work), shoud be available as invisible Aircraft or a vehicle should work as a blocker again.

Also, you seem to have other issues as there was an explosion on the runway at the start of the mission.

Thats the version of the mission where I used a Tank as blocker, that does not work.

One more thing....in 4.11 you can now instruct flights to land 'straight in', without the normal circling.

Thats what I did not understand in the Guide, now I Know, thanks. However, since the (in my eyes) sensitivity bug exists, it does not make a change at all.

However, you still need to clear up the 'sensitive' area near their touchdown zone.

My report intended to call this a bug and to reduce the size of this area even to make accidents possible, like real.

In all, you still have a lot to do if you want everything to play out your way.

I'd love to, if I could, but my programming skills are not existing anyway to join up and help.

Ace1staller

08-12-2012, 01:26 PM

I have a problem with my Quick mission builder because it shows me a blank screen.

Aviar

08-12-2012, 05:51 PM

SPAD-1949

08-13-2012, 02:26 PM

SPAD-1949,

I messed around a little with your mission...trying to implement some of your needs. Feel free to try it out. (I set the takeoff delay to 4 minutes, which you can obviously change.)

Aviar

Oh, I see you did not get my point.
Its not much about the feeling of starting a mission out of the Pit if you are allready at the Runway.
I rearranged evrything new to show what I meant about the atmosphere.
Unfortunately I was not allowed to safe it after I wrote a mission briefing, out of nowhere and not set by me nor appearing in the .mis text a "chief 10" with only one waypoint appeared in the safe dialogue window.

So I advise you, if the truck in front of you gave way, to look right and watch them comomg down then taxi ahead and wait in front of the B17 on the left side until the A20 passed in front of you. then head west to join your flight.
Personally I would appreciate, if a delay is set, that the engines are started a miute before the takeoff run or that they are started when the AC is set and run all the time until takeof. It looks crappy if they startup and immediately push full throttle.

Alan Grey

08-19-2012, 07:54 PM

http://ento-brouci.ic.cz/il2/grab0016.jpg

Luno13

08-19-2012, 10:28 PM

Not really a bug, just an ancient mesh and skin-mapping. You can blot out the instruments on the skin as you're unlikely to see them in outside-view from behind the aircraft.

swiss

08-22-2012, 07:51 AM

I just realized the Do335 keeps overheating even at level flight and 600km/h.
Intended?

JtD

08-22-2012, 04:41 PM

Rear engine should be hot, front one not so much. Have you tried flying with say 100% front, 90% rear on a not-so-hot map?

swiss

08-22-2012, 05:04 PM

no.
it might try it.
I rarely fly it tho - plus, those are "free" severs...

Sledgehammer427

08-30-2012, 04:12 AM

II/JG54_Emil

08-30-2012, 06:29 AM

Is you game located in C:\Program Files or C:\Program Files (x86)?

If yes copy it to somewhere else and patch again there.

PilotError

08-30-2012, 08:08 PM

First post on the site, having trouble with the patch.

My game does not seem to want to upgrade from Version 4.10.1m,

Perhaps this is because the files I have are broken or something like that, either way, heres the files and where I got them. I have IL-2 1946 boxed copy with the bonus DVD. I don't know the version it starts at or which version I have, that is if English and International are different.

From my base install I go

-4.09m from Mission4today, a 500mb plus zipped file with an .exe named 4.09m
then
-IL-2_MegaPatch4.10.1m_EN, from mission4today. 1GB plus file with an exe named RunMe
then
-4.11 downloaded from mission4today using the megaupload mirror
and
-4.11.1 using this site.

Have tried multiple approaches, run as administrator, basically everything.
Running Win7 Home Premium 64bit

Hope I've provided enough info!
Thanks!
SH427

Hi Sledgehammer,

Was your game working at 4.10.1 ? If so then it is most likely you have a corrupted download of the 4.11 patch, so try to download it again.

However, you said that you first installed the 4.09 patch. If I remember correctly the DVD boxed version starts at 4.07, and if you have missed the 4.08 patch then that is where your problem lies.
I believe the 4.08 patch is included on the 1946 DVD, but you have to install it over your base installed 4.07.

Your current version can be seen in the bottom left corner of the loading screen when you start the game. The international version is the same as the English version, the alternative being the Russian version.

All the patches must be installed in order.
After installing a patch run the game and check the version number has changed on the loading screen.
If the game is working okay (it would be a good idea to make a backup copy at that point so you don't need to go right back to the beginning if something goes wrong later) then install the next patch, check, test, backup,etc,etc.

As II/JG54_Emil says, it would be a good idea to install the game somewhere other than Program Files. It stops the UAC in Windows 7 from causing problems.

Hope that has been of some help.

Jones

08-30-2012, 09:58 PM

I think you can skip 4.09m if you are using the Megapatch. That one includes all previous patches.

Also, with Win7 make sure that you are running the patches as Administrator if you install into the default directory (C:\Program Files). If you are not running the patch as Administrator you could be sending the files somewhere other than the game install directory which would explain the problem you are seeing.

RegRag1977

09-05-2012, 10:21 PM

Small things:

P39 Airacobra can no longer show closed radiator flaps?

In outside view, top of pilots head sometimes goes through the canopy

RegRag1977

09-08-2012, 10:03 AM

I noticed a strange thing. First, as we know all P51C/D have the late D version wing but only with 2 guns. The strange thing is that if you shoot at the wing (front area) the damage textures show a third gun!

Does that "exploit" make the stock P51B/C a frankenplane? :))

It would be nice to have an early straight wing and why not, a P51A... if one is allowed to dream!

Lagarto

09-18-2012, 09:59 AM

Asheshouse

09-18-2012, 12:43 PM

Could you please tweak a little more the daylight hours? Recently I've been flying some missions on the MTO map, and at 05.00 AM it's still pitch black. Not very realistic imho. The problem is that DGen generates many missions before the sunrise at roughly 05.45 AM, and in an offline campaign I have to skip them or manually change the start hour.

Sunrise in Rome today 6:54am. So what is the problem? ;)
A great many real life missions started in the dark so as to arrive over the target at dawn.

II/JG54_Emil

09-18-2012, 01:26 PM

Sunrise in Rome today 6:54am. So what is the problem? ;)
A great many real life missions started in the dark so as to arrive over the target at dawn.

1+!

Lagarto

09-18-2012, 04:05 PM

WTE_Ikey

10-04-2012, 02:30 AM

Hi guys,

Looks like I may have a corrupted 4.11 download, some of the new units (columns, companies) show up ok in fmb but are either partial of completely missing when actually playing.

Are there any Hashcalc MD5 etc sums I can check 1st before I need to download it again.

cheers
Ikey

Problem solved

IceFire

10-04-2012, 03:30 AM

What's the problem? Launch a mission that starts at 05.00 AM and see for yourself. Lecturing about real life is pointless here. In real life day fighters didn't fly like bats, with no need for visual reference. They were flown by humans, not computer-controlled AI.

Just did... at 5:00 am it's dark outside. I'm not sure where you live but unless it's in the very northern latitudes you're going to have near pitch blackness at 5:00 am. Only during the summer equinox do I see some brightness on the horizon at 5:00 am. By 6:00 during the summer sure... it's getting bright out. IL-2 does this fairly well.

As for real life... lots of missions were launched or recovered before sunrise and after sunset. Sometimes by choice and sometimes not. They had just as little visual reference as you flying the sim do. Airfield lights, fires lit along the runway, radio navigation and landing aids, and instrument flying were what they had to use.

Ever hear about the story of the German pilot who landed his Bf109 on an RAF base accidentally in the dark? Nobody knew what was happening until a maintenance crew tried to refuel the aircraft and realized it wasn't a Spitfire.

If you find that you can't see anything... perhaps your monitor brightness needs some adjustment. The cheaper LCD's sometimes overwhelm dark colours because of poor backlighting and contrast ratios. Increase the brightness or use video drivers to increase the gamma.

Lagarto

10-04-2012, 08:22 AM

If you find that you can't see anything... perhaps your monitor brightness needs some adjustment.

This must be the silliest post I've read in years. Perhaps your brightness needs some adjustment?

Tolwyn

10-23-2012, 10:28 PM

http://files.tolwyn.com/multiengine_weirdness_4111.zip

There's an issue with multi-engine aircraft that doesn't make sense to me.
The example I'm showing is BF110 G2.
I have the mission and the NTRK.

When in flight, you have the ability to select engines 1 (L) and 2 (R).

In flight, have both engines selected and at 80% or whatever.

SELECT engine 2, throttle DOWN, Turn off, then Feather (proper procedure to simulate an engine failure).

SELECT engine 1 (or both, doesn't matter).

Without touching engine 1, or the throttle, or pitch (it's automatic), simply deselect engine 1.

The RPMs go through the roof, when they shouldn't. The prop pitch is not being (should not be) affected, but it is.

My guess is there's a problem with feathering and multi-engine aircraft.

Please refer to NTRK and the mission to recreate.
Thank you.

Tolwyn
http://files.tolwyn.com/multiengine_weirdness_4111.zip

IceFire

10-23-2012, 10:42 PM

This must be the silliest post I've read in years. Perhaps your brightness needs some adjustment?

If your monitor isn't calibrated properly then it may appear much darker than it actually is being rendered by the game. It's not silly in the slightest.

I remember my old CRT wasn't calibrated properly when I first played IL-2 and it was much too dark to see anything at dawn/dusk. When I did some work on getting the settings right it got better.

Most people have TN panel LCD's these days which are not the greatest at doing dark images. They tend to wash it all out but you can play with the brightness settings until you get a better overall image.

Brightness, Gamma Correction, these are the things I'd start with if you find it too dark. The in-game map itself seems to be working quite well for the latitude that the map is supposed to be set in (keeping in mind that Italy Online is a fictional representation of a wide area). Also keeping in mind that the date setting for the map will affect when it gets dark and light and adjusting that will give a different result.

Tolwyn

10-23-2012, 11:32 PM

I agree. It's not silly at all.
Especially with CRT monitors.

If your monitor isn't calibrated properly then it may appear much darker than it actually is being rendered by the game. It's not silly in the slightest.

I remember my old CRT wasn't calibrated properly when I first played IL-2 and it was much too dark to see anything at dawn/dusk. When I did some work on getting the settings right it got better.

Most people have TN panel LCD's these days which are not the greatest at doing dark images. They tend to wash it all out but you can play with the brightness settings until you get a better overall image.

Brightness, Gamma Correction, these are the things I'd start with if you find it too dark. The in-game map itself seems to be working quite well for the latitude that the map is supposed to be set in (keeping in mind that Italy Online is a fictional representation of a wide area). Also keeping in mind that the date setting for the map will affect when it gets dark and light and adjusting that will give a different result.

|450|Leady

10-24-2012, 06:55 AM

Tolwyn

10-24-2012, 06:00 PM

Nope. I did it again:
http://files.tolwyn.com/engine_weirdness2.ntrk

DISABLE manual view so you can watch what I'm showing.

Deselect both engines
Show that both are deselected
Select engine 1
Start engine 1
Deslect engine 1
Select engine 2
Start engine 2
Select both engines, bring throttle to idle

This is "normal starting position"

DESELECT engine 1 (conversely, enable only engine 2)
Bring engine 2 to idle
Feather engine 2
Shutdown engine 2
DESELECT engine 2 (we don't need it anymore)
SELECT engine 1
Show that engine 1 is selected (throttle up, then throttle down, etc.)
Bring engine 1 to 70% power; note that all is fine.
SIMPLY DESELECT engine 1 (essentially NO engines are selected at this point)
Watch the RPMs climb in engine 1
Repeat tests. You can easily get engine 1 to fail by simply deselecting it and not changing any other parameters.

FC99

10-25-2012, 10:49 AM

I've noticed that the default fuse delay on RS82 rockets for AI piloted aircraft is too short in my DCG campaign seems to be wrong. I153's fire their rockets at vehicles and tanks but they explode mid air, short of the target. If you are lucky the last pair of rockets might reach the target.

I think it may be that the I153 flys too slowly for the current default.

Can you post the mission here, AFAIK you should be able to attach it to the post. I made some changes in that regard for 4.12 so your mission would be a good check if the problem is solved or not.

IceFire

10-25-2012, 01:29 PM

Hi Team Daidalos

I've noticed that the default fuse delay on RS82 rockets for AI piloted aircraft is too short in my DCG campaign seems to be wrong. I153's fire their rockets at vehicles and tanks but they explode mid air, short of the target. If you are lucky the last pair of rockets might reach the target.

I think it may be that the I153 flys too slowly for the current default.

Cheers

Leady

Any idea what the speed set is at the GATTACK waypoint? It's been a few years since I used I-153s in a rocket based ground attack role but I didn't have that problem before. It may be in more recent patches something changed.

See if you can have a look and let us know what the GATTACK waypoint settings are.

Monty_Thrud

10-28-2012, 11:04 AM

Beaufighter port side propeller vanishes on external view, when you zoom away from or flyby.

Aviar

10-28-2012, 03:53 PM

Beaufighter port side propeller vanishes on external view, when you zoom away from or flyby.

Not for me. Neither propeller vanishes, no matter how far I zoom the view out. Might be an issue on your end...possibly drivers.

Aviar

IceFire

11-10-2012, 09:51 PM

Anyone know if there are any problems with the V-1 launcher?

I placed three fairly close to each other in an online scenario but just the one shows up. All three are present and have their own waypoints placed for launching the V-1s... it's a bit weird.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

11-11-2012, 07:26 AM

What happens if you move them a bit more far away of each other?

ElAurens

11-11-2012, 01:32 PM

I have an online map I made on the Kuban where I have two of them fairly close together on the hill above the airbase at Novorossiysk and they work just fine.

IceFire

11-11-2012, 04:24 PM

What happens if you move them a bit more far away of each other?

I have to run another few tests and I'll let you know.

IceFire

11-11-2012, 04:32 PM

Moved them further apart and they seem to be fine now... minimum radius? Oddly in the FMB they disappear on re-loading a map with them on it until you move the icon. Then they re-appear.

JtD

11-11-2012, 05:14 PM

Some V1 sites were very well camouflaged.

IceFire

11-11-2012, 07:34 PM

Some V1 sites were very well camouflaged.

LOL they appear to have Romulan cloaking devices :)

maxim42

11-20-2012, 02:26 PM

nevr44

11-25-2012, 08:07 AM

An error was detected AI P-5 for Fab-100 with ground attack. Tested on CUKHOI.ru.
link http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=73915&page=9&p=1927958#post1927958

11483

Aviar

11-25-2012, 03:29 PM

One small thing. Strange thing is the fact that during a multiplayer session we can choose every plane (flyable + AI). If so, there should be on each plane's name information wheter it is AI or not. And there is a bug where if you choose the AI plane to fly as your first choice - the plane is without possibility to steer, control (firstly you have to choose a flyable one and then AI to make it steerable). Greetings

If you are talking about a Dogfight server, the host will choose which planes are 'flyable'. Not every server has all planes as flyable. In fact, most have a limited flyable planeset.

Also, there is no real 'bug' here. The only reason you can 'fly' particular (no cockpit) AI planes online is because the IL-2 exe has been hacked and modded. This 'feature' is actually an unauthorized 'mod' and to say that there is a 'bug' involved because the 'feature' does not perform up to your standards is stretching the issue quite a bit.

I suspect you are new to IL-2. I suggest a little more patience and investigation before posting 'bug' reports. This game has been around for over 10 years and the community is well aware of most of the serious issues.

Welcome to IL-2.

Aviar

Cloyd

11-25-2012, 07:30 PM

The only reason you can 'fly' particular (no cockpit) AI planes online is because the IL-2 exe has been hacked and modded. This 'feature' is actually an unauthorized 'mod' and to say that there is a 'bug' involved because the 'feature' does not perform up to your standards is stretching the issue quite a bit.

Aviar

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of this "feature". UberDemon released his IL2loader utility for the original IL2. It allowed external control of AI planes, if the server allowed. It did not require an exe hack, but was an "exploit" of an existing possibility within the game. I believe that UberDemon got Oleg's OK before he released it. Please correct me if I am mistaken or my memory faulty.

Cloyd

FC99

11-25-2012, 08:25 PM

IceFire

11-26-2012, 12:58 AM

If you are talking about a Dogfight server, the host will choose which planes are 'flyable'. Not every server has all planes as flyable. In fact, most have a limited flyable planeset.

Also, there is no real 'bug' here. The only reason you can 'fly' particular (no cockpit) AI planes online is because the IL-2 exe has been hacked and modded. This 'feature' is actually an unauthorized 'mod' and to say that there is a 'bug' involved because the 'feature' does not perform up to your standards is stretching the issue quite a bit.

I suspect you are new to IL-2. I suggest a little more patience and investigation before posting 'bug' reports. This game has been around for over 10 years and the community is well aware of most of the serious issues.

Welcome to IL-2.

Aviar

Actually, even before modding, you could put the internal code name for an aircraft in the Homebase section of a .mis file and be able to select that aircraft and fly it. We use that feature on UK-Dedicated on some scenarios to fly heavy bombers (B-17s for example) and have done so for many many years.

It's a bug but its a beneficial one in the right circumstances. This one has proved useful and I'm pretty glad it exists. We try and put instructions on the briefing of any scenario that uses that so that players are aware (if they RTFM).

maxim42

11-26-2012, 12:54 PM

Thank you for the explanation. It is nice that we can fly both flyable and AI planes. The only disturbing thing is that if I chose AI as a first plane during the multi session, I can't steer it. To steer it I have to chose the flyable one firstly. And at the beginning the camera is disturbed as AI planes haven't got cockpits. Greetings!

EDIT: I have just noticed that in BI-6 plane the wing engines are still working even without fuel.

D-XXI

11-28-2012, 08:14 AM

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

11-28-2012, 02:07 PM

The flaps on the Reggiane RE2000 are working the opposite as you would expect.
While retracting them you get a nose-up effect where as all the other planes you get a normal nose-down effect because of the decrease in lift.

The problem is, what you 'expect' and what you call 'normal'.
In fact, the Re2000 is the only plane in game so far, that has its flaps behaviour modeled correctly. At least, such behaviour would be correct for most planes, but in detail it depends on the type of the flaps and their position relative to the CoG.

D-XXI

11-28-2012, 09:20 PM

Thank you for your answer. I thought it could be a simple fix, being only the RE2000.

Looking at your explanation: In fact, the Re2000 is the only plane in game so far, that has its flaps behaviour modeled correctly. I would like to change the text of my my bug report to:

All planes except the RE2000 have incorrect flap behaviour.

But you already know it and I can imagine that it will be a lot of work to model this correctly for all planes. The wonderful things you are working on now are more important to me. Thank you for your commitment and devotion to IL2 and it's fans.

Blaf

11-29-2012, 12:33 PM

The problem is, what you 'expect' and what you call 'normal'.
In fact, the Re2000 is the only plane in game so far, that has its flaps behaviour modeled correctly. At least, such behaviour would be correct for most planes, but in detail it depends on the type of the flaps and their position relative to the CoG.

Huh :shock:
these are pretty surprising news! Good to know...

Bolelas

11-30-2012, 10:00 PM

But, has Caspar said, it depends on the center of gravity and other stuff, so you can not say that all other planes are incorrect. I think in the spitfire manual it says, after flaps, aply trim down, but not sure, i will check that one.

idefix44

12-01-2012, 03:28 AM

In real life, on Spitfire, flaps are only used to take-off and land.
When you take-off or land, trims must be in neutral position...

Bolelas

12-01-2012, 12:19 PM

As far as i know flaps in the spitfire only have 2 positions, up or fully down, so they can only be used for landing.(as far as i know, this is just my 2 cents ) I have a copy of a spitfire manual that came with a game i bought for MSFS9, and for take off, flaps must be up.
But the question here is , when flaps are applied, what sould be the aircraft behavior,-nose up, or nose down- (no mather what for you are aplying flaps, or the amount). In this manual i have (from Just Flight), and it claims to be a copy from the original, it says: "change of trim... Flaps down ----- nose down", so i can understand if nose down is to be applied, putting the flaps down brings the spitfire nose up, and, in the case of our game (1946) the spitfire is correctly modeled.