4-12 wish list (Merged)

[Pursuivant]

I do have to ask... you do know that we put together a half dozen to a dozen single missions featuring some of the new aircraft for the last couple of patches, right? The Hs-129 and IL-4 in particular get a bit of attention.

Oh yes. I've played and enjoyed all of these. That's why I was a bit surprised that the planes I mentioned which were released/made-flyable in 4.10 & 4.11 didn't get missions. In particular, you guys went to a lot of trouble to create all those wonderful guided bombs and programmable torpedoes and you didn't create any missions to feature them!


There isn't much in the way of historical scenarios that could be done with the CW-21. They had a short combat career and not exactly on any maps we have although the Singapore map could provide some limited possibility. It's mostly a hopeless fight where the players side looses all of their aircraft :)

Yep. That's why I suggested a fictional China mission over the Burma map, where odds might be a bit more even and the opposition a bit less formidable (i.e., Ki-21 or Ki-43 instead of A6M2).

Actually, historically, a U.S. pilot flying a demonstrator model of the CW-21 for the Chinese got a Japanese bomber. While you'd have to substitute the Ki-27 for the Br.20, it would make an interesting scenario.

For the KNIL, course, unlike doomed Dutch pilots, players can refly missions where they're vastly outnumbered. If players are willing to use unlimited ammo, such missions might actually be survivable. Also, there's no rule that missions can't be fine-tuned to even the odds.

Another possibility is to put the CW-21 in a position where it can really shine. Set up a scenario where Zeroes bounce a flight of hapless Buffalos and the Demons come to the rescue from superior altitude once the Zeroes are fully engaged.

[Sillius_Sodus]

My apologies if this has already been requested but I feel it would be nice if we could specify the number of passes an ai aircraft would make over a ground attack target, i.e. an airfield.

This could also be useful for ai attacks on bombers, then you could program them to do 'hit and run' attacks.

Thanks again for all your good work TD!:grin:

[IceFire]

Oh yes. I've played and enjoyed all of these. That's why I was a bit surprised that the planes I mentioned which were released/made-flyable in 4.10 & 4.11 didn't get missions. In particular, you guys went to a lot of trouble to create all those wonderful guided bombs and programmable torpedoes and you didn't create any missions to feature them!



Yep. That's why I suggested a fictional China mission over the Burma map, where odds might be a bit more even and the opposition a bit less formidable (i.e., Ki-21 or Ki-43 instead of A6M2).

Actually, historically, a U.S. pilot flying a demonstrator model of the CW-21 for the Chinese got a Japanese bomber. While you'd have to substitute the Ki-27 for the Br.20, it would make an interesting scenario.

For the KNIL, course, unlike doomed Dutch pilots, players can refly missions where they're vastly outnumbered. If players are willing to use unlimited ammo, such missions might actually be survivable. Also, there's no rule that missions can't be fine-tuned to even the odds.

Another possibility is to put the CW-21 in a position where it can really shine. Set up a scenario where Zeroes bounce a flight of hapless Buffalos and the Demons come to the rescue from superior altitude once the Zeroes are fully engaged.
For the other types I simply ran out of time to incorporate anything before they released. Maybe I'll try and put something together for the next patch.

[Ace1staller]

My apologies if this has already been requested but I feel it would be nice if we could specify the number of passes an ai aircraft would make over a ground attack target, i.e. and airfield.

This could also be useful for ai attacks on bombers, then you could program them to do 'hit and run' attacks.

Thanks again for all your good work TD!:grin:

good one +1 (:

[IceFire]

My apologies if this has already been requested but I feel it would be nice if we could specify the number of passes an ai aircraft would make over a ground attack target, i.e. and airfield.

This could also be useful for ai attacks on bombers, then you could program them to do 'hit and run' attacks.

Thanks again for all your good work TD!:grin:

A great suggestion for the Custom Waypoint settings... we already have some specific settings for takeoff and attack profile would be very useful.

The number of passes but also the type of attack (i.e. dive bombing, level bombing, strafe/wheel of death, etc.).

[Sapper]

AB250 and SD250 loadouts for the me262A2. Their usual loadout against allied ground forces in the ETO.

[Woke Up Dead]

Have an option for a limited F6 (external lock) function, one that will lock on to enemies only in the front of the player's wing-line, or maybe only the front 270 degrees. This will allow bandits to sneak in on the player's six, while the player can still track the planes in front of him that he likely saw already.

[Pursuivant]

Have an option for a limited F6 (external lock) function, one that will lock on to enemies only in the front of the player's wing-line, or maybe only the front 270 degrees. This will allow bandits to sneak in on the player's six, while the player can still track the planes in front of him that he likely saw already.

+1

This would be very useful.

It would also be useful if there was the option for your point of view to immediately snap back to forward view (or whatever) as soon as padlocked targets are no longer visible.

I've nearly had heart attacks when I've been making attack run against a padlocked ground target and my point of view follows the target as it passes under my wings and behind me, when I really want my point of view to be forward as I pull out of my dive and maneuver to avoid flak.

[JimmyBlonde]

We definitely need new dgen campaigns. I wonder if there is a TD plan to improve DGEN and to create some new ones? That would be nice...

It's good to see people still calling for more Dgen campaigns. A general Dgen revamp would be priceless.

I've been playing with Asura's Dgen mod lately and it rocks, much better than stock. The beauty of it is that I can add mod planes to the campaigns I already have and Asura is busy adding more maps for the next version.

From experimenting myself I have learned that creating Dgen campaigns is a very time-consuming and tedious process. It's understandable that not many people are willing to put in the effort that it takes to complete them.

I would love to see full use made of the new aircraft (And the old ones that have never had been available in Dgen) and features (Beacons, new loadouts, etc) as a part of official updates. It always puzzled me why this never happened when 1C was releasing things like the Aces Expansion Pack, and the Pe-2 stuff. After Pacific Fighters they just dumped new planes in the game, maybe with a static campaign, and then left it up to the player to make stuff which is far beyond what most people are capable of or just not prepared to do.

Some kind of user configurable UI tool for Dgen like DCG with pre-made maps and all aircraft/features available would be an awesome addition because quick missions, single missions and linear campaigns just don't cut it for me. It would be a huge effort to get all of that completed but the demand is there for it and I think there are a fair few people who would put in their time to make it happen. (I know I would).

[csThor]

The reason why the old DGen is static and grossly outdated is that it was never a Maddox Games program but an external one. And said developer disappeared years ago, taking the source code with him. As such there is simply no way to work with the old DGen anymore, at least not without jumping through too many hoops to justify the effort. This is also why Asura is writing a new DGen, the old one didn't offer enough flexibility and possibilities, not to mention that adding planes and maps was a chore.

Expecting TD to do any DGen work is therefor simply unrealistic. Support for Asura, yes that's being done, but anything beyond is simply not possible.

[Ace1staller]

I feel we lack french tanks in the game, I think i said it once and I'm saying it again, we lack the French tanks and ground units. For example the Char B1 tank is a french tank in WWII and it was also used by the Germans.

I wish you can pick a tank then choose the country its used by so it won't be so confusing

[JimmyBlonde]

Support for Asura, yes that's being done.

Excellent! This is very good news.

[IceFire]

I feel we lack french tanks in the game, I think i said it once and I'm saying it again, we lack the French tanks and ground units. For example the Char B1 tank is a french tank in WWII and it was also used by the Germans.

I wish you can pick a tank then choose the country its used by so it won't be so confusing

On what current maps could we use them? How often were they used?

Some practical considerations have to be made. I'm all for adding pretty much anything to the game but I'd rather see some multi use, high value vehicles, tanks, aircraft, and other objects added that can be used in all sorts of areas.

[Lagarto]

As a matter of fact, the Char B1 tank would be great to have (for the 1940 western front campaign), if only because there's nothing to substitute it with. And there's the Ardennes map to use it on. Or even the Normandy map.

[Pursuivant]

On what current maps could we use them? How often were they used?

France had more tanks in 1940 than Germany did. After the Armistice, Germany took the better French tanks and used them as second-line units in Russia and elsewhere. Many were converted to mobile artillery guns, artillery tractors or flamethrower tanks, others were used for "internal security" duties in conquered areas, or handed off to German allies.

Also, before the war, some French tanks were sold to other nations.

Likely suspects for modeling, in order of usefulness:

Renault FT-17 - A WW1-vintage tank which was sold to just about every country which didn't have its own tank production facilities, and some that did. It holds the distinction of being the only tank used in both WW1 and WW2, since the Chinese, Finns, French and Yugoslavians were still using them in 1939-41. Additionally, the Japanese used them against the Soviets in Manchuria, and the Republicans used them during the Spanish Civil War. The Germans mostly used them for training purposes or modified them to serve as artillery tractors, but used some in 1944 during the street fighting in Paris.

Renault R-35 - Used by France, Poland, Romania (captured Polish stocks), Hungary and Germany - the last stocks were ultimately used to oppose U.S. forces in Normandy!

Souma S-35 - Used by France, Germany, Italy and Bulgaria. The Germans equipped an entire unit with the S-35 and used it in Finland.

Hotchkiss H-36 - Used by France, Germany, Bulgaria and Israel. Germany used H-36 units in Finland and Yugoslavia. France used them against the U.S. in Morocco.

Maps where French tanks were/might have been deployed include Ardennes, Bessarabia, Finnish Gulf/Leningrad, Manchuria, Normandy and Odessa.

Some practical considerations have to be made. I'm all for adding pretty much anything to the game but I'd rather see some multi use, high value vehicles, tanks, aircraft, and other objects added that can be used in all sorts of areas.

Then a tank like the FT-17 is perfect. As I wrote above, it was used by lots of different nations, and was one of the most ubiquitous pre-war/early-war tanks out there. For any early war mission where you want a inferior light tank which isn't Japanese, the FT-17 makes a reasonable stand-in.

[Ace1staller]

France had more tanks in 1940 than Germany did. After the Armistice, Germany took the better French tanks and used them as second-line units in Russia and elsewhere. Many were converted to mobile artillery guns, artillery tractors or flamethrower tanks, others were used for "internal security" duties in conquered areas, or handed off to German allies.

Also, before the war, some French tanks were sold to other nations.

Likely suspects for modeling, in order of usefulness:

Renault FT-17 - A WW1-vintage tank which was sold to just about every country which didn't have its own tank production facilities, and some that did. It holds the distinction of being the only tank used in both WW1 and WW2, since the Chinese, Finns, French and Yugoslavians were still using them in 1939-41. Additionally, the Japanese used them against the Soviets in Manchuria, and the Republicans used them during the Spanish Civil War. The Germans mostly used them for training purposes or modified them to serve as artillery tractors, but used some in 1944 during the street fighting in Paris.

Renault R-35 - Used by France, Poland, Romania (captured Polish stocks), Hungary and Germany - the last stocks were ultimately used to oppose U.S. forces in Normandy!

Souma S-35 - Used by France, Germany, Italy and Bulgaria. The Germans equipped an entire unit with the S-35 and used it in Finland.

Hotchkiss H-36 - Used by France, Germany, Bulgaria and Israel. Germany used H-36 units in Finland and Yugoslavia. France used them against the U.S. in Morocco.

Maps where French tanks were/might have been deployed include Ardennes, Bessarabia, Finnish Gulf/Leningrad, Manchuria, Normandy and Odessa.



Then a tank like the FT-17 is perfect. As I wrote above, it was used by lots of different nations, and was one of the most ubiquitous pre-war/early-war tanks out there. For any early war mission where you want a inferior light tank which isn't Japanese, the FT-17 makes a reasonable stand-in.

thanks for backing up my info Pursuivant :grin:

[IceFire]

As a matter of fact, the Char B1 tank would be great to have (for the 1940 western front campaign), if only because there's nothing to substitute it with. And there's the Ardennes map to use it on. Or even the Normandy map.

France had more tanks in 1940 than Germany did. After the Armistice, Germany took the better French tanks and used them as second-line units in Russia and elsewhere. Many were converted to mobile artillery guns, artillery tractors or flamethrower tanks, others were used for "internal security" duties in conquered areas, or handed off to German allies.

Also, before the war, some French tanks were sold to other nations.

Likely suspects for modeling, in order of usefulness:

Renault FT-17 - A WW1-vintage tank which was sold to just about every country which didn't have its own tank production facilities, and some that did. It holds the distinction of being the only tank used in both WW1 and WW2, since the Chinese, Finns, French and Yugoslavians were still using them in 1939-41. Additionally, the Japanese used them against the Soviets in Manchuria, and the Republicans used them during the Spanish Civil War. The Germans mostly used them for training purposes or modified them to serve as artillery tractors, but used some in 1944 during the street fighting in Paris.

Renault R-35 - Used by France, Poland, Romania (captured Polish stocks), Hungary and Germany - the last stocks were ultimately used to oppose U.S. forces in Normandy!

Souma S-35 - Used by France, Germany, Italy and Bulgaria. The Germans equipped an entire unit with the S-35 and used it in Finland.

Hotchkiss H-36 - Used by France, Germany, Bulgaria and Israel. Germany used H-36 units in Finland and Yugoslavia. France used them against the U.S. in Morocco.

Maps where French tanks were/might have been deployed include Ardennes, Bessarabia, Finnish Gulf/Leningrad, Manchuria, Normandy and Odessa.



Then a tank like the FT-17 is perfect. As I wrote above, it was used by lots of different nations, and was one of the most ubiquitous pre-war/early-war tanks out there. For any early war mission where you want a inferior light tank which isn't Japanese, the FT-17 makes a reasonable stand-in.

Sounds like a decent addition then! Point well made!

[DuxCorvan]

That said, I sorely miss some French birdies... Flyable MS 406/410, French Curtiss, some Bloch fighters, and the D.520, also for the Vichy thing... And AI stuff like Mureaux recons, fast two-engined Potez bombers and fighters, those interesting Breguet 690s... We have nothing of that kind...

And PLEASE, fix the PZL... Cr@plane as it was, it's still TOO helpless in this game, it flies like an U-2... And that cockpit just doesn't belong in this game.

I see interesting and nice ideas around here.

Thank, guys.

[Lagarto]

Talking of French birdies... my choice would be Potez 63 - exported to Greece and Romania, saw more extensive service. The Romanians used them against the USSR and the Greeks against Italy.

[JimmyBlonde]

and the D.520,

This!

[Pursuivant]

That said, I sorely miss some French birdies...

But, ground vehicles are a lot simpler to model and get into the game.

Anyhow, Francophiles will get a "French" fighter when the H75A becomes flyable, although I too would love to see a flyable MS.406/410 and D.520.

Another "French" plane which wouldn't require that much work to be flyable/get in the game is the DB-7 (AKA A-20 Havoc). The main problems are that it would need a different cockpit and the gunners stations would need to be reworked.

[Ace1staller]

But, ground vehicles are a lot simpler to model and get into the game.

Anyhow, Francophiles will get a "French" fighter when the H75A becomes flyable, although I too would love to see a flyable MS.406/410 and D.520.

Another "French" plane which wouldn't require that much work to be flyable/get in the game is the DB-7 (AKA A-20 Havoc). The main problems are that it would need a different cockpit and the gunners stations would need to be reworked.

Definitely th D 520 is my favorite french airplane I would love to see that and the Bloch MB 152 flyable

[Patton521]

Here is a few things I'd like to see the in 4.12 patch.

1. Reworked maps
2. New maps to cover all theaters of operations, specifically the ETO and MTO.
3. Give all aircraft there proper airspeed.
4. Reworked and/or new campaigns based of the type of aircraft the player is flying. i.e level bombers will be assigned to attack railyards, factories, troop concentrations while dive bombers attack road convoys, bridges, ships and so on. Its just really strange having a He-111 attack a bridge when thats the job of a Stuka.
5. More then two-three flyable aircraft in offline campaigns.
6. Have the AI aircraft have the same amount of ammo that players do and make the AI abide by the same laws of physics the players have, the AI have to deal with engine overheat,fix the AIs annoying ability to see behind them when the player is in a blind spot and the aircraft has no tail radar.
7. Please fix the trigger in all P-47 models, it has a trigger to fire all 8 guns not two triggers to fire all eight.
8. Please organize the objects in the full mission builder so that all objects are in categories i.e all airfield related objects are in the same category, all vehicles are in the same category, and so-on.
9. Fix the annoying engine overheat every 5 seconds with jet aircraft.
10. Fix the ground bump, not all of Earth is a plowed field.
11. Remove the bomb racks from aircraft when the aircraft isn't carrying bombs.
12. Fix the radiators causing massive drag on certain aircraft when the radiator is aerodynamically designed not to cause drag.
13. Fix the damage modelling so that two machine gun rounds don't automatically disable control surfaces like the rudder.

[Fighterace]

Me-410 flyable
FW-Dora 9 w/ bigger tail
Griffon engine spitfires

[1984]

what DT can fix in next patch very easy (this is from best book about yaks - "Истребители ЯК периода Великой Отечественной войны", Степанец А.Т." (ALL yaks MG do from this book))...


ammoload for як-9-37 (як-9т) -

Емкость патронных ящиков: при свободной укладке - 30 снарядов для пушки и 200 патронов - для пулемета, при тщательной укладке - 32 для пушки и 220 для пулемета.

and, on practice (from А. Ворожейкин, "Солдаты неба") -

Пока я занимал положение для атаки, "Юнкерс" сумел удалиться от меня метров на шестьсот - восемьсот. Я еще никогда с такой дальности не стрелял на поражение. Нужно поточнее прицелится. Может, на удачу и остался хоть один снаряд из тридцати двух. Целюсь, как по мишени, по всем правилам теории воздушной стрельбы. Бах!.. Огненный шар выскочил вдогонку "Юнкерсу" и мгновенно исчез. Вражеский самолет резко вздрогнул, и, словно от этого вздрагивания, из него полетела пыль. Попал! Но пыль вскоре исчезла, а "Юнкерс" продолжал лететь как ни в чем не бывало. Значит, снаряд только задел его. Но вот за "Юнкерсом" поплыли длинные струйки, светлячки огня, дым заклубился, светлячки, набирая силу, пламенели. Самолет вспыхнул...

now - 30 220...

so, i think in game for yak-9t and yak-9m with ns-37 we need (minimum) 2 historical correct ammo loads - default, 30 200, and something like "тщательная укладка боеприпасов" with 32 220...

maybe, and 32 200 or 30 220 (240 rounds for yak-1b hints on something like this on all yak-9's, but i don't have docs about "240", only 220 from part from "справочник основных данных самолетов", attached)...

total, 1 default and 3 other ammo loads (how i know, yak-9 with big guns don't take bombs)...

(2 shells and 20 rounds, it's not so little - all guys who flying in online-wars on this yak tell you this too, like thx for fix:)... and in total, ammo loads of all or some other yaks need to be corrected too)...

[Racoon]

Please make all ordnance types and names in English (for the English version) so we would know what to choose and what is available!
It's very annoying trying to figure out the type of bombs or rockets when playing campaigns with non Anglo/American air forces since their types are only mentioned in the original language of the country you're flying (but written with English alphabet).

Cheers.

[K_Freddie]

I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned...

How about better modelling for ground and surface (ships.. etc) objects, AI and warfare. It'll change the face of aerial warfare to encompass the whole concept of 'total war'.

I realise that this might be a long term idea and it'll require large code modification.. but by the time (if) this is done, PCs will be that more powerful to handle all these extra effects.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Please make all ordnance types and names in English (for the English version) so we would know what to choose and what is available!
It's very annoying trying to figure out the type of bombs or rockets when playing campaigns with non Anglo/American air forces since their types are only mentioned in the original language of the country you're flying (but written with English alphabet).



Do you have examples, what to change? We use the designation, that the ordnance had in war. We cannot 'invent' names for it.

[swiss]

One little request:

Could we have an additional key to turn off the MGs?
(Just like we can turn off pods)
Why?
For tankbusters, be it in the 129 or the 110, we only need the big gun in certain situations. Now, for ppl without a gazillion fire buttons on the stick this means we have to reconfigure the fire buttons everytime we switch from - or to - one of the above mentioned planes.

Well, actually this button would also have to disable the 20mm on the 129.
On the 110 the MK108 is also connected to the cannon, so I'm no sure if this is even possible.

:confused:

[Lagarto]

On some airfields AI aircraft disappear after landing, and on others they don’t. Is it possible to stop them from disappearing?

[IceFire]

Please make all ordnance types and names in English (for the English version) so we would know what to choose and what is available!
It's very annoying trying to figure out the type of bombs or rockets when playing campaigns with non Anglo/American air forces since their types are only mentioned in the original language of the country you're flying (but written with English alphabet).

Cheers.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Most of the bombs and rockets use a numerical or letter designation. So they aren't listed as "rocket" but rather HVAR (a US type of rocket) or BRS-132 (a Russian type of rocket). Just what they are called. It's not really in English or any language (except for technical language) just the same as the P-51 or La-5FN aren't really translated...they are just designations.

If you use Wikipedia you'll be able to look these up directly. My thinking is that if they were abstracted it would actually be harder to discover what was what. Maybe because I know the weapons so well now I don't see what you mean...

[SPAD-1949]

There is a big one: We have 6DOF now, many of us uses Track IR or similliar, there is a POVMod (please implement), so why do we still need the Shift+F1 keys for the reticle or aiming view?
If it is possible to implement the option to switch automatically in shift&F1 mode if you move your head close to the screen in a defineable vicinnity, 70cm or 60cm or even closer.

[RaptorRage]

I'm wondering if it would be possible to have a stats page similar to the quick mission mode for the other gameplay modes such as the multiplayer dogfight or coop modes. A method to see things like number of kills and such on the current session or over time for those gameplay modes. Also if it was possible to log multiplayer mission results or stats to a text file that could be printed.

Regarding kills in general also if there was a more straightforward scoring option in the multiplayer modes instead of the points scoreboard that at times can seem difficult to decipher. Instead having a simple enemy/friendly/shared kills and maybe number of deaths/bailouts score table for each player able to be displayed in multiplayer modes during the game.

[Racoon]

Hi EJGr.Ost_Caspar and sorry for late reply.
Do you have examples, what to change? We use the designation, that the ordnance had in war.
Example: HE in English is the abbreviation/designation of two words; H for High, and E for Explosive, I know it because I speak English.

But, for the German aircraft, for example, we have the The AB, SC, SP, W.GR, all of which abbreviations of their respective German words.

For example the SP ordnance:
S stands for some German word starting with S followed by another German word starting with P!

Unfortunately I don't speak German, so I can't tell what those two words (starting with the S and the P) suppose to be!:confused:

Same goes for the Russian abbreviations such as; FAB, VAP, RS, AO, BRS, PTAB-2.5, AJ-2, M-13.:confused:

We cannot 'invent' names for it.
Nor did I asked for "inventing" names, I'm talking about the German and Russian abbreviations of their respective German and Russian words which represent different types munitions in German and Russian languages.

All I'm asking is to have the German and Russian abbreviated words into their English counterparts ;), just as it's done for the Japanese ordnance (English words i.e designations used instead of their original Japanese ones).

Cheers.

[idefix44]

Founded on the web in less than one minute...
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/506725-What-is-AP-FAB-and-all-the-other-bomb-rocket-types-mean-Forums
I think that you'll be able to find a tuto to learn how to scroll in the page linked above... :rolleyes:

[OberstDanjeje]

Hi EJGr.Ost_Caspar and sorry for late reply.

Example: HE in English is the abbreviation/designation of two words; H for High, and E for Explosive, I know it because I speak English.

But, for the German aircraft, for example, we have the The AB, SC, SP, W.GR, all of which abbreviations of their respective German words.

For example the SP ordnance:
S stands for some German word starting with S followed by another German word starting with P!

Unfortunately I don't speak German, so I can't tell what those two words (starting with the S and the P) suppose to be!:confused:

Same goes for the Russian abbreviations such as; FAB, VAP, RS, AO, BRS, PTAB-2.5, AJ-2, M-13.:confused:

Nor did I asked for "inventing" names, I'm talking about the German and Russian abbreviations of their respective German and Russian words which represent different types munitions in German and Russian languages.

All I'm asking is to have the German and Russian abbreviated words into their English counterparts ;), just as it's done for the Japanese ordnance (English words i.e designations used instead of their original Japanese ones).

Cheers.

Google those abbreviations ;)

I like those historical name ;)

[T}{OR]

Just a small request, copied over from BFs forums:

can we force / limit the squadrons on the DF server in 4.12 like we do with airforces?

[Racoon]

Google those abbreviations ;)

It's like buying an import car in U.S or U.K and find the owner's manual is in it's maker's original Korean, Japanese or German language and if you asked for the manual in English, the dealer's response would be: Google it yourself!
I like those historical name ;)
But an English description in front of foreign abbreviations would be a nice addition so the player would know what munitions are at his disposal rather than closing the game and searching them in a dictionary or the Google.

By the way "those historical names" aren't names, they are abbreviated foreign words, and most of them are still in use (in their respective countries), so they are as "historical" as their English counter parts are such as; AT i.e Anti Tank, HE i.e High Explosive, which were used then and are still in use today.

Cheers.

[Grach]

It's like buying an import car in U.S or U.K and find the owner's manual is in it's maker's original Korean, Japanese or German language and if you asked for the manual in English, the dealer's response would be: Google it yourself!Cheers.

Straw man argument. This is a WW2 historical flight sim not a car. It presupposes some knowledge or interest in the field.
That said, if you can't work up a basic interest to do some research when you come across something you don't know about, then why are you bothering, really? I quite enjoy researching and learning new stuff, but that might just be me.

Alternatively you could always follow idefix44's link and print a copy out.
Founded on the web in less than one minute...
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/506725-What-is-AP-FAB-and-all-the-other-bomb-rocket-types-mean-Forums
I think that you'll be able to find a tuto to learn how to scroll in the page linked above... :rolleyes:
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but the tools and information are all out there and not hard or time consuming to find or use. To completely reject these smacks of something that starts to look a bit like laziness.

It has been a long time since I read the pdfs that come with the game, but aren't all these weapons systems decribed in there anyway? The car manual so to speak?

[Spudkopf]

Not specifically aimed at 4.12, but it would be nice if the damage model sequence especially those related to wing or engine nacelle hits could trigger the dropping of one or both of the under cart, as this seems to be quite a regular occurrence in a lot of archival footage.

In regards to munitions naming debate above, I for one like it the way it is and when I'm in doubt I look it up.

[Derda508]

I do agree that it is just impossible to translate the names of loadouts or whatever into english. Why English by the way, and not Russian, German or Uzbek? Il2 is played world-wide.
Still I think it is too harsh to accuse people of lazyness, just because they do not know something or do not know how to look for it (Everything is just dead simple, if you only happen to know it). But some things are not as easy as they look at first sight. For example: what does "default load-out" mean for an ac that is not included into the data-base. A simple solution would be an update of the Database, that has not been done since the very beginning of the game. Including a new section: "load-outs". Imho it should not be too hard to do, because the TD guys have all the knowledge, information and sources (it still needs time, I know ...).
Thus even casual players could find the info without leaving the game.

Cheers,

DerDa

[Grach]

The perhaps the in-game encyclopaedia which is looking less and less encyclopaedic should be given an overhaul including sections on aircraft armaments (guns, ordnance etc) and ground & sea units & their armaments.
Perhaps TD could subcontract some of this work as I'd prefer to see them continue to spend their valuable and freely given time and effort on coding enhancements and new content.

[SaQSoN]

Still I think it is too harsh to accuse people of lazyness, just because they do not know something...

It's not because they don't know, it's because they don't want to find out themselves, asking instead, that someone would make it more easy and convenient for them.

... or do not know how to look for it

And don't tell us, people, who can play IL-2, can't use Internet search.

[Derda508]

Some like to help. Some don´t.

By the way: I would volunteer to translate the texts from English to German.

[zakkandrachoff]

actualize p-39 armament rockets, fueltanks bombs
actualize i16 armament too

actualize maps that are WIP or already finish- (and are very completed on forest and real airfields) specially east front.
fix quick mission builder
will be nice see new aircraft like ju188 - he177 - he112 - finissh aircaft armament modification - british bombers - early war biplanes

[RegRag1977]

More readable gauges for F4U, better rear view for Tempest, new engine frontal area for Fw190A.

Better positionned gunsight and reticle for P51B/C and P47 razorbacks.

Tyre/shock absorber/brake sounds especially when landing

Original gunsight for Airacobra.

[RegRag1977]

When two aircraft collide, the more robust in construction suffers less damage. Or at least both suffer fatal damages.

[zakkandrachoff]

and these coul be nicwe fly it
http://i1172.photobucket.com/albums/r578/Tomcathornet/92106kr-1.jpg

[Pursuivant]

A couple of things I've recently learned, which might be of interest to TD:

* The propeller for the P-47D-10 is actually the wider "paddle-blade" version, only fitted on the P-47D-22 series and later. It should be narrower.

* The Finnish version of the Blenheim actually had a modified bomb bay and different ordinance loadouts than are modeled in the game.

[Fighterace]

A Spitfire XIV or XVIe?

[IceFire]

A Spitfire XIV or XVIe?

If the XIV model is to be done full justice then it would be:

F.XIVc
F.XIVc Clipped
F.XIVe
F.XIVe Clipped
F.XIVe Bubble Canopy
F.XIVe Bubble Canopy and Clipped

I think there were some power changes involved there too so perhaps the bubble canopy one would be more representative of a March/April 1945 machine while the XIVc would be the mid 1944 and the XIVe would be late 1944. Without introducing ridiculous numbers of variants.

[Ace1staller]

More French Aircraft anyway including we lack French bombers. Also I would like to see Early 109s and other aircraft involved in the spanish civil war

[dFrog]

If the XIV model is to be done full justice then it would be:

F.XIVc
F.XIVc Clipped
F.XIVe
F.XIVe Clipped
F.XIVe Bubble Canopy
F.XIVe Bubble Canopy and Clipped

I think there were some power changes involved there too so perhaps the bubble canopy one would be more representative of a March/April 1945 machine while the XIVc would be the mid 1944 and the XIVe would be late 1944. Without introducing ridiculous numbers of variants.

+ gyrogunsight added to all Spitfires from mid 1944. It is shame that only P-51D-20NA has it while brits were the first who used it. Here in Mk.IX :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Spitfire_cockpit.jpg/800px-Spitfire_cockpit.jpg

[IceFire]

+ gyrogunsight added to all Spitfires from mid 1944. It is shame that only P-51D-20NA has it while brits were the first who used it. Here in Mk.IX :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Spitfire_cockpit.jpg/800px-Spitfire_cockpit.jpg

Yes that's another nice thing to have. I was wondering about a Mark XVI with gyro gunsight and rocket rails. Otherwise, same performance and appearance to a +16lb LF.IX although there were some reports that the Merlin 266 was, in practice, not quite as capable as the Merlin 66.

[IceFire]

While were thinking about aircraft... more Beaufighter variants would be fun to have. We already have a solid base with the Australian Mark 21. A Mark X maybe? I guess the radar install would be difficult.

Or a Mosquito bomber. Pretty widely used aircraft in both cases that would be useful in a variety of settings and scenarios.

[Lagarto]

Hurricane Mk IID; we also have a solid base already :)
Not to mention B-25C/D/J solid-nosed strafer. Or a Ju 88C-6...

[K_Freddie]

How's another funny..
When the AI goes in for the kill, how about letting them just go straight in and shoot, instead of doing all these fancy aerobatics behind the target and generally letting it get away ;)

It's as if the AI want to play with it's food. Sitting there as wingman I watch this in disbelief.. eventually losing my cool and pushing the rest of the flight out of the way and plastering the target to tiny pieces. :grin:

[Fighterace]

Can TD put in Japancat's 3D model updates for the A6M, Ki-43 and Ki-61 Tony

[Kittle]

While playing War in the Pacific Admirals Edition, I was thinking about all the aircraft that actually served in the Pacific compared to what we get in IL2.

More Beaufighter variants would be awesome, and the Mk.X would be a great place to start.

The strafer versions of the B-25D would be excellent, as they saw a lot of sevice over and near PNG.

I would like to see the A-36 and P-51A. I use them in mods, and we all know they're available, but I would like to see all that stuff in an official release at some point anyways.

The Ki-44 is a must have as well.

The Ki-48 and Ki-49 really should be included. If one thinks the selection of Japanese naval bombers is slim, the selection of army types is even more so with only one example in the two versions of the Ki-21. The Ki-67 would be nice too, Aces High 2 has it, why can't we! :D

[RegRag1977]

While playing War in the Pacific Admirals Edition, I was thinking about all the aircraft that actually served in the Pacific compared to what we get in IL2.

More Beaufighter variants would be awesome, and the Mk.X would be a great place to start.

The strafer versions of the B-25D would be excellent, as they saw a lot of sevice over and near PNG.

I would like to see the A-36 and P-51A. I use them in mods, and we all know they're available, but I would like to see all that stuff in an official release at some point anyways.

The Ki-44 is a must have as well.

The Ki-48 and Ki-49 really should be included. If one thinks the selection of Japanese naval bombers is slim, the selection of army types is even more so with only one example in the two versions of the Ki-21. The Ki-67 would be nice too, Aces High 2 has it, why can't we! :D

Oh yes that would be great additions in IL2 1946: early P51 and Ki44 especially. I would also like to see an early Typhoon (my favorite British plane with Hurricane, BTW new marks for Hurri won't hurt neither, think desert and big guns haha).

And a late war Griffon powered Spitfire too: there's something really badass in their look, especially the bubble top/clipped wing version. to me they look like a very dangerous flying insect, nothing like the "romantic" early mark Spits anymore!

[secretone]

I have read that Japanese and Russian aircraft radios were notoriously unreliable during the Second World War. This must have greatly affected how pilots fought as individuals as well as overall unit effectiveness. I have read, in fact, that in some cases defective radios were actually removed from aircraft to reduce their weight. I wonder if simulating these communication problems would make the AI even more realistic offline - and I am not sure what to suggest about the online game.

[jameson]

Only if they could also simulate hand signals and gestures between the player and the AI, which were much used by pilots in RL during the war whose aircraft had dodgy radios. These were also pretty novel at the start of the war. The Germans didn't get VHF until 1942 or thereabouts from memory.

There is still no option if you're number two and number one has been shot down, to tell three and four who formate on the player to do anything at all, radios or not.

[Ace1staller]

TD , would it be possible if smoke and fire effects are added to oil tanks when they blow up ?

So can we have smoke from oil tanks in the aftermath to an explosion ?

[Fighterace]

Is it possible to have the P-40L?

[IceFire]

Is it possible to have the P-40L?

From what I understand, if the P-40F were to be modelled then the P-40L could be as well with no visual changes (that I can tell) required. Just a slight change in FM with the reduction of some weight.

Apparently it made very little difference to overall performance.

Some charts on these types would probably be useful.

[Pursuivant]

I have read that Japanese and Russian aircraft radios were notoriously unreliable during the Second World War. This must have greatly affected how pilots fought as individuals as well as overall unit effectiveness. I have read, in fact, that in some cases defective radios were actually removed from aircraft to reduce their weight. I wonder if simulating these communication problems would make the AI even more realistic offline - and I am not sure what to suggest about the online game.

+1

There are at least 5 parts to this request, some of which are more difficult than others.

1) No ability to communicate with AI if you don't have a radio. Radio messages disabled and no ability to command AI unless you're within 50 meters or so of another plane (reflecting use of hand signals and signs), or you drop a flare and the other planes can see it.

The first part is fairly easy. A distance requirement is almost as easy. Getting AI to react to flares or other external signals is much trickier.

2) "No radio and radio masts" added as load-out option to reduce weight and slightly boost performance.

Probably reasonably easy to do.

3) Radio damage added to DM. Damage to radio usually results in "Radio Destroyed," but sometimes "send only" or "receive only."

Probably easy to do.

4) No "radio" for online players who are flying planes without radios. But, this would have to be implemented at the server level and would require that communications between players be run through the server, which would be very complex and might impact server speed. Also, it would be virtually impossible to prevent audio communication between players via third-party programs such as TeamSpeak.

A load of work, probably for no good purpose.

5) Changes in AI group tactics based on presence/absence of a radio on a particular plane.

A load of work, but would need to be fitted into progressive overhauls of AI performance.

6) Radio reliability. Radios fail randomly.

Easy to implement, but possibly part of a larger "random equipment failure" package.

7) Radio signals fade with range.

Probably not that hard to implement, but lots of data collection would be needed regarding ranges for historical radio equipment.

8) Radio jamming. Ground stations and/or ECM aircraft have the ability to jam radio communications. This was an important tactic during the war, especially for foiling ground-directed nightfighters. A related feature would be the problem of people "stepping on" a particular radio frequency - jamming up the airwaves so that other people using the same frequency can't communicate. Rookie pilots were particularly prone to causing this problem in combat.

A big project, requiring a lot of study of period radio technology and ECM/ECCM tactics. But, a welcome addition to any add-on which focuses on nightfighters and night-bombing.

9) Historical modeling of radio frequencies. Planes often carried several radios and had the ability to switch between multiple frequencies to communicate. Due to the limitations of the technology, however, not all frequencies were available using the same radio set.

Currently, IL2 only allows you to listen to all friendly or all enemy aircraft and only communicate with squadron-mates. It doesn't require you to mess around with radio dials to find the right frequency to communicate with different squadrons or listen in on specific enemy frequencies, nor does it allow you to communicate with the enemy. (Yes, this happened, most famously, when Greg Boyington spoiled a Japanese ambush by misreporting his squadron's actual altitude and position to a "friendly" but suspicious-sounding ground control station.)

A hell of a lot of work, requiring a lot of study of period radio technology and modeling radio equipment in every cockpit/navigator station in the game.

10) Intercom communication. Multi-crew planes had some sort of intercom system. Effective use of this system was an essential part of a bomber's defensive tactics. It was so important that loss of the intercom system was considered a legitimate reason for U.S. bomber crews to abort a mission.

Currently, IL2 only allows limited commands from the tailgunner to the pilot, but not between gunners, or from the pilot to other crew.

A hell of a lot of work, possibly requiring gunner stations to be reworked to include functional intercom controls, and revising (or writing code for) AI multi-crew plane behavior to reflect (lack of) communication between crew. New commands would also be needed from crew to pilot and vice-versa.

[Pursuivant]

From what I understand, if the P-40F were to be modelled then the P-40L could be as well with no visual changes (that I can tell) required. Just a slight change in FM with the reduction of some weight.

It almost sounds like it could be modeled as a load-out option rather than a different plane with its own FM, DM and slot.

[IceFire]

It almost sounds like it could be modeled as a load-out option rather than a different plane with its own FM, DM and slot.

Maybe. Not sure if that would do everything needed doing but maybe.

With the L and the N one armament option would be to remove two .50cals and ammo for even more light weight performance. This was commonly done although many were reverted back to 6 .50cal standard in the field.

[Grach]

From what I understand, if the P-40F were to be modelled then the P-40L could be as well with no visual changes (that I can tell) required. Just a slight change in FM with the reduction of some weight.

Apparently it made very little difference to overall performance.

Some charts on these types would probably be useful.

Didn't the L have a reprofiled tail fin of larger area (plus a fillet?) in an attempt to mitigate some of the the stability issues of the 'short fuselage, big engine' P-40s? IIRC these stability issues were why they ultimately stretched the fuselage in the M & N. I'll dig up America's 100,000 and have a squiz tonight.

[Pursuivant]

Maybe. Not sure if that would do everything needed doing but maybe.

With the L and the N one armament option would be to remove two .50cals and ammo for even more light weight performance. This was commonly done although many were reverted back to 6 .50cal standard in the field.

Since the P-40 is getting some love, it might also be worth checking whether there were any uniquely Soviet or British/Commonwealth load-outs.

Certainly, some of the early P-40/Hawk 81 series were armed with just British armament and ordinance. This might have been true for later ones as well. Also, I believe that it was typical for Soviet P-40s to be equipped with Soviet ordinance although they kept the U.S. guns.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Since the P-40 is getting some love, it might also be worth checking whether there were any uniquely Soviet or British/Commonwealth load-outs.

The renewed P-40s will have a lot of loadout combos, with american, british and soviet bombs :)

[ElAurens]

Rockets too?

14th Air Force used the bazooka type rockets in China. (Same as on our current P-47).

[Pursuivant]

The renewed P-40s will have a lot of loadout combos, with american, british and soviet bombs :)

Great news! Thanks much!

[Fighterace]

Any new developments coming? Any screenshots or videos?

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Rockets too?

14th Air Force used the bazooka type rockets in China. (Same as on our current P-47).

I guess bazooka rockets will be available on late variants.

[stugumby]

Just curious here: what prevents ships from showing on the inflight map, as all ground objects show up?? Any possibiolity of including any of the command and control mods and map pad interfaces with the 4.12 patch?

[Fighterace]

More P-47 versions!?

[Pursuivant]

More P-47 versions!?

+1

The P-47C-5 model would be especially welcome, since it was the first long-range U.S. escort fighter to see action in Europe, and was made famous by the 56th Fighter Group.

All that is needed are minor tweaks to the existing P-47D-10 model (slight changes to the engine cowling and propeller) and slight changes to the FM and DM.

[Fighterace]

+1

The P-47C-5 model would be especially welcome, since it was the first long-range U.S. escort fighter to see action in Europe, and was made famous by the 56th Fighter Group.

All that is needed are minor tweaks to the existing P-47D-10 model (slight changes to the engine cowling and propeller) and slight changes to the FM and DM.

Im hoping more towards the later versions of the P-47D and M/N versions

[Pursuivant]

Im hoping more towards the later versions of the P-47D and M/N versions

I suggested the P-47C because it's a relatively simple job to add it and the 3d model of the early series P-47 propeller needs to be changed anyhow. The prop modeled for the P-47 is the wide-bladed version which was only fitted on the D-22 and later versions of the plane.

The P-47D-26 to 30 production blocks would be easy to do since they could use the current 3d model for the P-47D-25.

The P-47D-40 and later production blocks would need the addition of the tail fillet to the 3d model and change to the cockpit (including the K-14 gun sight) as well as DM and FM work.

The P-47N and M models would require more extensive 3d work and new cockpits, as well as FM and DM work. Basically, they'd be entirely new planes, especially the N version which would need new skins due to the extended fuselage.

[Lagarto]

I wish for more ground objects:
A column of British trucks, so the campaign builders don't have to use Russian or American transports in, for example, early MTO scenarios.
More German self-propelled artillery and tank destroyers (Wespe, Hummel, Nashorn, Jagdpanzer IV, short-barreled StuG III)
Armored cars of Sdkfz 221/22/23 and Sdkfz 231/32/33/34/63 series
KV-2

More ships, esp. Royal Navy destroyer and LST Landing Craft
Flak towers maybe?
How about vehicles (esp. German trucks and late-war tanks) camouflaged with foliage?

[RegRag1977]

I guess bazooka rockets will be available on late variants.

I love what you're going to do with the P40 along with the new 3D model! Sensational...

What about P51 having bazooka rockets too? It would be nice.

BTW i know you guys have a lot of work but P51 also needs attention:

Correction of the P51B/C wing damage bug showing 3 mg when hit in leading edge,
Straight wings for P51B/C (not the D series wings we have now that make the P51B/C a frankenplane)
Higher positioned gunsight +inside mirror for Bs.

[dreaming mode on] And why not have a P51A? This is one sexy aircraft...[off]

[ElAurens]

A properly modeled P 51A/Mustang I would be an interesting aircraft.
At the at the time, and, altitudes it operated at, there was nothing on the Continent that could catch it.

[RegRag1977]

A properly modeled P 51A/Mustang I would be an interesting aircraft.
At the at the time, and, altitudes it operated at, there was nothing on the Continent that could catch it.

True, and with this we should not forget it's range which was already great for its time.

[IceFire]

I suggested the P-47C because it's a relatively simple job to add it and the 3d model of the early series P-47 propeller needs to be changed anyhow. The prop modeled for the P-47 is the wide-bladed version which was only fitted on the D-22 and later versions of the plane.

The P-47D-26 to 30 production blocks would be easy to do since they could use the current 3d model for the P-47D-25.

The P-47D-40 and later production blocks would need the addition of the tail fillet to the 3d model and change to the cockpit (including the K-14 gun sight) as well as DM and FM work.

The P-47N and M models would require more extensive 3d work and new cockpits, as well as FM and DM work. Basically, they'd be entirely new planes, especially the N version which would need new skins due to the extended fuselage.
Unfortunately Republic was later bought by companies that are now ultimately owned by the "company that shall not be named" (and associated legal issues) and I doubt we'll see any further variants of the P-47 despite the desire to have something.

[Fighterace]

Unfortunately Republic was later bought by companies that are now ultimately owned by the "company that shall not be named" (and associated legal issues) and I doubt we'll see any further variants of the P-47 despite the desire to have something.

Oh...really??? :(

[Pursuivant]

Unfortunately Republic was later bought by companies that are now ultimately owned by the "company that shall not be named" (and associated legal issues) and I doubt we'll see any further variants of the P-47 despite the desire to have something.

Respectfully, I think you're wrong.

Admittedly, my source is Wikipedia, but the evolution of Republic Aviation appears to be:

1965 -> Republic Aviation bought by Fairchild-Hiller
1971 -> Name change to Fairchild Industries
1996 -> Name change to Fairchild-Dornier (Oops, I guess that means no Dornier products! :) )

After 1996 -> Name changed to Fairchild Aerospace

1999 -> Fairchild Aerospace purchased by Allianz A.G. and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Inc. Bankruptcy ensues

2003 -> Remaining assets of Fairchild Aerospace purchased by M7.

2010 -> M7 purchased by Ebit Systems.

At no point in time was Republic ever under the control of Northrop-Grumman, nor do N-G or Republic appear to have cooperated in the past. About the only place where they might have overlapped is in modernization of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and that's well beyond the scope of IL2!

But, you might be right, since fans haven't seen the exact wording of the consent decree. If the consent decree required Oleg Maddox to get the words "I love Northrop-Grumman!" tattooed on his forehead, and he agreed to do it, he'd be legally bound to do so, regardless of the logic and justice of such an action. So, if N-G told 1c/Ubisoft "No aircraft produced by Republic" in the consent decree, we'd be screwed.

[shelby]

Marshall Philippines and Aleutian islands maps and campaigns

[IceFire]

Respectfully, I think you're wrong.

Admittedly, my source is Wikipedia, but the evolution of Republic Aviation appears to be:

1965 -> Republic Aviation bought by Fairchild-Hiller
1971 -> Name change to Fairchild Industries
1996 -> Name change to Fairchild-Dornier (Oops, I guess that means no Dornier products! :) )

After 1996 -> Name changed to Fairchild Aerospace

1999 -> Fairchild Aerospace purchased by Allianz A.G. and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Inc. Bankruptcy ensues

2003 -> Remaining assets of Fairchild Aerospace purchased by M7.

2010 -> M7 purchased by Ebit Systems.

At no point in time was Republic ever under the control of Northrop-Grumman, nor do N-G or Republic appear to have cooperated in the past. About the only place where they might have overlapped is in modernization of the A-10 Thunderbolt II, and that's well beyond the scope of IL2!

But, you might be right, since fans haven't seen the exact wording of the consent decree. If the consent decree required Oleg Maddox to get the words "I love Northrop-Grumman!" tattooed on his forehead, and he agreed to do it, he'd be legally bound to do so, regardless of the logic and justice of such an action. So, if N-G told 1c/Ubisoft "No aircraft produced by Republic" in the consent decree, we'd be screwed.

Interesting... I was certain that P-47 was off the list and Republic aircraft were part of the issue. There was a time where a P-47N was being developed and the issues that came up killed the project. Shame because the N model is very interesting and would fit into that late Pacific war setup much better than the shorter ranged D model.

[kennel]

I would love to see the YAK 7B bubble top created & included in IL2. It gives a variation of the YAK 7B razorback.

I see quite a few photographs of this plane in & around the Stalingrad theatre

[IceFire]

I would love to see the YAK 7B bubble top created & included in IL2. It gives a variation of the YAK 7B razorback.

I see quite a few photographs of this plane in & around the Stalingrad theatre
Shouldn't be too difficult if I remember right it's essentially the same as a Yak-9 worth a few smaller differences.

[Fighterace]

Interesting... I was certain that P-47 was off the list and Republic aircraft were part of the issue. There was a time where a P-47N was being developed and the issues that came up killed the project. Shame because the N model is very interesting and would fit into that late Pacific war setup much better than the shorter ranged D model.

Maybe they killed the P-47N project to be "Better safe than sorry" So if it isnt an issue, TD can possibly add it ?

[Draken]

My wish for 4.12 :
This request is not about an object , but about a function :
.ntrk tracks can only be read forward .

It would be very useful for movie makers to be able to read .ntrk tracks also backwards .

( so they will not have to launch the track from the beginning many times )

[K_Freddie]

My wish for 4.12 :
It would be very useful for movie makers to be able to read .ntrk tracks also backwards .

AFAIK the ntrks only records positions of controls (Stick.. etc), speeds and directions. This allows for 'highly compressed' recording. The downside is as you mention as with this method of recording you need initial conditions and past conditions... and nothing in the future.

It might be and idea to only record positions and attitudes plus events. This might result in a bigger file, but will give you ability to play backwards.
Maybe TD can look at this. It should be viable as IL2 came out when PCs were a lot weaker. Nowdays with more powerful PCs, recording a more detailed ntrk shouldn't be a problem.
:)

[Lagarto]

Could we have some of these?

[JtD]

How do they look when they go around a turn in the road or across a change in gradient?

[Lagarto]

No idea if they have some pivot point, but they certainly look useful for campaign makers.

By the way, HMS Cossack looks great, doesn't it? :)

[shelby]

A6M8 zero sbd-2 sbd-4 sbd-6 Ki-102 J2M2

[Fighterace]

A Ki-83 :)

[P-38L]

Hello TD

My little request if possible:

* Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
* The possibility to have Rearm/Refuel/Repair option.

Thank you.

[RegRag1977]

A Ki-83 :)


Why not start with a good old Ki44 instead?

[Lagarto]

Why not start with a good old Ki44 instead?

Yes, exactly. Oleg and his team had a penchant for exotic stuff, that's why we got BI-1, BI-6, Go-229, He-L-IIIB2, I-185 (which, by the way, serves only as a stand-in for the Ki-44), I-250, MiG-9protoF-2, Ta-183 and other oddities - but not, for example, Hawker Typhoon. I really hope that DT will continue filling gaps in historical ranks, rather than produce more oddities.

[Fighterace]

I hate the Ta153 and the Lerche

[Pursuivant]

Yes, exactly. Oleg and his team had a penchant for exotic stuff, that's why we got BI-1, BI-6, Go-229, He-L-IIIB2, I-185 (which, by the way, serves only as a stand-in for the Ki-44), I-250, MiG-9protoF-2, Ta-183 and other oddities - but not, for example, Hawker Typhoon. I really hope that DT will continue filling gaps in historical ranks, rather than produce more oddities.

That, and probably 10 billion email messages from people begging for "Luftwaffe 1946" stuff which historically never made it beyond sketches on the backs of napkins, produced by engineers desperate to avoid getting conscripted into the Volkssturm, but which allegedly would have won the war for the Nazis in some alternate universe.

Also, to be fair, a number of projects didn't make it into the game due to failures by third parties. I think that the Typhoon was one of those casualties.

[bighog]

1. P-51 control of tank fuel selection. P-51 pilots use more than half of the middle tank first then the wing tanks to have better center of gravity.

2. AI pilots be able to land (single or FMB missions) then Refuel, Rearm and Repair, take off and join the Wing Leader (me) back to the fight (example: Pear Harbor Map)

3. More control in tweaking the files to have longer and bigger fires and smoke (single or FMB missions). Example: Pear Harbor, the second wave had difficulty at the target because of the heavy smoke.

Thanks

bighog:rolleyes:

[IceFire]

Also, to be fair, a number of projects didn't make it into the game due to failures by third parties. I think that the Typhoon was one of those casualties.

Bingo.. there was great enthusiasm from many different people but for various reasons only some of those third party efforts ever made it to the stage where they could be incorporated into the game. There was a time when aircraft were reserved and this created a situation where someone would be reserved for an aircraft for long periods of time but without anything getting to the finishing stages.

It was never done maliciously. It just worked out that way. People get busy and life gets in the way. BUT... a great number of third party projects did make it into the game later on as well and we've got some great variety because of that.

New planes arriving all the time... but a Typhoon I would love to see. The Normandy map is definitely missing a key piece without it.

[Fighterace]

Bring on the Tiffie !!! :P

[RegRag1977]

Bingo.. there was great enthusiasm from many different people but for various reasons only some of those third party efforts ever made it to the stage where they could be incorporated into the game. There was a time when aircraft were reserved and this created a situation where someone would be reserved for an aircraft for long periods of time but without anything getting to the finishing stages.

It was never done maliciously. It just worked out that way. People get busy and life gets in the way. BUT... a great number of third party projects did make it into the game later on as well and we've got some great variety because of that.

New planes arriving all the time... but a Typhoon I would love to see. The Normandy map is definitely missing a key piece without it.

Typhoon is definitely a must have in the game, i'm sure there's a large consensus to have it, at least on these boards...I personally (dream mode on of course haha) would like to see "at least" two versions: an early mark with original "car door" canopy (my favorite: this bird rocks), and a late bubble canopy.

British bombers also need cockpits, but that's another question...

[Lagarto]

For Tiffie fans, courtesy of Nicolas Trudgian :)

http://www.nicolastrudgian.com/uploads/collections/109.jpg

http://www.nicolastrudgian.com/uploads/collections/52.jpg

[Fighterace]

How about a video of the latest updates that's in patch 4.12? :)

[Orangeman]

Why not start with a good old Ki44 instead?

Will the Ki-44 make 4.12 even as AI only?

[Orangeman]

Bring on the Tiffie !!! :P

Yes a Typhoon would be great!

[Lagarto]

Actually, Ki-44 is a great choice. It came as a shock to Chennault's fighters in China, beating Warhawks at their own game, booming & zooming them at will.
By the way, was there any consideration within DT to make a map of south-east China, roughly the area marked on the map I've attached? Unlike many PTO battlefields, this one was active for at least three years.

[ElAurens]

I am in constant longing for just that map.

:cool:

[_1SMV_Gitano]

In my opinion that's not the best choice for a chinese map, because it misses most of the major allied airfields like Kweilin, Liuchow, Hengyang and Ling Ling. Furthermore, it would be quite big and populated with respect to other PTO areas. A reduced scale would be needed...

[Lagarto]

We're not that picky, any decent China map will do :) To me the most important thing is that such a map looks like China, not just another eastern front map with the same overused terrain tiles (see Manchuria map).

[ElAurens]

Agreed.

A reduced scale China map would be great.

I'll take whatever I can get in this regard. As long as it looks/feels like China.

[IceFire]

Typhoon is definitely a must have in the game, i'm sure there's a large consensus to have it, at least on these boards...I personally (dream mode on of course haha) would like to see "at least" two versions: an early mark with original "car door" canopy (my favorite: this bird rocks), and a late bubble canopy.

British bombers also need cockpits, but that's another question...

I'd love that too. The biggest problem with the Typhoon has always been cockpit references. I'm sure they are out there but they are rare... and the "car door" style even moreso.

[IceFire]

Actually, Ki-44 is a great choice. It came as a shock to Chennault's fighters in China, beating Warhawks at their own game, booming & zooming them at will.
By the way, was there any consideration within DT to make a map of south-east China, roughly the area marked on the map I've attached? Unlike many PTO battlefields, this one was active for at least three years.

A Ki-44 is high on my list as well. Really interesting and non-typical Japanese fighter for the time. Pilots initially didn't like it but some seemed to be quite successful later on... particularly against the P-40s and early P-51A models when they were first deployed.

[RegRag1977]

I'd love that too. The biggest problem with the Typhoon has always been cockpit references. I'm sure they are out there but they are rare... and the "car door" style even moreso.

Sadly pics of the Typhoon's cockpit are very rare, here are few of them i found on the web (actually i don't even know for sure if they are all Typhoon cockpits):

left side of the pit:

http://fighters.forumactif.com/t35808-hawker-typhoon-car-door-versus-bubble

right side of the pit:

http://normandie44.canalblog.com/archives/2012/01/27/23347908.html

Bubble:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK---Air/Hawker-Typhoon-Mk4/0412497/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Hawker-Typhoon.../0818953/M/

others:

http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/8/1/4/4/3/a3774327-105-Typhoon_cockpit.jpg


nice video about a "Kiwi" pilot:

http://www.3news.co.nz/Kiwi-pilot-relives-wartime-heroics-in-restored-Tempest/tabid/309/articleID/265708/Default.aspx


I know, very small picture and not many details. I will check to see if i can find more...i hope someone will come with better pics.

[Fighterace]

Or the Hawker Tempest with 11lbs & 15lbs boost?

[Pursuivant]

Actually, Ki-44 is a great choice. It came as a shock to Chennault's fighters in China, beating Warhawks at their own game, booming & zooming them at will.
By the way, was there any consideration within DT to make a map of south-east China, roughly the area marked on the map I've attached? Unlike many PTO battlefields, this one was active for at least three years.

There's a mod version of the Ki-44, with several variants, which is pretty good. I'm not sure it's quite up to DT standards, though.

As for maps of China, there's a modded Hankow and Taiwan/Formosa map which are reasonably good, but still not quite good enough. A few years back, someone did a number of "starter maps" for most of China, but these are nothing more than crude imports of STRM data, with no attempt to correct mistakes or add roads and the like.

The main problems with doing maps of China are very different terrain types and the fact that most areas of China are heavily populated.

The first issue is a massive limitation, because IL2 maps can only have two types of ground textures per map. So, map makers either have to make smaller maps or put up with unrealistic looking terrain on part of the map.

The second issue means that map-makers need to spend lots of time putting in roads, villages and railroads. And, it's a balancing act as to how much "civilization" you add, since lots of buildings reduce frame rates.

Another issue, somewhat unique to China, is that the major rivers in China were historically prone to extensive flooding, meaning that the terrain looked very different at different times of the year. During WW2, the Chinese also deliberately breached levee systems to deny territory to the Japanese, so areas which appear to be protected by levees on maps were actually flooded.

Finally, almost no other part of the world has seen as much change and population growth as China. Modern STRM data of the area will not accurately model the landscape as it was 60 or 70 years ago, and terrain images from Google Earth won't accurately depict the look of the terrain as it was then.

This means it's impossible to make realistic-looking maps of large areas of China, and very hard to create realistic-looking historical maps of specific areas. To do it right, you'd need to have at least 6 different maps of China, and even then that wouldn't cover the entire country!

This isn't to say that I wouldn't be thrilled to have such maps, just that it's not an easy project!

[IceFire]

Or the Hawker Tempest with 11lbs & 15lbs boost?

Again, references seem to be the biggest problem here. I tried years ago without success to get a full range of charts. There are a couple of charts for 11 and 13lb boost and the different Sabre II engine variants but they weren't for a full range of altitudes nor were they including the climb rates either.

Allegedly Closterman (famous Tempest ace) had a late model Tempest V Series II with likely a Sabre IIC and Rotol propeller running at 13lbs of boost. This would be JF-E "Le Grande Charles". Some of that may be exaggeration by the author himself compounded with decades between writing his book and the actual events of when he wrote his diary for example but I'm not sure.

If I came to choice between a Typhoon (immensely useful from 1942 and on depending on model) or a high powered Tempest... I'd pick the Typhoon. Of course the work is not comparable. A flight model is likely a fairly "easy" thing to do with the right data versus modelling an aircraft.

[fruitbat]

Just wanted to say thanks to TeamD for the upcoming Beaufort in 4.12, been on my wish list for a long time, a much missed med theatre plane.

:cool:

[magot]

There's a mod version of the Ki-44, with several variants, which is pretty good. I'm not sure it's quite up to DT standards, though.
Creator of Ki-44 cooperate with DT on this model. But it´s not planned for 4.12.
(Only external model)

[Hlander]

Santa, I have been a very good boy most of the year. So, I would like to see more flyable Flying boats (e.g Grumman JRF Goose and/or Grumman J4F Widgeon)and Floatplanes (e.g Fokker T.VIII).

Keep up the good work Daidalos Team!

:D:D:D

[dFrog]

Well you have not been good boy enough otherwise Santa would let you know years ago that Grumman planes will not make it into official release.

[DuxCorvan]

Sant Claus (TM) is a Trade Mark by The Coca-Cola Co. (All Rights Reserved). Santa's Flying Sleigh (TM) is property of the NG Corporation and can't be modelled either.

[Hlander]

Well you have not been good boy enough otherwise Santa would let you know years ago that Grumman planes will not make it into official release.Didn't know that, but they were just examples. Any ww2 era seaplanes would do. Loire or Saro's would be awesome, again just examples.

[ElAurens]

Sant Claus (TM) is a Trade Mark by The Coca-Cola Co. (All Rights Reserved). Santa's Flying Sleigh (TM) is property of the NG Corporation and can't be modelled either.

HA!!!!

http://imageshack.us/a/img121/5907/santp40.jpg

Everyone knows Santa flys a Curtiss.

[DuxCorvan]

And according to Raaaid, he's asking for "hos" there...

[RegRag1977]

HA!!!!

http://imageshack.us/a/img121/5907/santp40.jpg

Everyone knows Santa flys a Curtiss.

Wrong! He's actually flying a Bell...Your picture was only taken for propaganda purpose...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/swissmustangs/P_39_color_Santa.jpg

Probably because it is more convenient for him to have all the "special gifts" fitted in the nose? haha Grabbing a bottle is also easier this way...isn't it?

[RegRag1977]

Question: were all lend-lease Kobras fitted with the Russian reticle? Was it possible to keep the N9 gunsight and replace the reticle only (what we seem to have ingame)? I'm asking because now in stock game it appears the Russian reticle is too big to fit in the US gunsight and we can't use it correctly because we only have the small center part of it to use.... when it is well known that those big 37mm "pumpkins" need a hell of deflection haha.

My guess is that if Russian changed the US reticle the would also replace the gunsight in order to be able to use it completely? We cannot see the inner circle completely as is (not to talk about the outer circle): and because of that we don't have a complete reticle in the Airacobra!

[1984]

Question: were all lend-lease Kobras fitted with the Russian reticle?

how i know (maybe wrong, because something like new info or forget) and how told me my friend-historian, all p-39 had original reticle...

well, i think it's right, no reasons for change here, especially, if not all soviet aircrafts have good reticle before 1943 (sometimes, only VV-1, or something like this)...

but it's not so important, how you know - be better, if DT replace armor plate on armor glass (полевая доработка for some late p-39, and maybe it's later in production too), and give to us new ammo loads like "without wing mg's" (полевая доработка, + to perfomance, like PF changes for US p-39) and some new bombs (not only heavy fab-250)...

maybe, how i heard, need correct fuel load (error with 454 kg fuel and weight=another perfomance), sometimes need correct weapon and ammo loads for MG's...

well, not so much, and this of course mainly for "soviet" p-39...

[1984]

I would love to see the YAK 7B bubble top created & included in IL2. It gives a variation of the YAK 7B razorback.

I see quite a few photographs of this plane in & around the Stalingrad theatre

+1

and maybe it's not so obviously for someone's but yak-7b without gargrot need not only for history...

another, really GOOD weapon and little another perfomance, long life of production and lot of a aircrafts... i think, maybe, it's like fw190 serie with a-4 and a-8, but without a-5 and 6...:)

if DT do this and if with 3d model changes all good ( if DT can do this without any problems with authors etc), well, it's was be great...

just need to correct perfomance (little), ammo loads (only light bombs like ao-25 for all 7 (how i heard), no RS-82 in 43), and little 3d model (wings, cockpit, second ubs and maybe etc)...

not so much, and we have all info for this...


our first steps here (http://forum.aviaskins.com/showthread.php?t=1632) (topic very reduced, don't know why and who did it)...

[IceFire]

+1

and maybe it's not so obviously for someone's but yak-7b without gargrot need not only for history...

another, really GOOD weapon and little another perfomance, long life of production and lot of a aircrafts... i think, maybe, it's like fw190 serie with a-4 and a-8, but without a-5 and 6...:)

if DT do this and if with 3d model changes all good ( if DT can do this without any problems with authors etc), well, it's was be great...

just need to correct perfomance (little), ammo loads (only light bombs like ao-25 for all 7 (how i heard), no RS-82 in 43), and little 3d model (wings, cockpit, second ubs and maybe etc)...

not so much, and we have all info for this...


our first steps here (http://forum.aviaskins.com/showthread.php?t=1632) (topic very reduced, don't know why and who did it)...

Did Karabas ever finish with the Yak-7B Late variation? Wouldn't mind having it even if it's not too distinctly different from the early Yak-9. I can't see it being a difficult fit into the game.

[kennel]

Did Karabas ever finish with the Yak-7B Late variation? Wouldn't mind having it even if it's not too distinctly different from the early Yak-9. I can't see it being a difficult fit into the game.

Yes it has been completed & is included in HSFX 6. I think is uses the Yak 9FM

[LennysCopilot]

I was wondering if it would be possible to have a working clock in the Fokker D.XXI cockpit. It is a small thing, but if it could be fixed, that would be great. For now, it looks like the clock is stopped at the mission start time.

By the way, the Fokker campaign that came with 4.11 is great!

[1984]

Did Karabas ever finish with the Yak-7B Late variation?

i'm flew on this yak-7 in online and you can see him in all mod-forums...

about historical accuracy and standards of mod...

main external differences (all for fuselage of yak-9) - gunport and blister for second UBS, wings from yak-7 and cockpit from yak-9d (standart cockpit for new generation fighters in 43, if short) - were made, if i remember right, plus some change in perfomance and guns (here i can say what all good in total, but in fact need more series with different performance and need add "light" bombs, like ao-25 and - maybe - fab-50,100)...

maybe, all by standarts il2, because take original game parts, if i not wrong...

all minor external differences (if they were), i think no (+ here too much small differences of all series of yak-7, what hard to do)...

well, anyway, main work was made and anyway it's all need check...

and anytime you can contact with authors, i think (in 2010 or 11 i'm asked him about sending mod in DT, and he say "why not?" or something like this - don't found this post now)...

Wouldn't mind having it even if it's not too distinctly different from the early Yak-9.

normal weight of yak-7b without gargrot - 3000-3050 kg, normal weight of "standart" yak-9 - 2850-2900 kg, and yak-7 have more powerful weapon and more ammo for weapon...

extra 100-150 kg and another weapon it's enough for include, i think...

and what i mean by "standart" yak-9, this is yak-9 1942 from game (early series in RL) and - От серийного Як-9 Як-9Д отличался в основном запасами горючего и смазочного материала.

...

В авиаполку "Нормандия" и в других частях, имевших на вооружении Як-9Д, по собственной инициативе заглушали консольные бензобаки, и все полеты совершали при заправке только корневых баков.

...

Согласно постановлению ГКО от 18 февраля 1943 г. все самолеты Як-9, в том числе Як-9Т, должны были с 1 марта выпускаться в варианте дальнего истребителя с запасом горючего 480 кг. Такая заправка в начальной стадии полета приводила к ухудшению летных характеристик, особенно скороподъемности и маневренности в вертикальной плоскости. Поэтому Як-9Т продолжали выпускаться с 330 кг горючего и полетной массой 3025 кг. (http://www.aviation.ru/book/Stepanets/stepyak9.txt)

how you see, full fuel (and maybe oil) load of yak-9d was not used all time and not used for yak-9 with ns-37...

and this can be next request in wish list...


PS Sorry for so many edits...:)


and, sorry, little mistake here - normal weight of yak-9d with 320 kg fuel=полевая доработка, in avg 2970 kg, and not 2870 kg...

if and with 25 kg oil=2950...

plus, about ammo loads for yak-9, i forgot here these words about yak-7DI=prototype of yak-9, 9d - В заключении НИИ ВВС был также указан боезапас серийных самолетов: для пушки - 140 снарядов, для пулемета - 240 патронов. Бомбардировочное вооружение не предусматривалось.

[Dami55an]

I too would like a flyable official release of the me410
http://www.gqth.info/0.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.ymeu.info/test5.jpg

[Fighterace]

I too would like a flyable official release of the me410
http://www.gqth.info/0.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.ymeu.info/test5.jpg

With the A,B & D versions please

[Gloomy_Aristocrat]

This is a rare situation, but must be taken into consideration for realism. Especially while it really happened at war.
After bailing out above Berlin, I watched how pilot is going right towards the roof of one of houses below. When his legs touched the roof, he begun to jump repeatedly together with parachute and move sidewards. Reaching the edge, he continued to descend until he was killed by finally meeting the ground.
The descending speed was normal, as I had enough altitude while engine caught fire, so I am sure there is an unresolved bug.

I offer three possible options:
1) adjust interaction of pilot and stationary objects;
2) allow player to control direction of descending (by bending parachute sidewards)
3) do those things both, as best option.

[Fighterace]

On the All Aircraft Simulation forums I saw a post that Monguse had submitted some updated US weapons & etc for TD. Will they be admitted for 4.12?

[Woke Up Dead]

What is the instrument above the wheel-brake lever and below the flap position indicator in this screenshot of the Pe-2 cockpit: http://www.mission4today.com/guides/images/pe2_cockpit/Pe-2Front.jpg ?

If it's a dive-bombing calculator or sight, could we get it to work?

Thanks,

Woke Up Dead

[1984]

1. yak-9m with vk-105pf2 engine...

С октября 1944 г. по мере поступления на завод N153 двигателей ВК-105ПФ2 их стали устанавливать на Як-9М. До этого весь выпуск ВК-105ПФ2 направлялся для установки на Як-З. (http://www.aviation.ru/book/Stepanets/stepyak9.txt)

...

Но в конце 1944 г. на самолет начали устанавливать более мощный и менее высотный мотор ВК-105ПФ-2, что дало некоторое увеличение скорости и улучшение скороподъемности на небольшой высоте. К сожалению, летные характеристики Як-9М с ВК-105ПФ-2 автору пока обнаружить не удалось. Возможно, самолет просто не проходил испытаний на определение летных данных. (http://lib.rus.ec/b/216186/read)

2. more historically correct weapon for yak-9ut (now shfk-37 or something like this?), because -

При стрельбе Як-9УТ вел себя более устойчиво во всем диапазоне скоростей и при всех эволюциях, чем Як-9Т и Як-9К, за счет уменьшения силы отдачи пушки Н-37 по сравнению с НС-37, а также расширения диапазона скоростей. При длине очереди из Н-37 в 4-5 выстрелов прицеливание практически не сбивалось, что обеспечивало увеличение меткости огня.


3. and, maybe?:) prototype of not serial yak-9p, just need change UBS to Shvak...

Як-9П (пушечный) с двигателем М-105ПФ являлся модификацией серийного Як-9, на котором синхронный пулемет УБС с боезапасом 200 патронов был заменен на синхронную пушку ШВАК (СП-20) с боезапасом 175 снарядов.

[IceFire]

2. more historically correct weapon for yak-9ut (now shfk-37 or something like this?), because -

This was corrected in a past patch thanks to some research by myself and several others.

Correct loadouts should be the NS-23 hub firing and two synchronized B-20S 20mm cannons in the upper decking. Alternatively the NS-37mm can be fitted along with the B-20S cannons. These changes were made thanks to Russian translated documents and a lot of digging.

Previously it was incorrect with an unused Sh37ki 37mm that was never fitted to the Yak-9UT (to my knowledge) and ShVAK 20mm in the decking. Also the flight model was altered slightly to reflect the pilots notes on the nose being noticeably heavier and slightly affecting handling. I still think it flies beautifully.


and, maybe? prototype of not serial yak-9p, just need change UBS to Shvak...
Not all that different from the Yak-9UT. Aside from being all metal if memory serves, the notes I have state that the initial armament was the same as the Yak-9U (2xUBS and 1xShVAK) and was later changed to 3xB-20 (B-20M in the hub, B-20S in the decking) post war. I believe the N-37 and N-45 were also fitted but I'm not sure.

[Artist]

Hi Team Daidalos,

yesterday I (author of YaDeLi (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=18781) - support for more than 4 usb game controllers in IL-2) received a request concerning support for the radiators. Thankfully you introduced axis control for radiators in 4.10. Unfortunately this is not accessible via DeviceLink, so I cannot make them acessible via YaDeLi.

Would you be so kind?

Artist

[[URU]BlackFox]

I don't remember if it's already been mentioned, but I'd like to suggest this:


Ground and Sea AI able to do some kind of "dodging" when enemy air units are around (maybe not ground AAA units, and not necessarily intelligent evasive manouvers, but taking the same heading as a torpedo plane approaching or some kind of zigzag when a dive bomber approaches)
Ships AI should identify other ships so they don't collide
Ship groups, something like ground columns. Example: Small convoy, Medium Convoy, Large Convoy, Carrier Group, etc.


I know it's a hell of a modification to ask, but it would be awesome to have these modelled.

[ElAurens]

Currently ships have no AI at all. They simply follow mission builder given way points.

What you are asking would be a huge task, as all the different types of ships would require their own discreet AI. Not to mention the load it would place on CPUs.

[[URU]BlackFox]

I know, but maybe it can be scheduled to be analyzed for... v4.15?

[Lagarto]

Given the choice, I'd rather have more variety of surface ships than have them more artificially intelligent.

[fruitbat]

well, its an interesting request non the less.

having ships trying to evade when your dive bombing them would be fantastic, of that there is no doubt.

whether its remotely possible for TeamD to do i have no idea.....

[Bearcat]

Currently ships have no AI at all. They simply follow mission builder given way points.

What you are asking would be a huge task, as all the different types of ships would require their own discreet AI. Not to mention the load it would place on CPUs.

A possible workaround to that could be to try to time a mission so that when the strike group arrives the AI ships will begin a zig zag course.. I have seen this in coops before..

[Luno13]

And it's a pain to get it to work out properly.

[[URU]BlackFox]

I'm not trying to show off here, but I have built hundreds of missions, and have come to that workaround. However, timing it properly can be a real pain. So the ships will normally begin their evasive moves before the correct moment, and even without paying attention to the attackers direction at all.

Results with that workaround are not entirely bad, don't get me wrong. But if the feature could ever be implemented to some extent, it would awesome.

[ElAurens]

I'd rather have the effort put into some IJN heavy cruisers, and battleships that actually saw more than two combat actions.

[1984]

Alternatively the NS-37mm can be fitted along with the B-20S cannons.

of course, thx for ns-23...

but another load, it's was NOT ns-37, it's was n-37 - principal difference, and if DT really wants give to us prototype of yak-9ut with n-37 + 2 b-20, it's need to do correctly...

differences of cannons look here (http://russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_37mm.html)...

maybe, b-20m and n-45 can be as "what if" too...:)

Also the flight model was altered slightly to reflect the pilots notes on the nose being noticeably heavier and slightly affecting handling. I still think it flies beautifully.

good... did not know...

Not all that different from the Yak-9UT. Aside from being all metal if memory serves, the notes I have state that the initial armament was the same as the Yak-9U (2xUBS and 1xShVAK) and was later changed to 3xB-20 (B-20M in the hub, B-20S in the decking) post war. I believe the N-37 and N-45 were also fitted but I'm not sure.

you not understood, i talk about yak-9 with VK-105PF...:) maybe it's my fault, sorry...

all principal changes for yak-9p with VK-105PF it's second shvak instead UBS...

if it's not hard, i think, DT can give this load for yak-9 1942 for us, or how another airplane... easy "what if"...:) i all time wanted try this, but NO any mods...

plus, of course, were many similar not serial yaks, but maybe this is too...

and how this plane can be use in game or online? in serious online (wars i mean) it's CAN be use, trust me;) ("front tests", prize etc)... like i-185 now...

[Zorin]

BlackFox;464028']I'm not trying to show off here, but I have built hundreds of missions, and have come to that workaround. However, timing it properly can be a real pain. So the ships will normally begin their evasive moves before the correct moment, and even without paying attention to the attackers direction at all.

Results with that workaround are not entirely bad, don't get me wrong. But if the feature could ever be implemented to some extent, it would awesome.

How about we wait and see what triggers we will eventually get in 4.13?

[[URU]BlackFox]

I'd rather have the effort put into some IJN heavy cruisers, and battleships that actually saw more than two combat actions.

How about we wait and see what triggers we will eventually get in 4.13?

To both: I just made a suggestion. With all due respect, considering it or not falls entirely within Team Daidalos.

I'm not going to defend my points, nor going to start a discussion about it. I perfectly understand your comments about the idea, and I know that you don't mean bad, but it seems you are making it just too relevant. Please note that I didn't try at any point to make some sort of demand out of it, and I apologize if I made it sound like that (I'm from Uruguay, so you'll have to excuse my English).

I trust TD has a traced route, and will only pay attention to crazy stuff like mine if it doesn't strive too much from what's already planned.

[IceFire]

of course, thx for ns-23...

but another load, it's was NOT ns-37, it's was n-37 - principal difference, and if DT really wants give to us prototype of yak-9ut with n-37 + 2 b-20, it's need to do correctly...

differences of cannons look here (http://russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_37mm.html)...

maybe, b-20m and n-45 can be as "what if" too...:)



good... did not know...



you not understood, i talk about yak-9 with VK-105PF...:) maybe it's my fault, sorry...

all principal changes for yak-9p with VK-105PF it's second shvak instead UBS...

if it's not hard, i think, DT can give this load for yak-9 1942 for us, or how another airplane... easy "what if"...:) i all time wanted try this, but NO any mods...

plus, of course, were many similar not serial yaks, but maybe this is too...

and how this plane can be use in game or online? in serious online (wars i mean) it's CAN be use, trust me;) ("front tests", prize etc)... like i-185 now...
Ah yes... NS-37 versus N-37. I'd have to look at my notes again to be absolutely sure. I think both versions of the cannon were fitted at one time or another. I think the NS-37 was fitted at one point during the prototype stages which is why it was included (and the game codes for that cannon already exist). Please double check but I don't think the N-37 was available until 1946?

N-45 was another optional armament addition but I also think that was post war as well. I'm not sure about that. The focus in my mind was definitely on aircraft and armament types that exists during the war and saw use.

As for the Yak-9P I was thinking about the all metal version that was the immediate successor and follow on to the Yak-9U. I didn't realize you were talking about the earlier Yak-9P. Is it based on the early Yak-9U prototype with VK-105PF? Didn't some of these early Yak-9U's make the front line? That may be the type that could be done rather than the P model? I understand the interest in the unique armament configuration. What visual external differences existed to fit the second ShVAK? Any pictures? I'm curious if nothing else.

[IceFire]

BlackFox;464065']To both: I just made a suggestion. With all due respect, considering it or not falls entirely within Team Daidalos.

I'm not going to defend my points, nor going to start a discussion about it. I perfectly understand your comments about the idea, and I know that you don't mean bad, but it seems you are making it just too relevant. Please note that I didn't try at any point to make some sort of demand out of it, and I apologize if I made it sound like that (I'm from Uruguay, so you'll have to excuse my English).

I trust TD has a traced route, and will only pay attention to crazy stuff like mine if it doesn't strive too much from what's already planned.

I think it's a good suggestion BlackFox. There essentially is no AI for the ships right now beyond their guns and waypoint following. I suspect this would be a much larger undertaking... nothing exists at present so it'd have to be all new. I think it'd have to include things like avoiding other ships as right now the ships will run straight into each other if you set the waypoints.

AI and code development would be done by people with different skillsets than building ships fortunately so we could have cake and eat it too. But I think in both cases the outlay of time is significant which is why we aren't seeing a ton of new ships for example.

[Fighterace]

Any late war British fighters....

Spitfire XIV & XVI
Gloster Meteor
Spiteful
Tempest II
Typhoons
Late mark Mosquitos

[fruitbat]

Any late war British fighters....

Spitfire XIV & XVI
Gloster Meteor
Spiteful
Tempest II
Typhoons
Late mark Mosquitos

Tempest II is post war, fyi, didn't quite make it into service in WWII

[SPAD-1949]

Sirens off after Start, ecxept another wave of enemy ac is incoming when you land.
Its annoying to come home after a cleansweep and the sirens are still buzzing.

[Pursuivant]

Tempest II is post war, fyi, didn't quite make it into service in WWII

The Tempest II was in limited production in 1944, and would have been used against Japan had the war continued.

In a hypothetical IL2: Operation Downfall/Japan 1946 add-on I'd want it along with the F7F, F8F, P-47N, P-51H, Kikka, A7M Reppu, etc.

[IceFire]

The Tempest II was in limited production in 1944, and would have been used against Japan had the war continued.

In a hypothetical IL2: Operation Downfall/Japan 1946 add-on I'd want it along with the F7F, F8F, P-47N, P-51H, Kikka, A7M Reppu, etc.

Oh that would be fun wouldn't it? I remember playing the Aces of the Pacific: 1946 expansion pack back in the day. Maybe 1992? It was great to have that what-if setup.

I still want too many historical aircraft before that, but it would be cool!

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Would be possible in the next update to do the follow:

1. Model frozen carburator (right now, winter map, radiator fully open, descending from 6000 meters i manage to drop oil temperature below zero with not a single complaint from my engine)

2. Asign axis to radiator (and independent to engine as well when necessary)

3. Diferencial brakes in planes which had them (like b17)

5. More stages in the compressor for planes like b17 or p47 (or if possible the possibility to link them to an axis)

6. Mixture slightly more complex ( I am not asking for full realism, I know it will be impossible to model every plane accurately, but flying russian planes over 4000 metres it does not matter if you choose 80%, 60%, 40%, no difference whatsoever)

7. If a plane got hit and black smoke are coming out from the engine will be possible to accelerate the temperature increase and engine damage in the p39 and possible the spitfire? or is it realistic the go and go and go...

8. Hidraulic presure damage modeled? (gear drop when hit at certain spot)

9. Bullets ricochet from impact.

That's all for now. Thanks for reading!

[Zorin]

Will TD introduce fuel limitations due to loadout selection? The Ar234 for example could only load 2,6t of fuel instead of 3,1t when it carried 3xSC500. This carries over to pretty much every plane in game and would certainly add to realism.

[1984]

I think both versions of the cannon were fitted at one time or another. I think the NS-37 was fitted at one point during the prototype stages which is why it was included (and the game codes for that cannon already exist).

in fact tested only n-37 + 2xb20 (prototype of yak-9ut) and ns-23 + 2xb20 (in serie), "bible for yak-fans" (i mean, А.Т.Степанец, it's our reality without any big modern reseaches in archives) talking us about only n-37...

other sources and info from old game, mainly, repeat or very, very questionable... or just wrong...

plus, just logic - new weapon (ns-23 and b-20)... and old , heavy ns-37? what for?


Please double check but I don't think the N-37 was available until 1946?

of course, start of serial production in 47, but here question about correctness for prototype of yak-9ut in game...

or n-37, or nothing (n-37 was "ready" and tested in 44-45, so, why not?)...

plus, we must remember what WW2 end in september 1945 (Japan crushed by great USSR-blitzkrieg etc), so, all questions about perfomances, weapons etc must be looked from this position too...


well, some info about n-37 (more, in something like "Пушки для боевых самолетов, Автор: А.Э. Нудельман") - В апреле 1944 г. был изготовлен первый экземпляр пушки Н-37, а в августе 1944 г. были завершены наземные государственные испытания патрона и пушки. Первые летные испытания проводились на Як-9Т и Як-9УТ в марте 1945 г. Пушка была установлена в моторе. В дальнейшем летные испытания проводились на МиГ-9. (http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/n-37.html)


some info about first aut'45-tests of yak-9 with vk-107a (it's yak-9u, "эталон 1945г.") with 2xb-20 + b-20 (b-20 can be changed to ns-23, n-37)...

and - 23 марта 1947 г. в НИИ ВВС на контрольные испытания поступил в третий раз самолет Як-9П N01-04, на котором были произведены следующие изменения: ... вместо мотор-пушки ШВАК с боезапасом 120 снарядов предусмотрена возможность установки одной из четырех мотор-пушек: Б-20М, НС-23, Н-37, Н-45 с боезапасом соответственно 115, 75, 28 и 25 снарядов (пушки Н-37 и Н-45 в то время были еще опытными).

and other words about n-37 in yak-9p tests after end of war...

N-45 was another optional armament addition but I also think that was post war as well. I'm not sure about that.

b-20 and n-45 only "what if", of course... and, maybe, mainly for yak-9p vk-107a...


The focus in my mind was definitely on aircraft and armament types that exists during the war and saw use.

agree, but sometimes, "easy" (i mean, historically correct + easy to do for game, by ingame tools too) things may be include, why not?


I didn't realize you were talking about the earlier Yak-9P. Is it based on the early Yak-9U prototype with VK-105PF? Didn't some of these early Yak-9U's make the front line? That may be the type that could be done rather than the P model?

first yak-9p was yak-9 (yak-9 1942 in game) with vk-105pf and second shvak instead UBS (1 shvak with 120-140 rounds + second shvak with 165 rounds), he was tested in spring of 43 and was recommended for production...

and...

about name yak-9p for yak-9p with vk-105pf - Як-9П (пушечный) с двигателем М-105ПФ...

about name yak-9p for yak-9p with vk-107a - Як-9П ВК-107А... Буква "П" в обозначении самолета не несет смысловой нагрузки, а является заводским обозначением очередной модификации, подобно Як-9Л (Як-9Б), Як-9К) (Як-9ДД), что часто практиковалось на заводе N153. В ряде случаев присвоение наименований производилась постановлением ГКО.

I understand the interest in the unique armament configuration. What visual external differences existed to fit the second ShVAK? Any pictures? I'm curious if nothing else.

how say to us all sources - little external differences (some differences of gun port for shvak, and maybe without armor glass because it was prototype or because no armor glasses at the moment), similar perfomance (only little unstability on low speed when firing and +10-15 kg of weight to mass)...

well, you can read all this self anytime (1 photo here) - here (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/yak9p.html) or here (http://www.aviation.ru/book/Stepanets/stepyak9.txt)...

[Bearcat]

While I like the new AI I still have a huge beef with them.. I am so sick and tired of being in a 4 on 4 QM and having all the enemy attacking me at once and every time I tell the AI to attack they say "Roger I got you covered.." and they just fly around.. There is no reason why I should have 3-4 AI on me when I am in a flight of 4 set to Ace.. It drives me nuts.. that is one thing that really needs to be fixed.. Yes the AI is more challenging but the friendly AI needs to be brought up to speed.. either they are trying to go aftr your target.. or they are flying wing for the guy shooting you down.. now in a 1 vs two.. when you are on them.. they are great.. very challenging.. almost like a live opponent.. but those friendlies... ARRGGHHH!!!!!! Put the lot of them before a firing squad.. Every now and then when the conditions are right.. and I have no idea what they are .. they will actually cover me.. but it is very inconsistent..

[Lagarto]

8. Hidraulic presure damage modeled? (gear drop when hit at certain spot)



+1!

[Orangeman]

Creator of Ki-44 cooperate with DT on this model. But it´s not planned for 4.12.
(Only external model)

Does that mean it will be AI only when introduced? What about for 4.13?

[RegRag1977]

Would be good to have an alternative to the Bf109G2, why not give us a G4? It would give something less dominant between 42 and 43...

[spiteful21k]

What I have never quite understood is why there is no AAA defence on the freighters. Maybe a standard 20mm on the bow and stern as this was a fairly standard calibre for all beligerents.

[Fighterace]

Does the B-29 3Dmodel need any rework? THe grey disc of the prop spinning looks over-done?

[~BeoWolf~]

Just saw the latest update, love you can pick skins for static aircraft. Lots of good stuff for FMB............. BUT.......... and it's big BUT, I'd still like to see a gui button for formation style. Don't see why it would be hard to do, you can pick the formation you are leading in game with Tab/comms. I'd like to be able to set all of the flights I make into the correct formation type for the mission. Instead of SBD's forming in Finger four to the left for all flights I'd like to make them form up in eschelon left and right, attack planes usually flew in eschelond. I'd like to make Vic flights for BoB missions, etc....etc...etc....

a gui switch in FMB to do this would be a very powerful mission building tool

Been asking and hoping now for years that this would finally get done before IL-2 is given up on and no longer modded.

So if you guys can swing it I'm sure it would be a very appreciated option for mission builders.

Thanks

Hoss

[Fighterace]

Some Ju-88 Heavy fighters, Ground attack &/or Night fighters

[Wolkenbeisser]

Request: A selectable "blank" in the fields "Staffel" and "Nummer" in the loadout-screen of dogfight missions.
Why: Because I want to be able to find the carrier with my own skin.

What I mean?
On a dogfight map, where your homebase has a country (any country except "none") you are forced to select a "Staffel number" and a plane "number". But if you want to fly with a skin, that already has a number on it, your plane shows two numbers in game (= ugly). Well, as a mission-builder you can tell me "just select 'none' in the coutry-field, when you set the homebase on the map". But that's no option. If you want to receive the signal from the directional beacon of an US-carrier, you have to fly as an US-country (USAAF, USN, USMC). Just a red homebase with country "none" does not work.

[Wolkenbeisser]

Engine startup of P-51B and C (and RAF-Mustang) shows smoke only on one side of the enginge. Would be nice to see this corrected.

[stugumby]

Just curious but shouldnt the fokker dxx series planes have some type of adjustable prop pitch and radiator control/cowl flap etc? Seems wierd a 3 bladed metal prop and no pitch adjustments, maybe its coded like the sm-79 a 2 speed?

[Luno13]

They did a lot of research on the plane, so I would be surprised if they missed something like that. One sign that a prop can change pitch is the presence of counter-weights at the hub.

Here is a Dutch Fokker with variable pitch prop:

http://www.zap16.com/zapp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/fokker-d-xxi.jpg

Here is a Danish one with fixed-pitch prop:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aircraft-pictures/191143d1327829392-danish-air-force-danish-army-air-corps-royal-danish-naval-aviation-fokker-d-xxi-006.jpg

And Finnish:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Fokker_D.XXI_%28FR-110%29.jpg

I think that someone at DT copied an existing D.XXI in a museum, as the cockpit model in the game matches it perfectly. That version probably had a variable pitch prop. So maybe, the Finnish cockpit represents the wrong one, but the Finns could have kept the extra levers....I don't know who is right, but the functionality of the Finnish D.XXIs is correct.

[Sapper]

Cargo loadout for the Ju52 please.

[Nil]

Hi dear Daidalos Team
Before all, I want to thank you for your wonderful work you are doing with this already wonderful game.
It is a pleasure to see that there is a team dedicated to make this simulation even better.
Each time I watch your videos on Youtube, I am so amazed by your work!

I have 2 requests:
*Be able to close the canopy gunner on bomber (D3A, B5N, SBD and the G4M). It is very agreable to be able to close the canopy during the flight. The aircrafts look much more realistic.

*And do a cockpit for the outstanding PO2/U2. It is a great ground attack plane! I am teaching how to pilot to friends (including my nephews) and a plane like this one is an excellent trainer. Between 30000 and 40000 were built!

That would be so nice!!
Thanks you very much!

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

TD - a request which I'm certain is already on your agenda?

You've made the B5N flyable, you cannot leave the TBD all alone in the realm of AI? Balance must be restored to the universe, the Devastator needs to live, to sing, to dance with that Mk13 torpedo hanging so deftly from its bowel. With the Kate and the Devastator as flyables, this sim will finally shun it's Grumman induced bruises and rise as the Pacific gem we all dreamed it could one day be.

Excuse me for being so verbose, I'm moved by that video of a flyable Kate.

TD, love your work, really do.


#Cough# and the observer's seat on the Beaufighter #cough#

[Luno13]

From it's...bowel? Do you mean belly? :)

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

Yes, you're right. Perhaps if we were to use anatomically correct analogies, the torp would hang from the "belly" of the Devastator but would reside within the "bowel" of an Avenger?

[SPITACE]

the 4.12 update is looking good! will we see the new 109`s and p47`s cockpits in 4.12 or 4.13 :-P

[Pursuivant]

Yes, you're right. Perhaps if we were to use anatomically correct analogies, the torp would hang from the "belly" of the Devastator but would reside within the "bowel" of an Avenger?

Well, the Devastator carried its torpedo partially internally, since it was sunken into a well on the plane's belly.

Perhaps it's sort of hanging part of the way out of its bowels, like something hanging from a dog's hind end before it scoots across the rug. :shock:

[Pursuivant]

#Cough# and the observer's seat on the Beaufighter #cough#

Better than that, why not the Coastal Command version where the observer had a machine gun. Why model a crew station where you can't do anything?

But, I'm going to cut TD a lot of slack. They've done wonderful work to make a number of long-standing AI planes flyable and we keep pestering them for more, more, More!

I'm guessing that they plan to eventually create crew stations for most of the planes in the game, and will also improve some of the older/uglier 3d models and cockpits. Give them time to work their magic.

Remember, though, that creating each crew station takes a lot of work and the necessary pictures and data aren't available for every crew station for every plane. For that reason, I can't imagine that planes like the Me-323 will ever be flyable.

[Blaf]

Hi dear Daidalos Team
Before all, I want to thank you for your wonderful work you are doing with this already wonderful game.
It is a pleasure to see that there is a team dedicated to make this simulation even better.
Each time I watch your videos on Youtube, I am so amazed by your work!

I have 2 requests:
*Be able to close the canopy gunner on bomber (D3A, B5N, SBD and the G4M). It is very agreable to be able to close the canopy during the flight. The aircrafts look much more realistic.

*And do a cockpit for the outstanding PO2/U2. It is a great ground attack plane! I am teaching how to pilot to friends (including my nephews) and a plane like this one is an excellent trainer. Between 30000 and 40000 were built!

That would be so nice!!
Thanks you very much!
+1 for Kukuruznik

[greybeard1]

Would be possible to fix in some way number three and four of same flight foolishly following player when he's #2 of a formation of four during landing (or, in general, when #1 has been shot down)? This causes almost always a landing accident to them, often involving player, since AI tries to stay close in formation during player's landing. Player has no way to issue orders to AI since they're grayed-out in related menu. Curiously, this AI fixation for close vicinity doesn't happen when player's #4.

S!
GB

[FC99]

Would be possible to fix in some way number three and four of same flight foolishly following player when he's #2 of a formation of four during landing (or, in general, when #1 has been shot down)? This causes almost always a landing accident to them, often involving player, since AI tries to stay close in formation during player's landing. Player has no way to issue orders to AI since they're grayed-out in related menu. Curiously, this AI fixation for close vicinity doesn't happen when player's #4.

S!
GB
Fixed for 4.12, in general, player will have more communication options in 4.12

[Alan Grey]

Fixed for 4.12, in general, player will have more communication options in 4.12

1+ 1+ 1+ :razz:

[fabianfred]

I've been away for a couple of years...did the proposed 'triggers' for the FMB ever get implemented?

[1984]

Would be good to have an alternative to the Bf109G2, why not give us a G4? It would give something less dominant between 42 and 43...

+1, yak-7b without gargrot and bf109g-4 it's what really need for historical correct soviet-german front'43...

and, maybe, it's time for correct 1.3/1.42 ata perfomance...

[Lagarto]

I have one, simple wish for 4.12 - remove the lettering "MISSION COMPLETE" flashing right in the middle of the screen. Please.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

Sorry for bother again, but there is one from the list of sugestions I would like a word from Daidalos and it is about engine temperatures. Is there any plans of get even more realistic this IL2 aspect? I mean, as I explained in a previous post, in the current situation the lower temperatures of the engine (i.e. long descent with cowling flaps open in a winter map) has no impact on the engine. I am not asking for a "plane by plane" acurate behaviour, a more "one fits all" will make me a happy man.

[T}{OR]

Here are two of mine:

Tighter AI formations for heavy bombers (i.e. B-17s and B-24s)
Elimination of the irritating wing over or flip over effect every time a plane flies over a WP.

[Mysticpuma]

Just in case it's already possible in QMB but I missed it.....is it possible or could we have the player not always lead the flight and maybe be No.2 (wingman) or 3 or 4 in the flight?

Currently I am always the leader unless I go into FMB? So it would be great from the drop-down menu to have a switch in Aircraft Customisation (where you choose the skins) to have a switch that lets you choose which is the Players plane?

Cheers, MP

[martinistripes]

@TD Any chance you can release 4.12 complete as a one stop download. I know community members have bundled them together previously but it would be great to have the whole lot compiled officially.

Obviously, I realise an incremental patch is still needed for modders that want to switch back and forth between various versions.

I posted this in Update Discussion and Feedback, but it probably belongs here.

[Spudkopf]

Just in case it's already possible in QMB but I missed it.....is it possible or could we have the player not always lead the flight and maybe be No.2 (wingman) or 3 or 4 in the flight?

Currently I am always the leader unless I go into FMB? So it would be great from the drop-down menu to have a switch in Aircraft Customisation (where you choose the skins) to have a switch that lets you choose which is the Players plane?

Cheers, MP

+1

[SPAD-1949]

+1
+1

[DD_crash]

Any chance of more than 4 controllers?

[1984]

What visual external differences existed to fit the second ShVAK? Any pictures? I'm curious if nothing else.

oh, sorry, i use only main sources (some books and tables) and only now again read one "fresh" monograph about 9 - more pictures of yak-9p vk-105pf here...

well, really, difference is gunport and little another geometry of nose part without blister for UBS...

it's too much for ignore of changes or no, don't know now, anyway, it's choice of DT...


and little more about production of early yak-9 (yak-9 1942 in game) - До конца 1942 года Новосибирский завод N 153 выпустил лишь 59 новых «Яков», большая часть из них и попала на фронт под Сталинградом.

in 42 only 59 from 459...

so, maybe, really need for lot of 9's with perfomance'42 (2870 kg - 515-520 km/h at SL - 17.5-18.5 sec - 5.1 min/5000), perfomance'43 (2870 - 530-540 - 17 - 4.9/5000)...

something like this, ONLY if early yak-9s in 43 have 2 fuel tanks in wing and not be yak-9d in fact with more fuel tanks (so, i can be wrong, when some days ago write about yak-9 1943... too much details here)...

anyway, early yak-9 with better perfomance can be etalon or plane with very good quality (i think so)...

[Tolwyn]

I realize that the decision may have been to cater to the online DF crowd, but as it stands now, the navlights/landing lights are nowhere near as bright as they should be.

To be honest, they are pretty useless.

Can we find a 4.09m - 4.11.1 happy medium? Or create an option?

I'm not asking for Christmas trees in the sky, but they are so nerfed right now, you can't see/communicate at all via your lights at all. Just can't see them.

[Tolwyn]

Please see this post:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=386142&postcount=265

[302_Corsair]

Hello all.

Could you make undercarriage legs more accurate in Tomahawks?

http://www10.speedyshare.com/file/2fkha/download/RealVsInGame.jpg

These in game are to long or the dampers are to hard.

[bf-110]

TD - a request which I'm certain is already on your agenda?

You've made the B5N flyable, you cannot leave the TBD all alone in the realm of AI? Balance must be restored to the universe, the Devastator needs to live, to sing, to dance with that Mk13 torpedo hanging so deftly from its bowel. With the Kate and the Devastator as flyables, this sim will finally shun it's Grumman induced bruises and rise as the Pacific gem we all dreamed it could one day be.

Excuse me for being so verbose, I'm moved by that video of a flyable Kate.

TD, love your work, really do.


#Cough# and the observer's seat on the Beaufighter #cough#

Was a great surprise for me too.
Maybe addition of SB2C?

Would be great if we could fly a flying boat from IL2....

[Fighterace]

TD - a request which I'm certain is already on your agenda?

You've made the B5N flyable, you cannot leave the TBD all alone in the realm of AI? Balance must be restored to the universe, the Devastator needs to live, to sing, to dance with that Mk13 torpedo hanging so deftly from its bowel. With the Kate and the Devastator as flyables, this sim will finally shun it's Grumman induced bruises and rise as the Pacific gem we all dreamed it could one day be.

Excuse me for being so verbose, I'm moved by that video of a flyable Kate.

TD, love your work, really do.


#Cough# and the observer's seat on the Beaufighter #cough#

I daydream of the day that TD is finally released from the shackles of NG and finally allow IL-2 1946 to live up to its best potential as "The Best" combat flight sim ever.

Hmm flyable TBF and etc

[zakkandrachoff]

please, put this map in the incomming 4.12 patch :
http://i56.tinypic.com/110dw2h.jpg

[Mysticpuma]

Is that the Alps?

Also is there any way of contacting the third party that is sprucing up the P-47 and seeing how close we are? I'd love to see that baby treated right ;)

[shelby]

ki-61 tei or ki-61-II

[ElAurens]

What map is that?

[IceFire]

please, put this map in the incomming 4.12 patch :
http://i56.tinypic.com/110dw2h.jpg

What is "this map"? Kind of hard to tell there.

[IceFire]

ki-61 tei or ki-61-II

I'd love to see a Ki-61 Tei variant. Most numerically produced and fairly important to have. Ki-61-II KAI would be interesting but insignificant historically. I'd still love to see it.

[ohasha]

A new battle of britain map featuring england, english channel and western france and add a spitfire mk1 and a BF-109E3

:-P

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

One note regarding the request for a 'One-stop-patch' or 'Mega-Patch' from 4.07 to most actual one: We are not able to provide this in an easy way, due to the large file size, that it would have. Pls understand, we would have to share it (plus the small ones!) with all the offerers (mirrors), prior to each release - and thats not very handy, if not impossible.

There are people who compile such patches after us releasing the single ones and that is just great (thanks!) and proved to be enough, as they can be found easily in the web.

EDIT: Thanks for all the inspirations here! We do read it, but cannot answer each. Sorry!

[Fighterace]

Is that the Alps?

Also is there any way of contacting the third party that is sprucing up the P-47 and seeing how close we are? I'd love to see that baby treated right ;)

+1

[ohasha]

+1

[ElAurens]

I'd love to see a Ki-61 Tei variant. Most numerically produced and fairly important to have. Ki-61-II KAI would be interesting but insignificant historically. I'd still love to see it.

+ a lot.

[DD_crash]

I think that a Horsa glider would be useful both for a fun mission and for mission builders SEOW etc

[hafu1939]

Horsa is a great idea! And how nice would it be, if we had DFS-230 gliders. And more, if Ju-52 or Ju-87 could tow it. One really small improvement in comparison with all the work on 4.12: 900 l drop tanks for Bf 100 and Do 217?

[Mysticpuma]

Thinking along the lines of tow-able gliders, it would be cool to have a tow-able glider that had to be shot for target practise, while being towed?

If there was some way to have a scoring system set up so that it couldn't be destroyed, but the amount of hits on target could be given...that would be cool?

Almost like some way of counting the hits in Arcade Mode and reporting them as hits at the end of your gunnery mission?

Cheers, MP

[Mysticpuma]

It would look nice from a new P-47 cockpit ;)

[Bolelas]

Sometimes i like to fly with the option "NO HUD LOG" turned on (turn it on conf.ini). I think that this option will now be part of of the difficult option inside the game, on version 4.12. To control the bombsight with this option on its almost impossible! Is there any way of solving this problem, without having to reprogram the bombsights? Maby alowing HUD only for the bombsight?

Not that this is very important, just asking...

Thank you team Daidalos.

[RegRag1977]

Hi Team Daidalos,

there are some old things that could need some good fixing from you guys:

Yak3 main undercarriage wheels still show through the wing roots, sad for the 3 is really one nice AC :(

Bf109 Revi glass parts turn to opaque metal color with weird and not nice texture when the gunsight is hit.

And requests :-) :

along with better (higher) positionned gunsight for P51B and correct wings, it could be nice to have a mirror inside cockpit.

Chassis sounds when landing and taking off could add some life to these two important moments!

[Pursuivant]

Horsa is a great idea! And how nice would it be, if we had DFS-230 gliders. And more, if Ju-52 or Ju-87 could tow it. One really small improvement in comparison with all the work on 4.12: 900 l drop tanks for Bf 100 and Do 217?

I'd go for the Waco CG-4 Hadrian, it was used in more operations than the Horsa.

The DFS-230 was under development by 1c back in the day, but nothing ever came of it. It would be very nice indeed to have a smaller, early war Luftwaffe glider.

Even cooler would be if some of the gliders in the game were flyable.

[Juri_JS]

Would it be possible to increase the pop-up distance of ground objects?
I always found the sudden pop-up of objects annoying.

[RegRag1977]

Another thing that could be corrected easily is the location of oil smoke for La7: it appears exactly there where the La5 radiator would be. Problem is that La5 and La7 cannot share common location for the smoke effect since the La7 had its radiator located far behind under the fuselage and not directly under the Ash82 engine as is now.

[shelby]

Yokosuka D4Y

[|450|Leady]

Hi Team Daidalos

Would it be possible to look into the gunsight possition on the P47-D10 and P47-D22? It is quite apparent that this is set much too low. The sight glass is mostly filled with engine cowling and the virtual pilot drops his head possition down as he moves his head forward to look through the gunsight. There is no way to use full sight deflection!

No pilot would go into combat with his sight setup like it is in the razor back P47's. If I was a CO and my P47s were delivered in this condition I would order the crew chiefs to make new sight brackets before I cleared these aircraft to fly!

The sight needs to be moved up so at minimum the bottom of the sight glass clears the top of the engine cowl. Obviously the location of the pilot's head possition will need to change too when he looks through the sight.

While we are at it the early razor back P51's could use the same sort of loving.

Cheers and thanks in advance.

Leady

[|450|Leady]

All the evidence here.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/411576-Cocpits-P-47-Razorbacks-and-P-51B-C-Mustang-Mk-III-Forums

Cheers

Leady

[RegRag1977]

Hi Team Daidalos

Would it be possible to look into the gunsight possition on the P47-D10 and P47-D22? It is quite apparent that this is set much too low. The sight glass is mostly filled with engine cowling and the virtual pilot drops his head possition down as he moves his head forward to look through the gunsight. There is no way to use full sight deflection!

No pilot would go into combat with his sight setup like it is in the razor back P47's. If I was a CO and my P47s were delivered in this condition I would order the crew chiefs to make new sight brackets before I cleared these aircraft to fly!

The sight needs to be moved up so at minimum the bottom of the sight glass clears the top of the engine cowl. Obviously the location of the pilot's head possition will need to change too when he looks through the sight.

While we are at it the early razor back P51's could use the same sort of loving.

Cheers and thanks in advance.

Leady


+1

Amen to that request!

So sad that we seem to be very rare, we that like these two legendary birds :(
BTW a new P47 cockpit will be built by TD, hopefully there will be a new one for the razorbacks too.

[IceFire]

All the evidence here.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/411576-Cocpits-P-47-Razorbacks-and-P-51B-C-Mustang-Mk-III-Forums

Cheers

Leady

Didn't realize the P-51B/C were so wrongly modelled. So add the gunsight to the wings and we'll get that bird sorted out!

[Fighterace]

Since we are discussing new cockpits for the P-47's.....Is it possible to add the M or N variants for 4.13 or is that crossing into "Northrop Grumman territory?"

[gaunt1]

+1 for P-47N. But "M" isnt too important I think. A "C" would be much better.

[jermin]

Hi Team Daidalos

Would it be possible to look into the gunsight possition on the P47-D10 and P47-D22? It is quite apparent that this is set much too low. The sight glass is mostly filled with engine cowling and the virtual pilot drops his head possition down as he moves his head forward to look through the gunsight. There is no way to use full sight deflection!

No pilot would go into combat with his sight setup like it is in the razor back P47's. If I was a CO and my P47s were delivered in this condition I would order the crew chiefs to make new sight brackets before I cleared these aircraft to fly!

The sight needs to be moved up so at minimum the bottom of the sight glass clears the top of the engine cowl. Obviously the location of the pilot's head possition will need to change too when he looks through the sight.

While we are at it the early razor back P51's could use the same sort of loving.

Cheers and thanks in advance.

Leady

The gunsight reticle of all airplanes in the game was slightly lowered after the 6 DOF was impletemented in 4.11. Just as you said, no real pilot would enter combat with that kind of setup.

Sent from my Milestone using Tapatalk 2

[IceFire]

Since we are discussing new cockpits for the P-47's.....Is it possible to add the M or N variants for 4.13 or is that crossing into "Northrop Grumman territory?"

Bingo... but years ago we did manage to get Oleg to give us the P-47D high boost model which is closer to the P-47M in performance.

[Luno13]

All the evidence here.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/411576-Cocpits-P-47-Razorbacks-and-P-51B-C-Mustang-Mk-III-Forums

Cheers

Leady

I just want to mention that in the P-51 B/C the cockpit coaming extends horizontally, but in the P-51D the coaming is sloped and is taller nearer to the pilot.

Therefore, relative to the pilot The gun-sight is at the same height in both planes. In both planes in Il-2, the gunsight view needs to be raised.

So, to reiterate: Raise the gunsight and the pilot camera view in the P-51B/C. Raise the whole cockpit model including gunsight, and pilot camera view in the P-51D (or raise the edge of the coaming if cockpit is already correct).

The gunsight reticle of all airplanes in the game was slightly lowered after the 6 DOF was impletemented in 4.11.

I don't recall this being the case.

Additional notes
Daidalos Team has fixed over one hundred cockpits in 4.11. The most glaring holes have been fixed, some smaller ones are still there. We believe those are harmless and should not give unfair situational advantage or spoil your visual enjoyment. Nevertheless, we would like to ask the IL-2 community to provide us with feedback regarding the 6DoF and report any 6DoF related bugs in cockpits that you consider important. We will fix them in 4.12.
Only TIR is full 6DoF. All other controllers can't be used to control the Roll of the camera and are therefore just 5DoF. We feel that camera Roll is just an eye candy and it's introduction for all controllers would only cause unnecessary complications without increasing your situational awareness.
If you find that you are unable to move the head, you are most likely in gunsight view
([SHIFT][F1]). This is intended behavior.

[1984]

Another thing that could be corrected easily is the location of oil smoke for La7: it appears exactly there where the La5 radiator would be. Problem is that La5 and La7 cannot share common location for the smoke effect since the La7 had its radiator located far behind under the fuselage and not directly under the Ash82 engine as is now.

oh, +1...


and i think, need to correct damage model, especially for laggs and yaks...

i mean, we have no damage of oil cooler for yaks (in general and if i'm not wrong, we have only damage of prop pitch (or cylinders?), and fuel leak for yaks)... for laggs we have strange damage of oil cooler (very rarely, if i not forgot), and, maybe no damage of prop pitch... plus, strange damage of fuel tanks only from cannons fire (if not wrong)...

maybe, something more? (only without water coolers, it's problem for all aircrafts)...

[1984]

i hope to see... and yak-4

if i not wrong, yak-2 and 4 fly in war not so much, and were not mass aircrafts... had many not solved problems etc...


if we start talk about...

better include in game some very important "early" aircrafts like su-2 (used not so mass like il-2, but long time and sometimes very well in many roles - and this is why he must be in wishlist for 4.1x), early series of pe-2 and pe-3 (lot of rockets and bombs), not so mass ar-2 etc...

plus, of course, u-2/po-2 - LOT of planes and LOT of combat sorties in war (in battle of berlin too:))... here we can hope, just need to pray Sita & co...

next, late aircrafts like tu-2 and some a-20 and b-25 (sometimes very important aircrafts for USSR, i think, especially for naval aviation and long-radius aviation, and just good planes with lot of guns and bombs), other series of il-2...

and after this, yak-2,4... r-10... SB-2 with m-105... li-2, who was used how bomber... er-2... ut-1b... little serie of pe-2 with m-82f and, maybe, vk-107 (maybe i'm wrong here, just read interview)... etc, what i can forgot...

[Pursuivant]

Since we are discussing new cockpits for the P-47's.....Is it possible to add the M or N variants for 4.13 or is that crossing into "Northrop Grumman territory?"

Just for the record, Republic Aircraft was never part of the N-G portfolio. It got bought out by Fairchild, which then merged with Dornier and then went bankrupt. It then got bought by a investment company which sold off the pieces to an Israeli company.

So, it's probably safe for TD to proceed with reworking the P-47 cockpits.

[FC99]

The gunsight reticle of all airplanes in the game was slightly lowered after the 6 DOF was impletemented in 4.11.
Or maybe not. Bf109F4, composite picture, 4.05 over 4.11 , gunsight at exactly the same place as it was.

http://imageshack.us/a/img831/8960/411over405.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/831/411over405.jpg/)

I'll leave it to you to check other flyable planes in the game 'cause the first one I tried disproved your claim, not that I'm surprised . :)

[secretone]

Here is another possible area for fun/improvement: facelift for the aircraft carriers. Make them more realistic looking by including deck carts, personnel in appropriate uniforms, operating catapult and elevators. How about different paint schemes like dazzle? Real-life carriers were crowded places, unlike the way they seem to be in game. You could force returning planes to circle while other operations are taking place on the flight deck. We might also consider a more realistic damage model that includes holes in the wooden American decks, flames and explosions. Aircraft carriers were particularly vulnerable when fueled and armed aircraft were concentrated on the flight deck prior to launching a strike. How about a landing officer who waves planes off when approaches are not safe - he could be audio only if the animation of a human figure is not practical. How about a ship that turns into the wind for flight operations and escorts that actually follow it? How about more aircraft on deck than presently possible? How about an online aircraft carrier that models realistic procedures and stresses teamwork? You could model a battle like Midway online with the opposing ships searching for each other and launching strikes. How about orders that come through speakers like "pilots, man your planes"? How about a scramble mission for the carriers on QMB with the goal of stopping suicide planes or perhaps torpedo attacks.

I have had a lot of fun playing with the flattops and ships in general over the years! The guns and flak in particular are just great fun.

I seem to be just full of ideas tonight and I am actually sober, believe it or not! Sorry. Of course I realize that this would represent an awesome amount of work for someone who has far more computer knowledge than I do... In fact, I am now realizing that you could actually create/develop a whole new version of IL2 just focusing on carrier warfare alone if you had a team/budget/interest to do it. And since this is my fantasy, I could hire a star legal team to sue NG for interfering with my freedom of expression and tie them up in court for years and create bad PR for them to boot. Have I accidentally wandered way off topic? Perhaps, but I share these ideas here because, after all, this is a suggestions thread for individuals who have a passion for the game and its potential.

[Dan555a]

I too would like a flyable official release of the me410
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg
http://www.rdox.info/0.jpg

[Fighterace]

I too would like a flyable official release of the me410
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/9.jpg
http://www.rdox.info/0.jpg

Yes please !!!

[Buren]

Dear Team Daidalos!

First of all thank you for your hard and excellent work on IL-2! The ole' girl keeps on kickin' thanks to you.

But I too, would like to make an ubiquitous wishlist.


- First of all, improvements on the Ki-61.

The errors of the modeled plane are all already wonderfully collected and organized here by a more knowledgable fellow (I think s/he was active here as Billfish? Don't quote me on that, though): http://78sentai.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=401

While at the Ki-61, it would be nice to have the TEI (KAIc) variant of the aircraft.

This site (http://lemairesoft.sytes.net:1945/weben/avion/avion2/-391.html#100078) has detailed production data, and it clearly shows that it was a significant (if not the most significant) variant of the aircraft.

This (http://markkaiser.com/japaneseaviation/hien.html) site has some detailed drawings of the variant. As I understand the fuselage was lengthened and had some other minor differences from the previous variants, but the relatively little work needed to (re)model the aircraft would make it possible to have a mostly needed (and missed) subject available in the sim.


- Improvements on the dynamic campaigns.

While the stock DC's are somewhat adequate, I think they're now not equal and don't reflect the quality work of TD.

The Ostfront add-on campaigns come to mind as the finest examples of what could (or can) be achieved by the DC engine. Historical, varied and had nice briefings.

Also new campaigns could be better, if tailored to specific squadrons. These are all layman wishes as I am not knowledgable of the inner workings (and behind the scenes aspect) of the subject.

Furthemore, it would be excellent to have the new aircraft and maps (especially the Solomons) included in officially released dynamic campaigns .

As I understand, renewed work by a community member has been started on the DC engine, and some third party campaigns are already available, but I (and probably many more) still solely fly stock and offline, so it would be a most worthy addition if successful official contact could be made with these third parties and the work incorporated in future releases of TD.


- Flyable flying boats

While these are not as critical for inclusion as some other subjects already requested and worked on, this wish is solely a product of my fascination for these remarkable type of aircraft and I do hope someone with a more keen expertise in computing and 3D arts shares this esteem with me.

As for the specific type, I really don't have a preference, I could do with any of them as the inclination of the team permits it. (But to be specific, the Catalina, Emily, Sunderland or the Do 24 comes to mind)

On a more objective note, these aircraft could make an already finely diverse game more varied, thanks to their type specific nuances, attributes and mission types, like recon, sub hunting, search and rescue etc. I understand that these need to be modeled and worked on for a finely tuned experience and maybe not many others share this strong interest in them, but maybe I could put a bug in the team's ear.


- Flyable Me-210/410, SB2C (+D4Y and B6N)

I see that this is really a lot to ask, but I too, like many others on this board, feel the absence of these aircraft (especially the first two) on the flyables list. If time and possibilites permit it, please consider them modeled and included.

I added the japanese aircraft as nice to have, but not critcal. I think there are some wonderful publications and sources to help model them, albeit unfortunately, the majority of them are only available in japanese.

I am still awed and happy, however, to see the B5N (and Ki-45) flyable in 4.12., so I am going to have my japanese fix for a long time.


- Philippines map

The Philippines would make it possible to simulate the important battles of Leyte Gulf. I understand that more assets are needed to make this fully possible (with some untouchables...), and warships are among the hardest and the most time consuming subjects to model in 3D, but I do hope that in the future, the Pacific War could be rounded more and more in addition to the most fine additions already available (or soon to be available). Secondly, as far as I know, japanese materiel are not limited by unfortunate agreements, so it seems possible to fully have, for example, Kurita's force to attack (or to die by...) on the american side.


- All models available in the model viewer

This is not really critical, but maybe it could be done relatively quickly and it would be nice to have. Sometimes I find myself in that corner of the game and sadly noticed that apparently not everything is viewable, but I really like to admire the eyecandy done by others. I think no accompanying text is needed, as it would be time consuming to write them and all info can be easily reached on the internet for a basic overview on the specific types.


- Weapon group selection

It seems to me some aircraft, like the FW-190 and Hs-129 (probably others too) had historically different onboard options for which weapons to fire. This option would be most useful ingame for the two mentioned types, especially if someone would like to use MG and AC ammunition more rationally and to preserve ammo for each type. (Too often I am left with no MG151/20 ammo onboard the Henschel while trucks could be dealt with using accurate 7,92 fire, for example.)



Excuse me for the long list, but I too, like many others, get a little too eager while writing these, and I hope I don't come off as too demaning.

Thank you for your already wonderful work, and whatever plans you have under your sleeves, I am sure they will be definately worth the wait.

Looking forward to 4.12. and beyond.

Cheers,
Buren

[ElAurens]

http://imageshack.us/a/img526/1581/tom4.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img842/5682/kawanishih6ktype97transd.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img44/888/1982003850mitsubishif1m.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img174/7874/glenre8.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img337/251/sb2ccor839026fk3.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img255/9085/soc1curtiss71939xt4.jpg

[shelby]

transport for Great Britain and Japan

[RegRag1977]

[QUOTE=ElAurens;469416]http://imageshack.us/a/img526/1581/tom4.jpg

:twisted: