4-12 wish list (Merged) [Archive] - Page 5 - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Juri_JS

10-19-2012, 06:13 PM

I am haunted by images and stories of Lilya Litvak, Night Witches and Anna Yegorova. I think it would be really interesting if Russian female pilot figures were added to the game. Is the reason this has not been done because new voices would also have to be recorded and then played according to gender? Maybe there would be some way around that in the short-run like making the figures silent?

The Soviet Union employed women in combat and combat support roles during the Great Patriotic War and I must say that this just fascinates me. They were real-life heroines standing alongside the men.

I also know that American women ferried aircraft to forward areas and think that it would be interesting to have some WAAFs as well.

Here's a pack with VVS women pilot skins:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads2&file=details&id=3595

Portraits for DGen campaigns:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads2&file=details&id=3597
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads2&file=details&id=3596

These files add a female voice actor to the Russian voice pack:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=1877

secretone

10-19-2012, 06:25 PM

Here's a pack with VVS women pilot skins:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads2&file=details&id=3595

Portraits for DGen campaigns:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads2&file=details&id=3597
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads2&file=details&id=3596

These files add a female voice actor to the Russian voice pack:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=1877

Thank you very much Juri!

Pfeil

10-19-2012, 11:50 PM

Personally, I like to turn off map icons and navigate using terrain features and realistic navigation.

On larger maps, when every airport has its own beacon, never mind any radio stations or ships with beacons, it's a chore to scroll through all of them just to find the one you're looking for.

I suggest using the frequency menu(Tab->9) to list all beacons that apply to the player, so they can be switched to directly. To switch back to comms, the player can either scroll to beacon(none), or switch directly to the "friendly"(Or "enemy") frequency.

Fighterace

10-20-2012, 09:55 AM

Ground attack & Night fighter Ju-88

Monty_Thrud

10-20-2012, 05:08 PM

1]~Decent Seafire wheels, not the button wheels she has ATM.

2]~Seafire capable of taking off from CVs with bomb-load.

3]~Online...in mission description, have airfield icons on map, when you hover mouse over icon, display aircraft available at that airfield.

4]~Hawker Typhooooooon.

5]~Widescreeeeeeen.

Zorin

10-20-2012, 05:41 PM

shc_04

10-20-2012, 05:52 PM

I think ability to create flight plans with simple mouse clicks at online servers would be great, i mean when i fly online there is only a map with objectives bu no flightplan and waypoints.

I hope you understand what i mean.

IceFire

10-20-2012, 06:06 PM

I'd love to see the "Hold Fire" feature to be extended from artillery/AAA to ships. There are situations where you want the ships to fire their flak umbrella but not shell nearby targets.

Monty_Thrud

10-20-2012, 06:36 PM

2. Are you sure it can't with sufficient head wind?

Yes, but none of the mission builders know what speed it is, nor ever test their own missions online...6 fricken times in the drink, i wondered why everyone else took f4fs.

SEETHING!, i have qwerty embeded in my forehead from headbutting my keyboard...;)

What happened to the friendly fire from AA and ships?

IceFire

10-20-2012, 06:52 PM

Yes, but none of the mission builders know what speed it is, nor ever test their own missions online...6 fricken times in the drink, i wondered why everyone else took f4fs.

SEETHING!, i have qwerty embeded in my forehead from headbutting my keyboard...;)

What happened to the friendly fire from AA and ships?

Might be a good idea to question whose missions and where you were playing. Bad mission design can't be fixed with features from the dev team. I'm sure 30kts of speed on the carrier with or without wind would do but I'd probably test it before making players face that.

What about friendly fire?

Monty_Thrud

10-20-2012, 07:54 PM

I thought there was going to be an option where friendly AA would fire upon you for a short time...yeay?...nay?

IceFire

10-20-2012, 08:50 PM

I thought there was going to be an option where friendly AA would fire upon you for a short time...yeay?...nay?

Why would you want friendly AAA to fire at you? I'm confused :)

jameson

10-20-2012, 11:35 PM

Shoot first ask questions later...

Pursuivant

10-21-2012, 12:18 AM

Why would you want friendly AAA to fire at you? I'm confused :)

To pick enemy planes off your tail?

Seriously, since there's no risk of mistaken identity and little risk of "friendly fire" from friendly flak in the game, it's a viable tactic.

Bearcat

10-21-2012, 02:02 AM

I don't know whether or not this has been mentioned but the ability to set skill levels for individual AC (in stead of just the whole flight) in the QMB would be a great feature.. IIRC This was doable in Mission Mate which was my favorite quick mission builder long before mods came out. I think tat feature was also available in the UQMG. That kind of makes it easier to overcome some of the issues with the AI.

stugumby

10-21-2012, 04:15 AM

I am observing for years now the fw190 series ground handling seems a bit sluggish, almost as if hubs deep in mud. Bf series are quite nimble on the ground, fw series have to have brakes held to make simplest of turns and usually 40-50% throttle to get them to move on the taxiway. is there anyone else sensing this or am i the only one?

Juri_JS

10-21-2012, 09:44 AM

Are there any plans by Team Daidalos to improve the textures of ground objects and vehicles?

Vpmedia has done some excellent vehicle and static object textures. It would be great to have them in the official game. At least for me, using the improved textures had no noticeable impact on the games performance.

IceFire

10-21-2012, 08:40 PM

magot

10-21-2012, 09:18 PM

Are there any plans by Team Daidalos to improve the textures of ground objects?
yes

Pershing

10-23-2012, 05:30 AM

Are there any plans to make visual effects for flare and/or smoke bombs?
Zorin says he could make these bombs (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=471670&postcount=12), but special new effects needed...

RegRag1977

10-26-2012, 12:12 AM

Kharkov R10 Nieman, i'm so curious to know how it is like to fly such a strange aircraft...

Tupolev 2 flyable would especially be a great addition, along with a pit for Do217 so that it doesn't feel lonely...

RegRag1977

10-26-2012, 11:49 AM

Yes cockpit for me410 + ground attack B25s

gaunt1

10-26-2012, 02:14 PM

Tupolev 2 flyable would especially be a great addition, along with a pit for Do217 so that it doesn't feel lonely...

+1 for Tu-2 It is a very important soviet bomber, and one of the best in its class!
+1 for Do-217 too, although a Ju-88A-14 and He-111H-16 would be also important, and are easier to do.

Fighterace

10-26-2012, 02:22 PM

Yes cockpit for me410 + ground attack B25s

Me-410 A,B,D and NF versions would be great :)

1984

10-26-2012, 06:23 PM

Kharkov R10 Nieman, i'm so curious to know how it is like to fly such a strange aircraft...

it's very hard, because not so much info, especially about cockpit... Sita must confirm, i think...

===

new loadouts for all hurricanes, especially, rs-82, bombs and flares ("sab-xx" for PVO missions) for "soviet" hurricanes...

not so much work (if i'm not wrong), but great effect...

panzer1b

10-31-2012, 02:42 PM

would it bepossible to upgrade the 3D of the flak30 as it is horrible as well as the russian 25mm gun?

or at least add a crew to them?

also please add option to use the F4 on aa guns, for example i want to place a 88 ontop of the bunkers or tall cliff like structure, currently impossible as you cannot specify any offset from the ground....itd be so nice to have a use for the huge bunker....as i cant place a gun ONTOP of it.....

also not sure if mentioned but please add a bf109 F3 or F1 or at the least give the F2 a mgff field mod (a nice midway between the mg151/15 and thbe mg151/20....

finally can we get an updated 109 pit in the future?

srry for any spelling issues, im on a phone......

ohh and i know i said this a while back but increase the ai traverse rates of the rear gunners especially those thet are just a hand aimed mg....

RegRag1977

10-31-2012, 10:51 PM

also not sure if mentioned but please add a bf109 F3 or F1 or at the least give the F2 a mgff field mod (a nice midway between the mg151/15 and thbe mg151/20....

finally can we get an updated 109 pit in the future?

A Bf109 G4 would be nice too!

Adding the loud 'bang' when slats open.

Yes 109 needs new cockpit textures.
Also adding dessicant device on the windshield and armour plate on top of the panzer Galland would be far more accurate, sadly the late 109 marks miss these details in game.

I'd like to see defensive guns having recoil modelled.

MadBlaster

11-03-2012, 05:58 PM

hi. if you are still taking requests, I would like to see this. let me describe why.

example 1
lets say you take pe-2 with bomb loadout and you want practice some dive bombing offline on dogfight server environment with unlimited ammo. so, you select your bombs and start the mission. you find your target, make your approach, maybe throw the airbrake and drop your bombs. as you pull out, all of a sudden your bombs respawn and your plane is creaking and maybe breaks because of that. Also, with your newly respawned bombs at the lower altitude, it is going to take longer to swing back, climb and try again.

example 2 (i already posted about this)
lets say you want practice your rocket attack on tanks. for certain rocket loadouts (e.g., 4.5") the rockets respawn as soon as you fire the first set (2), then there is a delay for the respawn. so, instead of firing off 6 rockets to ensure a kill, you are only able to fire off 2 which then creates a spawn delay, so you are less likely to get a kill.

solution. a button/toggle to manually control the respawn timing of the weapon loadout when limited ammo is toggled off.

Malkav

11-04-2012, 07:53 AM

A long-awaited (for me) improvements in a Full Mission Builder.
So, making static buildings as a targets. It will be a great feature.

_RAAF_Firestorm

11-06-2012, 12:31 AM

Another fmb object that would be quite handy would be concrete tiled paving, of the kind that makes up many airfields on present maps. This would greatly assist in converting some grass fields to more modern fields. I realise that shadows wouldn't work quite right from aircraft and other objects but the ability to "upgrade" a grass field would be worth it atmospherically in my opinion.

IceFire

11-06-2012, 03:56 AM

Was just populating a scenario with some details and I realized... it'd be really neat if we could have some flag + flagpole. Historical flags of all nations involved (the German flag could be folded cleverly). Occasionally it'd be nice to fly a flag here or there. The American and Japanese ones are already quite useful in adding to the atmosphere.

SPAD-1949

11-07-2012, 09:54 AM

Is it possible to implement landing strips like Courchevel or Lukla? Or a landscape surface flattening tool for smoothe starts and landings anywhere?

ECV56_Guevara

11-08-2012, 11:07 AM

Could be possible to add images in the briefing???

IceFire

11-08-2012, 03:28 PM

Could be possible to add images in the briefing???

That would be immensely useful. PNG or JPG images in the briefing space could be used for "recon photos" and the like.

T}{OR

11-09-2012, 09:00 AM

That would be immensely useful. PNG or JPG images in the briefing space could be used for "recon photos" and the like.

Wonderful idea! :)

FC99

11-09-2012, 10:12 AM

ECV56_Guevara

11-09-2012, 10:41 AM

Good to hear that FC!!!
BTW, an 1mb image (the same that a skin) with today´s internet broadband it s more doable I think.

Pershing

11-09-2012, 10:48 AM

We have tried to add briefing photos and that is not a problem. What is the problem is net transfer of these images if they are used for online gamming.
In essence, that is the same as having custom skins enabled.

Holy s**t! That wolud be a great addition to the game!
For on-line you could define special limitations for size, format etc.

idefix44

11-09-2012, 02:29 PM

We have tried to add briefing photos and that is not a problem. What is the problem is net transfer of these images if they are used for online gamming.
In essence, that is the same as having custom skins enabled.

Hope you'll not change that.
To meet a Coca-Cola spitfire or a Blaupunkt Bf109 when playing on line an historical or semi-historical mission is really unpleasant. :(

IceFire

11-09-2012, 04:56 PM

We have tried to add briefing photos and that is not a problem. What is the problem is net transfer of these images if they are used for online gamming.
In essence, that is the same as having custom skins enabled.

I can definitely see where the problems would come in. Would using compressed JPEG or PNG help? We'd be talking about images in the 100kb range instead of ten times that for skins. Course get 60 players on a server and I see the scaling being difficult potentially.

Offline would also benefit. Certainly more practical there.

Aviar

11-09-2012, 10:48 PM

I may be wrong, but I think you guys are misinterpreting what FC99 said about briefing photos.

In my opinion, I think that what he meant was that briefing photos would be tied to the 'Skin download' setting in your Network Setup tab (see screenshot).

So, if the server/host did not have that setting checked, the briefing photos would not appear. Also, if the server allowed custom skins but a player had that setting unchecked, they would not see any briefing photos.

Anyway, that's what I think FC99 meant. I don't think he meant that briefing photos would negatively affect network traffic.

Aviar

KG26_Alpha

11-09-2012, 11:27 PM

We have tried to add briefing photos and that is not a problem. What is the problem is net transfer of these images if they are used for online gaming.
In essence, that is the same as having custom skins enabled.

So they only load the map image when the mission has launched, no good for coop mode then where you need the recon/target image in the briefing ?

IceFire

11-10-2012, 12:42 AM

I'm wondering if someone could have a look over the Ki-43-II and Ki-43-II Kai.

These both have three problems:

1) Wingtip condensation trails during hard manoeuvring appear out from the wing rather than along the wingtips on other aircraft.

2) There is a smoothing group error on the bottom side of the aircraft.

3) The the Ki-43-II series are armed with Browning .50cal instead of Ho-103 12.7mm. The Ki-43-Ic is correctly armed.

A couple of those are probably easy and others are probably hard.

IceFire

11-11-2012, 07:39 PM

Another Japanese plane request...

It would be nice to have a Ki-84-Ia model that represented rougher operating conditions. The Ki-84 as entered assumes the top quality level and best fuel types available for it. Without getting into a giant debate on the merits of that... it'd be great if there were a lower fuel quality variant (sort of the opposite of a the high boost Bf109K-4 C3) with reduced performance. Some top speeds quoted at 380-390mph instead of the 430ish mph that it has in current iterations.

In the absence of a Ki-44, it'd be handy to have a mid to late war Japanese fighter that was better than the Ki-61 but slightly lower performing than the higher quality Ki-84. Weird idea?

It'd be helpful balancing out some online scenarios. To be clear...asking for an additional Ki-84-Ia model and not a change or replacement to what currently exists.

FC99

11-12-2012, 11:30 AM

Good to hear that FC!!!
BTW, an 1mb image (the same that a skin) with today´s internet broadband it s more doable I think.
Don't know, it's been 3 years since we tried that and all I know that this never went further. It's not me who was making this so I can't tell you why we never finished this feature.

I may be wrong, but I think you guys are misinterpreting what FC99 said about briefing photos.

In my opinion, I think that what he meant was that briefing photos would be tied to the 'Skin download' setting in your Network Setup tab (see screenshot).

Anyway, that's what I think FC99 meant. I don't think he meant that briefing photos would negatively affect network traffic.

No, I meant that downloading pictures can be a net traffic problem at least that come up when we were discussing this inside DT.

ECV56_Guevara

11-12-2012, 12:52 PM

Thanks for the update on this topic FC99!!!
Could you tell us if there are plans to include this feature (briefing pictures) or similar in 4.12 or 4.13?

T}{OR

11-12-2012, 01:20 PM

Would it be possible to up the limit of how many planes you can spawn on the carrier in a MDF map? Currently, for the example, after 6 planes are spawned (F4F, TBD, SBD etc.) on a Lexington class - starting from no. 7 guy everyone will spawn air started. Even if the deck is clear and the first 6 who hit fly have taken off already.

The better description of the feature / request would be: can we have all spawn slots populated on the carrier in a MDF map, and can we have new guys (after initial 6 as in Lexington example) spawning on the now clear deck slots once guys have taken off instead of airstarting?

Even if the current small limit on how many guys you can have spawning on the deck at any given time remains, it would be nice if those slots became available once the guys have taken off.

The only useful thing about such a small limit on a Lexington class carrier I can think off (i.e. Akagi allows for 8 planes of the same size) is to spawn behind the guys on the deck, closer to the stern - in order to avoid collision if the guy behind you just started taking off.

6BL Bird-Dog

11-12-2012, 02:27 PM

Is there any way you could attach lights to carriers for night landing or for nav lights ie:starboard green ,port red and a white for mast & stern light in a future update please.

Bearcat

11-13-2012, 02:43 AM

Can we get the same pilot in the plane as the one in the raft... currentky it is not like that but I recall a mod that did just that.

Pershing

11-13-2012, 04:06 AM

No, I meant that downloading pictures can be a net traffic problem at least that come up when we were discussing this inside DT.

I think couple of 100kb pics will not eat traffic seriously..
In missions with moving ground- and sea objects additional brifing pictures could ease understanding "chain of events" on map very much.
It also could attract to brifing's reading. Everybody knows that in on-line game only 5-10% of all pilots do it. The rest thinks that brifing reading is pretty boring occupation. Pics can change it.
Sorry for my English

Monty_Thrud

11-13-2012, 02:30 PM

1] Royal Navy roundels appear to be RAAF roundels in game.

http://www.modelhobbies.co.uk/shop/xtradecal-supermarine-seafire-72135-p-36562.html

2] Is it possible to have proper view out of rear of the Hawker Tempest?, the whole point of these bubble canopies was for a better view all around, but for some reason HT doesnt have it.

3] In FMB, would it be possible to have a final way-point for aircraft to disappear?, eg- berlin map, B17s fly across map, final way-point, aircraft just circle at present, if there was a final way-point where aircraft disappeared, as in mission accomplished, for those ac that survived, it would make the smaller maps more usable...?

Blaf

11-14-2012, 12:44 PM

Does anyone know if multiple crew for dogfights is still planned for 4.12? (Would be great)

El Supremo

11-14-2012, 01:20 PM

Is it possible to make members of your flight follow that order to head for their homebase when they sustained substancial damage?
Right now you can hear the command (at least in german) but they still stick with the flight!

Just wondering :confused:

CWMV

11-14-2012, 02:11 PM

Bolelas

11-14-2012, 05:53 PM

Does anyone know if multiple crew for dogfights is still planned for 4.12? (Would be great)

That would be awesome! And would be also good if we could have pilot and co-pilot changes between online pilots, for split tasks on longer missions. (if we had a key to pass/regain controls.)

IceFire

11-14-2012, 06:03 PM

panzer1b

11-14-2012, 11:39 PM

ohh quick thing i remembered i would like added in

the option to add a respawning plane in online

for example if i want to populate an online server with ai planes i need to assign spawns every so and so minutes

this works well with a given player set buit if u have to few players the ai planes stack up and end up causing unwanted lag and not adding to immersion. on the other hand if there are alot of players the ai gets decimated within a few seconds and until the next spawn no ai planes are present.

what i would want for map design is to have dynamic respawns so i can either have the plane respawn just after death (or the whole squadron respawn after all planes die) or if wanted specify a delay between respawn

currently the respawn works for things like the FlaK guns and i believe ships (although i dont use ship respawn as it ruins immersion) but not planes, and it would be great to see respaneable ai planes for online play

offline it would be an unused option but respawn after death is great for dogfight servers where you want to add maybee 4 ai planes per team to help out and present targets but not have to make time delayed spawns or the like as this just doesnt work unless there is a optimal amount of players on server.

idefix44

11-15-2012, 03:03 AM

Single ID for AIs plane in dogfight mission like in coop mission.

Using IL2 DCG it's actually impossible to track AIs plane because they're anounymosly identified.

Thanks.

IL2 DCG is a free add-on able to manage dynamic campaign in dogfight mode so I use it with the IL2 Dedicated Server.

Blaf

11-15-2012, 08:47 AM

That would be awesome! And would be also good if we could have pilot and co-pilot changes between online pilots, for split tasks on longer missions. (if we had a key to pass/regain controls.)

Didn't think about co-pilot multiplayer, but now as you mention it i have to agree it would be nice feature to improve immersion.

IceFire

11-15-2012, 09:58 PM

Arth7ur

11-16-2012, 12:22 AM

I agree it would be nice to have the rear pit plus occupant.http://www.rxor.info/01.jpghttp://www.rxor.info/22.jpghttp://www.rxor.info/8.jpghttp://www.rxor.info/03.jpghttp://www.rxor.info/23.jpghttp://www.ryzu.info/9.jpg

SPAD-1949

11-16-2012, 09:32 AM

One real small thing:
Airfield sirens should only howl when enemy AC is in vicinnity or aproaching but STFU when you have send all enemys to hell. It works for landing strip illumination, so why not on sirens.

Luno13

11-16-2012, 05:48 PM

Fairly simple (I think) request. Similar to my Ki-84 (early) request... which is partially an online consideration... I'd be interested in seeing a I-16 Type 24 with Berezin UB 12.7mm machine guns in place of the ShVAK 20mm cannons. Aside from being a historical loadout, it would also be useful from a online balancing perspective. Sometimes it'd be nice to put the Type 24 up against the B-239 for example but the cannons make a big difference. With the heavy machine guns it'd be a more even fight.

They type 24 should just have four Shkas guns. Our in-game version should be named a type 28, which had the cannons. The type 17 also had cannons, but had a less powerful engine. The type 29 had one UBS under the nose.

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Modeling/Polikarpov/I-16/Kit_Comparison/description.php

IceFire

11-17-2012, 02:22 AM

They type 24 should just have four Shkas guns. Our in-game version should be named a type 28, which had the cannons. The type 17 also had cannons, but had a less powerful engine. The type 29 had one UBS under the nose.

http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Modeling/Polikarpov/I-16/Kit_Comparison/description.php
That would work fairly well too. Could have sworn that a pair of UBK's were installed in the wings for the Type 24. Maybe Type 28? Know of any configurations like that? I know there were a few odd field modifications so maybe that's it.

maxim42

11-17-2012, 04:13 PM

Please, make the behind a plane's dust less "memory eating". The problem with il-2 engine is the fact that it doesn't know what to do when there are too many objects (for instance: Nitra city on the Slovakia map or even Berlin). The same happens with the dust. There is no computer which would successfully face with more objects in il-2 1946. Please, modify the il-2 engine or make the maps and effects suitable for the performance and the engine.

EDIT:

Nice effect also would be a head shaking during take off from the grass (like it is in the tutorial film in the il-2 1946 "how to take off by bf-109") because now you don't feel the touch down moment and rolling on the ground. It is too flat.

Greetings!

Pursuivant

11-20-2012, 11:21 PM

Is there any reason why it isn't possible to have V-1 and Mistels in the QMB?

Especially for "air start" missions it doesn't seem unreasonable to include them.

Alien

11-21-2012, 04:36 PM

That's because for such kind of missions you'd must have the mistel attached to the Fw 190 so you'd have to make another mission file and remember which flight is assigned to which one.

Asheshouse

11-22-2012, 08:55 AM

The ability to change the "black screen of death" into something else.

Options:

3) Another crew position in the same plane, or another plane, so you can continue the mission.

Yes.

SPAD-1949

11-22-2012, 12:38 PM

The ability to move the windows (inflight Map window, FMB Menue Windows) out to another screen.

SPAD-1949

11-23-2012, 04:05 PM

One other thing. If you got hit, if you are wounded, it would be better to white out. Im a FR-Mountainbiker and I got myself injured a lot of times. My personal impression of a real heavy injury with massive pain is rather whitnening out like a flash instead of this DOOM or Wolfenstein Redout. They say its like seeing stars but I think its rather like a flash blinding you with pulsating gain of vision, and if its really heavy you get a tunneling view.
So it would be better that he screen is white for a second and pulsating slowly at a 5 second interval into a whitish blur while the edges of the view getting closer until blacking out, if heavily wounded an losing consciousness or dying. The immediate death blackout (Well I'm not to experianced about that ;-) ) would alos be better with a Whiteout and a quick blackout movement, except you are hit right in your stem-brain. Then its ok like it is now.

Buster_Dee

11-23-2012, 04:32 PM

One other thing. If you got hit, if you are wounded, it would be better to white out. ... would also be better with a Whiteout and a quick blackout movement, except you are hit right in your stem-brain. Then its ok like it is now.

Lordy! No one should know that much about pain.

You must really like your sport.

whiskey-charlie

11-24-2012, 04:43 AM

My wish. Axis selection for fuel mixture - Hotas Control?

Ibis

11-24-2012, 04:54 AM

A mission clock in a corner of the mission builder for checking a mission @ fast speed. In that way all aircraft can be seen and bottle necks and or gaps in the mission can be corrected at the time indicated.
As it is I have to set up a plane fitted with a clock on a field far from any action, this is very inconvenient and time consuming crossing back and forth to check timing.
cheers,
Ibis.

ghu

11-24-2012, 09:25 AM

and i do not mean correcting existing samples - that one can do himself. I mean adding new actors, new triggers to play tracks, anything that will create impression of the "crowd" up there. Now, 9 actors is very not enough..
see this: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,30308.0.html

SPAD-1949

11-24-2012, 05:41 PM

Lordy! No one should know that much about pain.

You must really like your sport.

You never sat on a cycle, did you?

SPAD-1949

11-24-2012, 05:46 PM

Bolelas

11-24-2012, 06:09 PM

Luno13

11-24-2012, 10:54 PM

IceFire

11-24-2012, 11:09 PM

This request has come up before. I would personally prefer if a configuration file was made, similar to the conf.ini. You could disable whichever messages you want such as "enemy aircraft destroyed" while keeping important stuff like "bombsight angle".

I know many people who have said that they have wanted basically the same thing. Definitely a great suggestion.

SPAD-1949

11-26-2012, 07:52 AM

Sometimes i also like full real. If we got a lever for most stuff, we know how things are, but no mater what we have, if HUD is off we can not operate a bombsight. And as you mentioned, with radio beacons is the same.
I noticed that I dont even hear any of the emitted noises at all. Might my game be broken or is it due to HUD disabled?

1984

11-26-2012, 04:24 PM

Maybe Type 28? Know of any configurations like that? I know there were a few odd field modifications so maybe that's it.

i don't know about any official modifications with 2 UB instead 2 schkas/2 shvak in wings + 1-2 shkas, was only some various experimental works with TKB-150 (name of UB in 40) and 12.7 mm variant of shvak too, and how said Luno13 in mass serial production with 1 UBS + 2 shkas was only type 29, but, we can't really say what not was some not mass field changes (i not saw any info about this), plus, was armed UTI-4 with 2 UB (type 15b) - В центроплане установили два крупнокалиберных несинхронных пулемета Березина (БК)...

...В январе 1942 г. отмечалось, что тип 15Б по мощности вооружения превосходит все другие типы И-16, диапазон использования самолета расширился, имеется возможность переоборудовать ранее построенные УТИ-4.

В 1942 г. в Баку построили последние 83 экземпляра УТИ-4. Количество боевых вариантов тип 15Б среди них не установлено.

in total, now we have type 18/"24", so, without serious changes you and we all can get correct i-16 type 24 (m-63 + 4 shkas, now in game type 28 in fact, if i'm not wrong), type 28 (m-63 + 2 shkas/2 shvak) and not so powerful heavy armed type 27 (m-62 + 2 shkas/2 shvak), it's all historically correct, balanced (type 24, good engine but only shkas, or type 27, not so good engine but shvaks, etc) and i think more than enough at first time...

be good if DT do late type 29 (m-63 + 2 shkas/1 ubs, 650 planes in total, good performance and balanced weapons)...

type 15b, type 17 + new less powerful shells for shvak (similar with 12.7 mm effect), planes of other countries (chinese, finnish, spanish etc), other early types (maybe, and little experimental series, with different weapon) and little changes for all (like 2-4 rs-82), need too, especially, because in USSR i-16 was used in combats very long time including early types (uti-4 was used how training plane until 1946)...

and interesting fact, in last Maslov's book about i-16 i read what 23 feb 1944 pilot Кудымов had a fight with fw-190 and down him...

how much it's true, i don't know, anyway it's interesting info, here (http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/kudymov_da/04.html) this fight in his memoirs...

Pursuivant

11-27-2012, 02:20 AM

Looking at all those different flight performance reports for the P-40 that TD provided with their latest update, I'm wonder if the game engine could support some way of degrading aircraft performance without messing up FM too badly or making multiplayer servers falsely detect cheating.

It's pretty obvious that badly made, worn out or poorly maintained planes aren't going to develop peak performance, so I'm wondering if there's some way of modeling that in the game.

Perhaps a slider switch which lets a server admin or mission builder degrade engine power and/or control surface responsiveness by 5-10%?

Maybe this could be a half step towards actual random inflight system failures.

IceFire

11-27-2012, 03:24 AM

i don't know about any official modifications with 2 UB instead 2 schkas/2 shvak in wings + 1-2 shkas, was only some various experimental works with TKB-150 (name of UB in 40) and 12.7 mm variant of shvak too, and how said Luno13 in mass serial production with 1 UBS + 2 shkas was only type 29, but, we can't really say what not was some not mass field changes (i not saw any info about this), plus, was armed UTI-4 with 2 UB (type 15b) -

in total, now we have type 18/"24", so, without serious changes you and we all can get correct i-16 type 24 (m-63 + 4 shkas, now in game type 28 in fact, if i'm not wrong), type 28 (m-63 + 2 shkas/2 shvak) and not so powerful heavy armed type 27 (m-62 + 2 shkas/2 shvak), it's all historically correct, balanced (type 24, good engine but only shkas, or type 27, not so good engine but shvaks, etc) and i think more than enough at first time...

be good if DT do late type 29 (m-63 + 2 shkas/1 ubs, 650 planes in total, good performance and balanced weapons)...

type 15b, type 17 + new less powerful shells for shvak (similar with 12.7 mm effect), planes of other countries (chinese, finnish, spanish etc), other early types (maybe, and little experimental series, with different weapon) and little changes for all (like 2-4 rs-82), need too, especially, because in USSR i-16 was used in combats very long time including early types (uti-4 was used how training plane until 1946)...

and interesting fact, in last Maslov's book about i-16 i read what 23 feb 1944 pilot Кудымов had a fight with fw-190 and down him...

how much it's true, i don't know, anyway it's interesting info, here (http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/kudymov_da/04.html) this fight in his memoirs...

Interesting stuff. I was sure the Type 24 had a UBS wing armament but everything you guys are talking about suggests not. It would be nice to at least have ShKAS as an option on the Type 24 if not the default with ShVAK as the addition.

Pursuivant

11-27-2012, 03:32 PM

Who gets to decide what planes were historically worn out and/or poorly maintained?

Server admin for online, mission builder or player for offline. Obviously, for fairness/full disclosure, the fact that a plane's performance has been degraded should be stated upfront.

I sure wouldn't like to fly on server where somebody can degrade my performance with a slider and I'm not able to that to him also.

Performance reduction gets set before the scenario begins. Any change after that gets logged as cheating. Simple.

Same for random inflight failures... Flying online for 20min towards objective just to see my engine fails? :confused: Why should I do that?

Realism? Things like that happened all the time during the war.

Also, some WW2-era planes suffered from serious reliability problems, so NOT modeling random system failure is unrealistic. For example, the He-177 and Westland Whirlwind could have been great if they had had more reliable engines.

I'd also point out that IL2 already has a limited engine failure model where you can set your engines on fire if you throttle up a jet engine too fast, so why not expand it to prop driven planes?

Of course, like anything else in the game, you should have the option of turning off the random failures option for offline play, and the server admin controls can turn it off for online. And, again, it should be set before play begins and should be obvious to everyone involved.

Finally, having the option of triggering damage or degraded performance before a scenario starts will finally allow fans to fly missions where some of the planes in the sky have already suffered battle damage.

As it stands, mission builders have to create those sorts of missions by having planes fly over concentrations of enemy flak and hope that the flak inflicts the correct sort of damage to make the scenario still interesting.

Lack of ability to degrade performance or assign damage to planes before play begins also makes it impossible to fly missions like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIVCxuc-fg

ElAurens

11-27-2012, 04:26 PM

Some of you may remember that in the original release of IL2 it was possible to foul your spark plugs during warmup. It really was not much of an issue because of the button marked "refly". And that's just what everyone did, hit refly.

I can see that for some offline folks this would be a good thing, but online it won't ummm, fly, so to speak.

SaQSoN

11-27-2012, 04:44 PM

...fly missions like this:

Nice movie. I wonder, where are those internal B-17 shots are from? I guess, they're from some FPS game, MOH may be? Anybody knows for sure?

The_WOZ

11-27-2012, 05:44 PM

Got a couple of ideas:

- A new difficulty setting: Blackouts/Redouts while on external views
- Use CTRL-F1 (No cockpit view toggle key/button) as a modifier for other external view modes. For example in chase mode (f8), currently it's only fixed to the plane z-axis/heading. It would be nice if pressing a key (say CTRL-F1) the camera would get fixed to the plane's local axis (the 3 of them) so it follows all it's movements and rotations.

KG26_Alpha

11-27-2012, 06:58 PM

Would it be possible in the near future to add points system for the human pilots to recon target areas, this will add more FMB options for mission builders.
Or something along the lines of the idea below.
IE:

Target>Recon>Landing>Points>User input value or>100/75/50/25/0

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v119/alpha1/reconpoints.jpg

Also could you make it possible that the Target parameters can be set for Red and Blue on the same map, as it is you can only set conditions for one side or the other and not mixed.

Thanks.

swiss

11-27-2012, 09:13 PM

Fix the overheat-model of the '45 D9.
It takes less than 20 sec to overheat it, and even at 500kmph it takes forever to cool it.

swiss

11-27-2012, 09:14 PM

IceFire

11-27-2012, 09:25 PM

Who gets to decide what planes were historically worn out and/or poorly maintained?
I sure wouldn't like to fly on server where somebody can degrade my performance with a slider and I'm not able to that to him also. Same for random inflight failures... Flying online for 20min towards objective just to see my engine fails? :confused: Why should I do that?

These are legitimate concerns but I think what has been suggested is something that would be great to have some control over.

There ARE groups that fly online with an eye to maximum historical authenticity and that includes equipment failures and degraded infield performance.

As far as controlling the performance degradation, that wouldn't be any different than offering up a different aircraft. We already kind of do this when choosing between the three La-5 models, or between the dozen or so Spitfire/Bf109/Fw190 models (which are present partially or completely for the same reason). This would add an extra layer representing field conditions which in some historical contexts would be potentially useful to simulate.

For a quick action dogfight server, all of the performance sliders should probably be at 100% and the random engine failures off.

The_WOZ

11-28-2012, 01:56 AM

Your ideas refer to external flyers, like "birds of prey".

That's not the spirit of the suggestions.

I fly on Skies of Valor (close cockpit, externals on), and I fly using a mouse (via ppjoy+ ppmouse) and keyboard due to many reasons, improved air to ground gunnery being one of the most important.

For these reasons, I rely on externals and padlocking to tracking enemy planes (mostly attackers since I fly low and slow over enemy ground units).
Not having the blackout effect when on externals is a double edged sword, on the plus side it allows for harder evasive maneuvering. On the minus side, there's more chance of going into a complete blackout without noticing.
I think such an option would make it more fair for those who fly full real in these kind of servers.

The second suggestion was made thinking on movie making, there used to be a mod from a polish acrobatic team (IIRC) that did this and more, and allowed for some very nice takes when used correctly.

Buster_Dee

11-28-2012, 11:03 AM

Internals look like Call of Duty. I just played it and UO add-on for laughs. Pretty sure scenes were from the original game.

I'm pretty sure some of the external P-47 fly-by sounds are from Janes WWII Fighters.

Bearcat

11-28-2012, 03:17 PM

Oh yes, what I forgot: I mostly fly rather full real, so no HUD messages pop up. But sometimes you need to know which beacon you just switched on. So it would be great to have a toggle button for this too, like icon toggle or speed bar toggle. Or eventually you have a toggle button where you set your num-pad into "radio-mode" and dial the frequency displayed on the map.

I think better than this .. and easier in the long run for everyone would be if TD made the file where this info is kept editable in the stock sim.

As it is now in HSFX at least you can access the hudlog.ru file which is where these lines are kept and edit them. In mine the path is: C:\Games\Ubisoft\IL-2 46 HSFX 6.0\Files\i18n\ hudlog.ru

The file looks something like this:

MissionComplete MISSION COMPLETE
MissionFailed MISSION OVER
BlueWon BLUE WON !
RedWon RED WON !

EnemyAircraftDestroyed Enemy Aircraft: Destroyed
EnemyAircraftKillAssisted Enemy Aircraft: Destroyed (shared kill)
EnemyStaticAircraftDestroyed Enemy Aircraft: Destroyed

Mine is something like this:

MissionComplete MISSION COMPLETE
MissionFailed FAIL!
BlueWon BLUE WON !
RedWon RED WON !

EnemyAircraftDestroyed Scratch1!
EnemyAircraftKillAssisted (shared kill)
EnemyStaticAircraftDestroyed AC G+

If that file could be made available to us in the stock sim we could edit it as we pleased and that might be easier for TD to do than setting up switches and all that. That way they could concentrate on other stuff. You can look at that file yourself but everything is in there from the throttle settings to the bomb sight info.

Alien

11-28-2012, 03:27 PM

Nice movie. I wonder, where are those internal B-17 shots are from? I guess, they're from some FPS game, MOH may be? Anybody knows for sure?

The game's Call of Duty United Offensive. For sure.

stugumby

11-29-2012, 12:27 AM

it always seems to me that the fw series ground handling acts as if its stuck in the mud on any airfield with any load. Steering is difficult and torque heavy to the left on takeoff. I tried same field with bf series or other plane from pick a country and all taxi and move more easily. is this a bug/feature or am i whining??

IceFire

12-01-2012, 01:03 PM

Request for dogfight servers...

Two items actually:

1) We could definitely use some more small scale dogfight maps with otherwise realistic terrain. I mean more like the Dogfight1Summer and Dogfight2Winter maps than anything symmetrical.

2) It would be nice if the NW Germany map, which makes a great dogfight map, could make made more online friendly. As it is, the map has quite a few objects which causes performance issues for large numbers of players. We've tried to use it in the past but it's too problematic. A version of the map with all towns and cities intact but the random buildings spread in the countryside removed to shore up performance a bit.

omi89

12-02-2012, 03:39 PM

csThor

12-02-2012, 04:02 PM

Thanks TD for what have you done and keep up the good work. However in past several patches you have poured new planes and maps in the game, (which is, dont get me wrong, great,) but now( in my opinion) is time to make use out of them. Please give us a chance to play single-player dinamic camaigns with those planes.

Not possible. Simply put the DGen software is an external development which was never directly under Maddox Games' control - which is also why TD never got anything on it. There is a new DGen developed but I haven't heard anything for a while now. As it is this new DGen and DCG are 3rd Party developments and therefor you'll have to ask them about new campaign possibilities.

SPAD-1949

12-04-2012, 11:51 AM

I have not found an entry about this whish so I just add it, even I know its to late for 4.12.
Its about carrier wissions with improved wheather since 4.10:
Say, the carrier is heading course 30° and you set a wind with 15m/s from 270° it is nearly impossible to land or take of. Mission goal is to find your target out in the nowhere calculating wind drift and so on, destroy it and come back to the carrier.

Point 1 is easy: For takeoff, the carriers first two wayponts head towards 270° and after launch, the carriere heads towards 30°.
Point 2 a little bit trickier, but also easy to accomplish when you prepare well.
Point 3 is easy by morse code, but
Point 4 is impossible, if you dont set the carriers waypoint back to course 270°.
Now, if I have several flights out there, and they are returning at different times due to their mission goal, you have to entirely test out the mission, if it is possible to board the carrier again.
A hard task for the mission Bilder on long missions on large maps of about an hour or more.
Now my request would be, that if you come home again, request for landing permission, the carrier heads his nose towards the wind direction as long as ac are circling, or in one or two a/c increments, when close to the coast.
to complicated or not possible with that engine?

SPAD-1949

12-04-2012, 07:53 PM

Yeah and another Idea for 4.13 or 4.14: Read out the mission briefing via USB conection to something like an iPad or similiar. The Pilots had their maps also with them. It would be cool to have that on your lap and zoom in and out on the map with the actual mission data. I usually have my second monitor and do a desktop snapshot, then load it full screen in irfanview as a jpeg, but on larger maps and long missions it really lacks on details to compare actual view with the map.

1984

12-08-2012, 08:50 PM

It would be nice to at least have ShKAS as an option on the Type 24 if not the default with ShVAK as the addition.

main changes was only weapon (this written in final description of types), so, in fact, yes, especially if in game problem with old single missions (heard something like this) and if game can change performance if you selected other weapon for type 24, for example (like yak-9m with/without ns-37)...

and need reworking of FM of i-16, i think, now in game not so obviously what aircraft was not very stable in flight, this can effect when pilot shoots at long distance...

ofcourse, it's only my opinion, maybe in something wrongly...

Who gets to decide what planes were historically worn out and/or poorly maintained?

these old planes sometimes are really needed, for example, soviet spit-5, hurri, i-16 in 44, repaired FW-190А-2,3 from 15(sp)./JG51 in 43 etc etc etc, we all - i mean we players, DT etc - have info mainly not very accurate, of course, so, need lot of researches for all sides and, of course, at first we need correct normal planes...

about quality, i can say about soviet planes, we have some info and correct approach to these problems can give more historically correct performance (i try explain this in one topic here, how can, maybe DT reading this)...

anyway, at first, i repeat, need normal all main planes with performance within 2-3 % tolerance and all this it's lot of work...

Same for random inflight failures... Flying online for 20min towards objective just to see my engine fails? :confused: Why should I do that?

here i agree with you, it's a very old game (at this moment personally i can't have fun only if done something in this game, we need new sim and these features mainly for him), we must have choice, plus, all these various failures, defects of bombs etc require lot of complex researches what i think not deal even for big experienced team...

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.

hmm, maybe, it's not SO wrongly, when i read about p-51, remembered, what la-7 have similar oil system, so, slightly larger area of damage...

panzer1b

12-09-2012, 02:16 AM

not sure if i ever mentioned this, but could we get some sort of button to scroll through various weapon selector options like in actual planes?

i know some planes had a few buttons that would actually select the weapons that were active on the trigger

the one plane that is driving me nuts is the fw190 which i cannot select mg17s only without wasting cannon if i want to do some spamming or get someone to maneuver...

its just i main the fw190 and could really use an option to either unlink the mg17s from teh cannons (wing root fire at teh same time) or have it set as is with the toggle gunpods enabling or disabling the mg151/20s (would be easy to do as its already a key in gam ebut dont do anything in the fw190 anyways)

while were at it itd be nice to see an option for weapon selection toggle while in flight for any planes that supported this functionality. if not possible at least give us the option to fire cannons and mgs separately on avery plane that had such loadouts (fw190 the one that comes to mind)

(also i have read somewhere about a pilot account of the zero having this option. i forget where i read this but it was about a zero ace who was attacking a f4f and then was confident enough todrop it with just mgs so he switched off cannons, this mean that the zero actually had one trigger and not two like in game but was selecatable on off cannons)

LennysCopilot

12-09-2012, 09:35 PM

Would it be possible to add HVAR rockets to the loadout for the FM-2 Wildcat? Thanks for all of your hard work!

KG26_Alpha

12-09-2012, 09:55 PM

IceFire

12-09-2012, 10:58 PM

Would it be possible to add HVAR rockets to the loadout for the FM-2 Wildcat? Thanks for all of your hard work!

+1 on that. It'd be a great addition to that Wildcat version.

Juri_JS

12-10-2012, 04:50 AM

Would it be possible to add HVAR rockets to the loadout for the FM-2 Wildcat? Thanks for all of your hard work!

And also for the P-51D-20, please. The Mustang units in the PTO used the HVAR rocket, especially the units based on Iwo Jima.

Fighterace

12-10-2012, 06:17 AM

Or a P-51K

T}{OR

12-11-2012, 10:54 AM

MicroWave

12-11-2012, 10:58 AM

Can something be done to the AI carrier landing routine? Currently it takes them ages to land on the carrier. Maybe cutting the distance at which they start the final approach to half what we currently have or re-doing it completely...

Thanks

There is an option for landing pattern in FMB. Try with Short Left/Short Right.
I can't remember if it works for carriers or not. :???:

1984

12-11-2012, 05:53 PM

Or a P-51K

it's p-51d with another prop and a little bit worse speed? and how much worse this version? i think, even if - 10 kph, it's reason for...

plus, p-51d now 25 lbs, if I'm not mistaken, so need and 18 lbs performance...

and mustang III in game have realistic performance? apparently, it's 25 lbs, but with >605 kph at sl...

bf109 ... F1 ... (a nice midway between the mg151/15 and thbe mg151/20....

i agree with you, 20mm gun, but not mg151/20 it's good for balance, historically correct and, maybe, DT can do this version without correct ammo counter? if i'm not mistaken, yak-9k - "На приборной доске в кабине летчика был установлен счетчик оставшихся снарядов пушки." - but, and nothing...

although, it's not serious changes and we can wait, and when plane are correct it's good... but and variant when f-1 included and finished off later, i think, not so unacceptable...

next, if we talking about Fs, what about f-2 with and f-4 without armor glass (it's protection, of course, and + - 10 kph?, i seen and read something like this, so, why not if this historically correct and can changed performance of aircraft)…

and generally speaking, maybe, for all aircrafts need some new mechanism or new option like choice of loadouts, skins, etc, for different equipment, although, sometimes more optimal it’s "different" planes of one type how now...

IceFire

12-11-2012, 09:55 PM

it's p-51d with another prop and a little bit worse speed? and how much worse this version? i think, even if - 10 kph, it's reason for...

plus, p-51d now 25 lbs, if I'm not mistaken, so need and 18 lbs performance...

and mustang III in game have realistic performance? apparently, it's 25 lbs, but with >605 kph at sl...

i agree with you, 20mm gun, but not mg151/20 it's good for balance, historically correct and, maybe, DT can do this version without correct ammo counter? if i'm not mistaken, yak-9k - "На приборной доске в кабине летчика был установлен счетчик оставшихся снарядов пушки." - but, and nothing...

although, it's not serious changes and we can wait, and when plane are correct it's good... but and variant when f-1 included and finished off later, i think, not so unacceptable...

next, if we talking about Fs, what about f-2 with and f-4 without armor glass (it's protection, of course, and + - 10 kph?, i seen and read something like this, so, why not if this historically correct and can changed performance of aircraft)…

and generally speaking, maybe, for all aircrafts need some new mechanism or new option like choice of loadouts, skins, etc, for different equipment, although, sometimes more optimal it’s "different" planes of one type how now...

Yep...not sure why we'd want a P-51K. Produced in a different factory with a different but similar propeller, a slightly differently shaped canopy, and I think one of the vents uses a different design but aside from that it's a carbon copy of the P-51D and in no way a benefit for us to have it. I would like to see an additional P-51D model with the higher boost and HVAR rocket attachments for Pacific operations. If memory serves, by the time Mustangs were in the Pacific they were cleared for higher boost than the ones in Europe were typically.

The Mustang Mark III currently represents a V-1 chaser and is supposed to have +25lb boost (it may also represent the highly polished wings and exceptional care that was taken by the ground crews to ensure the aircraft was in tip top shape). It was very fast IRL and in-game but I'm not sure if the performance is accurate to the exact numbers or not.

A F-1 with a MG-FF hub cannon would be potentially useful, definitely. The armoured windscreen thing I can see being less useful versus time it would take to set it up.

I don't read Russian... so what about the Yak-9K?

1984

12-11-2012, 11:20 PM

Yep...not sure why we'd want a P-51K. Produced in a different factory with a different but similar propeller, a slightly differently shaped canopy, and I think one of the vents uses a different design but aside from that it's a carbon copy of the P-51D and in no way a benefit for us to have it.

in total agree, but if DT wanted rework p-51s, do K maybe it's not so hard especially if he more slowly (it's main reason)...

well, it's all mainly something like "perfection", of course...

if need to select, more D-xx with new weapon for all theaters (what really need, agree with many opinions here), or K, my choice D and hvar etc too...

The Mustang Mark III currently represents a V-1 chaser and is supposed to have +25lb boost (it may also represent the highly polished wings and exceptional care that was taken by the ground crews to ensure the aircraft was in tip top shape). It was very fast IRL and in-game but I'm not sure if the performance is accurate to the exact numbers or not.

oh, exactly, "polished" etc... forgot about this... and i asked because wanted to say, if mustang III have correct performance, maybe need mustang IV who intercepted V-1 too (how i read)...

The armoured windscreen thing I can see being less useful versus time it would take to set it up.

maybe, you not flying much times against pe-2 ?:) shkas very dangerous for pilot of E/F, especially without armor glass - more than UBT, i think, because many times was "killed" or had damaged oil cooler, sometimes, even oil cooler+lost ailerons at >500 m - and if you climbing behind fast "peshka" (main attack position in online wars)... plus, glass reduce speed... well, 2 reasons, why not...

of course, it's only my opinion and i'm writing too many little things...

I don't read Russian... so what about the Yak-9K?

if author of book, Степанец, right, yak-9k had ammo counter, only for ns-45, and we not have this in game...

T}{OR

12-12-2012, 05:42 PM

There is an option for landing pattern in FMB. Try with Short Left/Short Right.
I can't remember if it works for carriers or not. :???:

Tried short left and instant (the last one available) - no improvement.

IceFire

12-13-2012, 01:05 AM

in total agree, but if DT wanted rework p-51s, do K maybe it's not so hard especially if he more slowly (it's main reason)...

well, it's all mainly something like "perfection", of course...

if need to select, more D-xx with new weapon for all theaters (what really need, agree with many opinions here), or K, my choice D and hvar etc too...

oh, exactly, "polished" etc... forgot about this... and i asked because wanted to say, if mustang III have correct performance, maybe need mustang IV who intercepted V-1 too (how i read)...

maybe, you not flying much times against pe-2 ?:) shkas very dangerous for pilot of E/F, especially without armor glass - more than UBT, i think, because many times was "killed" or had damaged oil cooler, sometimes, even oil cooler+lost ailerons at >500 m - and if you climbing behind fast "peshka" (main attack position in online wars)... plus, glass reduce speed... well, 2 reasons, why not...

of course, it's only my opinion and i'm writing too many little things...

if author of book, Степанец, right, yak-9k had ammo counter, only for ns-45, and we not have this in game...

I see what you mean about the armored windscreens. I tend to end up flying the Pe-2 rather than the 109 so I hadn't considered this an issue previously :)

I didn't know that the Yak-9K had an ammo counter. Interesting!

Pursuivant

12-13-2012, 01:03 PM

oh, exactly, "polished" etc... forgot about this... and i asked because wanted to say, if mustang III have correct performance, maybe need mustang IV who intercepted V-1 too (how i read)...

If I were going to add an additional Mustang model to the game, it would be the P-51H.

If author of book, Степанец, right, yak-9k had ammo counter, only for ns-45, and we not have this in game...

The option of having an ammo counter in "no cockpit" mode or as a HUD display would be a nice touch.

Alternately, just list how many rounds of ammo a plane has expended. Often I practice my gunnery using unlimited ammo and it would be helpful to get a sense of how much ammo I've spent to take out a particular target.

Fighterace

12-13-2012, 04:41 PM

[QUOTE=Pursuivant;487773]If I were going to add an additional Mustang model to the game, it would be the P-51H.

A P-51 H would be sweet :)

1984

12-13-2012, 09:35 PM

I see what you mean about the armored windscreens. I tend to end up flying the Pe-2 rather than the 109 so I hadn't considered this an issue previously :)

:)

and i remembered third reason, without armor better view forward, personally for me much better... 3 reasons...

and, maybe, if really need new option, for example, this can looks like difficulty settings...

I didn't know that the Yak-9K had an ammo counter. Interesting!

you know, maybe, it's correct only for prototype, maybe not, but all this is not so important how fix performances of T/K and, if i'm not mistaken, view forward in cockpit of all 9s...

If I were going to add an additional Mustang model to the game, it would be the P-51H.

if talk in total, agree with you, but if talk sensibly, in 45 was built only 555 H and they even not fought against japan and in korea, right? so, mustangs with allison have much more chances and reasons...

interesting, DT has plans about this?

...or as a HUD display would be a nice touch.

if i'm understood you correctly, this is can be good idea, especially, if plane had ammo counter, but no photos with him...

and again about i-16, old planes and field mods... i'm not specialist, but even 10 mins of research gives lot of variants (attached), of all years, and theoretically this easy to do... for example, third photo, type 24 with 2 rs-82, and some changes (here, maybe, due to dirt) in 1943... i think, he can be slowly at 50 kph...

and you can see what in game wrong 3d model of shvak for i-16...

IceFire

12-13-2012, 09:47 PM

Although a P-51H would be interesting... it would be purely theoretical as the type never saw combat. It was introduced just after the war was over and it saw a couple of years of service before being retired.

The Mustangs that saw service in Korea were the F-51D (P-51D) and F-82 Twin Mustang.

If it was a choice of Mustangs, I'd rather have the very interesting A-36 Apache with dive brakes, and P-51A Mustang variants. I'd even be interested in seeing the Mustang Mark I and the limited production variant with 4x20mm Hispano cannons in the wings.

ElAurens

12-13-2012, 10:13 PM

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

I vote for the Allison models as well...

Lagarto

12-13-2012, 10:45 PM

Thumbs up for the P-51A, immortalized by the Air Commandos, and the A-36 would come in handy for the forthcoming Tunisia map, me thinks.

RegRag1977

12-13-2012, 11:49 PM

Allison Mustangs for the win...

Man, to me those are the sweetest 'stangs :cool:

CWMV

12-14-2012, 01:58 AM

I do enjoy the P-51A we have in game. Only P-51 worth looking at.
Wish the wings would get fixed from the D version but hey, small potatoes.

Blaf

12-14-2012, 09:52 AM

Since CoD is no longer supported. Is it somehow possible to improve the old Il-2 engine?

1984

12-14-2012, 01:18 PM

If it was a choice of Mustangs, I'd rather have the very interesting A-36 Apache with dive brakes, and P-51A Mustang variants. I'd even be interested in seeing the Mustang Mark I and the limited production variant with 4x20mm Hispano cannons in the wings.

i feel self how soviet pilots who complained of weapon of spitfire 5:), but especially good what these mustangs, exept p-51a, with 2 synchronized .50, and 6 in total for a-36a, it's much balanced and powerful weapon, than for p-51a/b/c...

Man, to me those are the sweetest 'stangs :cool:

for me too, and don't know why...

...the A-36 would come in handy for the forthcoming Tunisia map, me thinks.

if i'm not mistaken, this mustang much needful in game, than mustang I/IA or p-51a, but i hope differences not so big and if DT will do mustangs with allison, they will do all versions...

and not to be offtopic, wish - soviet experimental load outs for p-47 (22-RE/27-RE) like 2 fab-250, 3 fab-250 and 2 fab-500, which was tested (http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/AiKOut02/P47/P47046.htm), but not used? in combats...

Riksen

12-19-2012, 12:08 PM

The only real thing i miss in all those official patches is a full-blown MDS set of features, like those seen in UP3. Maybe this next patch could include all, or at least some more features of MDS 1.2 by Zuti.

That would be great ;)

SPAD-1949

12-19-2012, 12:22 PM

Janosch

12-19-2012, 01:38 PM

Some wishes:

1. Bugfixes. E.g., anyone have problems changing gunsight view/regular view watching several .ntrks and fiddling with accelerated time?
2. Ingame rewind option for tracks. Would be useful for loooong tracks.
3. Rename Spitfire MkIX into Spitfairy MkIX
4. My name in the credits
5. Ingame option to partially disable markings (national, number, bars, arrows)
6. It's been already said, but the option to lock loadout separately from fuel level.
7. AI tweaks - remove unrealistic acceleration, climb and dive abilities

Riksen

12-19-2012, 02:11 PM

Beg you pardon, but what is MDS?

MDS stands for Moving Dogfight server. It was created by Zuti and initially incorporated into the UltraPack Mod, but recently (not sure which version) it has, at least partially, been also included in the oficial versions of the game. For more information on what exactly the MDS does visit the following link:

http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,4451.0.html

Hope that helps

Best regards ;)

Corsican Corsair

12-20-2012, 06:43 PM

I wish the following bugs disappear:

Hs 129 B2 - Logic operation of the bomb panel lights does not seem correct anymore as in 4.10.

Ju-88's - oil temperature data is on the left-hand gage (hydraulic pressure) instead of being on the right-hand gage.
On A-17, the coolant temperature gage for right engine is "coupled" to the left engine.

F6F - the old "fuel gage" became the cylinder head temperature (correct) but there is not a fuel gage anymore. The triple engine gage should become a fuel gage.

Bf 109 Z & Go 229 - the homing indicator does not work.

La-7R - the rocket temperature gage does not work any more.

Best regards.

SPAD-1949

12-20-2012, 08:09 PM

MDS stands for Moving Dogfight server. It was created by Zuti and initially incorporated into the UltraPack Mod, but recently (not sure which version) it has, at least partially, been also included in the oficial versions of the game. For more information on what exactly the MDS does visit the following link:

http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,4451.0.html

Hope that helps

Best regards ;)

Yessir! :-)

Monty_Thrud

12-25-2012, 11:55 AM

Having the abililty to choose aircraft formations would be a bonus in FMB too, just built a mission with DB-3F bombers attacking a bridge, they spawn in Echelon right which is no good for bombing bridges.

ECV56_Guevara

12-27-2012, 01:38 PM

1984

12-27-2012, 04:29 PM

i know not so much about these things, and it's not really important, but someday need include in game other planes with skis, like yaks, laggs and il-2s for winter 1941-1942...

for example, attached from here (http://www.airforce.ru/history/savasleika/index.htm), lagg-3 around 8-1x series with skis, rockets and racks for fuel tanks/bombs...

even don't know, how much worse these planes, apparently, fights with lw was mainly excluded...

1984

12-27-2012, 08:54 PM

CWMV

12-28-2012, 01:42 AM

So were Hurricanes and warhawks, doesn't mean they didn't get slaughtered.
What specifically do you want?

Treetop64

12-28-2012, 05:23 AM

IceFire

12-28-2012, 01:15 PM

this may sound strange, but i'm (and think lot of russian players) want revised FM of yaks, because so long time we fly on really yaks (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Як):), although in RL it were very simple planes, mainly, without any problems for pilots, if i'm not mistaken...

What's wrong with the Yaks? I'm a pretty prolific flyer of them these days and over the last 5-6 years of flying IL-2 I've become a huge fan of them. They fly so well... turn, roll rate, climb, speed, all excellent depending on the model and the opposition. The wing loading is a wee bit high in the Yak-3 (as it actually was) which makes manoeuvring interesting but it's such a sweet fighter.

Treetop64

12-28-2012, 06:11 PM

What's wrong with the Yaks? I'm a pretty prolific flyer of them these days and over the last 5-6 years of flying IL-2 I've become a huge fan of them. They fly so well... turn, roll rate, climb, speed, all excellent depending on the model and the opposition. The wing loading is a wee bit high in the Yak-3 (as it actually was) which makes manoeuvring interesting but it's such a sweet fighter.

His post was a bit vague, but he hyperlinked "Yaks" to a page about the animal version of yak and not the Yakovlev aircraft, so it may have been an attempt at humor. He might have been trying to say in jest that the Yakovlev fighters should handle more like the yak animal - sluggishly, since they share the same name.

I dunno. Hard to read, but his English is better than my Russian!

1984

12-28-2012, 08:22 PM

What's wrong with the Yaks?

so hard to explain, even on my language and for russians, and here i can't recommended for you read kilometers of many russian forums...

well, you just can say what yak in game very simple plane, like was in real life? i can't, even in compare with other planes with "realistic" FM...

in RL la-5 was not easy, lagg-3, mig-3, i-16, bf 109g, but not yaks, most mass soviet fighter and one of most mass fighters in ww2, even new re.2000 and spits not so strange, how yaks, iars and tempest...

in this situation how we can normal play in online wars? if main soviet fighter like wild bison and all want la-5, and in total we have, mainly, war of primitive etalons like «la-5 vs g-2 and fw 190»...

etc etc etc...

i not want arcade, but situation totally strange, and sometimes think what better see yaks with more simple FM and other planes with FM like for yaks now...

They fly so well... turn, roll rate, climb, speed, all excellent depending on the model and the opposition. The wing loading is a wee bit high in the Yak-3 (as it actually was) which makes manoeuvring interesting but it's such a sweet fighter.

they fly not like in arcades, agree, it's very good, but strange in total... it's FM...

about performances, for example, in game yak-7b with m-105pa, in fact, have speed (and, maybe, all performance) of first yak-7 and first series of yak-7a, although in RL had 490-500 kph at sl...

after may 1942 rockets had only some fighters, but in game even yak-1b have this, although - what much more important and really my dream - beginning from early 43 late series had 140 shells for shvak and 240 rounds for ubs + sometimes different bombs...

etc...

ie performances, weapons, etc of yaks in game, mainly, wrong (all this i try explain in other topic, but apparently this is not helps for some users like gaunt1 and Z1024:), or someone too lazy), like many other planes, things etc and in this case, for example, 2 b-20 for yak-3 with m-107a it's only what DT can do for him, my opinion...

well, and yak-3... i'm not big specialist, i'm just not specialist:), just know what it's was "dream fighter", after reading of many things why so, including opinions of pilots, memoirs, interviews etc, and if most important source tells what best yak-3 had 17-18 sec (21 sec, it's turn time of some first serial yaks with 540-550 kph at sl) of turn time, we just can't debate with this...

well, i think, maybe, AFM or time machine, someday, say who was really right...

I'm a pretty prolific flyer of them ...and over the last 5-6 years of flying IL-2 I've become a huge fan of them.

i flew on yaks lot of time too, after our good flights on ukd2;) in online wars especially, so, you saying like about me...:) and this is first reason why i talking here about yaks and laggs, about this very wrong situation, because i repeat, too much errors and in RL la-5 was strict plane, for example, but not yaks...

well, i hope, someday FM can be revised, especially because i absolutely don't hope, in total, on a "battle of stalingrad" after reading forums about this strange thing, where can be interesting in fact only AFM and some little details...

and all this only my opinion...

He might have been trying to say in jest that the Yakovlev fighters should handle more like the yak animal - sluggishly, since they share the same name.

i mean, now planes "yak" for pilot like real WILD yaks (bulls, or bisons, etc) for rider, but this not really normal, because if i'm not mistaken this is was simple plane...

I dunno. Hard to read, but his English is better than my Russian!

i know language, but not so good, and it's not easy to write on another language, so, in the end, here lot of help of 2 types of translator...:) sorry, if not all clear...

Janosch

12-28-2012, 08:28 PM

I'd like to see some kind of indicator for chat lines depending on whether they are sent to ALL or MY_ARMY. This would help in preventing people accidentally revealing tactical information to opponents, for example.

SPAD-1949

12-29-2012, 12:54 PM

Found this P47 Video on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqgP26cyorQ
at 6:03 you see an airfield with a parking lot similliar to them in front of a shopping mall.
Wolud be cool for US airfieilds in time of their winning leg.
al litte later you see a flight landing pattern, that would be great for AI behaviour too.

Pursuivant

12-29-2012, 08:14 PM

I would love for ground based field guns (howitzers, etc.) to be able to apply indirect fire to targets within their range, or assigned target areas set in the FMB, and not just direct fire at targets in front of them. Ship's guns can fire at targets indirectly, but not field guns.

This would be welcome, not only on its own merits, but also because it would create a whole new class of Aerial Artillery Observation or FAC missions.

There are modded versions of the Fi-156 Storch and a modded F3 Stinson Reliant which are flyable and allow you to perform FO missions, but their "forward observation" is actually just a delayed action, invisible cannon.

Related to this would be all sorts of forward air observer missions where ground attack planes are directed to their target by a ground-based air controller. That sort of "cab rank" mission was the dominant activity for British and U.S. fighter bombers from 1944 on.

TheGrunch

12-30-2012, 01:26 AM

gaunt1

12-30-2012, 11:36 AM

This would be welcome, not only on its own merits, but also because it would create a whole new class of Aerial Artillery Observation or FAC missions.

Something similar is/was in development, there is an old video on youtube.
It would be great to do this with flyable Po-2 and Fw-189!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5eos6vnDkw

SPAD-1949

12-30-2012, 01:57 PM

Something similar is/was in development, there is an old video on youtube.
It would be great to do this with flyable Po-2 and Fw-189!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5eos6vnDkw

Whoa!
What about the 109 flight landing pattern?
how did this work?
Or weren't they AI?

SPAD-1949

12-30-2012, 02:09 PM

I would love if the AI could cope better with occasions where they find themselves ahead of their formation and on a similar heading. At the moment they must loop right around to the back of the formation or do some wacky vertical manoeuvres in order to get back into formation. If they could simply recognise that they are on the correct heading already and throttle back, they might behave a bit more sanely.

It might just be me but at the moment, using the Pairs or Line takeoff waypoint options looks and works great, except where the leader ends up behind the rest of the formation after takeoff, or even where an element leader ends up behind his wingman, as the wingman then performs violent (and often fatal) manoeuvres in order to correct his position as soon as the first normal waypoint is called out - usually a nose-dive straight into the ground.

+1
I prefer to set a start delay and put spawn planes for my AI flight on the runway.
My spawn plane is somewhere at the Airfield.
If I do it correctly, I can start and line in before they start. What bugs me about this is the delayed engine start and the immediate takeoff run of the commrades with cold engines.
If I manage to line in before they start, I can try to start with my wingman, who happens to accelerate faster on the first half of his takoff run, then suddenly falls back.
Sometimes I take off as second or last and AI shows this stupid circling behaviour.
Now my trick is to let an enemy spotter fly low in a not to far distance and order my flight TAB-1-2 and TAB-2-2 to attack evrything. As soon as Im airborn, I hook rectangular and order Tab-1-1 and Tab-2-1 to cover, followed by Tab-2-8-3 or Tab-2-5-4 for close or 4 finger formation.
Then they immediately aligne to formation without wasting time by circling around.
Its a little noisance, but it works for me.

IceFire

01-01-2013, 11:28 PM

I was wondering how hard it would be to do some more of these...

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l509/cczerneda/il2-props_zps4163c8c2.jpg

For other nations of course. They make nice props I find.

Pfeil

01-03-2013, 12:46 AM

I was wondering how hard it would be to do some more of these...

For other nations of course. They make nice props I find.

I think it's been suggested before that flags would ideally be skinable in the same way aircraft are.
From a bandwidth perspective(sited as the main reason images cannot be used in mission briefings) flags would be much smaller, and have less impact.

Regardless of such an implementation, more flags for the main countries would help with set dressing in missions.

Igo kyu

01-03-2013, 12:49 AM

I think it's been suggested before that flags would ideally be skinable in the same way aircraft are.
From a bandwidth perspective(sited as the main reason images cannot be used in mission briefings) flags would be much smaller, and have less impact.

Regardless of such an implementation, more flags for the main countries would help with set dressing in missions.
There's probably a legal issue as with swasticas, with respect to the Nazi flag at least.

IceFire

01-03-2013, 04:14 AM

There's probably a legal issue as with swasticas, with respect to the Nazi flag at least.

That flag could strategically be hanging rather than being straight out like the others. I've seen it done elsewhere...

Pursuivant

01-03-2013, 04:55 AM

IceFire

01-03-2013, 04:57 AM

Just as a bit of trivia, the flag depicted is a 50 star U.S. flag. During WW2 Alaska and Hawaii were still territories, so the U.S. flag for all of WW2 was the 48 star version.

And, yes, there are plenty of workarounds for the dreaded swastika flag, ranging from having the flag folded to just turning the swastika into a cross or leaving the central white roundel of the the Nazi flag blank.

I hadn't thought of that... interesting! Yes many flags have changed so historically accurate would be key IMHO. I was just looking up what the Canadian flag looked like at the time. Very different than the maple leaf that we have now.

SPAD-1949

01-03-2013, 01:46 PM

Another wish urges up for later ....
To have a switch to FMB button out of the Single missions Mode to change settings and a text editor window editing mis file from the inside (pushing waypoints out of the borders or so)

Pursuivant

01-03-2013, 09:41 PM

I hadn't thought of that... interesting! Yes many flags have changed so historically accurate would be key IMHO. I was just looking up what the Canadian flag looked like at the time. Very different than the maple leaf that we have now.

WW2-era RCAF flag. 1st use of the "maple leaf roundel" that I know of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_Ensign_%281941-1968%29.svg

WW2-era Canadian Flag:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Flag_of_Canada_1921.svg/800px-Flag_of_Canada_1921.svg.png

Changing from this flag to the Maple Leaf caused a big stink at the time, if you can believe it. (IMO, the new flag is much more distinctive and attractive.)

IceFire

01-03-2013, 10:01 PM

WW2-era RCAF flag. 1st use of the "maple leaf roundel" that I know of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Canadian_Air_Force_Ensign_%281941-1968%29.svg

WW2-era Canadian Flag:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Flag_of_Canada_1921.svg/800px-Flag_of_Canada_1921.svg.png

Changing from this flag to the Maple Leaf caused a big stink at the time, if you can believe it. (IMO, the new flag is much more distinctive and attractive.)
Those are both interesting from a history point of view but thank goodness for the new one :)

Sandbag

01-04-2013, 06:21 PM

Rabaul map and Lancaster Bombers.

TheGrunch

01-04-2013, 11:39 PM

Now my trick is to let an enemy spotter fly low in a not to far distance and order my flight TAB-1-2 and TAB-2-2 to attack evrything. As soon as Im airborn, I hook rectangular and order Tab-1-1 and Tab-2-1 to cover, followed by Tab-2-8-3 or Tab-2-5-4 for close or 4 finger formation.
Then they immediately aligne to formation without wasting time by circling around.
Its a little noisance, but it works for me.
Hi SPAD, thanks for reminding me to fiddle with radio commands! That works great for the player, but the problem still exists with all-AI flights unfortunately. :(

1984

01-06-2013, 12:51 PM

"light" bombs, like ao-25 and similar, for la-5/7...

only some examples are attached (last photo, if i'm not mistaken, czech la-5fn)...

it's not whim:), it's for tactical freedom when you need attack weapon, but not big bombs, well, something like "free hunt" for fighters and fighter-bombers and when you can fight even with bombs under wing and later do your AG mission...

well, this is what all times was need personally for me in online (wars, simple missions etc) and, think, for many pilots too...

and, in fact, this need do for some yaks and p-39 etc too, just here we really see and know from sources what these bombs were used on las for attack missions, especially, in 44-45...

and confirmation of real pilot (http://www.airpages.ru/ru/aleks.shtml) - На Ла-5 (и Ла-7, кстати, тоже) имели под каждой плоскостью по одному бомбодержателю. Бомбы использовали разные. Когда только начали, то бомбили бомбами по 25 и 50 кг – ФАБ-25 и ФАБ-50...

...Потом решили рискнуть еще раз, и стали подвешивать обычные «сотки» – ФАБ-100. «Сотки» использовали и на Ла-7.

...Успешно бомбили, наш полк с 1944 года уже был специально «заточен» под нанесение бомбардировочных ударов. Часто поручали.

Pursuivant

01-07-2013, 06:44 AM

Are there currently G limits or speed limits on maneuvering with ordinance or dropping stores?

Could these limits be incorporated into the game?

It's always seemed to me that excessive G forces or speed might make stores rip away on their own, and it seems I'm right.

I was reading a WW2-era pilot manual (for the Hawker Typhoon) the other day and it had specific limits on the speed at which the plane could safely drop its drop tanks and the sort of maneuvers you could perform while carrying rockets or bombs.

In particular, it seems that sudden lateral movements make ordinance fall off the plane.

SPAD-1949

01-07-2013, 09:55 AM

Hi SPAD, thanks for reminding me to fiddle with radio commands! That works great for the player, but the problem still exists with all-AI flights unfortunately. :(

Jeah, especially when you're not the leader of the entider pack.
Otherwise I give them the Tab-flight-1 command to assist me, when I start and repeat this command after a minute or so. but it might distract them from their mission.

What I woluld like to ask for in this kontext is:
No matter what flight you are in command, it should allways be the Tab-2- command for your flight. only the commander of the squad should have the choice of whom he commands.

ECV56_Guevara

01-07-2013, 01:05 PM

Is readme finished?
thanks in advance.

JtD

01-07-2013, 02:42 PM

No, not yet. It will certainly be posted as soon as it is ready.

1984

01-07-2013, 03:52 PM

Are there currently G limits or speed limits on maneuvering with ordinance or dropping stores?

Could these limits be incorporated into the game?

this already have in game...

i not flew very much, especially, in 4.11, but remember something like this...

and this is one of reasons why i want - that historically justified and correctly - only 50 kg of bombs, in total, for jabo as "hunters", 2 fab-100=200 kg and this is really weight and bigger air resistance, and with only 50 kgs you can try to fight and, for example, real la-7 in good condition with this ammo load had around 590-600 kph at sl (forsazh) what similar or better than any mass serial german fighter'45 with piston engine, if i'm not mistaken...

other reason, ao-25 it's авиационная осколочная bomb, so, i think this bomb better than fab-100 against crews, cars, planes etc (look on attached photo from summer'41 or it's like effect of mortar bomb against infantry, what, sometimes, better than even 105mm), which are, i think, main target for "light" fighters without rockets or really big bombs, but with ao-25, some types of fab-50 etc...

and by the way, if we about all these things, maybe, DT wants do in future something like crews and suppression of crew of AA guns, what, i think, after reading of many books, sometimes main effect after attacks on AA machineguns and guns...

and maybe, it's fisrt step to infantry in game... or to cartage... i mean horses and cart, of course, without any animation of murder and blood... or to, as targets, machine gun nests, position of observers at front line, mortar battery etc etc etc, all these real examples from real sources (if i'm not mistaken, something have in game now)... to soviet analogs of german sd-2/sb-xxx... etc...

well, attached some pics after simple search (sorry for last photo), and my theory, il-2 and even il-10 were armed with shkas+cannons and not 4 x shvak, etc, partly because main targets of attack plane it's "soft" targets and suppression = 2 shkas with 1500 bullets and high rate of fire, and powerful vya-23 for cars etc...

just maybe not all here know what - "те кто хочет переключать тумблеры или расстреливать пехоту не наша аудитория." (c) loft - so, if not DT and in this game, we will wait real war VERY long time...

and my other wish - in addition to infantry, suppression of crew etc - more AA guns in game, especially, light german 7.92 mm and 13.2 mm aa machine guns (i read lot of references about firing of mashine guns, when il-2 attacked german airfields in 43, here (http://militera.lib.ru/h/rastrenin_ov/index.html))...

for example, now we have 12.7 mm DSHK and m-4 (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Зенитная_пулемётная_устано вка_М4_образца_1931_года) (USSR), m-2 (US), something more?, lot of variuos 20-25-37-40 mm aa guns, even mobile, but i can't remember any german machine guns, only funny sd kfz 251...

I was reading a WW2-era pilot manual (for the Hawker Typhoon) the other day and it had specific limits on the speed at which the plane could safely drop its drop tanks and the sort of maneuvers you could perform while carrying rockets or bombs.

In particular, it seems that sudden lateral movements make ordinance fall off the plane.

it's have in fw 190a-8 manual too, for example, well, and what DT did, apparently, in 4.10 for many or all planes...

Fighterace

01-07-2013, 06:09 PM

No, not yet. It will certainly be posted as soon as it is ready.

Can't wait to read it. 4.12 patch is going to be awesome :D

ECV56_Guevara

01-08-2013, 11:45 AM

No, not yet. It will certainly be posted as soon as it is ready.

Thanks a lot for your answer.
A last question...are there any surprises in the patch or is the full content the one in the developmet update post???

Luno13

01-08-2013, 04:45 PM

Don't expect surprises, but they've happened before. ;)

1984

01-09-2013, 12:47 PM

and maybe, it's fisrt step to infantry in game... or to cartage... etc...

more AA guns in game...

forgot about this (http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,19534.0.html)... well... ie... at least, like there... what, apparently, it's not difficult and not really long...

Jami

01-09-2013, 07:45 PM

First of all, thanks for great work of Team Daidalos with IL-2.
I’ve been flying this great flight simulator since Forgotten Battles and it’s getting better all the time. I have watched the TD’s YouTube videos and I have to say that 4.12 is worth waiting.

I read all these pages full of wishes and there are good suggestions here for the future versions but I didn’t notice that anyone had mentioned one thing that I’m not very happy with. Although AI’s new behaviour and shooting skills in 4.11 is a big improvement for me and other experienced flyers, are the AI rookies too demanding for a human rookie who has just started flying and practicing to fight? There still are new pilots who’d like to enjoy this game, but are depressed of the too skillful opponents when flying off line. At least I know some.

We have four AI skill levels in this game, so would it harm anybody if we had less skillful AI rookies again in the next version. So I’d like to see rookie AIs with 4.11 flying skills but 4.10 shooting skills. Averages, veterans and aces are ok as they are at the moment.

Besides, based on the many books I’ve read (pilot memoirs and biographies), most of the real rookie fighter pilots were not so good as they are in 4.11.

So would it make sense to give a chance also to human rookies to develop their skills off line without despair and frustration and to gain good feelings and success in flying and fighting.

Furio

01-10-2013, 12:09 PM

I agree with Jami.
We should always keep in mind offline rookies, even if they seldom post here.

SPAD-1949

01-10-2013, 01:47 PM

I agree with Jami.
We should always keep in mind offline rookies, even if they seldom post here.
So what will we call the lowest skilled AI Level?
Dog Food on High Octane is my suggestion

Daniël

01-10-2013, 02:08 PM

Idea: It would be nice to have skill levels by slider. One for flying skills and one for aerial gunnery and maybe too for obeying orders and panicking. The first two I find the most important though.

ECV56_Guevara

01-10-2013, 02:22 PM

MicroWave

01-10-2013, 03:55 PM

Jami

01-10-2013, 05:30 PM

Actually, pilots do have some hidden properties like flying ability and gunnery (since 4.11?).
Only it is hidden from players and mission builders. Those skills are assigned 'randomly' based on the overall skill specified in the mission.Yes, I know that feature very well and have faced it in many missions - and I like it. But still, could all the rookies be a bit less skilled...

Pursuivant

01-11-2013, 07:14 AM

Idea: It would be nice to have skill levels by slider. One for flying skills and one for aerial gunnery and maybe too for obeying orders and panicking. The first two I find the most important though.

I'd love to see something like this, and have asked for it before.

Flying ability, gunnery skills, tactical expertise/situational awareness are all different skills, although obviously successful fighter pilots are selected for all three traits.

While it tips towards the much maligned MS CFS 3, I'd like to see slightly more "roleplaying" elements, for pilots: eyesight, G tolerance/endurance/strength, calmness/courage, aggressiveness and situational awareness.

If mission builders could control these aspects, you could simulate anything from a sleepy pilot, a plane with dirt on the windshield or a pilot nearly dead from dysentery or crazy from combat stress.

idefix44

01-11-2013, 12:57 PM

I enjoy to never know the FOE's skill level that I meet in mission.

Actually, each time you run a mission you meet different AI pilots due to random features of their skill parameters. And it's great.

Noobs can fly with a lot of unrealistic settings... Unlimited ammo, no fuel and noob unarmmed FOEs. I forgot no cockpit and icons... I think that it is good enough.

nic727

01-11-2013, 03:04 PM

Hi,

when the patch will be released?

thx

Malkav

01-11-2013, 03:09 PM

Hi,

when the patch will be released?

thx

+1, when we can take it?

jermin

01-11-2013, 03:35 PM

I sense a huge change being undergone for the game. Maybe we will get some groundbreaking improvement for this old game.

It is absolutely necessary if 1C wants to keep his customers from leaving, which has been going on ever since the mods (hence the online hacks) came out.

I gave War Thunder a try this week. And it is fantastic graphics wise. Actually it's far better than Clod if you turn off vignette effect. Currently, I'm still testing the FM. It seems that Luftwaffe is still being nerfed badly. But I haven't tried FRB yet. I will fly more in FRB when It enables me to choose sides.

BTW, every history battle or full real battle in WT is a COOP. Both sides can respawn only once. And there is also dynamic campaign. With controllable ground troops and ships to be added, it is foreseeable that it will become the most popular WWII sim we have ever had.

[URU]BlackFox

01-11-2013, 03:36 PM

I guess when it's ready.

It would be nice to have some news from the dev team though, even if it's to state that it will take a long time.

TheGrunch

01-11-2013, 04:55 PM

I gave War Thunder a try this week. And it is fantastic graphics wise. Actually it's far better than Clod if you turn off vignette effect. Currently, I'm still testing the FM.
I was put off as soon as I tried to get an aircraft to stall. Emphasis on "tried".

nic727

01-12-2013, 06:28 PM

Just saw yoour new video and wow, you answer one time that 3D water can't be make in DirectX mode, but I just want to know if it's possible for Direct X mode to add :

- New water texture (more real) --> I want something that look realistic from the air, but 2D from the ground.
- Reflection of vehicles, planes, ships and mountains instead of just trees.

thx

fruitbat

01-12-2013, 07:08 PM

A request for 4.13,

Would it be possible to change the map border, or have just inside the map border to be a square (in this case rectangular) protractor?

cheers fruitbat.

Bolelas

01-12-2013, 09:36 PM

A request for 4.13,

Would it be possible to change the map border, or have just inside the map border to be a square (in this case rectangular) protractor?

cheers fruitbat.

Do you mean the map that shows up when we press M (by default)? +1
i think it definitly could have a thinner frame. A so small map with that amount of frame looks like a painting from the XVIII century! (what i mean is we could have more map in the same occupied space, or less space used).

fruitbat

01-12-2013, 09:38 PM

Do you mean the map that shows up when we press M (by default)? +1

yep, thats the one.

nic727

01-12-2013, 11:21 PM

IceFire

01-13-2013, 12:41 AM

And to follow my other post, is it possible to add an antialiasing option in the game menu, to make a kind of antialiasing emulator (forced antialiasing?) for people who don't have this kind of option.

thx

Anti-aliasing is more a function of your video card than the game engine. Are you having difficulty enabling it? Maybe someone can help you turn it on for your system. Any AMD/nVidia card around in the last 5-6 years can do a variety of anti-aliasing levels and types.

nic727

01-13-2013, 01:32 AM

Anti-aliasing is more a function of your video card than the game engine. Are you having difficulty enabling it? Maybe someone can help you turn it on for your system. Any AMD/nVidia card around in the last 5-6 years can do a variety of anti-aliasing levels and types.

I have Intel HD Graphics that doesn't allow antialiasing, it's why I want to know if it's exist something to emulate antialiasing. But if not, I will stay like that.

IceFire

01-13-2013, 01:53 AM

I have Intel HD Graphics that doesn't allow antialiasing, it's why I want to know if it's exist something to emulate antialiasing. But if not, I will stay like that.

Did a quick search. Apparently most of the Intel HD Graphics series do not support full screen anti-aliasing which is what you'd want to do with IL-2 (and other games). So there's likely no way for you to get anti-aliasing with that card. I've seen some graphics programmers use pixel shaders to emulate anti-aliasing but I have no idea what level of difficulty that would pose in the IL-2 environment. I'd also question if that method would also rob the Intel HD of most of it's graphics performance anyways... they are great cards for accelerating office applications, windows, HD video, that sort of thing and doing it on very little power but when it comes to games they are lacking.

nic727

01-13-2013, 02:06 AM

Did a quick search. Apparently most of the Intel HD Graphics series do not support full screen anti-aliasing which is what you'd want to do with IL-2 (and other games). So there's likely no way for you to get anti-aliasing with that card. I've seen some graphics programmers use pixel shaders to emulate anti-aliasing but I have no idea what level of difficulty that would pose in the IL-2 environment. I'd also question if that method would also rob the Intel HD of most of it's graphics performance anyways... they are great cards for accelerating office applications, windows, HD video, that sort of thing and doing it on very little power but when it comes to games they are lacking.

lol, thx for the answer, it's very bad that graphic card can,t be upgrade like you want.

nic727

01-13-2013, 04:21 PM

Hi,

daidalos team, hope you read my post about water texture and reflection in water... Whatever, it's not about that why I'm here today. Many servers online don't approve base camping and straffing with gun enemy plane on the ground.
I have some suggestions to add in the online options :

- no straffing :

Option that when it's checked, you can be hit by bombs, crash, etc. but if an ENEMY shoot you with bullet when you are at base, you are invincible. It could be better than be banned, because for me, straffing with gun it's really nice. You just see the bullet arriving in your face and you have the takeoff very fast. Like real life.

- No base camping :

When this option is checked, you have about 10 minutes for base camping (destroying DCA, hangar, etc.) and after that, you have a message in your screen "Leave enemy base (2 minutes left)" or something like that. It could be better than be kicked.

thx

ElAurens

01-13-2013, 05:48 PM

Silly option.

If you cannot attack a base with guns, then you should be able to attack it at all.

I understand that some servers do not allow base attack at all as they are trying to simulate longer distances, but on the whole it's just a juvenile approach. If you don't want a base attacked add enough flak to cover the base properly. Then if someone is successful at attacking the base it will be well deserved.

fruitbat

01-13-2013, 05:58 PM

I think the whole no vulching is silly full stop, but its up to each server how they run themselves, and you should abide by the server rules, as they've spent the time and effort (and money) to build the missions and to put the server up.

Personally i think if you design a mission to have several airfields on each side heavily defended by flack, its next to impossible for one side to cap the other, and if they manage it, kudos in those circumstances.

Wars hell after all.

ElAurens

01-13-2013, 05:59 PM

Exactly Fruitbat.

Well put.

:cool:

nic727

01-13-2013, 06:16 PM

yeah, but if they add this kind of option in the game, it will be better, like that I will not be kick from the game. I hate the "no vulching" server, but all servers are using that.

JtD

01-13-2013, 06:42 PM

Well, ElAurens and fruitbat, I respectfully disagree. Setting up various airfields with lots of AAA to effectively prevent/severely reduce vulching eats resources which can be put to much better use when this necessity is replaced by a simple rule. Just the other day I came across a large enemy fleet and when the AAA started firing, and promptly the chat got flooded with complaints about lag.

IceFire

01-13-2013, 08:11 PM

Vulching doesn't work in a-historical circumstances. Many dogfight servers have short flying distances (less than 50km) so one team can effectively camp the other team and all it does is prevent players from having a decent time and ultimately from the server being popular.

Saw it happen all the time in the early days. The servers that are still around don't allow vulching and aggressively kick those who do.

The servers where it makes sense to do so have more realistic flight distances. You have to cover considerable territory to make it to the enemy base and should you get there and decide to attack that seems fair enough but you'll have to brave the AAA and then the prospect of flying 100km on a damaged airframe. With the longer distances it makes it nearly impossible to have full time camping over an enemy airfield.

nic727

01-13-2013, 11:19 PM

And do you know if it can be possible to make smoke shadow in directX mode?

Viking

01-14-2013, 02:29 AM

I'd like to see longer wakes after the ships. More realistic.

ECV56_Guevara

01-14-2013, 10:52 AM

In 4.13 Could be adresssed the Ju52 + glider issue?

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

01-14-2013, 12:18 PM

i think it definitly could have a thinner frame. A so small map with that amount of frame looks like a painting from the XVIII century! (what i mean is we could have more map in the same occupied space, or less space used).

Thats in 4.12.

panzer1b

01-14-2013, 05:32 PM

although this'll be for 4.13, can we model 3 things which if i am correct were present on most or at least many planes in ww2:

separate fuel tanks: (so that if i get hit to a non self sealing tank in a bomber for example i am not basdically as good as dead unless im close to home base)......currently (to my knowledge) once a single leak is made it seems to affect every tank in the plane at once....i mean didnt almost all planes have devices set up to keep something like this from occuring?

engine fuel cutoff switch: (so the engine fire can be put out and not be a ticking time bomb waiting to explode exentually).....i mean no fuel to engine means fire has nothing to burn (well maybee oil or some engine parts could be flamable but thatd eventually run out unlike now with the indefinite unextinguisheable fires)

fuel dump: (so when we take very heavy damage we could dump some fuel).....im pretty sure most bombers had such an option as im sure i read somewhere that if a ju88 (maybee he111 dont remember) lost an engine immediate fuel dumping was necessary to loose enough weight to keep it afloat at least some amount of time.....im pretty sure fighters may have lacked such a feature at least some of them but still would this be hard to accomplish? im not sure how complex this would be but id love to see the option to dump some fuel from a specific or if necessary all tanks.....

a few more unrelated things:

can we add an option (within reason) to have crews shift positions incase one dies? (a good example would be the ju88...if you for example loose the top rear firing gunner why cant another crew member switch to that position?).....ofc it wouldnt be possible with a gunner in a ball turret or tail mount that is inaccessible from inside but is planes with historically switcheable crew positions can this be done?

also not sure if this was ever mentioned but could we get 2 top gunners in the ju88?

i know it was often historically limited to one in order to save weight but with just a single top gunner the ju88 is not exactly very hard to kill.....heck ive gotten killed so many times by having some guy just park himself a bit above and spam all his ammo into me with the gunner doing absolutely nothing to them.....at least 2 would make it a bit harder to attack....

personally id prefer it to be loadout based (such as a light bomb load like 2 or 4 sc250s would get the gunner, while maxed loadouts like sc1000s or 2000s would have him removed to save some weight)......

regardless if any of this gets into the game, i still have to say u guys at DT are doing a great job improving the game immeasureably especially with all the cool stuff in 4.12....

Artist

01-14-2013, 06:09 PM

Could you please, please, pleeeeeze make the new mixture axis available through DeviceLink, too? For those of us, who use more than the supported 4 game controllers (and therefore have to use e.g. YaDeLi), this would be just wonderful!

Artist

Pursuivant

01-15-2013, 07:34 AM

fuel dump: (so when we take very heavy damage we could dump some fuel).....im pretty sure most bombers had such an option

Most planes didn't have the fuel dump option. There were a few like the PZL P.24 (where you could jettison the entire fuel tank), however.

immediate fuel dumping was necessary to loose enough weight to keep it afloat at least some amount of time.....

Actually, tanks full of Avgas sort of act as flotation devices since oil is less dense than water.

can we add an option (within reason) to have crews shift positions incase one dies?

This might be an option for some planes. For example, if a left waist gunner gets killed, it should be reasonable for the right waist gunner to take over against attacks against the left side, or vice-versa.

But, against this, there's currently no mechanism for damage to flexible guns or turrets jamming. Assume that the hit that killed the gunner also rendered the gun station inoperable.

If you want more realism, though, you'd need to have some roleplaying aspects, such as keeping track of which crew have which skills. Realistic simulation of multi-crewed aircraft would be a lot of work. But, it would be cool to track things like intercom failure, frostbite, oxygen failure, etc. which plagued bombers crews. It would also be nice if you could command crew to do things like bring ammo to compatible gun stations where's run out (and keep track of ammo for flexible guns), unjam bomb bay doors, release stuck bombs, render first aid, put out fires using hand-held extinguishers, etc.

also not sure if this was ever mentioned but could we get 2 top gunners in the ju88?

Or, allow a single gunner to switch between the two guns.

Even so, I don't think it would help much. A single rifle caliber MG with a very limited arc of fire isn't that effective a defensive weapon and an extra one won't help. Any fighter pilot worth his wings should be able to make an attack on a Ju-88 which avoids the rear cockpit guns.

Despite that, the Ju-88 was a relatively fast, tough plane. I prefer attacking He-111 to Ju-88.

Pursuivant

01-15-2013, 07:49 AM

I'd like to see longer wakes after the ships. More realistic.

+1

But, it depends on how fast the ship was going and how big it is.

Of course, what would be really cool is if ships could try to take evasive action against bombs and torpedoes, making the wake effects look like period pictures.

Blaf

01-15-2013, 08:33 AM

...
If you want more realism, though, you'd need to have some roleplaying aspects, such as keeping track of which crew have which skills. Realistic simulation of multi-crewed aircraft would be a lot of work. But, it would be cool to track things like intercom failure, frostbite, oxygen failure, etc. which plagued bombers crews. It would also be nice if you could command crew to do things like bring ammo to compatible gun stations where's run out (and keep track of ammo for flexible guns), unjam bomb bay doors, release stuck bombs, render first aid, put out fires using hand-held extinguishers, etc.
...

Me gusta, that would be really cool addition!

Pfeil

01-15-2013, 02:04 PM

Tanks full of Avgas sort of act as flotation devices since oil is less dense than water.

Even so, oil/avgas are not lighter than air.
As such, draining both tanks(which would simultaneously fill them with air) would make for more effective floatation and less weight(thus higher on the water) than leaving them full.
Reducing overall mass would also reduce the damage caused by the initial impact into the water.

I'd like to see longer wakes after the ships. More realistic.

I remember seeing something about a carrier pilot who had a lightning strike take out most of his instruments.
He actually found the carrier at night because he followed the algae churned up in the wake of the ship. So presumably large ships would leave behind quite a trail(even if not exactly a wake).

shelby

01-16-2013, 11:59 AM

Morane ms 406 cockpit
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerofossile2012/3686786710/
http://www.airventure.de/hilzingen02/Hilzingen-Morane%20406-Cockpit-R.jpg
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b3/ZIO_BY_NAITT/ms406cockpit.jpg

T}{OR

01-16-2013, 01:47 PM

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

Anything than instant explosion would be an improvement.

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..

Having built one such mission, yeah, it indeed it a tedious task. Non the less, if we could have at least proper banking and turning simulated followed by proper curved wake texture it would add so much to those who build such missions.

Here is one idea for bomber pilots, especially since B-24 is being built now: ability to control or give some kind of input to our gunners (e.g. range at which they start firing, hold fire, scan the horizon / return to cruise mode* etc.), perhaps even have AI gunners calling out spotted bandits.

* This alone would add so much immersion to those flying bombers in formation.

1984

01-16-2013, 05:51 PM

for 4.1x...

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

about m-105 engines and these, i think, important yaks...

at first, what i found about engines (few of various pics attached)...

m-105p/pa – 1020-1050 hp at sl (nominal power, + 5 min. forzash with 1100 hp only before 200? m)...

m-105pf - 1210 hp at sl (nominal)...

m-105pf2 (vk-105pf2) - 1290 hp at sl (nominal)...

next, we know what in 44 yak-9 (m,d,t) in good condition had 525-545 kph at sl and >537-540, maybe, because new prop (like vish-105v4 for la-5fn/7)... well, anyway, 110 hp gives for yak-1,7,9 in 42-43 - only my opinion - around 15 kph (in total, confirmed in one document, later about this and yak-7b/lagg-3 in 42)... so, if pf2 really had 1290 hp, this engine can give for yak-9 with middle speed 537 around 10 kph, ie, 537+10=547 for normal yak-9m with pf-2 in autumn-winter'44 and later, or 550-555 kph for best yaks...

maybe, this simple calculation sometimes little wrong, but, anyway pf2 really gives for serial yaks better performance - well, i think, it's important like f-4 1.42? ata in early 42 - and it's reason why we need this yak in game, especially, because need do only other performance...

other reason, yak-3, la-7 and especially yak-9u were new types with some defects sometimes, and, if i'm not mistaken, not most mass fighters even in 45, so, better versions of really mass planes it's not whims or something like this (this i can say and about la-5f with metal spars)...

well, maybe, it's why even bf 109 with mw-50 and fw 190a 1.58/1.65 ata especially as F/G, besides poorer quality of german planes in 44-45, were not so dangerous for these yaks... but it's only my simple theory...

in ideal, if i'm not mistaken, need other number of shells/rounds for weapon (like 120/220 or 140/220 or 135/240 etc), some types of bombs and more correctly performances in total (for example, now wrong weight 3029 kg instead around 3050-3090 kg)...

and... just, remind and for start...

here (http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_p_802546.html#802546) most correctly drawings - how said at scalemodels.ru (http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_p_671793.html#671793) - for some series of yak-9t/m/dd (initials of the author, with same forum, in drawings)...

i hope, it's helps if DT wants change 3d model (or someone like JapanCat:)), especially, because we can see what front bulletproof for many yaks in game wrongly...

prototype of not serial yak-9p...

hmm, maybe, all the same, these yak-9p m-105pf, yak-7p m-105pf and yak-9s and other similar, mainly, experimental yaks must wait... better do something like yak-7b or ki-44 or a-36 etc etc etc... maybe, chance have only yak-7p with 3 shvaks - together with new yak-7b - because (it's only from one source) he "returned in 1 AR (air army) and could be used in combats after elimination of defects" (for prototype, how with yak-9k, was used repaired yak-7)...

Bionde

01-16-2013, 08:53 PM

Wreckage of other airplanes can hit other airplanes, example, one airplane explodes and its wreckage could hit other airplanes.

sry for my bad translate english

nic727

01-16-2013, 11:36 PM

+1

But, it depends on how fast the ship was going and how big it is.

Of course, what would be really cool is if ships could try to take evasive action against bombs and torpedoes, making the wake effects look like period pictures.

It could be nice too to be able to shoot torpedoes with your bullet to destroy them.

Blaf

01-17-2013, 08:53 AM

It could be nice too to be able to shoot torpedoes with your bullet to destroy them.

I also miss the possibility of shooting down the BAT bomb. As it glides pretty slowly, it's frustrating to see bullets gone through doing no harm :/

Asheshouse

01-17-2013, 09:11 AM

It could be nice too to be able to shoot torpedoes with your bullet to destroy them.

Did this ever happen in real life?
Torpedoes do not generally run on the surface but at a set depth.

Pursuivant

01-17-2013, 10:36 AM

Even so, oil/avgas are not lighter than air.
As such, draining both tanks(which would simultaneously fill them with air) would make for more effective floatation and less weight(thus higher on the water) than leaving them full.
Reducing overall mass would also reduce the damage caused by the initial impact into the water.

True. Some fuel systems actually route exhaust gasses into the fuel tanks as a fire protection (the layer of CO2 and other gasses prevents a spark in the tank from igniting the fuel). In a few cases, there are fuel bladders which collapse as the fuel empties, so they wouldn't provide flotation.

I remember seeing something about a carrier pilot who had a lightning strike take out most of his instruments.
He actually found the carrier at night because he followed the algae churned up in the wake of the ship. So presumably large ships would leave behind quite a trail(even if not exactly a wake).

This is a bit of an unusual situation, since bioluminescent plankton don't appear in all waters, and they continue to glow for a while after they are agitated; possibly even after the ship's wake has subsided. (And damned lucky for the pilot!)

Even so, big ships traveling at speed leave long wakes. It would be wonderful if ships in IL2 looked like this:

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/a/ea_herr/Friday13th.jpg

http://bellsouthpwp2.net/e/a/ea_herr/NightFight2.gif

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/f000001/f003725.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/f000001/f004845.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/f000001/f057576.jpg

Note long wakes at high speeds and evasive action to avoid bombs and torpedoes.

Pursuivant

01-17-2013, 10:48 AM

Many servers online don't approve base camping and straffing with gun enemy plane on the ground.

Of course, realistically, it's not "vulching" or "camping," it's AIR SUPERIORITY!

Since WWI, it's been standard practice for air forces to try to destroy enemy planes on the ground or as they're taking off. If you can manage a sneak attack that takes out an enemy's air force on the ground; you're doing an effective job as an air force commander.

Sure, it's not a fair fight, so that makes it less fun. But, in that case, why not just allow players on a server to just spawn in the air at a decent altitude and airspeed? It seems simpler than elaborate rules forbidding vulching and camping.

K_Freddie

01-17-2013, 10:57 AM

With the previous posts idea, How about an online option to stand around of the airfield in camera view, so you can look around and when it's clear, spawn your plane tpo fly.

Being able to record with this would be nice for a ground crew perspective ;)

SPAD-1949

01-17-2013, 11:10 AM

Wreckage of other airplanes can hit other airplanes, example, one airplane explodes and its wreckage could hit other airplanes.

All of the above is allready implemented.
You can collide and just loose surfaces, you can cut your enemy in halft or rip of wings under the danger of exploding.
Pieces of ac will inflict damage or down other ac.

SPAD-1949

01-17-2013, 11:12 AM

It could be nice too to be able to shoot torpedoes with your bullet to destroy them.

This will not work, your ammo is far supersonic and colapses entirely when protruding the water surface.
Torpedos sneak also to deep for pistol (subsonic) ammo.

Bionde

01-17-2013, 02:38 PM

All of the above is allready implemented.
You can collide and just loose surfaces, you can cut your enemy in halft or rip of wings under the danger of exploding.
Pieces of ac will inflict damage or down other ac.

I know it but if a wing of B24 ripped in fall hits you, nothing happens, by I saw...

Another wish is the external ordnance can be hit, yesterday flying in La7 vs Ar-234 with 3xAB500 and I didn't know what happened with AI's, they just flew leveled, like drones and I can pratice shoot, and I tried to hit a bomb and nothing happens, as if the bomb was not it there. I know if a bomb was hit, probably wouldn't explode but at least would come off from the wing. :confused:

sry for my bad english.

nic727

01-17-2013, 10:48 PM

Hi,

It's not for 4.12, but for 4.13... If possible <------> For OpenGL 2.1

It could be nice to fixe some glitch/bug for low graphic card.
- Better clouds
- 3D water even if you are not in perfect (you can add other switch in the display setting for water quality).

Check that

http://image.noelshack.com/minis/2013/03/1358466493-grab0000.png (http://www.noelshack.com/2013-03-1358466493-grab0000.jpg)

=FPS=Salsero

01-17-2013, 11:27 PM

Well, I know it's way too late for 4.12, but... for 4.13 (eh, should it be called 5.0? :rolleyes:)
The current maps, either in-briefing and in-flight are next to useless for the level bomber, especially in the crosswind. We even do not have the marker bombs to check the aiming, whereas they were in use in WW2.
E.g, It's nice to have the FAB-x000 in say Pe-8, but I do bet that before using it the navigator was using the marker to do a last-minute adjustments of the bombsight.
Ok, I do understand introducing the marker bombs is likely too much pain.

But maybe it is possible:
1.to replace the maps - to replace the old bitmap ones with the better-resolution ones, probably generated from the terrain? It would be fantastic to be able to read the heights from the inflight map using the mouse.
2.To introduce the simple aiming aids - the TAS conversion table, the altimeter and the airspeed indicator that are visible when looking in the bombsight, all of them graduated in the same units as a bombsight? And the direction and speed of the wind?
---------------------
One more request is for introduction of RRABs for Soviet bombers, They were extensively used during the Winter War.

And ZAB's - towards the end of WW2.

Pursuivant

01-19-2013, 11:48 AM

The current maps, either in-briefing and in-flight are next to useless for the level bomber, especially in the crosswind. We even do not have the marker bombs to check the aiming, whereas they were in use in WW2.

Good suggestions. There are a lot of gaps in IL2's simulation of level bombing operations. After all, it was never envisioned as a high altitude level bombing simulator!

Winds blowing at different speeds at different altitudes have yet to be modeled in the game. In particular, you don't have the effects of the Jet Stream modeled at stratospheric altitudes. That was a big problem, especially for some U.S. heavy bombing operations.

Also, while IL2 does a good job modeling cluster bombs and similar explosive submunitions, it doesn't do such a great job with smoke bombs, flares or incendiaries. Likewise, there's no provision to ignite flammable objects, such as wooden buildings, so incendiary munitions are a moot point.

And, as you said, a number of targeting aids used for level bombing aren't readily available in the game.

The problem is that doing any of these changes right - so that when you drop an incendiary bomb on a building it actually starts a fire which spreads - requires a massive amount of work, almost turning IL2 into a different simulation.

fruitbat

01-19-2013, 12:04 PM

Winds blowing at different speeds at different altitudes have yet to be modeled in the game. In particular, you don't have the effects of the Jet Stream modeled at stratospheric altitudes. That was a big problem, especially for some U.S. heavy bombing operations.

this particular point is not true, however, i agree that there are many things that could be done to improve flying bombers in the game, a height tool in the fmb for briefings would be particularly useful imo.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/grab0083-3.jpg

ECV56_Guevara

01-19-2013, 12:06 PM

Yes, thats right, wind speeds are modelled, but some Pursuivant suggestions are very good.

Here an example of the multiple target marking sistems/navigation aids used by the Bomber command.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/target.html

fruitbat

01-19-2013, 12:51 PM

A quick question, is wind modelled on bombs as they fall?

Malkav

01-19-2013, 01:14 PM

A quick question, is wind modelled on bombs as they fall?

Yep

iMattheush

01-20-2013, 07:58 AM

I think good request is:
- adding earlier versions of some aircrafts (Bf-109D-1, E-1, Bf-110B-1, C-1) which fights in the early stage of war, and some new planes, e.g.:
Polish
-PZL.37 'Los'
-PZL.23 'Karas'
French
-Dewoitine D.520
-Bloch MB.152
British
-Fairey Battle

I hope this is interesting request for us. You're doing great work, Team Daidalos!

Pursuivant

01-20-2013, 01:15 PM

this particular point is not true, however, i agree that there are many things that could be done to improve flying bombers in the game, a height tool in the fmb for briefings would be particularly useful imo.

My bad for missing the wind height and speed option in the FMB. Let's hope that it allows for even more dynamic weather effects later on.

Pursuivant

01-20-2013, 01:59 PM

Here an example of the multiple target marking systems/navigation aids used by the Bomber command.

That's a nice link!

Looking at it, it seems that it wouldn't be that hard to model the various Pathfinder techniques.

1) H2S - Just create a modified view of the regular map, so that it looks sort of like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/H2S_Display_Cologne.jpg/220px-H2S_Display_Cologne.jpg

All you need to do is treat water as black areas, land as dark gray and buildings and bridges (or just city plates) as speckled and streaked white.

This view wouldn't be much different from "radar" map views produced as mods.

And, of course, you have a signal emitted from the plane when it has H2S turned on, which allows it to be tracked by German nightfighters carrying NAXOS.

2) OBOE - This is very similar to existing navigation aids in the game and would be very easy to implement. You have two signal beacons - one from the CAT station and the other from the MOUSE station. As long as the game detects that the plane is flying at the correct distance from CAT it sends one tone. Too far away and it sends another tone, too close and it sends still another tone.

When the plane gets near its target, the game sends the MOUSE warning signal as long as the plane is on the correct course indicated by CAT. The game then has the plane release its markers according to the signal sent from MOUSE.

3) PARRAMATTA - This is nothing more than Mosquitos or other bombers loaded with marker flares, so it's just a loadout option. It's easy to implement, since flares can be modeled in the game. Just get the right colors of yellow, red, blue, etc.

Operations with follow-up Pathfinders re-marking the target can be created using the FMB.

4) NEWHAVEN - This is just another use of the parachute flares loadout. The FMB can be used to create the full effect, with the lead aircraft dropping parachute flares and follow-on aircraft dropping marker flares.

5) WANGANUI - This is basically the same as NEWHAVEN, except that the parachute flares are dropped from a higher altitude and more of them are dropped.

To get the whole night bomber effect, you'd also want:

A) Clouds, smoke and haze as placeable objects. This simulates smokescreens, smoke from fires or the ubiquitous haze which blanketed most 1940s era cities. All are useful visual navigation aids and countermeasures against precision bombing.

B) Large, high fires as placeable objects. This simulates the massive fires caused by incendiary bombing. It would be even more impressive if you could get turbulence effects above really big fires, simulating the effects of the rising heat column on air density and firestorm effects. This was a potential hazard for low-flying incendiary bombers - particularly the B-29s operating over Japan.

C) Rework existing fires so that they last longer. Realistically, even a small house fire can burn for hours and the rubble can remain hot for days.

D) A rework of static objects to indicate whether they're flammable or non-flammable. Flammable objects continue to burn if they get hit by an incendiary, otherwise, the fire goes out.

E) The possibility of flames spreading to nearby flammable objects.

F) The option of having city lights on. Later in the war, the Germans realized that it did little good to black out their cities due to accurate Allied bombing radar and other path-finding measures. So, they just turned the lights back on, since it made it easier for their own nightfighters to navigate and to see enemy aircraft. It also helped flak crews to see British planes due to their shiny black lower surfaces.

Something for our friends at TD to keep in mind for patch 4.12 +n! :)

T}{OR

01-21-2013, 09:19 AM

... a height tool in the fmb for briefings would be particularly useful imo.

Seconded.

SPAD-1949

01-21-2013, 11:32 AM

To get the whole night bomber effect, you'd also want:

A) Clouds, smoke and haze as placeable objects. This simulates smokescreens, smoke from fires or the ubiquitous haze which blanketed most 1940s era cities. All are useful visual navigation aids and countermeasures against precision bombing.

Jes I think this is one big gap in this sim.
I'd like to see also Smoke Type 8 and 9, first a large stripe of Smoke eventually combinde with points of fire and the second for a larger area, like a whole village or a perimeter choice parameter setting tab for a whole city covered in smoke.
This should be influenced by the set wind (neglect gust and turbulences ;) )
I just tested it again, when I set wind to 15ms all types of smoke still go straight upwards. Looks odd.
Also the range of visibility of existing and smoke types needs a little adjustment.
I think 200 - 600 m is not enough for the yet existing.
Especially the denser types need at least 10km, the new objects according to over all visibility like morning fog or rain, 30km with clear weather.

B) Large, high fires as placeable objects. This simulates the massive fires caused by incendiary bombing. It would be even more impressive if you could get turbulence effects above really big fires, simulating the effects of the rising heat column on air density and firestorm effects. This was a potential hazard for low-flying incendiary bombers - particularly the B-29s operating over Japan.

+1 Could lead one plane in the prop wash of an other and cause collisions.

C) Rework existing fires so that they last longer. Realistically, even a small house fire can burn for hours and the rubble can remain hot for days.

D) A rework of static objects to indicate whether they're flammable or non-flammable. Flammable objects continue to burn if they get hit by an incendiary, otherwise, the fire goes out.

Especially hit vehicles (not only for bombing missions) should burn long with a dense black smoke.

E) The possibility of flames spreading to nearby flammable objects.

F) The option of having city lights on. Later in the war, the Germans realized that it did little good to black out their cities due to accurate Allied bombing radar and other path-finding measures. So, they just turned the lights back on, since it made it easier for their own nightfighters to navigate and to see enemy aircraft. It also helped flak crews to see British planes due to their shiny black lower surfaces.

Something for our friends at TD to keep in mind for patch 4.12 +n! :)

Pursuivant, I follow ;)

JonathanRL

01-21-2013, 02:22 PM

Fokker D.XXI & P-36 Hawk Campaigns for the Finnish Dynamic Campaign would be utterly awesome.

ECV56_Guevara

01-21-2013, 08:57 PM

That's a nice link!

Looking at it, it seems that it wouldn't be that hard to model the various Pathfinder techniques.

1) H2S - Just create a modified view of the regular map, so that it looks sort of like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/H2S_Display_Cologne.jpg/220px-H2S_Display_Cologne.jpg

All you need to do is treat water as black areas, land as dark gray and buildings and bridges (or just city plates) as speckled and streaked white.

This view wouldn't be much different from "radar" map views produced as mods.

And, of course, you have a signal emitted from the plane when it has H2S turned on, which allows it to be tracked by German nightfighters carrying NAXOS.

2) OBOE - This is very similar to existing navigation aids in the game and would be very easy to implement. You have two signal beacons - one from the CAT station and the other from the MOUSE station. As long as the game detects that the plane is flying at the correct distance from CAT it sends one tone. Too far away and it sends another tone, too close and it sends still another tone.

When the plane gets near its target, the game sends the MOUSE warning signal as long as the plane is on the correct course indicated by CAT. The game then has the plane release its markers according to the signal sent from MOUSE.

3) PARRAMATTA - This is nothing more than Mosquitos or other bombers loaded with marker flares, so it's just a loadout option. It's easy to implement, since flares can be modeled in the game. Just get the right colors of yellow, red, blue, etc.

Operations with follow-up Pathfinders re-marking the target can be created using the FMB.

4) NEWHAVEN - This is just another use of the parachute flares loadout. The FMB can be used to create the full effect, with the lead aircraft dropping parachute flares and follow-on aircraft dropping marker flares.

5) WANGANUI - This is basically the same as NEWHAVEN, except that the parachute flares are dropped from a higher altitude and more of them are dropped.

agree, great ideas Pursuivant!!!
I guess that presition in nigth bombing, was very poor. I imagine myself trying to hit accurately a target in night enviroment ( a realistic one) and it seems very dificult to achieve in this conditions, if the target wouldn t be a big area. so, we need a big target object, that could resist some impacts. IIRC HFSX has something like it.
By the way could you post a link to mods that reproduce radar please?

To get the whole night bomber effect, you'd also want:

A) Clouds, smoke and haze as placeable objects. This simulates smokescreens, smoke from fires or the ubiquitous haze which blanketed most 1940s era cities. All are useful visual navigation aids and countermeasures against precision bombing.

B) Large, high fires as placeable objects. This simulates the massive fires caused by incendiary bombing. It would be even more impressive if you could get turbulence effects above really big fires, simulating the effects of the rising heat column on air density and firestorm effects. This was a potential hazard for low-flying incendiary bombers - particularly the B-29s operating over Japan.

C) Rework existing fires so that they last longer. Realistically, even a small house fire can burn for hours and the rubble can remain hot for days.

D) A rework of static objects to indicate whether they're flammable or non-flammable. Flammable objects continue to burn if they get hit by an incendiary, otherwise, the fire goes out.

E) The possibility of flames spreading to nearby flammable objects.

F) The option of having city lights on. Later in the war, the Germans realized that it did little good to black out their cities due to accurate Allied bombing radar and other path-finding measures. So, they just turned the lights back on, since it made it easier for their own nightfighters to navigate and to see enemy aircraft. It also helped flak crews to see British planes due to their shiny black lower surfaces.

Something for our friends at TD to keep in mind for patch 4.12 +n! :)
There are some nice sugestion here, but I think that almost all are FPS killers, and DT is very carefull with this parameter.

Pursuivant

01-21-2013, 11:28 PM

By the way could you post a link to mods that reproduce radar please?

I don't have an exact link, but searching on Special Aircraft Service or IL2 Free Modding ought to give good results. It was one of the first map view mods, so it's probably an easy effect to create.

There are some nice sugestion here, but I think that almost all are FPS killers, and DT is very carefull with this parameter.

Agreed that big fires and lots of lights might be FPS killers - especially if they all generate light and shadow effects. Placeable haze, smoke or clouds shouldn't be any more of a frame rate killer than ordinary clouds - as long as they're static effects. Dynamic clouds or smoke could be a problem.

I wonder if it might not be possible to automatically place haze over cities in certain weather conditions as part of the city plate or cloud mapping.

Long-lasting, spreading fires would be the biggest FPS killer. You'd have to make them very simple in appearance, with no actual sprites, to keep them from killing the game. At long distances, it would make a lot of sense to just make a big fire a 2-dimensional "sheet" which alternates between two different levels of transparency or two different color patterns to get the flickering effect. Like at 2:37 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FD1IXWqKos