4-12 wish list (Merged)

[=FPS=Salsero]

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

Let's focus on the simple things.
One more time
1. The appropriate page of the bombsight table (corresponding to altitude and IAS/TAS) when looking in the bombsight shown somewhere in the corner of the "eyepiece" view/
2. The map which allows reading of the target elevation easily (not as if you are dead drunk).
3. Maybe, if there is some possibility - a few buttons which will allow releasing the ordnance from the specific hardpoints.

There is a plenty of space in the navigator's bombsight view, around the eyepiece. No need to be stuck to button controls only.

One aferthought. Maybe TD could put aside a special button for releasing the marker bombs in the "eyepiece view". And hard-code the marker bombs - nor in the way as ordinary bombs are coded, rather as the object which has a ballistics of say 250 kg bomb which appears right below the plane, causes no damage, but produces just the flash and a short-lived smoke cloud.

[Fenice_1965]

FMB
I'd like to see indicators of altitude above terrain during transparent stationary runways placement.
It's not so easy to understand if all the stationary runway parts are at terrain level or above it.

[K_Freddie]

Here I was going to collect my 'pieces of Zero' for my collection, and i get tripped by an ant. ;)

Would it be possible to smooth off the transition between land planes (geography sense)

Track from V4.11.1m

[ECV56_Guevara]

2. The map which allows reading of the target elevation easily (not as if you are dead drunk).
3. Maybe, if there is some possibility - a few buttons which will allow releasing the ordnance from the specific hardpoints.

At the point 2 disagree. I like to recover intel about the target. Maybe a map with an aproximate height, in 10 or 20 meters intervals with a relief not so detailed.
I didn t understand the point 3 salsero, sorry, not english speaker. It ss like a preset releasing point?

One aferthought. Maybe TD could put aside a special button for releasing the marker bombs in the "eyepiece view". And hard-code the marker bombs - nor in the way as ordinary bombs are coded, rather as the object which has a ballistics of say 250 kg bomb which appears right below the plane, causes no damage, but produces just the flash and a short-lived smoke cloud.
This!!!
If this is doable, a TI bomb could be tracked by the eventlog and even give points to the pilot for a hit.

BTW I realize that a lot of people like the day/night level bombing, that also allows nigth figthing. Hope 4.13 brings more of these. I know, I know I m asking too much, but as we say around here, dreaming is free!!!!

[andrea78]

G-55 cockpit! Any chance to see it?

[Pursuivant]

G-55 cockpit! Any chance to see it?

My guess is that we won't see any more new cockpits for 4.12.

But, for future patches, there's no reason why the G.55 shouldn't be flyable. One of TD's goals is to make more of the planes flyable without resorting to mods and there's plenty of documentation for the G.55's cockpit (including at least one surviving airplane!).

[ckolonko]

Would it be possible to introduce the landing gear indicators on the wings of the Spitfire MK V and other appropriate marks? The Il-2 has wing indicators.

[Pfeil]

I believe at some point the level stabiliser was changed so only (level)bombers could employ it.

This makes sense. However, some aircraft like the Bf-110, Do-335, Ar-234 and others(He-111?) had an actual built-in autopilot.

CoD for example simulates the single axis autopilot in the Bf-110.


Are there any plans to introduce similar functionality to il2?

I know it can be done via devicelink, as demonstrated by FS~Daedalus' excellent C-1 Autopilot for the B24 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31489), but some form of in game implementation would make things much simpler and better integrated.
Even if it's greatly simplified, it would add real world functionality to these planes while still requiring proper engine(and in case of single axis, trim) management rather than having the AI fly your plane entirely.

[Pursuivant]

It's pure eye candy, but would it be possible to have different default paint schemes for planes in Southwest Pacific Theater? From 1943 on RNZAF, RAAF and USAAF planes all had white tails and (sometimes) white diagonal recognition strips on their planes.

Also, would it be possible to improve the default numbers on the Soviet Aircraft? At least later in the war, it appears that Soviet planes had numbers which looked a lot "prettier" than the numbers in the game, sometimes with elaborate serifs:

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/VVS1/Yak-9D0-1.jpg

http://www.goaviator.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Jak-9-Flying-Fighter-Association1.jpg

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/7771/kozhedubfi2.jpg

http://www.allworldwars.com/image/077/IL-2Bg.jpg

http://www.small-wonder.org/Books/Il-2_War_in_the_Air_126_2.jpg

Personally, I think that the elongated numbers shown in the first picture are most distinctively Russian, but I'm no expert.

[IceFire]

It's pure eye candy, but would it be possible to have different default paint schemes for planes in Southwest Pacific Theater? From 1943 on RNZAF, RAAF and USAAF planes all had white tails and (sometimes) white diagonal recognition strips on their planes.

Also, would it be possible to improve the default numbers on the Soviet Aircraft? At least later in the war, it appears that Soviet planes had numbers which looked a lot "prettier" than the numbers in the game, sometimes with elaborate serifs:

http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/VVS1/Yak-9D0-1.jpg

http://www.goaviator.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Jak-9-Flying-Fighter-Association1.jpg

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/7771/kozhedubfi2.jpg

http://www.allworldwars.com/image/077/IL-2Bg.jpg

http://www.small-wonder.org/Books/Il-2_War_in_the_Air_126_2.jpg

Personally, I think that the elongated numbers shown in the first picture are most distinctively Russian, but I'm no expert.
Markings and camo is a big bugaboo for me as well. Oleg's response was always that IL-2 was an aircraft simulator and not a marking simulator but I would have loved to see them pay more attention to them from the beginning.

TD has made some great strides but I'd love to see more default skins covering more time and theatre periods. The code is now in place but getting together a cadre of skinners to do all of the work isn't exactly an easy thing to do. It is a lot of work and to do it right it should be coordinated.

I believe it was Cpt Farrel who did all of the German aircraft... top to bottom in one of the recent updates. Which is why all of the German aircraft are now A) Excellent and B) Very consistent. I'd love to see that done again for all other types.

[=FPS=Salsero]

At the point 2 disagree. I like to recover intel about the target. Maybe a map with an aproximate height, in 10 or 20 meters intervals with a relief not so detailed.
I didn t understand the point 3 salsero, sorry, not english speaker. It ss like a preset releasing point?


Point 2. If you have ever seen a good topo map (I bet you did) - you know that finding out the height above sea level usually is not a problem. However in Il2 the maps are very heavily "pixelated" and you generally neea to count the number of horizontals from the neares water level - which is not easy on some maps, Especially on recent ones. So I would prefer the maps with 5x resolution OR the vector maps OR the "elevation reader" tool.

Point 3. Suppose you are flying a TB-3 carrying 4*FAB-500 and 20*FAB-100. Now you have no choice but to release 500 kg bombs first and then 100 kg. I do doubt that it was not possible to vary - say, to release 2*100 to hit the minor target or to check the aim, then 500s, then remaining 100 kgs.

[Juri_JS]

Markings and camo is a big bugaboo for me as well. Oleg's response was always that IL-2 was an aircraft simulator and not a marking simulator but I would have loved to see them pay more attention to them from the beginning.

TD has made some great strides but I'd love to see more default skins covering more time and theatre periods. The code is now in place but getting together a cadre of skinners to do all of the work isn't exactly an easy thing to do. It is a lot of work and to do it right it should be coordinated.

I believe it was Cpt Farrel who did all of the German aircraft... top to bottom in one of the recent updates. Which is why all of the German aircraft are now A) Excellent and B) Very consistent. I'd love to see that done again for all other types.

I completely agree. There are a number of planes greatly in need of better skins (A6M!!!). If TD is interested in adding better default skins, I am sure the guys at Axis&Allies Paintworks are willing to help.

[1984]

Also, would it be possible to improve the default numbers on the Soviet Aircraft?

Markings and camo is a big bugaboo for me as well. Oleg's response was always that IL-2 was an aircraft simulator and not a marking simulator but I would have loved to see them pay more attention to them from the beginning.

TD has made some great strides but I'd love to see more default skins covering more time and theatre periods.

here very helps - sometimes even with descriptions, manuals, etс for our performances and FM - peoples who love models, even 1c did, does and will do 3d models with help and consultation of these researchers...

for example, work for yak-1/1b (http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_31536_start_0.html), i think it's could be very helpful if DT will do new markings...

have and other works, but, if i'm not mistaken, they are not finished how and "yak-1"...

[Pursuivant]

for example, work for yak-1/1b (http://scalemodels.ru/modules/forum/viewtopic_t_31536_start_0.html), i think it's could be very helpful if DT will do new markings...

have and other works, but, if i'm not mistaken, they are not finished how and "yak-1"...

New numbers for Soviet aircraft would probably be easier than new default skins for every Allied aircraft in the SW Pacific.

[Pursuivant]

New numbers for Soviet aircraft would probably be easier than new default skins for every Allied aircraft in the SW Pacific.

Edit: Looking at the default numbers for Soviet aircraft in 4.11, they're not fancy, but they have been improved for most planes. The only plane which still uses the old "Comic Sans Serif" number markings is the I-16.

If there's a complaint, it's that the default numbers are a bit smaller than they were historically on most WW2 era Soviet planes.

But, it seems that there was no standard for Soviet aircraft numbers or squadron markings as there for most other air forces. Numbers were sometimes applied at the factory, but more often applied at the squadron level, sometimes with no sequential order. Furthermore, the "font" used for the numbers, and its size, could vary widely.

The location where numbers was applied could also vary - nose, fuselage or tail were all options. Color was usually white, occasionally rimmed with some other color, or occasionally yellow or red. Blue or green seem to have been rare, although anything might have been possible.

[1984]

But, it seems that there was no standard for Soviet aircraft numbers or squadron markings as there for most other air forces. Numbers were sometimes applied at the factory, but more often applied at the squadron level, sometimes with no sequential order. Furthermore, the "font" used for the numbers, and its size, could vary widely.

The location where numbers was applied could also vary - nose, fuselage or tail were all options. Color was usually white, occasionally rimmed with some other color, or occasionally yellow or red. Blue or green seem to have been rare, although anything might have been possible.

if you about real life, yes, although i'm not specialist in this question, apparently standards are often not respected, we even have a bad joke - "там где заканчивается порядок - начинается военная авиация" - ie in VVS no order...:)

so, it's can be not easy...

and just for fun, naive soviet pin-up (http://altyn73.livejournal.com/215694.html#cutid1)...

[IceFire]

Edit: Looking at the default numbers for Soviet aircraft in 4.11, they're not fancy, but they have been improved for most planes. The only plane which still uses the old "Comic Sans Serif" number markings is the I-16.

If there's a complaint, it's that the default numbers are a bit smaller than they were historically on most WW2 era Soviet planes.

But, it seems that there was no standard for Soviet aircraft numbers or squadron markings as there for most other air forces. Numbers were sometimes applied at the factory, but more often applied at the squadron level, sometimes with no sequential order. Furthermore, the "font" used for the numbers, and its size, could vary widely.

The location where numbers was applied could also vary - nose, fuselage or tail were all options. Color was usually white, occasionally rimmed with some other color, or occasionally yellow or red. Blue or green seem to have been rare, although anything might have been possible.
More than the I-16... they show up on a bunch of aircraft including early Yaks. The size correction might not be a possibility as you'll get unpleasant stretching.. but the font itself could be done more historically.

[SPAD-1949]

Dear Team Daidalos
I have some further slight suggestions which came up recently.

1.) If I bellyland a stricken plane with engine allready dead, the prop does not need to bend like if its spinning blades hit the ground.

2.) In FMB if I open an existing mission and pick on one of the allready existing waypoint or object, it would be great if the "viev-object" pane pops up automatically.

Did not mean to disturb..... and away ;-)

[Pfeil]

If I bellyland a stricken plane with engine already dead, the prop does not need to bend like if its spinning blades hit the ground.


The reason all the blades bend back is because there are only two damage states for props; Undamaged or Bent Back(Wooden props may break instead, but the issue is the same).

As you can't just bend the blade that's actually touching the ground, it's either all or none.


For this to change, either multiple prop models need to be modelled for various damage states, or the blades made individual parts.
Even if the old models are reused and adapted this is not a small task.

In addition, for full realism the unbent blades should rotate downward(provided the engine isn't seized up).


Another feature would be in-flight prop damage, where the propeller could get unbalanced and induce vibration at higher RPM.
This could be done with a damage texture so the pilot knows why the effect is produced.

[Bolelas]

I think i mention this before(sorry), but here it goes: I have assigned several pilots (key and axis assignements, like the ones when we "create new pilot" comes John Mad Doe by default). I have more that one pilot because of the types of aircraft i fly.
E.g.: if i fly bombers, i have assigned all those keys for the bombsight, and if i fly fighters, the same keys are assigned to diferent things.

My wish is: When flying, can we be able to change the selected pilot? If i am online and i forgot to change the previous pilot,(or playing in turns with a friend in my house), i have to close the game, open it offline select the pilot i want and connect to server again.

Maybe this is not very difficult to implement... ... and it is painfull to change keys one-by-one each time i change fighters to bombers.

[jayrc]

Please Team Daidalos include radiator and mixture axis in device link:grin:

[Artist]

I second that motion, as usual!

@jayrc: Great! That's what I created YaDeLi for!

[Pursuivant]

I think i mention this before(sorry), but here it goes: I have assigned several pilots (key and axis assignements, like the ones when we "create new pilot" comes John Mad Doe by default). I have more that one pilot because of the types of aircraft i fly.

+1. Having multiple keyboard assignments and being able to link them to a particular pilot profile would be a good thing.

I wonder if it already exists in the GUI preview that TD released?

My wish is: When flying, can we be able to change the selected pilot? If i am online and i forgot to change the previous pilot,(or playing in turns with a friend in my house), i have to close the game, open it offline select the pilot i want and connect to server again.

The ability to change pilot profile once you start a campaign should be easy if you do it between missions - since all the program is doing is linking to a particular data file.

Likewise, it should be easy to alter difficulty options once you start a campaign, as long as you do so between missions. (This would sometimes be a real convenience, such as when you realize that a particular mission was designed for options such as Padlock On or No Clouds, but only after you're a couple of missions into the campaign!)

Changing pilot profile, difficulty options or other campaign information is probably more difficult, since I think that the program takes GUI, mission and campaign data and uses it to generate the mission. At the very least, you'd need to reload the mission - which certainly isn't possible for online play!

For offline play, I could see an option where the computer saves the mission in progress rather than just quitting the mission. The program could then give you the option of altering the mission parameters (using the FMB?), pilot profile or difficulty settings. Once you've done that, the program could give you the option of reloading the mission you saved (and possibly altered), starting the original mission from the beginning, or deleting the saved mission.

For coding, I could see data capture when saving a mission being treated as a "snapshot" of the data captured using .trk or .ntrk files.

[SPAD-1949]

The reason all the blades bend back is because there are only two damage states for props; Undamaged or Bent Back(Wooden props may break instead, but the issue is the same).

As you can't just bend the blade that's actually touching the ground, it's either all or none.

In case of dead engine belly land, the prop could stay undamanged, the blade damaged IRL is not seen from cockpit and would just protrude ground in F2 mode.


Another feature would be in-flight prop damage, where the propeller could get unbalanced and induce vibration at higher RPM.
This could be done with a damage texture so the pilot knows why the effect is produced.

Just saw it on NG-TV. The story of the Lockheed Electra which lost No.4 Prop in flight.

Edit.:

This accident does not show up in this (http://aviation-safety.net/database/dblist.php?field=typecode&var=334%&cat=%1&sorteer=datekey&page=1) list.
Eventually made up.

[Lagarto]

Is Tunisia map still being developed?
I imagine some of the new ground objects shown recently in the 4.12 preview are part of this project? If so, are we getting any new vehicles, too? A column of British-looking trucks is badly needed for all MTO scenarios, a sort of generic vehicle which is neither US nor Russian.

[Malkav]

Just want teh patch.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Is Tunisia map still being developed?
I imagine some of the new ground objects shown recently in the 4.12 preview are part of this project?...

central tunisia map is on hold. Basic structure is complete but it needs texture and object placement. The new objects are not 100% related but migth return useful. There were some important roman sites in the area, Sbeitla being one of the most famous.

[Lagarto]

central tunisia map is on hold.

Too bad but thanks for the heads-up, much appreciated.

[magot]

Some next generic MTO objects - buildings, accessories are in WIP. With template from North Africa/Tunisia.

[secretone]

Offline, I have noticed damaged AI piloted planes flying the pattern waiting their turn to land at an airport only to crash before their turn comes up. I wonder if it would make sense for AI aircraft to request landing priority in cases of low fuel, damage or wounded crew?

I have read that 8th Airforce B-17's shot off flares near the field when they were returning with wounded crew.

On a separate topic, I have also read that some American control towers used light guns with green, red and white colors to communicate with aircraft that did not have radios. I do not know if other countries also used this system but it might be fun to incorporate it into the game.

[Pfeil]

On a separate topic, I have also read that some American control towers used light guns with green, red and white colors to communicate with aircraft that did not have radios.

It seems this system is still in use. While browsing youtube I came across the following video about landing an aircraft with full electric failure. The tower uses such a colored light to instruct it(Even if it's not very visible on camera).

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

Edit: And an intructional video on the subject from my youtube suggestions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owQuyF89meM

[1984]

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

from "yak-9" by Yakubovish (personally i can't say what it's really good book, but would be happy if someday can take a look at documents which he used, apparently, lot of answers to lot of questions), photo on page 39 (attached + photo of cockpit of, apparently, just yak-9), and in captions to photo - "ammo counter in cockpit of yak-9t"...

apparently, looks like german ammo counter, but circle instead bars...

[Pursuivant]

Offline, I have noticed damaged AI piloted planes flying the pattern waiting their turn to land at an airport only to crash before their turn comes up. I wonder if it would make sense for AI aircraft to request landing priority in cases of low fuel, damage or wounded crew?

+1 This has been requested before, along with improvements in when and how AI crew choose to bail out, ditch or crash land.

I have read that 8th Airforce B-17's shot off flares near the field when they were returning with wounded crew.

It wasn't just B-17 that dropped flares to indicate wounded aboard and request priority landing. It was standard operating procedure for all U.S. bombers as a method of keeping radio silence (it kept the enemy from knowing that they'd damaged bombers/wounded enemy aircrew).

I wouldn't be surprised if all air forces did it.

The ability to drop flares would be extremely welcome and will be necessary if TD ever decides to take the sim in the direction of artillery spotting or high altitude night bombing operations. It's also easy to model - mods that allow you to do it have been around for years.

On a separate topic, I have also read that some American control towers used light guns with green, red and white colors to communicate with aircraft that did not have radios. I do not know if other countries also used this system but it might be fun to incorporate it into the game.

Coded flares were used by all air forces, for a number of purposes. Not only could control towers shoot off flares (as IFF, direction signals or communications tools) but planes could drop flares for the same reasons.

Another use of flares which would be useful in the game and probably easy to implement is the the ability to drop flares to make friendly flak stop shooting. It's simpler and quicker to drop a color-coded flare than to try to get radio contact with every flak station.

[Heinerich]

would it be possible to bind the positionlights ([Static]-Smoke.Smoke$Smoke11 up to ...$Smoke15) to the "[Born Place]" in the same way as to the "regular" airfields ?
so that even may request via radio to turn lights on at self-built-airfields too ?
right now they "shine" permanently.

[Pfeil]

right now [the lights] "shine" permanently.

In general it would be nice to have time controlled lights.
Where lights can be set to illuminate from/to a certain time in the object window.

This would prevent them from staying on during the day, and allows airport illumination to be automated.

They could also serve as a beacon in SAR missions, or to indicate an air to ground target that is "painted" at a certain time(though this would work best with triggers).

Another nice feature would be blinking lights, where an interval can be set in the object window.

[Pursuivant]

In general it would be nice to have time controlled lights.

This ability could also be used for time-controlled fires. You could set the time that fires (especially large fires) burn to simulate firefighting, fires going out naturally or just to save computer resources.

You could set a time as a mission trigger or make it player controlled - either in the GUI or, if appropriate, in the game.


They could also serve as a beacon in SAR missions, or to indicate an air to ground target that is "painted" at a certain time(though this would work best with triggers).

The ability to trigger lights could also be used to trigger other events, such as shooting flares or turning on searchlights.


Another nice feature would be blinking lights, where an interval can be set in the object window.

It would also be cool if planes could trigger events by flashing their navigation or landing lights, by dropping flares or by waggling wings. For example, if your radio is out the ground control could flash a signal at you. You'd respond by waggling wings or flashing lights and the ground station would acknowledge it.

Even cooler would be the ability to have Aldiss lamps in the game, so that ships and ground stations could send Morse code messages to planes and vice-versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_lamp

Hand-held Aldiss Lamp here:

http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Aldis%20lamp%20&%20Very%20pistol.htm

Actually, this web site is a pretty good resource for 1930s & 1940s era ATC procedures. Lots of good ideas for modders or our beloved DT.

[II./JG1_Britchot]

Just to make sure my voice is out there. I would really like to see differential braking with the ability to add to an axis controller (toe brakes).

[SPAD-1949]

Just to make sure my voice is out there. I would really like to see differential braking with the ability to add to an axis controller (toe brakes).

I thought that was implemented with 4.11

[II./JG1_Britchot]

I thought that was implemented with 4.11

Not with two separate toe brakes.

[Knight29]

Please add more FFB effects (turbolence, pilots body movements G-forces)

Thanks!

[Pursuivant]

I don't know if it's too late for 4.12, but please consider treating all airborne objects - like parachutes, V-1 rockets or barrage balloons - as aircraft. That is:

* The option of automatically indicating their identity and/or range.

* The option of padlocking them as if they were aircraft (i.e., using the F4 rather than F5 key).

* The option of viewing them using the F2 or F3 keys (if not already an option, as is the case with parachutes).

This seems trivial, but I think that aerial objects can be padlocked at greater distances than ground objects and it also affects AI attack routines.

* And, since I'm griping about padlocking, how about the option to ID padlocked ground or sea units and/or give a range to them, just like they were air units?

* Finally, how about treating V-1s as a different class of objects than just ground objects or bombs for scoring purposes? After all, Allied pilots who shot down V-1s treated them as a different class of "kills" than ground units like trucks or trains.

[Janosch]

* The option of padlocking

That reminds me:
- Remove padlock completely from the next version.
- Erase the whole concept of padlocking from human consciousness.

[Pursuivant]

That reminds me:
- Remove padlock completely from the next version.
- Erase the whole concept of padlocking from human consciousness.

Hypothetically, that's a great idea, BUT:

1) Without padlocking, how do you quickly command AI planes?

After all, a real human pilot could tell another human pilot - "Attack the column of T-34's 200 meters south of the ridge line." or "Attack the trailing Fw-190 in the formation at 9 o'clock low just outside of the low squadron of B-17s."

IL-2 AI doesn't have that level of sophistication, nor does it have any ability to command AI by voice.

2) Without padlocking, how do you deal with the limitations of computer graphics?

A human with great vision is going to be able to pick out little details at a distance which are necessarily simplified by the IL2 graphics engine - things like flashes of light on canopies, national markings, and so forth. A trained human is also going to be able to estimate range to a particular object and do things like estimate its speed, direction of travel, likely course changes, etc.

Padlocking allows you to keep track of a particular plane (or vehicle) despite the fact that the game doesn't give you the same visual acuity and visual clues that a real pilot would have.

So, to some extent, padlocking is realistic in that it gives the player the same information a real pilot would have - like the g-force indicator in the "wonder woman" view cockpit.

I don't like padlocking much either, but until we get God's Own Flight Sim, which gives the player 3-D vision, photoreal scenery, high-poly models with no LoD needed, photoreal skins, a graphics engine which can perfectly render objects, light and shadow with no loss of detail at a distance we still need padlocking.

[majorfailure]

1) Without padlocking, how do you quickly command AI planes?

After all, a real human pilot could tell another human pilot - "Attack the column of T-34's 200 meters south of the ridge line." or "Attack the trailing Fw-190 in the formation at 9 o'clock low just outside of the low squadron of B-17s."

IL-2 AI doesn't have that level of sophistication, nor does it have any ability to command AI by voice.

There should just be more command options for AI. For Example: Attack-->Ground-->Tanks-->7'o clock. Then your wingman/flight/squad would try to locate tanks in that direction and attack.

Would be useful for attacking enemy airfields - now you have to be in FlaK range until you can tell them to attack FlaK. With the command Attack-->Ground-->FlaK-->12'o clock given a few kilometres before reaching that base the whole flight could attack simultaneously - thus giving the FlaK more targets to chose from and possibly decimating FlaK opposition in the first attack.

Or if encountering two flights of enemy planes on different bearings advise them to try to attack the more dangerous one first or or....

[ECV56_Guevara]

* Finally, how about treating V-1s as a different class of objects than just ground objects or bombs for scoring purposes? After all, Allied pilots who shot down V-1s treated them as a different class of "kills" than ground units like trucks or trains.


Great idea!

[Pursuivant]

There should just be more command options for AI. For Example: Attack-->Ground-->Tanks-->7'o clock. Then your wingman/flight/squad would try to locate tanks in that direction and attack.

That would be convenient. Of course, what would be even more convenient would be a point and click padlock system using the mouse. As more folks get Track IR or equivalent, head movement can be controlled by TIR, plane controls can be controlled using HOTAS, rudder pedals and keyboard and padlocking can be controlled with the mouse.

[majorfailure]

Would be okay too.

But the original idea was to have a system of commanding the AI without the use of padlock.

And there could be much more information AI radioes to the player. Useful things. For example contact reports. Of course inaccurate ones, if done right depending on level of AI. Imagine coordinated attacks! And imagine flying to Grid XXYY and find nothing there - because they AI gave you an inaccurate report! Immersion.

[Pursuivant]

And there could be much more information AI radioes to the player. Useful things. For example contact reports. Of course inaccurate ones, if done right depending on level of AI. Imagine coordinated attacks! And imagine flying to Grid XXYY and find nothing there - because they AI gave you an inaccurate report! Immersion.

These are good ideas. There are mods which represent ground control which vector you to a particular grid, so it shouldn't be that hard for AI planes to radio contact reports. Making AI ground control or planes give ACCURATE reports is a bit trickier.

Right now, the AI can just tell you that there are "enemy fighters" or "enemy bombers" with no more information. I can't tell you how many times I've had to jump out to map view to figure out which "red-1" was being attacked and here the heck they were on a large map.

It would be a lot more immersive if you had radar stations which could give you info like, "Tophat to Rabbit-1. Multiple inbound bogies, Angels 15, heading 85 degrees, 20 miles SE of Canterbury. Vector 125 degrees." or a pilot who could give you a contact report like, "This is Razor-1. We have 10 Me-410s, Angels 20, eastbound over Munster. Attacking now."

[majorfailure]

These are good ideas. There are mods which represent ground control which vector you to a particular grid, so it shouldn't be that hard for AI planes to radio contact reports. Making AI ground control or planes give ACCURATE reports is a bit trickier.
I'd settle for a simple "This is Pumpkin - engaging <number of> enemy <planetype> at <coordinates>" planetype beeing fighters/bombers.

If done to the max, then an ace AI would 95% of the time give spot on reports -maybe even get the specific planetype, a veteran say 70%, and regular and novice even less. And novice should make greater range of errors, worst case estimating half/double of actual enemys, no type or wrong one, and coordinates of by 10 km or so.

There is just that much that could be done with radio, right now its more a nuisance(bleiben sie auf kurs zum kuckuck...or the endless landing communication).

Right now, the AI can just tell you that there are "enemy fighters" or "enemy bombers" with no more information. I can't tell you how many times I've had to jump out to map view to figure out which "red-1" was being attacked and here the heck they were on a large map.
Yeah, right now I think about 80% of them are Red flight - more unique codenames would be really nice - besides from beeing realistic. And I don't think it would be that difficult to do.

It would be a lot more immersive if you had radar stations which could give you info like, "Tophat to Rabbit-1. Multiple inbound bogies, Angels 15, heading 85 degrees, 20 miles SE of Canterbury. Vector 125 degrees." or a pilot who could give you a contact report like, "This is Razor-1. We have 10 Me-410s, Angels 20, eastbound over Munster. Attacking now."
Yes please. That way you could get (parts of) the picture of whats happening beyond your visual range - but there would still be fog of war.

[JG27_PapaFly]

Stronger Ho-5 20mm cannons on the KI-84 Ib would be nice. The 4 cannons on that thing do less damage than 2 MG151/20. They may have been weaker in RL, but by that much?

[panzer1b]

Stronger Ho-5 20mm cannons on the KI-84 Ib would be nice. The 4 cannons on that thing do less damage than 2 MG151/20. They may have been weaker in RL, but by that much?

in reality they were weaker, still they are more then enough to kill with

i never found alot of info but i believe they were a midrange between mg151s (and the other powerful 20mms), and the mgFFm which is weak but still no joke as i have shot down almost anything with them

just try to get higher angle deflection shots

the weaker low velocity cannons are as good as the main ones if you dont just shoot the fuselage from dead 6 but try to blow a wing off or something from some bigger deflection angle of tail


i treat the jap weapons as mgffms and just try to get to point blank range and try to aim for one wing if possible, if not just unload into his midsection, as 4 20s will rip anything up point blank range

and im not even sure the ki84 has the more powerful cannon

the zero has the mgff in game code, this is unrealistic but apparently devs decided to use it as a stopgap being similar enough

now the j2ms have a better cannon as it feels like it has a bit greater velocity, the ki84 im not sure has that, still i prefer the 84A or C, b being myh least fav as it doesnt have as many weappon options, the A having a much better fallback or spammy weapon and the C has utter high velocity deth rays, the B just well nothing special so its my least used


but as for the cannons just stick to closer ranges and try to hit a wing at some angle off tail, best way to kill em

[gaunt1]

Ho-5 used the weakest 20mm ammo of WW2, the 20x94.

But there are lots of problems with other guns ingame, like too powerful Shvak (second weakest 20mm ammo of WW2, barely better than 20x94), too weak Shkas, too weak UB (far superior to .50 Browning in RL)

check this:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

[IceFire]

in reality they were weaker, still they are more then enough to kill with

i never found alot of info but i believe they were a midrange between mg151s (and the other powerful 20mms), and the mgFFm which is weak but still no joke as i have shot down almost anything with them

just try to get higher angle deflection shots

the weaker low velocity cannons are as good as the main ones if you dont just shoot the fuselage from dead 6 but try to blow a wing off or something from some bigger deflection angle of tail


i treat the jap weapons as mgffms and just try to get to point blank range and try to aim for one wing if possible, if not just unload into his midsection, as 4 20s will rip anything up point blank range

and im not even sure the ki84 has the more powerful cannon

the zero has the mgff in game code, this is unrealistic but apparently devs decided to use it as a stopgap being similar enough

now the j2ms have a better cannon as it feels like it has a bit greater velocity, the ki84 im not sure has that, still i prefer the 84A or C, b being myh least fav as it doesnt have as many weappon options, the A having a much better fallback or spammy weapon and the C has utter high velocity deth rays, the B just well nothing special so its my least used


but as for the cannons just stick to closer ranges and try to hit a wing at some angle off tail, best way to kill em
Japanese aircraft weapons are poorly done in IL-2. Even worse, they are inconsistently done. On the Zero the Type 97 machine guns are represented by the MG17 and the Type 99-1 20mm cannon is represented by the MG-FF (this is a close match). On the D3A and B5N the Type 97 machine guns are represented by the Vickers K machine gun. The Ki-27 then has a Type 89 machine gun represented by the Browning .30cal. It's really all over the map.

The J2M3 in real life had both the Type 99-1 as well as Type 99-2 20mm cannons. Both are very different cannons. In-game the aircraft has four MG-FF regardless.

But I do think the Ho-5, which is represented in-game, works the way its supposed to. It was, if memory serves, an enlarged Browning .50cal and while the cannon worked, it didn't have the hitting power of the Hispano or MG151/20. Not even close.

[JG27_PapaFly]

But I do think the Ho-5, which is represented in-game, works the way its supposed to. It was, if memory serves, an enlarged Browning .50cal and while the cannon worked, it didn't have the hitting power of the Hispano or MG151/20. Not even close.

You fly the Ki84b? I fly it a lot and i'd perfectly understand if the 4 Ho5 cannons are weaker than the 4 MG151/20 of the 190A6-A9. But my impression is that they are weaker than the 2 MG151/20 on the 190D9. I fly the D9 and the Ki84b a lot, and I'm not what you'd call a poor shot. I regularly land 5-kill sorties with the Frank in a fullreal online environment, but i get much more instant massive structural damage in the D9 with just 2 x 20mm and 2 x 13mm. Yesterday i've hit a spit 6! times at point blank from 0-90° deflection with the Frank's 20ies before it finally lost half of its elevator and the guy bailed.

The damage you produce just doesn't match anything you'd expect from 4 cannons. Even with very decent shooting, instant kills are rare in the b model.

[IceFire]

You fly the Ki84b? I fly it a lot and i'd perfectly understand if the 4 Ho5 cannons are weaker than the 4 MG151/20 of the 190A6-A9. But my impression is that they are weaker than the 2 MG151/20 on the 190D9. I fly the D9 and the Ki84b a lot, and I'm not what you'd call a poor shot. I regularly land 5-kill sorties with the Frank in a fullreal online environment, but i get much more instant massive structural damage in the D9 with just 2 x 20mm and 2 x 13mm. Yesterday i've hit a spit 6! times at point blank from 0-90° deflection with the Frank's 20ies before it finally lost half of its elevator and the guy bailed.

The damage you produce just doesn't match anything you'd expect from 4 cannons. Even with very decent shooting, instant kills are rare in the b model.
I would call that unusual. Online I tend to fly the Ki-100 more than the Ki-84 and that has two less Ho-5 cannons. But I do have quite a bit of experience flying both aircraft against a variety of opponents.

I can down a Hellcat or Corsair with the Ki-100s two cannons with a 2-3 second sustained burst from close range. A Spitfire should be a piece of cake. I can't remember the last time I shot a Spitfire with Ho-5 but the very similar Seafire goes down with maybe two or three hits (perhaps a half second burst) to the engine or a bit more to the wing roots. Heck a Spitfire will go down with a 3 second burst with Ho-103 heavy machine guns and those are mostly worse than the MG131.

I'm assuming you're a good shot but are you spreading damage across the plane or using focused bursts at vulnerable areas?

[JtD]

I tend to keep track of stats pretty much. Average hits with a Ho-5 to immediately bring down a late war US fighter: 40. P-47 may soak up twice as much and still be flyable, I've had bombers return to base after being hit 200 times. The MG151 rounds on average pack about 2.6 times the explosive punch of the Ho-5 rounds. Interestingly, the power is fairly much spot on when considering the explosive loads of the rounds, where the MG151 on average packs more due to the mine shell, but the incendiary contents of the Ho-5 rounds is being completely ignored. The Japanese used a combo round, where in addition to the 3.4g HE there also were 3.7g incendiary components, and these are being ignored. As is the HET round, which used 3.2g HE with 8.7g incendiaries, for a really big flash upon impact. In game is shoots about accurately modelled AP rounds and some dumbed down HE and IT rounds. It's got a pretty decent rate of fire, though. Still, on average it should probably hit about nearly twice as hard.

[zepset1969]

Hello everyone,
as I play Il2 since it's origins, I really love early aircraft models too, but I think it's time to make some improvement to these "old glories".

My request is:
I wish to get new cockpit design for Yak-1/-3/-7/-9.
In Lavochkins cockpits you can see magnetos/light/fuel buttons and control knob working, but not in Yaks ones.

I'd like to see new textures, maybe, but even more realistic & functional gauges (if not like authentic, see the vertical speed gauge, so different from the real one), and possibility to open canopy (some mods have developed "open canopy option" for yak/lavochkin models).


thank a lot for your kind attention!!

keep the good work going on!!!

[Florinm352]

Please go for quality instead of quantity. Make the old airplanes look right instead of focusing on obscure birds that get flown once or twice! For me the most flown aircraft is the Bf 109. It looks like it looked back in 2001 in the original Il2 and its sound did not change since then. PLEASE make the 109s right!

[zepset1969]

Agree,
there are many airplanes that need restyling.
renewing these ones, the game will achieve a new amazing dimension.

this doesn't mean to cut all the new models created in these last years (which are needed to a platform like il2, the most balanced (playable/realistic) flight simulator ever), but a new "in Depht" rediscovery of the historical and most mass produced airplane that took part to the most crucial moments of WWII.

of course, bf109, yak-9...

[Vendigo]

In current version (4.11.1), when adjusting height of the pilot's seat in Zero and some other aircraft (usually done when taking off or landing on a carrier), the seat moves too abruptly whereas it should be more like sliding. In fact, now the seat has two positions: "up" and "down" and you just switch between them. Making the seat slide up and down would look more realistic and doesn't seem too hard to implement.
Could DT please address this issue, if not in 4.12 (which is hopefully just days away from release) then in future patches?
Thanks!

[Sods]

Seeing as though this game is so great as it is, the only wish I have, is to see the introduction of the rrr command, Rearm refuel & repair, for the stock version with the addition of 1st aid administration for injured pilots. if this is possible it would be greatly appreciated.

S!

Sods

[ElAurens]

I have flown on servers running the mod RRR stuff.

I don't understand why it is so liked.

"Refly" accomplishes the same thing, and neither are realistic in terms of
time to do the actual work involved.

As implemented in the mods, it is a very "gamey" solution to a problem that does not exist.

What's next, powerups?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

I think, the request is mainly meant for COOPs. In DF servers it wouldn't make much sense.

[Igo kyu]

"Refly" accomplishes the same thing, and neither are realistic in terms of time to do the actual work involved.
What's really odd is that in real life in the RAF, except for a high ranking officer's personal aircraft, the pilot went off to have a well earned breakfast, and a different pilot took the plane up after it was refuelled and rearmed (which would be quick, I believe I read somewhere 12 minutes to turn a squadron around).

[IceFire]

I have flown on servers running the mod RRR stuff.

I don't understand why it is so liked.

"Refly" accomplishes the same thing, and neither are realistic in terms of
time to do the actual work involved.

As implemented in the mods, it is a very "gamey" solution to a problem that does not exist.

What's next, powerups?

"You've picked up... TURBO POWER!!!!!" :evil: :cool:

[idefix44]

RRR mod allow you to get points for kills after you have landed and choose the RRR options.
For the server it's one run. To hit refly is to loose all rights for points about damaged planes landing after you...

[P-38L]

Hello to all

I love the option R/R/R, but If some do not like this option, then just do not use it. It's as simple as that.

Some people argue that it is not real by the time it is refuel, repair or rearm a plane. Well, neither is the time it takes to start the engines and no one has argued for it.

I am quite sure that with the RRR option would be more exciting and thus would not be so short missions, as they would have more options. For example, a mission in which the fuel is low and should reach the base or the carrier to reload and continue the mission.

Some spoilers avoid all possibilities of making the game more and more complete. Remember ... if you do not like that option, then do not use it, period.

Thank you very much.

[Luno13]

RRR mod allow you to get points for kills after you have landed and choose the RRR options.
For the server it's one run. To hit refly is to loose all rights for points about damaged planes landing after you...

If you aren't around to watch it go down/claim it, you shouldn't get the kill anyway.

[idefix44]

If you aren't around to watch it go down/claim it, you shouldn't get the kill anyway.

You're wrong guy. You can be far away when the damaged plane crashes/land.
Actually, if you haven't hit refly before, you get the score. May be you never play online... :rolleyes:

[ElAurens]

Luno13 is speaking from a historical perspective. Kills needed to be visually verified to be counted in real life.

You are speaking from a gamer's perspective.

[idefix44]

Ok. I'm sorry if I misunderstood Luno13. English isn't my native language - I'm from France.

But anyway, I use IL2 1946 as it is...
Some times, I take off for a flight wich duration can be more than 45 min. And I can get the "Ennemy plane destroyed" messages several min. after having fight vs them...

[Jack_Aubrey]

it would be nice to place AAA over the bunkers that has a place ready for it....

[Woke Up Dead]

Luno13 is speaking from a historical perspective. Kills needed to be visually verified to be counted in real life.

You are speaking from a gamer's perspective.

Not that there is anything wrong with a gamer's perspective in a game, or assuming that it's the gamer's perspective we're talking about on a game forum.

Also, weren't there cases of pilots getting "surprise" kill credits without seeing the kill? For example, a pilot reports getting hits on some enemy plane then disengaging, and a couple days later a plane matching his description is found crash landed in the woods in friendly territory?

[ElAurens]

Indeed.

Not meant to be a negative comment.

[Tuphlandng]

I have always wanted Re arm and Re fuel in IL 2 sense the first day I started playing
Im not one that wants to Re spawn Over and Over. I would like to Start a Map and Fly all over Landing for re-fuel as I need to, until it becomes second nature and I learn the terrain because frankly the in game map Sucks.
I have been known to select a map and fly for hours,not unlike actual combat missions in real life, For Me The larger the map the better.
To compare what is realistic and what isn't really isn't fair to the request because it isnt realistic or historical or I may lose points because I re-spawn. I myself don't play for points. I play to survive and complete the mission. And sometimes for me to accomplish this I have to land and re fuel. I have a recon mission that if you where to follow the way points You will run out of fuel before making it back to base. Specially if you engage with enemy aircraft. The re-fuel choice's are one base on your side and One on the enemy side that is covered by enemy recon,I suggest taking a wing man if your going to steal fuel from the enemy.
One of the things that makes the R/R/R option interesting is that one needs some skill landing with damaged Aircraft and although the times that it takes to re Arm and re fuel and aircraft is much shorter then in real life it proposes a real need for team work if your base is under attack. You need to depend on your Wing man to cover you while your re Arming. And Let you know when to bail from the plane.

I mean realistically and historically Dead Pilots don't care how many planes they shot down Ace or not

One more thing that adds to the immersion when using R/R/R is the Resource Management. Meaning You have to cover your logistics supply convoys and trains Making them prime targets for the enemy

Here is a U Tube video of that Mod
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N_SkKUb3Hk

Clobber there supply's and Win the war

As a mission writer I find these 2 options get My imagination steering More then anything in IL 2 and Would love to see them in any feature patch that TD puts out Untill thin Ill host HSFX 4.1 with Zuti 1.2 or Ultra Pack v 3
And Of course Stock

Thanks again Daidalos Team for your UN-tiring and hard work keeping the Best WWII Flight sim ever released going for so long

[Bearcat]

RRR? I could take it or leave it.. but I can see where it could be a good thing.. but as far as realism goes... Well.. I am sitting at my desk peering through a 24" monitor with the TV on in the background and a beer on my desk... so ... realism is a myth.. I certainly would not want to wait 12 minutes between RRR.. but it would be interesting to be able to keep the same plane and stay in the same world for an entire night of flying.. As long as I had to make a decent landing and taxi to a fuel truck ... It'd be ok with me.. Power ups? No comparison.. Power ups and RRR are two entirely different things..

[Tuphlandng]

I have to agree Bearcat Hard to call a PC flight sim realistic when You can stop to go to the rest room and Im not sitting in a tub of Av Gas with a road flare in my pocket when I crash ether.
I do feel t would add to some missions and although not needed it is a fun option and isn't everything an option in IL2??
My monitor is a 22" Not that it means anything Just one deference between players of the game.
I enjoy flying with friends completing an objective and returning to base.
The latest Zuti mod the map builder needs to place correct items on the map for each action
Ammo boxes for re-arming
Fuel cans or tanks for re-fueling
And the correct Maintenance builds for re-pair
And the distance can be adjusted by the map maker
Also time for each action to be completed
I think It would be Really cool to request Re arm and Re fuel then wait fir the trucks to show up but that may be to much I think for some

Honestly Im not sure how many players would benefit from this option But I do beleave
If it was implemented In a Stock patch Im sure many that haven't tried it because it is currently a Modification to the game would enjoy this option.

Not to mention Being able to steal fuel and ammo from the enemy side of the map before you get caught

Salute Barry Good to see you again sir

[sniperton]

but as far as realism goes... Well.. I am sitting at my desk peering through a 24" monitor with the TV on in the background and a beer on my desk... so ... realism is a myth.

As to the beer, soda and other bottles were not a rarity in wwii cockpits, and many pilots were even smoking during flight (e.g. the Americans at Midway, or Galland who had an ashtray installed for his cigar). The wine glass on my desk is really a bit anachronistic, I admit. ;)
Otherwise I agree. The reference to realism in a game is somewhat paradoxical:
"If I were not shortsighted, I would see both far-away enemy planes and my instruments much better in real life than I do on my display."
"If I had no vertigo", or "If I didn't tolerate G-forces so badly", then "I would perceive the general flight environment much better in real life than I do in this sim".
:D

[idefix44]

May be is it better to replace the word realism by immersion.

When I'm in the cockpit, from spawning to refly, I try to be a WWII pilot and not a 2013 gamer...
It is possible even with a soda bottle and a ashtray near the joy. Just a state of mind.

[sniperton]

May be is it better to replace the word realism by immersion.

When I'm in the cockpit, from spawning to refly, I try to be a WWII pilot and not a 2013 gamer...

The problem is that the two 'states of mind' interfere. You may want to call it immersion, but 'reality" always comes back through the window. Exercise one, switch off the speedbar and try to land a Re.2000:
- Can you land it? - possibly;
- Do you see the speed gauge? - not;
- Is it realistic? - hardly, but who knows;
- Does it disturb your 'immersion'? - maybe (so far you unconsciously think it's unrealistic).

[Tuphlandng]

Funny who a simple request turns into a discussion about realism in a game
I myself enjoy landing and re fueling a lot more then just re-spawning. If that UN-realistic Ok If re spawning is more re-realistic Ok
I fly IL2 for the fun of it Not for realism or realistic
I would really like to see the R/R/R option incorporated in a future patch
And sense this is the 4.12 request I think it may be to late for this patch

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

As Zuti helped us with his MDS files, RRR was one of the most incompatible part of his work. It also had a lower priority than other parts. As we didn't find a good and fast solution, we simply left it out. Maybe we will implement it one day, there is no problem to have it as gameplay option. Even if it is still controverse among players. ;)

[sniperton]

Funny who a simple request turns into a discussion about realism in a game

Funny, but not strange. This is a simulation game, and simulation is 'an operation in which a real situation is represented in another form'. ;):)

[Ju22dith]

I too would like a flyable official release of the me410http://meron.gcapc.com/6.jpghttp://meron.gcapc.com/7.jpghttp://meron.gcapc.com/8.jpghttp://meron.gcapc.com/9.jpg

[magot]

As Zuti helped us with his MDS files, RRR was one of the most incompatible part of his work. It also had a lower priority than other parts. As we didn't find a good and fast solution, we simply left it out. Maybe we will implement it one day, there is no problem to have it as gameplay option. Even if it is still controverse among players. ;)
Yes but only RR not RRR. Repair never, it´s unreal in realtime of mission.

[nic727]

Yes but only RR not RRR. Repair never, it´s unreal in realtime of mission.

Too much R, what was the R you removed?:rolleyes:

[Tuphlandng]

Yes but only RR not RRR. Repair never, it´s unreal in realtime of mission.

I would be pleased If I could just re-fuel. Re-arming would be a bonus
The re-pair was always questionable and Unreliable Often the plane had Minor re-pairs shown as complete but would handle horribly after take off.

Re-fuel and Re-arm would be super

[Tuphlandng]

And as My last request for 4.12 patch I would like it to be released in 2 weeks

Keep up the awesome work We all appreciate your work

[Tinpanzer87]

2 weeks be sure.

[SPAD-1949]

2 weeks be sure.

Jes we are sure :grin: