4.12 development update discussion and feedback

[SPITACE]

hi all the Wellington looks great will it be flyable? :-P:-P

[Alien]

I'd like to ask if there will be major AI changes for ground attacks, especially kamikaze. By now you must select their target (except fighters and divebombers) and when they destroy it, the remaining units will slowly belly-land next to other targets. I understand that, they have just ONE target. So perhaps an alternative waypoint would be a good option? And for the other types that don't need target selection, I'd suggest to create a ,,value system" which tells the AI how important a close target is, and to overwrite the default ,,distance system" with it. That should fix the problem, IMO.
,,Values" could be like this:
CV- 10pts
CVL/CVE- 9pts
BB- 8pts
CA- 7pts
CL- 6pts
DD- 5pts
SS- 4pts
Transport ship- 7pts
Small units like PTs- 2pts
Damaged units would have the value increased by 1pt to make the planes attack them primarily, and if an AI's target was destroyed, it would immediately pick up another one.
I don't know how hard can it be, but if you find it a good idea, I think it could be done in a couple of weeks by 1-3 person squad.

[magot]

hi all the Wellington looks great will it be flyable? :-P:-P
Not planned.

[Fighterace]

When will 4.12 patch be released?

[ElAurens]

I have zero inside knowledge of such things, but 4.11 is not that old yet. And judging by what I see of new items/features they are working on, I'd say it is a good ways off.

Just my opinion mind you, but the kind of work DT are doing is very time consuming, and they all do it on their own time, for free, between their day jobs, family, and normal life obligations.

[secretone]

In one word: no. So why do I shoot off vertical stabilizers of certain aircraft (offline) only to see them continue flying? This morning I shot the vertical stabilizer off of a Ju-87G Kanonenvogel (offline) with a 37mm shell from a p-39 and it kept right on going on its merry way! I am thinking that something must be wrong with certain flight models.

[IceFire]

Aircraft can fly without vertical stabilizers... just not very well. The fuselage itself provides some of the stability that the vertical stabilizer provides in many types of aircraft.

Try shooting the stabilizer off the Go229... it doesn't have one :)

[Luno13]

In one word: no. So why do I shoot off vertical stabilizers of certain aircraft (offline) only to see them continue flying? This morning I shot the vertical stabilizer off of a Ju-87G Kanonenvogel (offline) with a 37mm shell from a p-39 and it kept right on going on its merry way! I am thinking that something must be wrong with certain flight models.

It's not that easy to fly without the stabilizer. Any input in roll adds adverse yaw which cannot be corrected. As a result, the aircraft skids strongly and can fall into an unrecoverable spin.

It's a very precarious situation, and if he managed to land it that way, he deserves a congratulations ;)

[Fighterace]

Will the P-40 w/ Lagg-3 engine ( Sorry, i cant remember the name of the engine) be a new model too?

[Sita]

m -105

[Fighterace]

m -105

That's the one Sita, thanks

[nic727]

No news coming???

[Ace1staller]

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

[Treetop64]

In one word: no. So why do I shoot off vertical stabilizers of certain aircraft (offline) only to see them continue flying? This morning I shot the vertical stabilizer off of a Ju-87G Kanonenvogel (offline) with a 37mm shell from a p-39 and it kept right on going on its merry way! I am thinking that something must be wrong with certain flight models.

Actually, aircraft that fly with a vertical stabilizer can still fly without it, but at a loss of longitudinal stability, and at greater risk of entering - and staying in - a flat spin in some conditions. An aircraft just doesn't fall out of the sky just because it lost it's vertical tail.

Now, if an aircraft loses it's entire elevator control or a wing...

[Ace1staller]

Actually, aircraft that fly with a vertical stabilizer can still fly without it, but at a loss of longitudinal stability, and at greater risk of entering - and staying in - a flat spin in some conditions. An aircraft just doesn't fall out of the sky just because it lost it's vertical tail.

Now, if an aircraft loses it's entire elevator control or a wing...

yeah it would fall out of the sky if taking out the elevation controls or the wing and it would fall out of the sky

[Lagarto]

Could we see some work-in-progress screenshots of the new maps? Tunisia, maybe?

Thank you for the Beaufort!! To those unfamiliar with the operational service of this aircraft, I heartily recommend autobiographical books "Torpedo Leader on Malta" and "Not Peace But A Sword" by Patrick Gibbs, also "Torpedo Airmen" by Roy C. Nesbit.
Now we only need a Malta map :)

[FlyingShark]

Yeah, the Beaufort looks great, it comes as a nice surprise.

Thank you.

~S~

[Sita]

yei something new)))

[Mysticpuma]

Regarding the 'shared kill' features, does this also mean that aircraft attacked by AA fire previous to the player attacking it will now share the kill?
I've lost count of the aircraft I have shot down but got 0 points for as unknown to me, before I attacked the e/a it had been damaged (no matter how small the damage) and anything I did wouldn't be counted as the AA always 'steal' the kill.

Has it been possible to fix this?

Cheers, MP

[Asheshouse]

Wow, a Beaufort! Tremendous news.

[Sita]

Wow, a Beaufort! Tremendous news.

where is your Hempden)?

[Sita]

i still waiting and dreaming about it)

[Bonz]

Just thought I check to see if there is an expected release date... :grin:
Before Christmas? Maybe.

[Bonz]

Two things actually:
1. For Single Player Campaigns... I'd like to be able to force the player into certain cockpits rather then allowing Rank to control selection.
2. Also for Single Player Campaigns... Some missions in my campaign's are training... however, to make them more interesting and fun... I encourage players to actually shoot down the "bad guy"... This of course adds to total campaign kills... Of course in real life the "bad Guy's would not actually get shot down ... I'd like the capability to designate certain missions as "Training" and therefore any kills (Ground or Air) would be excluded from the overall kill count... or better yet have two categories of KILLs ... "Training" and "Actual"... determined by the type of mission selected... Training or not.
Bonz... :)

[jameson]

I did actually shoot down an "enemy" on a training mission, thought I'd be courtmarshalled when I landed, but no, got the kill and iron cross second class, go figure!

[TedStryker]

Wow. Simply brilliant work TD, keep it up....and thank you! Really looking forward to 4.12.

[Fenrir]

Can't believe I'm the only one who's noticed the fire & smoke on that exciting new addition to the 4,12 stable; not exactly stock, if you catch my drift....

[RegRag1977]

What a cute plane, very nice addition along with the Vickers Wellington!

Many thanks for these!

Question: will the Bristol be flyable? At least one British bomber flyable would be nice because with 4.12 we will have 3 British bombers (along with Blenheim), and none flyable :(

@Fenrir: oh if you are talking about the effect discussed in the other thread, that would be fantastic. Such effects with all these new high quality additions would certainly attract new players in Oleg's legendary sim!

[Aardvark892]

Outstanding news... although it makes me worry that since this update was just released that it means that 4.12 is now even farther in the future. Don't take that as a complaint, TD, I'm one of your biggest fans!

[Kittle]

The Beaufort is one of my favorite bombers of WWII. I can only hope for some Aussi skins for those PTO maps. Great news TD, thank you!!!

[ElAurens]

I just hope it's flyable.

[IceFire]

Great news eh!! Beaufort is a funky looking one...not a beautiful aircraft but so useful to have!

[Luno13]

DT, you left your thread unlocked. Better get someone to lock it again ;)

Anyway, I am in awe. I never would have expected to see the Beaufort in the sim. Beautiful!

EDIT - I see in one of the screens the plane has two nose guns. Is this another version, or a weapon load-out option?

[ElAurens]

Great news eh!! Beaufort is a funky looking one...not a beautiful aircraft but so useful to have!

I built an Airfix 1/72 scale model of one many years ago, so I have good feelings about the aircraft.

Painted it as a Coastal Command aircraft.

[anikollag]

Great news!
I'm just reading Torpedo Leader on Malta by W.C. Patrick Gibbs. I was wondering if someone was moddeling it :)))
THANKS DT :grin:

[Zorin]

DT, you left your thread unlocked. Better get someone to lock it again ;)

Anyway, I am in awe. I never would have expected to see the Beaufort in the sim. Beautiful!

EDIT - I see in one of the screens the plane has two nose guns. Is this another version, or a weapon load-out option?

Early and late model. All 303s.

[felix_the_fat]

Wow, a Beaufort! Tremendous news.
Yes indeed! Congrats TD - you are the best!
I have a large glossy photo of a Beaufort on my wall -from my late uncle. He was a navigator in same - over the Timor Sea.
Not a glamorous aircraft- but a workhorse of those days. Inclusion of just such aircraft reflects the outstanding historical commitment of Il2 & its modders.

[ElAurens]

It will be a good stand in for the Lockheed Hudson as well.

:cool:

[Luno13]

Early and late model. All 303s.

Thanks. :)

[Untamo]

S!

Woah, nice update!

[ilmavoimat]

Just to add my thanks for the Beaufort, totally unexpected. Looking forward to escorting it over New Guinea in the new P-40s.

[Ikarushin]

Thanks TD for yet another nice surprise for the 4.12 update. This promises to be a great update. Again.
With kind regards,
Ikarushin

[EAF331 Starfire]

Thank guys.
Told some of our people over in EAF about your work. The shared kills was really making a blast ;-)

[Grach]

EDIT - I see in one of the screens the plane has two nose guns. Is this another version, or a weapon load-out option?

Beaufort had a few gun-armament options.

Early: fixed .303 Browning in port wing plus twin .303 VGO or Browning in dorsal turret.

Later: fixed .303 Browning in port wing plus twin .303 VGO or Browning in dorsal turret plus twin .303 VGO in nose plus single or two .303 VGO in fuselage that could fire out of cabin side windows port or starboard, one per side. Some had a remote control .303 Browning in a chin blister to fire rearwards, but this was not popular or effective and was removed quite early on.

Thanks for the Beauforts TD! You guys rock!

If any Australian (Twin Wasp powered) ones turn up, expect to see .50 cals replacing some of those .303s. The Aussie ones were very heavily armed for light bombers of their size... :shock:

[Fighterace]

Are any planes getting a 3D model "facelifts"?

[Treetop64]

Just asking if we can see all the updates on the first post of the thread, like how you used to do. Kinda frustrating to leaf through all the pages in the thread trying to find individual updates.

Thanks.

:)

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Just asking if we can see all the updates on the first post of the thread, like how you used to do. Kinda frustrating to leaf through all the pages in the thread trying to find individual updates.

Thanks.

:)

check here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=31724 :mrgreen:

[CWMV]

Are any planes getting a 3D model "facelifts"?

Would love to see the 109 get a rework!

[Fighterace]

I saw something in an earlier post about a P-47 update. What's being updated for them exactly?

Or did I imagine it lol

[RegRag1977]

I saw something in an earlier post about a P-47 update. What's being updated for them exactly?

Or did I imagine it lol

AFAIK only the cockpit will be remade.

[RegRag1977]

Would love to see the 109 get a rework!

I too, especially Emils, but to me the Luftwaffe most important 3D refinement/fix should be Fw190A engine frontal part. Now the Anton just don't look correct, the engine air intake is too wide open...
It really makes the FW190A as weird as the P40E wings...

check here:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/10/detail_fw190a8_04.htm

MiG3 would also need some good 3D work and new pit textures..

[CWMV]

I too, especially Emils, but to me the Luftwaffe most important 3D refinement/fix should be Fw190A engine frontal part. Now the Anton just don't look correct, the engine air intake is too wide open...
It really makes the FW190A as weird as the P40E wings...

check here:

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/10/detail_fw190a8_04.htm

MiG3 would also need some good 3D work and new pit textures..

Everything you want has alreaydy been done in mods.
http://www.zargos-skins.net/images/post_skin/mig3-3dmod-wip-01.jpg
http://www.zargos-skins.net/images/post_skin/mig3-3dmod-wip-04.jpg

Claymore has released the 190 pack that covers no less than 52 models of the aircraft, painstakingly modeled and beautiful. The 109 got a rework a few years ago, but none of them have been implemented officially.

[ElAurens]

But many mods are offline only stuff yes?

This discussion is about the official release version of the sim, so, how many polys are in that Mig? Will it pass TD standards? Can it be put in the stock game?

Just posting pics of mods does a lot of us no good, as most mod planes still won't pass QC.

[CWMV]

Well as of now it looks better than near any other aircraft in game, and has been out long enough to show that it is compatible with just about everything.
If this is 'beyond' TD standards, they may want to reevaluate where they are set.

EDIT: And no they aren't offline only. Every mod I mentioned above is included in UP3 (RIP) and HSFX6.

[csThor]

Daidalos follows the official Maddox Games standards. That has been made clear time and time again ...

[Blaf]

Daidalos follows the official Maddox Games standards. That has been made clear time and time again ...
Thank you for this - i really appreciate keeping these quality standarts.
(since many of mods being just crap messing the game)

[ElAurens]

Well as of now it looks better than near any other aircraft in game, and has been out long enough to show that it is compatible with just about everything.
If this is 'beyond' TD standards, they may want to reevaluate where they are set.

EDIT: And no they aren't offline only. Every mod I mentioned above is included in UP3 (RIP) and HSFX6.

The Curtiss Hawk III is in HSFX?

[IceFire]

Well as of now it looks better than near any other aircraft in game, and has been out long enough to show that it is compatible with just about everything.
If this is 'beyond' TD standards, they may want to reevaluate where they are set.

EDIT: And no they aren't offline only. Every mod I mentioned above is included in UP3 (RIP) and HSFX6.

I know from working with other MOD packs in other games that it's usually a good idea to stick to the official specs if possible. Most aircraft are now higher poly than they used to be. The Tempest has more polys than the MiG-3 for example... so the specs can be upped and some old aircraft can get some facelifts in theory but often times the specs are way outside of what is really necessary.

I'd love it if some of these folks went that little extra mile to bring things to the established guidelines and work on the implementation. It'd really benefit everyone.

[Pursuivant]

It seem to me that it wouldn't take that much work or extra polygons to improve the appearance of the older planes.

All that is really needed is a bit of smoothing on the upper leading edges of the wings, and increasing the number of polygons for prop spinners and/or radial engines. Maybe +100 polygons, tops, for a single-engined plane.

[Dami55an]

Always pleased to see and hear news of the original
http://www.gqth.info/0.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.ymeu.info/test5.jpg

[RegRag1977]

This is awesome news: true wide screen for IL2 1946!

Many thanks for this!

[anikollag]

Excellent news! Thanks for the update! :)

[IceFire]

Looking very good folks! Great job!

[JG601_Rommel]

This is 5!!! Many thanks! :smile:

[Lagarto]

true wide screen support, that's really something! :) thank you

[Fighterace]

Impressive...Most impressive. I can't wait for 4.12

I love all of TD videos, please add more ;)

[nic727]

Nice update. Will you put that you can do max setting without having a good graphic card. It doesn't work with me even if I put water=3 in conf.ini:(

[Luno13]

I saw an option that looked like it allowed for custom sounds online...is DT opening up the sound engine for easy modification by users, or is that for special server features? How does morse chat work?

And finally, selectable skins for stationary aircraft.

And look at that beautiful GUI - fully customizable!! The map changes are amazing. If you fly a mission that transitions into night time, does it change automatically?

New HUD options is something I've been dying to have, especially the ability to turn off kill notifications....thank you!!!

:grin::grin::grin:

[Alan Grey]

Hi all
will be possible to change the font size?

thank you

Jarda "Alan Grey"

[Fenrir]

:shock: 8-) :mrgreen:

Thanks guys, this is just something else!

[The_WOZ]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Separated settings for ground and air padlock make me a happy groundpounder :)

[fruitbat]

True widescreen support at last, the holy grail, thank you very much indeed.

One question, i didn't see 1920 by 1200 in the options, will you still be able to force through the conf.ini, with no ill effect?

[Feathered_IV]

Good God. Speechless!

[TelluricSummer]

Fantastic DT.

Great News again! Many many Tkx!

[Zorin]

LOD_0 polycount:

1. Smaller bombs/rockets (below 200kg) - up to 200 triangles.
2. Medium bombs/rockets (between 200 and 1000kg) - up to 300 triangles
3. Larger bombs (1000kg and larger), torpedoes, guided bombs, etc. - up to 500 triangles.

Are these old guide lines still valid? Just asking if there is a point in bothering with submiting the updated ordnance meshes or if they still need to be dumbed down to 12 year old standards of game design.

[Aviar]

True widescreen support at last, the holy grail, thank you very much indeed.

One question, i didn't see 1920 by 1200 in the options, will you still be able to force through the conf.ini, with no ill effect?

I was thinking the same thing...only because that is the native resolution for my monitor. 1920x1200 is not a 'strange' resolution and is used by many players.

Can you tell us if that resolution will be supported?

Aviar

[IceFire]

I was thinking the same thing...only because that is the native resolution for my monitor. 1920x1200 is not a 'strange' resolution and is used by many players.

Can you tell us if that resolution will be supported?

Aviar

One would hope. I much prefer the full 16:10 aspect ratio over 16:9 as you find on many monitors (mimicking TVs).

[BadAim]

4.12? Looks more like 5.0 to me! Thanks for all of the hard work guys.

[Blaubaer]

This time we'd like to share a few features in the GUI and in flight.Gorgeous! Thanks for your work. Don't let us wait too long for it.

Regards,
der Blaubär

[SaQSoN]

Are these old guide lines still valid?

You can add 100 triangles to each figure, if it's absolutely necessary. Also, note, that this numbers are given for 2-sided material usage. Therefore, if you are using doubled polygons for 2-sided surfaces instead of 2-sided material, you can count only one side of such surface.

You may also use 512x512 textures, instead of 256x256, but similar ordnance models should use same texture. Alpha channel may be used, if needed.

Just asking if there is a point in bothering with submiting the updated ordnance meshes

The models should be submitted in 3DS Max format, each model should contain all LODs and other standard stuff. I believe, everything was described in the text, from where you got this requirements.

or if they still need to be dumbed down to 12 year old standards of game design.

In order for the whole game to have consistent look, all models for it should be made under the same (or, at least, very close) standards, no matter how old are they.

[Zorin]

You can add 100 triangles to each figure, if it's absolutely necessary. Also, note, that this numbers are given for 2-sided material usage. Therefore, if you are using doubled polygons for 2-sided surfaces instead of 2-sided material, you can count only one side of such surface.

You may also use 512x512 textures, instead of 256x256, but similar ordnance models should use same texture. Alpha channel may be used, if needed.



The models should be submitted in 3DS Max format, each model should contain all LODs and other standard stuff. I believe, everything was described in the text, from where you got this requirements.



In order for the whole game to have consistent look, all models for it should be made under the same (or, at least, very close) standards, no matter how old are they.

1. Glad to see you guys being sensible.
2. Well, I assume LOD_0 - 3, shadow mesh and hook should do.
3. Will you add new bomb types to plane loadouts where they would fit? SB, SD and PC RS for Germany, MS for the British and well a proper redo of the bomb type selection for the IJN and IJA?

[PilotError]

I was thinking the same thing...only because that is the native resolution for my monitor. 1920x1200 is not a 'strange' resolution and is used by many players.

Can you tell us if that resolution will be supported?

Aviar

+1 for a 1920 x 1200 screen resolution. Maybe the video was still work in progress and other resolutions still have to be added.

Thanks for the update DT, it's looking good. :grin:

No one else has asked and I don't really expect an answer, but any idea when we can get our hands on all these goodies ? Even a hint ? ;)

PilotError.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Can you tell us if that resolution will be supported?

+1 for a 1920 x 1200 screen resolution. Maybe the video was still work in progress and other resolutions still have to be added.




The available resolutions are read from the OS, so what ever your system supports, will be available in the list.

[mkubani]

1. Glad to see you guys being sensible.
2. Well, I assume LOD_0 - 3, shadow mesh and hook should do.
3. Will you add new bomb types to plane loadouts where they would fit? SB, SD and PC RS for Germany, MS for the British and well a proper redo of the bomb type selection for the IJN and IJA?

It should be no issue to add if the correct model is provided. However, most likely in 4.13.

Release date of 4.12 is not fixed yet. But it should be within 2012.

[Mysticpuma]

Regarding LoD.

When the aircraft cross the next LoD point there is a noticeable 'pop' effect as the new model is shown.

Currently (I ma be wrong here) but we have dot, very, very basic model, slightly more detailed model, full model?

Is there a way to go from the dot and render the full detail model where the next stages of LoD would be?

This way the full resolution aircraft is rendered (at distance) and would never pop into the next LoD?

Cheers, MP

[Mysticpuma]

Love the screen-grab file selection type switch, transparent map looks really effective.

Regarding shared kills, is there a way to stop the AAA denying the player a kill if it hits an aircraft before the player engages it?

Currently if you shoot an aircraft down that has been hit by AAA you get 0 points, even if the AAA hit it minutes before you even saw it and left it relatively undamaged?

Would be great if the AAA had to actually destroy an aircraft to get the kill so that sharpnel/flak damage didn't get all the points?

Love the update and hope the 1C take you guys on, pay to fix CloD and keep listening to the community.

Brilliant work, cheers, MP

[Phil_K]

Are we going to see the end of the dayglo spinners for USSR Il-2's?

These have overstayed their welcome for approximately 12 years.

[Zorin]

It should be no issue to add if the correct model is provided. However, most likely in 4.13.

Release date of 4.12 is not fixed yet. But it should be within 2012.

Sounds promising.

Though the texture sharing thing, I am not sure about. Lets look at the US ordnance for example.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/compo_new-1.jpg

All are of different size and shape with differing tail sections and can't possibly share the same skin file without losing all skin details like rivets, bolts and markings/stencils.

One could possibly lose the stencils and mirror the rest for only having one side of each bomb using space on the texture file, but that would be pretty much the limit.

OR

Stencils and details are stored on a second texture file that can be shared for all bombs and applied viaalpha channel on seperate polys on the respective bomb models.

What would you preferr?

[Fighterace]

I can't wait for 4.12 patch :)

I hope there are more surprises still to come :D

[Christop55her]

Always pleased to see and hear news of the original

http://www.gqth.info/0.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.ymeu.info/test5.jpg

[Bearcat]

EXCELLENT!!

I see a few things in there that I specifically asked for .. and I know that tey weren't added specifically for me but Thank YOU!

[Pursuivant]

Lots of goodies in the latest update!

I'm particularly pleased about the new kill markings, but only because I asked for them and contributed some prototypical graphics to help make it happen.

From what I can tell we've got:

* Improved P-38L cockpit
* Changable UI background (any ability to have custom backgrounds?)
* Widescreen support
* More control settings, including full left and right rudder, and improve trim controls.
* Prop pitch on HOTAS
* Ability to make and save screenshots as tga or jpg.
* Ability to overlap FMB map view and cockpit view, with map partially transprarent.
* Morse chat messages on server
* More server options - Mission info HUD and Kill info HUD
* Pilot head movement sensitivity for Track IR
* Ability to set UI color, transparency and images.
* Loads of new FMB options - new units and default skin options among other things.
* New loadouts for A-20
* Night Vision views for map and map overlay.
* Ability to allow padlock for just ground or air targets (any possibility of being able to padlock ships?)
* Historically restricted shared kills.
* Historical kill markings.

[Luno13]

* Prop pitch on HOTAS
* Ability to make and save screenshots as tga or jpg.
* Pilot head movement sensitivity for Track IR


These at least were available before. The last two are available by modifying the conf.ini.

[JtD]

Yes, it's mostly taking options from the config.ini that had to be manually set through lines hardly anyone ever bothered with and give it a decent interface. Another thing that should have been like this in version 1.0.

[Blaf]

Widescreen!!! Oh Yes!

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

* Changable UI background (any ability to have custom backgrounds?)


Yes, as it had been:
Custom background only for menu area (GUI background), changable manually via putting a picture in 'Missions' folder. Unfortunately not possible via integration in GUI setup.
Splash screen will stay fixed.

The rework of the backgrounds was needed due to the widescreen support.
New backgrounds will have a matching version for 4:3 too of course - so it stays unique.

Undoubtly the game gets a kind of new look by this. We know, we cannot please everyone with these new GUI features, but I think, most will welcome it in any way. As usual we are open for critics and suggestions after the release. ;)

[Bearcat]

Yes, as it had been:
Custom background only for menu area (GUI background), changable manually via putting a picture in 'Missions' folder. Unfortunately not possible via integration in GUI setup.
Splash screen will stay fixed.

The rework of the backgrounds was needed due to the widescreen support.
New backgrounds will have a matching version for 4:3 too of course - so it stays unique.

Undoubtly the game gets a kind of new look by this. We know, we cannot please everyone with these new GUI features, but I think, most will welcome it in any way. As usual we are open for critics and suggestions after the release. ;)

The beauty of all this is if you use HSFX you can have some cake and eat some too..

http://file.walagata.com/w/bearcat/splash_gui.jpg
Custom Splash under HSFX 6.0.15
http://file.walagata.com/w/bearcat/splashmis.jpg
Custom Mission screen .. which was doable all along....

Great stuff guys.. It still floors me that this sim and this community has been a part of my life for a decade and shows no sings of abating. :D

[Xallo]

.. and still without a decent competitor in WWII aviation!

(sorry CoD or what it's called now) I feel like a traitor, to a great developer, but I bought it on steam, as support, and my comp couldn't handle it that well, and uninstalled quite a while ago (while IL2 is glued to my drive.. and to be honest 300+? planes, well modeled, or <20 (maybe a lot better modeled, both on FM and visials!?)

I can't afford a new computer for just one sim! So I continue to embrace this one.. and salutes the continues effort!

[Fighterace]

Isn't there a couple of P-36 Hawks in the works?

[IceFire]

Isn't there a couple of P-36 Hawks in the works?
Yep... the Hawk-75 with a Finnish cockpit. Pretty excited to see it!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=418733&postcount=2

[Jam66es]

It's great to have constant feedback from the IL2 team, it always makes a great impression.

http://www.qmku.info/0.jpghttp://www.qmku.info/7.jpghttp://www.qmku.info/8.jpghttp://www.qmku.info/9.jpghttp://www.ymeu.info/test5.jpg

[Luno13]

I noticed you guys posted a new video on AI taxi logic. That's some great stuff! This patch is going to be a huge game-changer. What other surprises are in store? :grin:

[Fighterace]

Yep... the Hawk-75 with a Finnish cockpit. Pretty excited to see it!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=418733&postcount=2

Wasnt there a French Hawk also in the pipeline?

[Zorin]

Does any official feel inclined to answer the question I raised on the previous page?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

One could possibly lose the stencils and mirror the rest for only having one side of each bomb using space on the texture file, but that would be pretty much the limit.

OR

Stencils and details are stored on a second texture file that can be shared for all bombs and applied viaalpha channel on seperate polys on the respective bomb models.

What would you preferr?

Case #1 - reason: Beside your fascination for such deep details, it is not essential to have correct stencils on ordnance (low importance for gameplay and atmosphere). Using compromises like that all through the game will help keeping FPS and loading time on a reasonable level. Working with alpha channels always is a bit ciritcal and to be avoided if possible. Even, if its only small objects like bombs.

[Pfeil]

I noticed you guys posted a new video on AI taxi logic. That's some great stuff!

Thanks, I hadn't seen that one yet.


The new video did make me wonder:

How is right of way decided?
From what I can see, the bomber arrives first and takes off, then all fighters take off even though the some of the bombers arrive at the threshold first.
Can the game logic behind this process be made public?

Is player taxiing facilitated?
There is no runway signage, which makes spoken instructions difficult to interpret. Will the taxi route be shown on the map?
Personally, I would prefer something that doesn't require any 2D elements as I find it is somewhat of an immersion killer.

Are there any new tower instructions?
I.E. taxi to and hold short. I don't know what the historically correct instruction would be, but surely there was some form of traffic control during normal operations?

[Zorin]

Case #1 - reason: Beside your fascination for such deep details, it is not essential to have correct stencils on ordnance (low importance for gameplay and atmosphere). Using compromises like that all through the game will help keeping FPS and loading time on a reasonable level. Working with alpha channels always is a bit ciritcal and to be avoided if possible. Even, if its only small objects like bombs.

Rgr that.

[Aviar]

I noticed you guys posted a new video on AI taxi logic. That's some great stuff! This patch is going to be a huge game-changer. What other surprises are in store? :grin:

I can't seem to find any such video. Can someone post a link?

Aviar

[Luno13]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOdFLi1ixQQ&feature=g-all-u


Is player taxiing facilitated?
There is no runway signage, which makes spoken instructions difficult to interpret. Will the taxi route be shown on the map?
Personally, I would prefer something that doesn't require any 2D elements as I find it is somewhat of an immersion killer.


It could be possible to include runway markers or signs with letter or number designations to assist with locating the runway. The current use of electric lights on some grass strips seems unlikely, as do open fires along a concrete runway centerline :)

This is a fantastic feature overall, but it would be magnificent on several orders of magnitude to see tail-draggers turning from side to side as they taxi to clear the view ahead.

All I have left to say is that DT have really revolutionized Il-2.

[Ala13_Kokakolo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. Bullets ricochet from impact.

That's all for now. Thanks for reading!

[zipper]

Observations on some of your requests:

3. Many, if not all, aircraft that had differential brakes already have them. Get differential brakes by swinging rudder.

5. The two aircraft you mentioned, the B-17 and P-47, only have the two stages they already have, one turbo and one internal. Maybe you're requesting more direct turbo control? That would, maybe, give slightly better economy but not more power, I wouldn't think.

8. Hydraulic system failure gear drop. The only possibility for this might be the very early P-51D which did not have a mechanical uplock originally but had them retrofitted*. Most hydraulically operated landing gear and flaps had mechanical uplocks so the hydraulic system could be placed in neutral between uses. *http://p51h.home.comcast.net/~p51h/sig/TO/01-60JE-9.pdf



PS For those who haven't seen it yet this site is awesome for all things Mustang (technical): http://p51h.home.comcast.net/~p51h/sig/sig.htm

[Fighterace]

Are any more planes going to be flyable for 4.12?

[~BeoWolf~]

Love the new FMB stuff, skins on static planes is huge.

One request I have made a few times and have never seen answered is would it be possible to have a gui button in the FMB when you are building your flight to select the "FORMATION STYLE" you want the flight to spawn in. Example, I have built some missions for DBS in the Pacific, SDB's spawn in finger four, they should be in eschelon so they can roll out of formation in order to attack the target, you have to change formation for this to happen. Yeah I know, they fall into trail before the last "Attack" waypoint, which looks terrible. Having that gui button in FMB would make it easier for mission builders to construct correct, and balanced formations for their missions. So instead of having every flight in a left finger four, flight 1 & 2 could be in Left finger four and flight 3&4 could be in right finger four the way it should be. BoB vics would be easier to build too.

I figure if I keep asking someone might finally give me an answer if it's possible and the likelihood of it actually being done.

Would be a great addition to your FMB tweaks you already have.

Cheers

AG-51 Hoss

aka ~BeoWolf~

[mkubani]

Are any more planes going to be flyable for 4.12?

Yes, come back soon for a development video which will reveal two more planes (not announced before) that made it flyable in 4.12.

[Fighterace]

Yes, come back soon for a development video which will reveal two more planes (not announced before) that made it flyable in 4.12.

Oh Sweet!!!!! :D

[Asheshouse]

Yes, come back soon for a development video which will reveal two more planes (not announced before) that made it flyable in 4.12.

A real teazer :grin:

[Lagarto]

Yes, come back soon for a development video which will reveal two more planes (not announced before) that made it flyable in 4.12.

Wow! Fighters or bombers? :)

[Mysticpuma]

As it's possible to change the colours of the interface, would it be possible to do this with the actual game colours too?

I know that profiles can be set up in Nvidia control panels and saturation tweaked, but it would be cool if there was maybe a switch that had 5-6 different settings so that we could have Sepia, Black and White, Saving Private Ryan washed out colours, Polarised colours and maybe a couple of UI choices for a quick way of changing colours?

Just asking, love the work, cheers, MP

[Fighterace]

Wow! Fighters or bombers? :)

I'll take a guess as to one of the possible new flyable planes for 4.12. My best guess is the Me-110G4 night fighter

[ElAurens]

I'm rather hoping for something French, it would fill a huge hole in the early war plane set.

The Imperial Japanese Army needs a flyable bomber/attack aircraft as well.

And the Finns were not the only country to take the Hawk 75 into combat.

[Lagarto]

Indeed, Wellington made me think that perhaps we're getting some basic night war aircraft set. But yes, I'm also hoping for something French :)

[martinistripes]

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

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

[Asheshouse]

I can see the obvious advantage of a one stop download for those installing the game for the first time, but for anyone already running v4.11 a smaller patch is by far preferable. Some of us, maybe many, still have quite slow internet download speeds so big patches which duplicate stuff we already have is not our favorite option.

[Bearcat]

Yes but wouldn't 4.12 be new.. totally new anyway? I can't see them adding stuff from 4.11.xx into 4.12.. what would be the point?

[martinistripes]

I can see the obvious advantage of a one stop download for those installing the game for the first time...

And re-installing. I probably installed this game at least 7 or 8 times. It's the worst game I own when it comes to patching. I have 8 files including 4.09 skin pack in my 1946 updates folder. I'd much rather delete them all and have just one.

Some of us, maybe many, still have quite slow internet download speeds...

Torrent overnight. Anyway like I said, it's not a problem if we have both Incremental and Complete. Everyone wins.

[Alan Grey]

Big thanks you for a new video ... aauuuhhh! 8-)

[Luno13]

Awesome! I'm running out of adjectives to describe this stuff! I never thought we would see a true torpedo-bomber like the B5N flyable - bravo! I love the mirror on the compass - that's a great feature.

The new features like reticule dimmer and bombsight FOV are super as well.

Can't wait! :grin:

[Artist]

Beautiful, just beautiful.

[fruitbat]

awesome:cool:

[Fighterace]

Break out the thesaurus because I need new words to describe this new update. The B5N Kate flyable is totally out of left field and are those new muzzle flashes or is it just me?

Keep up the good work DT, keep the update vids coming I love watching them all. :)

[Wiesel]

TD I love it! It was my biggest wish... B5N !!!
THANK YOU SO MUCH! Very Great!

Awesome! ... :-)

[IceFire]

Nice job folks :)

[RegRag1977]

Bravo!


Bravo Team Daidalos, what an incredible team you are!

Bravo and many many many thanks to make us (old) kids so happy.

You're rocking the sim world...

[ElAurens]

Did anyone spot the bomb racks on the Hawk 75?

:cool:

[Zorin]

Kate needs at least a set of new torps. Do you think we could squeeze them in for 4.12?

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/type91_2.jpg

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/type91_mod_2.jpg

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/render_type91mods.jpg

[Fighterace]

Did anyone spot the bomb racks on the Hawk 75?

:cool:

Yes, I did

[anikollag]

Very nice new pits! Beautiful work, sorry, artwork!

[gaunt1]

Finally the B5N and SB-2 are flyable! Its fantastic! Thanks TD! :)

[Rot Bourratif]

Changing the gunsight reticle brightness: Just brilliant!

[Tuco22]

Changing the gunsight reticle brightness: Just brilliant!

This, hate how bright it is currently. This plus wide screen = bliss.

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

OMG, KATE... is that you??!!!


Excuse me, I'll be back in a minute, just made a bit of a mess...

Ok back again, TD - Un-freakin-believable!!!

[stugumby]

EEgads, gonna have to rethink my controls keying, variable field of view for bombsights and reticle dimming. Wonder what type of bombsight the kate will use, same as betty??

[HarryM]

Looking good, guys!

[P-38L]

Hello Daidalos Team.

You did it again!:-P
Thank you for all your hard work, and great development.

[slm]

One more thumbs up to the team doing the development!
How many people are currently involved? You might post that info in development update as well...

[Zorin]

I am being upright here, TD, do you think we can manage that?

Kate needs at least a set of new torps. Do you think we could squeeze them in for 4.12?

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/type91_2.jpg

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/type91_mod_2.jpg

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/render_type91mods.jpg

[T}{OR]

All your ordinance 3D models should be in the game already Zorin. Great work!

[magot]

Hi Zorin,
can you show wireframe model?

[Nil]

TD I love it! It was my biggest wish... B5N !!!
THANK YOU SO MUCH! Very Great!

Awesome! ... :-)

Finally the B5N and SB-2 are flyable! Its fantastic! Thanks TD! :)

OMG, KATE... is that you??!!!


Excuse me, I'll be back in a minute, just made a bit of a mess...

Ok back again, TD - Un-freakin-believable!!!

I never hopped the B5N Kate would have a dedicated cockpit,
How much can thank you guys!!
Not to mention the Ki and the SB!
You really rocks!
Your contribution is incredible!

[mkubani]

Zorin, are your torpedo models within the specs posted few pages back by Saqson? If not, are you able to update them accordingly and send along with textures to DT email? Thanks.

[Zorin]

Zorin, are your torpedo models within the specs posted few pages back by Saqson? If not, are you able to update them accordingly and send along with textures to DT email? Thanks.

All need to be reworked for the skining rules you set, but the meshes should be fine, now that you adjusted your limits, which you should have done years ago when I first offered the stuff to you, btw. Yet I would start with these torpedos first IF they can be part of 4.12 and the Kate that way.

[Mabroc]

Please ZORIN give all your stunning ordnance work to TD!!! I used to put them in the MOD folder everytime you uploaded something new on the SAS site and thanked you for it, then UP3 contained it (or most of it) and everyone could enjoy it more easily.

But because UP3 got stalled many people switched to HSFX 6, myself a couple of weeks ago.....oh the horror today when I did my first sortie on a JU-88 in HSFX and I went to see from a gunner position my first drop (2XSC250) effectivity/explosion on target and I looked to the sides to check if I didnt dropped too many bombs and still on the wings, OH God, those remaining black and yellow abominations were again on my wings!!!!......BREATH....BREATH....BREATH

Seriously tought everything I saw from you is a work of art, like this other guy VPMEDIA, between you two alone the past SEVERAL years of 3D and TEXTURE improvements for il-2 has been great. Now I only need to kidnap you, VPMEDIA and this other guy remodelling all the engine cowlings and then......BUUHAAAHAAHAA

[shelby]

the hawk75 will have also manufacturers cockpit?

[ElAurens]

The videos of the Hawk 75 show a new, correct cockpit for it, not a P40 cockpit spliced in .

[shelby]

yes but the hawk sold to Finland with cockpit in Finnish language or in English

[Spudkopf]

Many, many thanks for native wide screen support, it will be great to finally have the full FOV back especially the top and bottum parts of the screen, its all been a bit like using and APS-C camera as apoosed to using a full frame camera (not that I can afford a full frame that is).

And thanks for all the other surprises and goodies as well.

Any news on any other tweaks and fixes to existing cockpits like holes and tears (Ju-88 for example)?

[Fighterace]

Will The P-40 get updated cockpit?

[1984]

nice upgrade... lot of necessary and interesting things... катюша especially...

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Will The P-40 get updated cockpit?


Its planned.

[Fighterace]

Its planned.

Sweet, so it won't make it for 4.12 or will it be 4.13?

Cheers for the reply?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Not for 4.12.

[Fighterace]

It's my understanding that we are using the old P-40 cockpit with the new 3D model for 4.12?

What other P-40 versions will we get in 4.12 as flyable/AI?

[310_Pepno]

It's my understanding that we are using the old P-40 cockpit with the new 3D model for 4.12?

What other P-40 versions will we get in 4.12 as flyable/AI?

This interested me, too, would like to add at least P-40 N / F / K which were made ​​a thousand and put it to use in a large number of maps.

[Fighterace]

Any updates on the P-47 cockpit and etc?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Any updates on the P-47 cockpit and etc?

Is in work by 3rd party. We don't know the current status though.

[Fenice_1965]

Very impressive amount of worthy features.
Why not putting a switch to allow only in cockpit padlock ?
Disabling padlock online causes complains by people lacking tracking devices because They feel handcapped compared to track ir or freetrack users.

[Lagarto]

Any news on the forthcoming maps?

[1984]

only now looked "User interface changes" update...

well, lot of necessary things for online (long waiting of this), and, in total, sometimes looks very very promising...


Very impressive amount of worthy features.
Why not putting a switch to allow only in cockpit padlock ?
Disabling padlock online causes complains by people lacking tracking devices because They feel handcapped compared to track ir or freetrack users.

sorry, you talking about when (in external view) you can follow by enemy if you press Fx button (oh, forgot name)? well, it's= track ir effect...

well, anyway, i think what this option (when using in cockpit, not only in external views) can be very useful for users without free track, on servers without external views etc (i understood long time ago, what TI or FT not for me)...

[Fenice_1965]

I mean leaving f4 and disabling f6.
With cockpit always on track ir users can easily follow enemy A/C without using padlock.
No track ir users rely on their mouse and this is much more difficult.
Actually if you disable padlock you disable both F4 and F6. There's no way to enable F4 (internal padlock) and disable F6 (external padlock).

[Mysticpuma]

Is there no-way that the server can check what button is mapped to Padlock External and just disable it (the button that is)?

[Mysticpuma]

Is in work by 3rd party. We don't know the current status though.

That's temptingly good news. Is there anyone who can get in touch with the '3rd party' and ask where progress is at? Seriously, the P-47 is/has always looked a little sad internally?

Just one more question regarding the P-47. Is there a chance of seeing an 'N' model one-day?

Cheers and thanks for all the work...it's much appreciated ;)

[Fighterace]

That's temptingly good news. Is there anyone who can get in touch with the '3rd party' and ask where progress is at? Seriously, the P-47 is/has always looked a little sad internally?

Just one more question regarding the P-47. Is there a chance of seeing an 'N' model one-day?

Cheers and thanks for all the work...it's much appreciated ;)

Or the "Hot Rod" M version ;)

[ohasha]

Great work TD you guys are awesome. Just wondering if a BOB map can be brought out featuring England, channel and western France. Also is it possible to bring in a spitfire mk1 and a BF-109E3 like the old BOB planes. Also can you guys make some of the pacific torpedo planes available like the TBF and the Jill's or Kates.;)

[csThor]

Great work TD you guys are awesome. Just wondering if a BOB map can be brought out featuring England, channel and western France. Also is it possible to bring in a spitfire mk1 and a BF-109E3 like the old BOB planes. Also can you guys make some of the pacific torpedo planes available like the TBF and the Jill's or Kates.;)

B5N2 Kate is in the process of creation (as seen in the recent video). On the rest of your questions the answer is no. Any BoB content has been ruled out for 1946 due to the gentlemen's agreement between TD and Oleg. Any Grumman-related aircraft or ship (such as the TBF) is out, too, because of license issues. We won't touch any of them with a ten-meter-pike.

[Lagarto]

Any BoB content has been ruled out for 1946 due to the gentlemen's agreement between TD and Oleg.

But hopefully this doesn't mean a ban on any future western Europe maps, like France or Low Countries? Or Battle of France aircraft like Fairey Battle or French fighters/bombers?

[Maris66ol]

Always pleased to see and hear news of the original
http://www.gqth.info/01.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/7.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/8.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/9.jpghttp://www.gqth.info/0.jpg

[zander]

Having the FW187 would rock.

[~BeoWolf~]

Yes but wouldn't 4.12 be new.. totally new anyway? I can't see them adding stuff from 4.11.xx into 4.12.. what would be the point?

Hey Barry:

I don't think they (Mods) are going to do it that way anymore, I think they are just going to take what they can and incorporate it into their current package i.e. DBW 1.8, UP3/4, and HSFX is a different story, they are not as wide reaching where getting every mod you can jammed into an install. So I think what I'm hearing is it will be DBW 1.8v.xxx drawn from 4.11.1 content. In other words they will adapt the patch to their package instead of vice versa.

[Zorin]

Do you guys have an eye on your eMail inbox?

[Bearcat]

Hey Barry:

I don't think they (Mods) are going to do it that way anymore, I think they are just going to take what they can and incorporate it into their current package i.e. DBW 1.8, UP3/4, and HSFX is a different story, they are not as wide reaching where getting every mod you can jammed into an install. So I think what I'm hearing is it will be DBW 1.8v.xxx drawn from 4.11.1 content. In other words they will adapt the patch to their package instead of vice versa.

What I meant by that was that 4.12 will be released most likely as 4.12 with totally new content. Meaning nothing from 4.11.. I was under the impression that the poster a feew posts above the post you quoted was asking if 4.12 could be issued as a sort of combined patch with everything prior to it, which I don't think will happen..

[Pursuivant]

Any BoB content has been ruled out for 1946 due to the gentlemen's agreement between TD and Oleg.

Does this mean that TD can't do anything associated with BoB, or just that they can't do a 1940 map of Southwest England/Normandy?

It seems quite artificial to not allow the Bf-109E1 and E3 variants, since both were used for campaigns other than the BoB, starting with the Spanish Civil War!

Likewise, the Spitfire MkI was in service from the beginning of the war and was used during the Battle of the Netherlands and the Battle of France.

Any Grumman-related aircraft or ship (such as the TBF) is out, too, because of license issues. We won't touch any of them with a ten-meter-pike.

Does the fact that N-G subsequently spun off its shipbuilding business as a separate entity make it possible that further U.S. ships could appear in the game?

Would there be any possibility of getting a separate license from Huntington Ingalls Shipyard to model these craft?

[csThor]

Does this mean that TD can't do anything associated with BoB, or just that they can't do a 1940 map of Southwest England/Normandy?

It seems quite artificial to not allow the Bf-109E1 and E3 variants, since both were used for campaigns other than the BoB, starting with the Spanish Civil War!

Likewise, the Spitfire MkI was in service from the beginning of the war and was used during the Battle of the Netherlands and the Battle of France.

Yes, that means anything BoB-related (including a Channel Map, Spit I, Bf 109 E-1, E-3 etc) is out.

Does the fact that N-G subsequently spun off its shipbuilding business as a separate entity make it possible that further U.S. ships could appear in the game?

Would there be any possibility of getting a separate license from Huntington Ingalls Shipyard to model these craft?

Not at all, since 1C and Ubisoft have accepted NG's claim by signing an agreement. That agreement still stands and includes anything that was built by companies now or previously owned by Grumman.

You can wriggle like the mother of all cans of worms but it won't change the basic fact that there is something that keeps TD from doing NG-related aircraft/ships and that there is an agreement between the TD core people and Oleg which excludes further things.

[150GCT_Veltro]

The agreement for the Battle of Britain should have to be cancelled by 1C considering how is going on with CoD. Is a nosense considering we'll never have the BoB from 1C.

Do you guys have also planned some restyling for the German aviation, 109 e Stuka cockpits for ex.?

Great surprise the Kate.

[Lagarto]

Yes, that means anything BoB-related (including a Channel Map, Spit I, Bf 109 E-1, E-3 etc) is out.


I'm still interested to know if Western Front 1940 campaign stuff (maps of France and Low Countries, some aircraft like Fairey Battle or French fighters/bombers) is considered "BoB-related".

[FC99]

NG stuff is untouchable, BOB content is negotiable but like everything else it all comes down to personal interest when it comes to adding new things to the game.

[Mysticpuma]

NG stuff is untouchable, BOB content is negotiable but like everything else it all comes down to personal interest when it comes to adding new things to the game.

So can I ask in relation to that;

There is apparently a '3rd party' redoing /improving/making good/'givin a little lovin!' to the Cockpits of the P-47? Is this allowed because the model already exists...or is the P-47 really never going to get that kiss and cuddle it really needs?

[FC99]

So can I ask in relation to that;

There is apparently a '3rd party' redoing /improving/making good/'givin a little lovin!' to the Cockpits of the P-47? Is this allowed because the model already exists...or is the P-47 really never going to get that kiss and cuddle it really needs?
AFAIK we can change whatever we want on NG planes already in game, we can't add new NG stuff without paying to NG which is obviously out of question.


BTW is/was Republic part of NG ?

[ElAurens]

BTW is/was Republic part of NG ?

No.

See one of the posts above. It became part of Fairchild/Dornier, then went out of business.

So... When do we get the P 35? :cool:

[DuxCorvan]

So... When do we get the P 35? :cool:

Or P-43 Lancer, like those used in China...

http://www.456fis.org/THE%20P-47/P-43acomp.jpg

http://www.warbirdforum.com/p43_war.jpg

[IceFire]

Or P-43 Lancer, like those used in China...

http://www.456fis.org/THE%20P-47/P-43acomp.jpg

http://www.warbirdforum.com/p43_war.jpg

Dude, we so need a China map :) And a P-43... and a Ki-44... and a Ki-48... oh :)

[Fighterace]

NG stuff is untouchable, BOB content is negotiable but like everything else it all comes down to personal interest when it comes to adding new things to the game.

So disappointing that we cant use any NG stuff

[Nil]

So disappointing that we cant use any NG stuff
Indeed, but there is still the Douglas TBD Devastator : This is a Douglas torpedo plane, not a NG.

http://imageshack.us/a/img842/9088/tbdb5n.jpg

[Fighterace]

Indeed, but there is still the Douglas TBD Devastator : This is a Douglas torpedo plane, not a NG.

http://imageshack.us/a/img842/9088/tbdb5n.jpg

That's true, But I would of like to have seen a beautiful TBF cockpit from TD.

[IceFire]

That's true, But I would of like to have seen a beautiful TBF cockpit from TD.

True but sadly off the table... another Navy strike plane we could have would be the SB2C Helldiver. That would be very interesting to have as a flyable. Depending on the model it had a full range of bomb carrying capabilities (stored in the internal bomb bay), HVAR rockets on the wings, and twin 20mm Hispano cannons. One of the few US aircraft to mount such weapons.

[Fighterace]

True but sadly off the table... another Navy strike plane we could have would be the SB2C Helldiver. That would be very interesting to have as a flyable. Depending on the model it had a full range of bomb carrying capabilities (stored in the internal bomb bay), HVAR rockets on the wings, and twin 20mm Hispano cannons. One of the few US aircraft to mount such weapons.

Built by Curtis wasn't it?

[IceFire]

Built by Curtis wasn't it?

Correct. So it should be open.

[Fighterace]

So depressing that NG stuff is off limits. What about the P-82 Twin mustang? It was made by NAA.

[IceFire]

So depressing that NG stuff is off limits. What about the P-82 Twin mustang? It was made by NAA.

Not sure... NAA was sold to Rockwell and from there to Boeing.

P-82 isn't really a WWII aircraft. I'd rather see a focus on types that fought over later models (as interesting as the Twin Mustang is). As far as Mustang models go... the initial RAF Mustang Mark I, the P-51A, and the A-36 Apache are all interesting types that'd be interesting to see. Not sure if NAA aircraft are off limits or no.

[Fighterace]

Not sure... NAA was sold to Rockwell and from there to Boeing.

P-82 isn't really a WWII aircraft. I'd rather see a focus on types that fought over later models (as interesting as the Twin Mustang is). As far as Mustang models go... the initial RAF Mustang Mark I, the P-51A, and the A-36 Apache are all interesting types that'd be interesting to see. Not sure if NAA aircraft are off limits or no.

What about planes from Consolidated ie: Privateer and Coronado?

A P-51K would be nice and include some improvements to the current P-51s in the game.

[Pursuivant]

Yes, that means anything BoB-related (including a Channel Map, Spit I, Bf 109 E-1, E-3 etc) is out.

I'd wondered about the exact restrictions on BoB content, since it appears that TD will be releasing a Wellington. I guess the Wellington variant will be a version produced after 1940.

As a quibble, I can see the Spit I being off limits, since it's THE iconic Battle of Britain plane, but it's a bit strange that the early E variants of Bf-109 aren't available, since they were used all through the Blitzkrieg, not just during the BoB. You've got most of the Bf-109E1 or E3's foes - PZL.7, Fokker D.XXI, MS.406, Hawker Hurricane Mk I and Hawk 75 - but not the early "Emils" themselves. It pretty much cripples any early war expansion of IL2.

Not at all, since 1C and Ubisoft have accepted NG's claim by signing an agreement. That agreement still stands and includes anything that was built by companies now or previously owned by Grumman.

That's what I figured. N-G seems to have had Satan himself as their contact attorney. So, there's no possibility of dealing with Huntington Ingalls, even if you wanted to.

[Pursuivant]

What about planes from Consolidated ie: Privateer and Coronado?

If there's a cockpit being built for the B-24, it would seem logical that the other Consolidated aircraft are fair game.

Also, there are no restrictions on making the PBN Nomad flyable, since it was a) built by the U.S. Navy (not a contractor), b) modified by the Soviets.


The only danger is that Consolidated didn't go out of business like Curtiss. It merged with Vultee to become Convair, then that merged with McDonnell-Douglas. Then, M-D merged with Boeing.

While Boeing doesn't seem to be an evil trademark troll like Northrop-Grumman, they are still a multinational defense corporation and could hypothetically be ***holes if they really wanted to be.

A P-51K would be nice and include some improvements to the current P-51s in the game.

I'd like to see the A-36 myself, but late block production of the P-51D/K variants would be welcome.

[Fighterace]

That's what I figured. N-G seems to have had Satan himself as their contact attorney. So, there's no possibility of dealing with Huntington Ingalls, even if you wanted to.[/QUOTE]

I had an thought how to get around the NG issue but it sounds a little outrageous.

[csThor]

You can stop trying to find a way around it. There is none. There is an existing contract between the publishers and NG and that is the fundment for what is not possible. No amount of wishful thinking or thinking around uncounted corners will move that contract one bit. So please give it a rest.

[Fighterace]

You can stop trying to find a way around it. There is none. There is an existing contract between the publishers and NG and that is the fundment for what is not possible. No amount of wishful thinking or thinking around uncounted corners will move that contract one bit. So please give it a rest.

My bad... :(

[RegRag1977]

Do you guys have also planned some restyling for the German aviation, 109 e Stuka cockpits for ex.?


+1

would like to see new 109 and Ju87 cockpit too! The latter especially is one of the oldest looking of them all, along with MiG3, P47 and Me109, which look somewhat better.

As for the 109 pit, would be interesting to restrict view with better detailed cockpit, adding the dessicant device on the low right side of the windshield and also the top part of the panzer galland armor, which is not modelled in IL2 and that should restrict rear high view.

As is now the IL2 109 offers marginally more visibility than what was on the original machine.

[Lagarto]

As is now the IL2 109 offers marginally more visibility than what was on the original machine.

Keep in mind that computer monitors offer by far less visibility than what was on the original machine. For example, I hate to fly the 109 F-4 because of that external armored windscreen which obstructs the view. I doubt it was so obstructive in a real-life cockpit.

[Pursuivant]

You can stop trying to find a way around it. There is none. There is an existing contract between the publishers and NG and that is the fundment for what is not possible. No amount of wishful thinking or thinking around uncounted corners will move that contract one bit. So please give it a rest.

Questions about what isn't possible due to the NG agreement and the contract with 1c are a recurring theme.

It might save time in the long run if TD were to make an official statement on the issue and then make it a sticky, locked post on this forum.

Further questions/whiners about the NG agreement could be referred to the sticky post.

[Buren]

No flyable Avenger in this game. Ever. Keep on dreamin' flyboy!

:grin:

[...]

:(

Such a shame that one the most important aircraft in US inventory can not have a cockpit.

Just to have a last beat on the rotting carcass of a horse, no options for Kickstarter or Indiegogo for a community based purchase of rights from G.?

Or that would stir up the big boys too much?
(Maybe it would also be against the policy of TD not to ask money for their work in any form...)

Oh well.
C'est la vie.

Buren

[ElAurens]

Methinks you don't grasp just how expensive it would be.

[IceFire]

Methinks you don't grasp just how expensive it would be.

Or the potentially slippery slope it could invite...

[Tuco22]

Got to love the death grip on aircraft that have been out of production/ service for the better part of a century, anything for a penny though.

[DuxCorvan]

Was not Michael Jackson who had the rights for the Avenger? No... wait. :confused:

[Fighterace]

So....What coming up in the next update ? :P

[JG3_Hartmann]

Well, I would say it's an easy case.
If they don't want their stuff in this (or any) Game, they can keep it...I think there are much more other planes which would be nice or interesting.
Off course it's a sad to not have a original cockpit for the Avengers, but I must admit I don't care if it's the original or just a modded cockpit, because I don't know how it looks anyway...
And I wouldn't spend a Cent for a cockpit of a plane I rarely use in a nearly 12 years old game, other than CloD where I would pay for some more flyable planes, especially bombers.

[Buren]

Methinks you don't grasp just how expensive it would be.

Just enough to know that it'd never happen.

I admit that it was perhaps a bit ill-considered notion considering the sensitive nature of the affair.

Just as Hartmann above said, there are still a lot of other stuff to work on, so I concur that there's really no reason to get into trouble for a few stuff many people would at most only try out in a QMB and let it rest (and thats without actually funding it).

I'll leave it at that.

Carry on,
Buren

[Pursuivant]

Methinks you don't grasp just how expensive it would be.

It might be cheaper to create a Kickstarter campaign to:

1) Hire attorneys to fight the issue (or possibly get someone like the Electronic Frontier Foundation interested) - assuming that 1c/UbiSoft is willing to revisit the issue and/or there is another case where the people involved in the suit can show "legal standing" (i.e., the right to bring the lawsuit).

2) Buy a lobbyist to buy U.S. lawmakers so that they change the law regarding patent and copyright trolling.

3) Buy the IL2 Franchise.


The ONLY ways to overturn the N-G agreement are:

A) N-G goes out of business. (We can hope! There are many reasons to wish it dead.)

B) Ubisoft/1C goes out of business. Whoever buys the rights to the IL2 1946 franchise isn't necessarily contractually bound by previous agreements. If nobody buys the rights, then it falls into the legally ambiguous area of "abandonware." In that case, N-G's interest in the case is nil, since there are no obvious targets to sue and no money to be gained by doing so.

C) UbiSoft/1C sells the IL2 1946 franchise. Whoever buys the rights isn't necessarily bound by the previous agreement. This, of course, would also invalidate TD's contract with UbiSoft/1c, which would be very bad.

D) The U.S. government passes laws to either specifically invalidate the N-G/UbiSoft agreement or to invalidate contracts like it. What N-G did is called "copyright trolling" or "trademark trolling" and it should be illegal under U.S. law. If you're a U.S. citizen, contact your congresscritters and/or favorite civil liberties organization and complain.

E) U.S. legal precedent overturns the agreement and UbiSoft revisits the case. That is, if a judge in another, similar case, rules that another company which did like N-G did acted improperly, and that precedent is allowed to stand (i.e., not appealed to a higher court, or sustained by higher courts), then UbiSoft's lawyers could easily get a court to declare the contract void.

F) An international treaty, signed by the president and ratified by the U.S. Senate, overturns the agreement or agreements like it.

Without somehow voiding the contract, it might be possible to fight the agreement in court.

I Am Not a Lawyer, but my ignorant opinion is that N-G's legal case is built on sand and they only got away with what they did by bullying 1c/UbiSoft into signing an ill-advised contract.

I AM NOT DISPUTING THAT 1c AND TD ARE CONTRACTUALLY BOUND BY THEIR AGREEMENT, but:

* N-G's claim to control visual representations and names of ships and planes built by the U.S. government is ridiculous. Unless the U.S. government says otherwise, anything it prints or produces is copyright and trademark free. This means that ships like the U.S.S. Arizona, which were produced by U.S. Navy shipyards, are in the public domain.

* Names and designations assigned to planes, ships or other equipment by the U.S. military, such as the "TBF Avenger" are usually in the public domain. (There are exceptions, such as the Jeep - which the government allowed the Willys-Overland Corporation to trademark in 1943, even though the term "Jeep" was slang for the vehicle before it was trademarked.)

* Typically, products designed by private companies specifically for the U.S. government go into the public domain. Unless the company's contract says otherwise, the U.S. government takes over patent, copyright and trademark rights along with the rights to modify or use the product as it sees fit. That means that, once the government no longer uses that equipment, all IP rights also go into the public domain.

Given the state of intellectual property law and the relationship between ship and aircraft manufacturers and the government in the U.S. during WW2, it's very likely that Grumman, and all the other companies that eventually got absorbed into N-G, probably were happy to give the government all IP rights to their products.

* Even if it was possible to claim trademark rights, courts require the plaintiff to prove continuous use and defense of those rights. Since there was no attempt by N-G or its precursors to defend its trademarks for at least 50 years, it wouldn't be that hard to prove them void. After all how many models, books and movies have been produced over the years which feature representations of the U.S.S. Arizona or the TBF Avenger?

* Additionally, copyrights once weren't as long-lasting as they are now, so copyright protection on names and images of planes and ships from the 1940s might have expired some time before 2005.

* Trademarks generally apply only to a specific product or class of product. For example, before the debut of the Ipod, for 20 years, Apple Computer and Apple Records coexisted peacefully, since Apple Records didn't make computers and Apple Computer wasn't involved in the music business. It would be easy to claim that a video game representation of a plane or ship was a different product than the actual hardware.

* Historically, U.S. courts have been lenient about "artistic representations" of commercial products. For example, Andy Warhol sold lithographs depicting cans of Campbell's Soup, but didn't need to pay royalties to the soup company, because he sold artistic representations of their products, not reproductions of actual soup cans or copies of their label art.

If 1c had actually been building and marketing a replica of the TBF Avenger, and calling it that, then I'd agree that N-G might have a valid trademark infringement case, but an "artistic representation" of that plane in a game is a totally different matter.

The only problem with the preceding thought exercise is that fans of the game don't have "legal standing." That is, we can't prove that we're in any way "materially damaged" by the N-G/Ubisoft contract.

And, no, not having our favorite ships and planes in the game isn't "materially damaged" since we incurred no financial losses or personal injury. Any competent judge would say, "This is a private deal between two companies. If you don't like it, go develop your own game."

Note to TD members: If you found any of this essay helpful, feel free to edit it or use it as you see fit as a sticky post discussing the N-G agreement.

[Fighterace]

It might be cheaper to create a Kickstarter campaign to:

1) Hire attorneys to fight the issue (or possibly get someone like the Electronic Frontier Foundation interested) - assuming that 1c/UbiSoft is willing to revisit the issue and/or there is another case where the people involved in the suit can show "legal standing" (i.e., the right to bring the lawsuit).

2) Buy a lobbyist to buy U.S. lawmakers so that they change the law regarding patent and copyright trolling.

3) Buy the IL2 Franchise.


The ONLY ways to overturn the N-G agreement are:

A) N-G goes out of business. (We can hope! There are many reasons to wish it dead.)

B) Ubisoft/1C goes out of business. Whoever buys the rights to the IL2 1946 franchise isn't necessarily contractually bound by previous agreements. If nobody buys the rights, then it falls into the legally ambiguous area of "abandonware." In that case, N-G's interest in the case is nil, since there are no obvious targets to sue and no money to be gained by doing so.

C) UbiSoft/1C sells the IL2 1946 franchise. Whoever buys the rights isn't necessarily bound by the previous agreement. This, of course, would also invalidate TD's contract with UbiSoft/1c, which would be very bad.

D) The U.S. government passes laws to either specifically invalidate the N-G/UbiSoft agreement or to invalidate contracts like it. What N-G did is called "copyright trolling" or "trademark trolling" and it should be illegal under U.S. law. If you're a U.S. citizen, contact your congresscritters and/or favorite civil liberties organization and complain.

E) U.S. legal precedent overturns the agreement and UbiSoft revisits the case. That is, if a judge in another, similar case, rules that another company which did like N-G did acted improperly, and that precedent is allowed to stand (i.e., not appealed to a higher court, or sustained by higher courts), then UbiSoft's lawyers could easily get a court to declare the contract void.

F) An international treaty, signed by the president and ratified by the U.S. Senate, overturns the agreement or agreements like it.

Without somehow voiding the contract, it might be possible to fight the agreement in court.

I Am Not a Lawyer, but my ignorant opinion is that N-G's legal case is built on sand and they only got away with what they did by bullying 1c/UbiSoft into signing an ill-advised contract.

I AM NOT DISPUTING THAT 1c AND TD ARE CONTRACTUALLY BOUND BY THEIR AGREEMENT, but:

* N-G's claim to control visual representations and names of ships and planes built by the U.S. government is ridiculous. Unless the U.S. government says otherwise, anything it prints or produces is copyright and trademark free. This means that ships like the U.S.S. Arizona, which were produced by U.S. Navy shipyards, are in the public domain.

* Names and designations assigned to planes, ships or other equipment by the U.S. military, such as the "TBF Avenger" are usually in the public domain. (There are exceptions, such as the Jeep - which the government allowed the Willys-Overland Corporation to trademark in 1943, even though the term "Jeep" was slang for the vehicle before it was trademarked.)

* Typically, products designed by private companies specifically for the U.S. government go into the public domain. Unless the company's contract says otherwise, the U.S. government takes over patent, copyright and trademark rights along with the rights to modify or use the product as it sees fit. That means that, once the government no longer uses that equipment, all IP rights also go into the public domain.

Given the state of intellectual property law and the relationship between ship and aircraft manufacturers and the government in the U.S. during WW2, it's very likely that Grumman, and all the other companies that eventually got absorbed into N-G, probably were happy to give the government all IP rights to their products.

* Even if it was possible to claim trademark rights, courts require the plaintiff to prove continuous use and defense of those rights. Since there was no attempt by N-G or its precursors to defend its trademarks for at least 50 years, it wouldn't be that hard to prove them void. After all how many models, books and movies have been produced over the years which feature representations of the U.S.S. Arizona or the TBF Avenger?

* Additionally, copyrights once weren't as long-lasting as they are now, so copyright protection on names and images of planes and ships from the 1940s might have expired some time before 2005.

* Trademarks generally apply only to a specific product or class of product. For example, before the debut of the Ipod, for 20 years, Apple Computer and Apple Records coexisted peacefully, since Apple Records didn't make computers and Apple Computer wasn't involved in the music business. It would be easy to claim that a video game representation of a plane or ship was a different product than the actual hardware.

* Historically, U.S. courts have been lenient about "artistic representations" of commercial products. For example, Andy Warhol sold lithographs depicting cans of Campbell's Soup, but didn't need to pay royalties to the soup company, because he sold artistic representations of their products, not reproductions of actual soup cans or copies of their label art.

If 1c had actually been building and marketing a replica of the TBF Avenger, and calling it that, then I'd agree that N-G might have a valid trademark infringement case, but an "artistic representation" of that plane in a game is a totally different matter.

The only problem with the preceding thought exercise is that fans of the game don't have "legal standing." That is, we can't prove that we're in any way "materially damaged" by the N-G/Ubisoft contract.

And, no, not having our favorite ships and planes in the game isn't "materially damaged" since we incurred no financial losses or personal injury. Any competent judge would say, "This is a private deal between two companies. If you don't like it, go develop your own game."

Note to TD members: If you found any of this essay helpful, feel free to edit it or use it as you see fit as a sticky post discussing the N-G agreement.

Nice post

[ElAurens]

Pointless actually.

[Pursuivant]

Pointless actually.

Pretty much, since none of the things I suggested is like to happen.

I'm just trying to bury the damned horse before people start beating it again.

[DuxCorvan]

G) Four years ago, someone should have handed a copy of Il-2 to George Bush, Sr., and then let him browse the list of flyables, just to hear him say "What the..." before his son, George W. ;)

[Buster_Dee]

I've always thought we should create characatures of NG planes--really ugly, waddling, nasal-sounding ones. When you fire the guns, the wings fall off.

Maybe possums for nose art....

[Asheshouse]

From the Northrop Grumman web site

Northrop Grumman welcomes the opportunity to discuss your technology needs and how the company’s intellectual property may be able to help your business succeed.
Send a letter with your name, email address, telephone number, and a brief description of your interest to the following address:
Intellectual Asset Management
Northrop Grumman Corporation
2980 Fairview Park Drive
Falls Church, VA 22042
E-mail: ip.licensing@ngc.com (ip.licensing@ngc.como)
Maybe those that feel strongly about these things should make their feelings known.

It may be interesting to note that they claim Trademark rights on the name Enterprise.

USS Enterprise CVN-65 is still in commission. "Enterprise" is the name of the class of ship, not the individual ship.
They don't claim trademark rights for "CVN-65" or the name "USS Enterprise". Captain Kirk might have something to say about that if they did :)

[Fighterace]

From the Northrop Grumman web site



Maybe those that feel strongly about these things should make their feelings known.

Hmmm, interesting :cool:

[Pursuivant]

Maybe those that feel strongly about these things should make their feelings known.

It's piss in the wind. The only things those bastards respect are money and lawsuits. We're talking about a company as amoral and vicious as Vickers was in the early part of the 20th century: people who will sell weapons to dictators and pay bribes to do it. They'll laugh at a few fanboys trying to shame them into proper behavior.

Anyhow, TD and 1c/Ubisoft don't want to mess with N-G and I respect their decision.

[Pursuivant]

G) Four years ago, someone should have handed a copy of Il-2 to George Bush, Sr., and then let him browse the list of flyables, just to hear him say "What the..." before his son, George W. ;)

Let's not make this about one political personality or party. The issue is copyright and patent trolling, which cuts across political lines.

I am of the opinion that N-G's trademark claims to any product produced for the U.S. government before or during WW2 is unsustainable, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned.

It also appears that their IP policies are inconsistent. They allow trademark free use of pictures of their past products, but not 3d computer images or simulations? How is a 3d image not art? Why should use of that art in a video game be any different from a static picture of that object in an old-school tabletop game?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure how one would start a campaign to overturn crap like N-G is doing. There are a number of petition sites, which could be used to bring attention to the issue, but I'm not sure how to frame it.

[IceFire]

Let's not make this about one political personality or party. The issue is copyright and patent trolling, which cuts across political lines.

I am of the opinion that N-G's trademark claims to any product produced for the U.S. government before or during WW2 is unsustainable, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned.

It also appears that their IP policies are inconsistent. They allow trademark free use of pictures of their past products, but not 3d computer images or simulations? How is a 3d image not art? Why should use of that art in a video game be any different from a static picture of that object in an old-school tabletop game?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure how one would start a campaign to overturn crap like N-G is doing. There are a number of petition sites, which could be used to bring attention to the issue, but I'm not sure how to frame it.

Although I can't speak for Dux, I imagine his comment about George Bush Senior was the tip off that this probably wasn't a political statement but rather a personal one. George Bush Senior was a TBM Avenger pilot. He was even shot down in one.

[Zorin]

The first two out of most likely four Type 91 torpedos. Completely new meshes due to the loss of all Japanese ordnance work by means of a faulty HDD.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb107/ZorinW/Render_pub.jpg

[mkubani]

Zorin, send me the models for review. And please let's keep this thread related to 4.12 dev. updates. If you want, start a new thread for loadouts modelling or keep the information flow over PMs / emails.

[Zorin]

Zorin, send me the models for review. And please let's keep this thread related to 4.12 dev. updates. If you want, start a new thread for loadouts modelling or keep the information flow over PMs / emails.

Rgr that.

[ElAurens]

Thanks for the work on this Zorin.

[Bearcat]

Let's not make this about one political personality or party. The issue is copyright and patent trolling, which cuts across political lines.

I am of the opinion that N-G's trademark claims to any product produced for the U.S. government before or during WW2 is unsustainable, for a number of reasons I've already mentioned.

It also appears that their IP policies are inconsistent. They allow trademark free use of pictures of their past products, but not 3d computer images or simulations? How is a 3d image not art? Why should use of that art in a video game be any different from a static picture of that object in an old-school tabletop game?

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not sure how one would start a campaign to overturn crap like N-G is doing. There are a number of petition sites, which could be used to bring attention to the issue, but I'm not sure how to frame it.

Not only that this issue with NG has been going on since ... 2003-2004 hasn't it?

[IceFire]

Not only that this issue with NG has been going on since ... 2003-2004 hasn't it?

At least...

There were lawsuits against plastic model makers, die cast makers, and the latest one I know about was launched against EA for the inclusion of the AH-1Z Viper helicopter in Battlefield 3.

It's not just N-G but it applies to us because of what went on in the past.

[Luno13]

I've always thought we should create characatures of NG planes--really ugly, waddling, nasal-sounding ones. When you fire the guns, the wings fall off.

Maybe possums for nose art....

Folks have suggested implementing facsimiles like "Gormann Revenger" to get around the litigation wall. Unfortunately, that would compromise IL-2's reputation and responsibility to serve as an educational tool.

As far as I am aware, there's nothing stopping other modders from making pits to some of these aircraft. It would be nice if they were of the same consistency and quality as DT's stuff.

[Pursuivant]

As far as I am aware, there's nothing stopping other modders from making pits to some of these aircraft. It would be nice if they were of the same consistency and quality as DT's stuff.

Exactly. The best argument for mods is that "crowd-sourced" copyright violations defeat unjust copyright/trademark laws since there are no obvious players or "deep pockets" for the corporate lawyers to take down.

The only problem is that TD is arguably the best modding team out there, so it's hard for other modders to reach their standards.

[Luno13]

Not always. DT often work with other individuals and groups in order to get content included in the official release.

[Fighterace]

Any news/updates for 4.12?

[Asheshouse]

At least...

-- and the latest one I know about was launched against EA for the inclusion of the AH-1Z Viper helicopter in Battlefield 3.



I think the case was actually a pre-emptive one by EA against the manufacturers to cease their trademark claims. I wouldn't be surprised if it was subject to an out of court settlement to prevent a precedent being created.

The lawsuit says that on Dec. 21, Textron lawyers demanded that EA cease its depiction of three Bell aircraft in Battlefield 3. Electronic Arts asserts that its depiction of the three aircraft are protected by the First Amendment and the doctrine of nominative fair use. The three helicopters in question are the AH-1Z Viper, an attack helicopter; the UH-1Y, a multipurpose/transport helicopter; and the V-22 Osprey, whose distinctive tilt-rotors allow for vertical and short takeoff and landing. EA's complaint said:
"The parties have been unable to resolve their dispute. EA therefore has a reasonable and strong apprehension that it will soon face a trademark and/or trade dress action from Textron.
The Bell-manufactured helicopters depicted in Battlefield 3 are just a few of countless creative visual, audio, plot and programming elements that make up EA's expressive work, a first-person military combat simulation."

But perhaps a precedent already exists?
EA recently won a similar lawsuit against Rutgers University (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-09-12-ea-wins-dismissal-in-ncaa-lawsuit) regarding the the use of quarterback Ryan Hart's likeness in NCAA Football. The court ruled that EA's First Amendment rights trumped Hart's rights to control his own image.

[Pursuivant]

But perhaps a precedent already exists?

Actually, the case you cite isn't as applicable, since it concerns an individual's right to control his own image as opposed to a company's right to control its trademarks (and "trade dress" - basically, the appearance of a product or packaging, like the yellow border around the edge of National Geographic magazine).

In the current U.S. political climate, courts are more protective of corporate trademarks than images of public figures. If you think about it, if any public figure could sue to get images of them removed, it would completely shut down political satire among other things.

The people who are screwed by this precedent are the estates of famous dead people, like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe - and just as well since they're the original "trademark trolls."

I think that you're right that Textron settled out of court with EA to avoid losing the case and setting a precedent. EA is big enough that it can go toe to toe in a trademark fight and Textron isn't as big a company as N-G.

Anyhow, it's moot as regards N-G/Ubisoft agreement. Also, even if there were a precedent overturning the sort of trademark trolling that N-G engages in, I doubt that either 1C or Ubisoft would want to waste legal billing hours trying to overturn an agreement for a 10-year-old game.

So, still no N-G products for IL2!

[DuxCorvan]

Although I can't speak for Dux, I imagine his comment about George Bush Senior was the tip off that this probably wasn't a political statement but rather a personal one. George Bush Senior was a TBM Avenger pilot. He was even shot down in one.

Wow, someone with a sense of irony! ;)

[Fighterace]

Bring on 4.12 !!! :)

[batistadk]

Hi people.

Time after time, this NG question comes to light. Again, as a lot of people, including guys from the TD said, there's no way to change this situation.

After all, I don't think it's a good idea mess with those people. They have strong ties with the US Goverment, and, well, their business is... basically, sell weapons that kill lots of peoples every year. I won't touch this.

I'm with TD in this question; give it a rest. Besides that, there are so many stuff that can be created to IL2 yet. We could really focus on that.

Best regards.

batistadk

[IceFire]

Wow, someone with a sense of irony! ;)

Always ;)

[Nil]

Hi people.

Time after time, this NG question comes to light. Again, as a lot of people, including guys from the TD said, there's no way to change this situation.

After all, I don't think it's a good idea mess with those people. They have strong ties with the US Goverment, and, well, their business is... basically, sell weapons that kill lots of peoples every year. I won't touch this.

I totally agree with you!


I'm with TD in this question; give it a rest. Besides that, there are so many stuff that can be created to IL2 yet.
Like the most produced aircraft ever?
I just love this aircraft, it is a amazing piece of machine which had a good role during the war.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8434/7747754502_2a0a815d0e.jpg

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/990/800pxpo2cockpit20101.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/502/800pxpo2cockpit20101.jpg/)

[Fighterace]

Whatelse can we expect to see in 4.12?

[MicroWave]

Whatelse can we expect to see in 4.12?

Bugs?

[Fighterace]

Bugs?

Most likely lol

[Sita]

I just love this aircraft, it is a amazing piece of machine which had a good role during the war.


http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=158420&d=1346005669

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=158416&d=1346005663

do you mean this aircraft?))

[Nil]

do you mean this aircraft?))
Ah!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek:
I love you Sita!!
your work is so awesome!! thanks you so much!!!
many many many thanks,
1000 thanks!!!
you made my my day!
I hope it will be in the 4.12! I can't wait to fly this gem!

[Sita]

too bad but i think most likely in 4.13 ie we will be lucky...

[Nil]

too bad but i think most likely in 4.13 ie we will be lucky...
Oh , why not? I mean,thanks to your wonderful work, the cockpit is finished, so what prevents the po2 to be flyable for 4.12?