Friday Update, June 08, 2012

[BlackSix]

Good Morning!

We’ve completed most of the outstanding tasks this week, most importantly fixing most serious issues and speeding up the graphics engine. The game is now even faster, and the FPS slow-downs have been reduced even further. We are currently testing the new version and fixing various small issues as they are discovered. A public version of the new patch will not be ready before next Wednesday even if everything goes extremely well.

We’d also like to describe the work performed with the FM this week in more detail:

· Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel. Older 87-octane variants also remain available. (Please note that the new planes use existing cockpits, so the boost indicator gauge shows new extrapolated values)

· Corrected (increased) low-altitude airspeeds for RAF fighters.

· Corrected Bf-109 rudder model, making it more effective to allow real-world maneuvers to be performed with just the rudder pedals.

· Corrected fuel model for more realistic gas mileage.

· Increased drag created by the radiator.

· Corrected throttle control model; now the entire range is used.

· Corrected flap sounds for the Bf-109.

· Corrected the pitot heat light on the Bf-109.

· Corrected the overspeed sound for aircraft; the sound will now increase in volume gradually and depend on airspeed.

Finally, as we approach the official announcement of the upcoming project, we continue to showcase the aircraft you will get to fly there. Today we’re showing the model of the Soviet Petlyakov Pe-2 bomber for the first time. This venerable aircraft fought with the Soviet VVS throughout the war, going through numerous improvements and modifications. Despite its many shortcomings it continued to play a more important role than its more refined successor the Tu-2 all up to the final days of the way.

We’d like to note that the screenshots are not taken in-game but rather in the internal model viewer app.

Have a great weekend!

[BlackSix]

+

[Jumo211]

Thank you.........

[Jatta Raso]

100 octane, corrected Spits and Hurris low alt speed, radiator drag? you guys deserve a week off!

[Bewolf]

Great update. Pretty much all I personally wished for. Let's hope we get it within two weeks =)

[SiThSpAwN]

Thanks for the update, cant wait for the next patch!

Does this include optimizing the effects such as smoke, clouds, grass etc?

[No145_Hatter]

Cheers!

[ATAG_Septic]

Thanks for the update,

Have a good weekend yourself,

Septic.

[mazex]

Nice! Thanks for the update - really looking forward to it!

How about visual problems with textures etc? Have you managed to fix them too?

[6S.Manu]

Thanks B6!

[holdenbj]

Thanks for update. looking forward to patch.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Looking very god !

Thanks
! :)

[pupo162]

109 rudder even mroe effective? Are you sure about that ? lol

i mean right now the 109 has the rudder authority of a DR1, i do rolls with rudder only, are you you didnt mean decrease/correct?


regarding the new spits/hurris: cant wait, bring on the next week :grin:

[=AN=Apache]

Very very good news ... tks so much

[Pato Salvaje]

GREEEEAT NEWS!!!

At least THE 100 OCTANE!!!!

A great THANK YOU!!!

You made my day! ;-)

[BlackSix]

Guys, I don't work with this patch and I can't give you additional info about details. It's all info which I have.

[ATAG_Doc]

Finally!!! We get to see a bomber in an update. How long did that take? Thank you!

I can't wait to fly it.

[=AN=Apache]

There will then Boost to 12lb ???

[Continu0]

Thank you.... But... Why does it say Good Morning? Is it for the Americans or did you just have to wait until now to publish it?:):)

[zapatista]

BlackSix,

thanks for the update !

great news on the correct implementation of having 100 octane fuel available for the brittish planes :)

excellent news also on the further improvements in fpsec

BlackSix, a question plz: can you please check with Luthier that he has also addressed the lack of correctly being able to select a specific FoV setting that corresponds to our personal monitor size (as we could do in the late versions of the old il2 series). right now we are limited to the 3 settings of "normal", narrow and wide, instead of being able to select between 35 and 90 in 5 degree steps like we should be able to. the result of this is that all ingame objects (including planes, trucks, ships) either look to small or to large compared to their real life sizes we should see from a specific distance. please ask or this to be looked at as a matter of priority (reported in feedback thread before)

[GraveyardJimmy]

Nice update! Performance and FM work sounds good, looking forward to trying the patch out soon.

New models are looking nice too.

[adonys]

Thank you for the update, Black6.

And.. is there any info regarding the Radio Comms & AI modifications for the following patch?

This is the biggest system not working atm in the game (well, excepting the promised dynamic weather, which wasn't added t all), not even after over a year after game's launch..

[lensman1945]

Yeah..nice update, many thanks BlackSix:grin:

Have a good weekend too...

[pupaxx]

Great news BS!
Thx

[smink1701]

Thanks B6 for the update. Can you please pass on to Luthier that the AI need to be added to your "Fix" list. Great cockpits, FMs and DMs are all nice and appreciated, but if it's all about simulating combat, watching your adversary dart around like a hummingbird takes you right out of the game. I have loaded the fixes that community members have provided but while they help they don't fix. PLEASE FIX.

[Buchon]

Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel.

The forum was just blow :razz:

[SiThSpAwN]

Guys, I don't work with this patch and I can't give you additional info about details. It's all info which I have.

If and when you can could you ask someone about the effects, such as explosions, smoke, clouds and grass and see what the status is, I know you dont work on the patch, but I believe you stated not too long ago about the progress of such things only being a few days. Just wondering if they were successful in adding these back in and optimizing them.

Thanks...

[Buchon]

Btw amazing plane, can´t wait :grin:

[csThor]

I have to second the AI request. Assuming that the engine issues have really been fixed (we have become cautious, haven't we? :-P ) the area Maddox Games could do most advancements is AI, AI - player interaction, radio system and generally what constitutes offline gameplay. Even if the final package remaines confined to the sequel releasing individual features as Beta for widespread testing would be a good idea IMO. Not just to get a broader base for testing but also to demonstrate that things are evolving and - perhaps - to incorporate community suggestions (i.e. ground-based observers reporting enemy aircraft intruding into own territory etc).

[ATAG_Snapper]

Thanks for the update, BlackSix. Sounds good.

[kestrel79]

Thanks for the update. Love me some bombers.

More fps is always a good thing. I'm looking forward to an official patch release in the coming weeks hopefully.

[Continu0]

Guys, I fear we won´t see AI and Radio comms in the close future... (altough i would greatly appreciate if it where fixed)

My guess is that they are developing a whole new communication-system to fit the needs of a MMO-Scenario. This might include spotting thanks and communicate this to ground stations or whatsoever...

Only a guess, but a possible explanation...

[Osprey]

· Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel. Older 87-octane variants also remain available. (Please note that the new planes use existing cockpits, so the boost indicator gauge shows new extrapolated values)

· Corrected (increased) low-altitude airspeeds for RAF fighters.

· Corrected fuel model for more realistic gas mileage. (109 range)

· Increased drag created by the radiator.

· Corrected throttle control model; now the entire range is used.

Have a great weekend!



B6, We're in business!!!! Have a great weekend yourself! :D

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

Thanks B6,finally the RAF fighter performance is being sorted,this is great news:grin:

[SlipBall]

"fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel"...will that help.. NO!:-P

[louisv]

"fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel"...will that help.. NO!:-P

Could you elaborate ?

[5./JG27.Farber]

· Corrected fuel model for more realistic gas mileage.

[/FONT][/B]

All aircraft or just 109?

[Mango]

Dammit, Friday's are exciting lately!! :D

[RangerJim]

Thanks for the updates. Our clan is looking forward to this being compeleted.

[Friendly_flyer]

[B][FONT=Verdana]
Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel.


100 octan! This is going to make the Hurry-lovers very, very pleased!




Today we’re showing the model of the Soviet Petlyakov Pe-2 bomber for the first time.

Looks great! That's another bird I've always liked!

[ATAG_Snapper]

"fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel"...will that help.. NO!:-P

It would if the 109 pilots would just stay still for a moment.;)

[TonyD]

Thanks for the update, B6 - great news!

[louisv]

It would if the 109 pilots would just stay still for a moment.;)

Good one !

[addman]

Thank you B6! and a special personal thank you for adding the placebo 100 octane, it will put many a restless minds at ease. Looking forward to the retail patch. Have a great weekend and good luck against the Czechs tonight.:)

[41Sqn_Banks]

Only 10 words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_B3dvFMyDE

[6BL Bird-Dog]

Thanks for the update BlackSix !
Great news on the correct addition of 100 octane fuel available for the british planes ,thanks to the team for implementing it,also good news on the further improvements in fpsec.The screen shots of the PE-2 are very nice,looking foreward to flying it:)
One question that I am sure many would like answered,Is there any likelyhood of a Coop GUI being added either in a later update or to the sequel when released ?

[BRIGGBOY]

Thanks for the update it's fantastic news. Enjoy your weekend to and have some well earned brewski's

[bongodriver]

Oh god I hope the 100 octane is not a placebo.....why do I get the uncomfortable feeling that 100 octane in the tanks does not mean 100 octane performance....

[5./JG27.Farber]

Have some well earned brewski's

Dont worry, Ill take care of that for them, they are far too busy :-P

[ems9]

Looks great guys!
Good job!
We getting close to the full release of the patch =) And we even get a better patch than was announced ^^
Good weekend!

[flyingblind]

Yeah, something to cheer me up after a dreary week at work. Cheers

[Catseye]

BlackSix,

thanks for the update !

great news on the correct implementation of having 100 octane fuel available for the brittish planes :)

excellent news also on the further improvements in fpsec

BlackSix, a question plz: can you please check with Luthier that he has also addressed the lack of correctly being able to select a specific FoV setting that corresponds to our personal monitor size (as we could do in the late versions of the old il2 series). right now we are limited to the 3 settings of "normal", narrow and wide, instead of being able to select between 35 and 90 in 5 degree steps like we should be able to. the result of this is that all ingame objects (including planes, trucks, ships) either look to small or to large compared to their real life sizes we should see from a specific distance. please ask or this to be looked at as a matter of priority (reported in feedback thread before)

+1

[ATAG_Snapper]

Oh god I hope the 100 octane is not a placebo.....why do I get the uncomfortable feeling that 100 octane in the tanks does not mean 100 octane performance....

We'll see. When have they ever let us down before? :grin:

[Catseye]

Thank you.... But... Why does it say Good Morning? Is it for the Americans or did you just have to wait until now to publish it?:):)

Hmmmmm, what other countries would be in the "morning" timezone?

[Kurfürst]

Great update. Pretty much all I personally wished for. Let's hope we get it within two weeks =)

Seconded.

[JG52Krupi]

Sweet, thanks B6!

Any news on AA?

[Catseye]

I note that B6 has stated:

"Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel. Older 87-octane variants also remain available. (Please note that the new planes use existing cockpits, so the boost indicator gauge shows new extrapolated values)"

Soooooo, by extrapolation - where does the Spit ll stand??

[carguy_]

Progress, progress. Thx for the news.

Good Morning!

You too and good luck for Russia vs Czechs! :D

[Kurfürst]

Soooooo, by extrapolation - where does the Spit ll stand??

The Spit II runs on 100 octane by default, but its emergency limits are lower - 9 lbs vs 12 lbs - and is/was at low altitude. It is a bit better at higher altitudes though.

[addman]

Oh god I hope the 100 octane is not a placebo.....why do I get the uncomfortable feeling that 100 octane in the tanks does not mean 100 octane performance....

You should know by now bongo, it's never good or correct enough.:) It's a nice addition though but I hope it doesn't cause 132 new bugs.

[SiThSpAwN]

You should know by now bongo, it's never good or correct enough.:) It's a nice addition though but I hope it doesn't cause 132 new bugs.

Or 132 new threads about how its not right to this person or that person.

[jamesdietz]

I sure hope this patch works better than the last..my fingers are rather firmly crossed!

[notafinger!]

Great to see RAF speeds being corrected. Hopefully, turn & roll rates are being adjusted also.

[jf1981]

Hi

Those planes are the true spirit of IL-2 so thanks a lot.

I can say probably we're all waiting for a real patch-up of the game ...

Keep it up

[garengarch]

Thanks B6, looking forward with great anticipation.

[macro]

"Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel"

+ angels 20 = good times :-)

great news thanks guys

[Volksieg]

Now that is the kind of thing I want to read!

Just hope I'm smiling when the goods get delivered :)

And.... 100 Octane fuel? Does that mean the Red team will finally return to keeping that stiff upper lip they are famed for? ;)

[Chivas]

Now that is the kind of thing I want to read!

Just hope I'm smiling when the goods get delivered :)

And.... 100 Octane fuel? Does that mean the Red team will finally return to keeping that stiff upper lip they are famed for? ;)

I'm afraid everyones upper lip will continue to quiver until substantial progress is made with the sim. Personally I'm hoping the progress will be enough to renew my interest in combat flight sims, I lost interest in siming a few years ago, and follow the developments of the new series very closely, hoping for the best. Although I have had some quality time with my wife instead of cocooning in my man cave cockpit. :)

[5./JG27.Farber]

Great to see RAF speeds being corrected. Hopefully, turn & roll rates are being adjusted also.

Very good point!

[Osprey]

I note that B6 has stated:

"Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel. Older 87-octane variants also remain available. (Please note that the new planes use existing cockpits, so the boost indicator gauge shows new extrapolated values)"

Soooooo, by extrapolation - where does the Spit ll stand??

I don't think the Spit IIa is too far out on speed and climb, it shouldn't be much different to the Ia except a better climber (to FTH) because the engine (a merlin XII) was design for 100 octane fuel and can run on 9lbs continuous, unlike the II and II which had to be modified, where anything over 6.25lbs is in the 'emergency' level. What is planned are major fixes which I hope work out well and the IIa won't be an urgent argument and require emergency changes. In the longer term I would like to see all of the speed, climb, turn, energy etc etc fixed up. It will be interesting to see what the FTH has become for the Ia models though, as well as how long it takes to cause engine damage when pulling the tit and applying the full 12lbs.

Great to see RAF speeds being corrected. Hopefully, turn & roll rates are being adjusted also.

Yes the Hurricane does turn badly......

All of these items need to be addressed, for the 109 also.

[Catseye]

I don't think the Spit IIa is too far out on speed and climb, it shouldn't be much different to the Ia except a better climber (to FTH) because the engine (a merlin XII) was design for 100 octane fuel and can run on 9lbs continuous, unlike the II and II which had to be modified, where anything over 6.25lbs is in the 'emergency' level. What is planned are major fixes which I hope work out well and the IIa won't be an urgent argument and require emergency changes. In the longer term I would like to see all of the speed, climb, turn, energy etc etc fixed up. It will be interesting to see what the FTH has become for the Ia models though, as well as how long it takes to cause engine damage when pulling the tit and applying the full 12lbs.



Yes the Hurricane does turn badly......

All of these items need to be addressed, for the 109 also.

Hi Osprey,
Looking forward to flying in SOW as No.401 along with your Squadron!

I guess what I was trying to say was . . . . no mention of the Spit II and 100 octane fuel. Just the Spit I and Hurricane I with 100 octane.

Cheers.

[bongodriver]

Corrected Bf-109 rudder model, making it more effective to allow real-world maneuvers to be performed with just the rudder pedals.


Anyone understand what this one means? a special maneouvre that converts RAF 100 octane into diesel? activates force fields? makes the aircraft move sideways to evade enemy fire? or were the 109 rudders just simply awesome? all of the above?

[klem]

Oh god I hope the 100 octane is not a placebo.....why do I get the uncomfortable feeling that 100 octane in the tanks does not mean 100 octane performance....

Its called MG paranoia. A condition induced by attending the MG forums too often. Take the Valium and try to believe. :)

[von Pilsner]

Great news B6, thanks!

[Osprey]

Hi Osprey,
Looking forward to flying in SOW as No.401 along with your Squadron!

I guess what I was trying to say was . . . . no mention of the Spit II and 100 octane fuel. Just the Spit I and Hurricane I with 100 octane.

Cheers.

Likewise Catseye, please add me as a friend in steam :)

The Spit II only ever used 100 octane fuel so there would only be a single version of it. But yes, presently it uses an incorrect boost gauge and doesn't boost to the 12lbs emergency and 9lbs continuous.

[Viking]

Thank you 1C team

Viking

[ATAG_Snapper]

Great to see RAF speeds being corrected. Hopefully, turn & roll rates are being adjusted also.

Absolutely. The vicious stall & spin of the 109 needs urgent taming as well. If a 109 on my tail is going to spin out and crash, let it be from 50 feet, not 2,000.

[SlipBall]

Absolutely. The vicious stall & spin of the 109 needs urgent taming as well. If a 109 on my tail is going to spin out and crash, let it be from 50 feet, not 2,000.



That is just so mean:-P

[ATAG_Snapper]

That is just so mean:-P


The only thing is......it very rarely happens! LOL

[chris455]

I note that B6 has stated:

"Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel. Older 87-octane variants also remain available. (Please note that the new planes use existing cockpits, so the boost indicator gauge shows new extrapolated values)"

Soooooo, by extrapolation - where does the Spit ll stand??
On the runway with an empty cockpit- it's pilot is out trading a 5th of gin for a tankful of 100 octane! ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

Thanks for the update and the continued support.

I rarely post specific questions because they tend to get buried in an avalanche of more popular topics that usually concern fighters or the graphics engine for the most part.

However, since we now seem to be at a point where most of these issues are being taken care of, i would like to bring your attention to the real protagonists of the BoB, the aircraft that gave the fighters a reason to go on missions: the bombers.

The issues that exist thus far have been well documented, so i'll just repeat them briefly.

Flight ceilings for He111 and Ju88: The 88 could fly higher (although maybe not too much when fully loaded) and the 111 lower. What we currently have is the opposite.

Bombsight bugs in the luftwaffe bombers: When automation is engaged, the sight tracks the target correctly by treating user input as metric units. However, the release point is calculated wrong because it treats the "bombsight speed" values as imperial units.

So, if you are flying at 300km/h and input that in the bombsight, the sight will track the target correctly but release wrong. If you convert your speed to mph and input that in the sight, it will not track correctly but will release correctly for whatever it is tracking.

IAS/TAS conversions: In many cases and for most, if not all, bombers in the sim, players report that they get more accurate drops when they use their IAS instead of TAS in the sights. Do the sights feature automatic calculating of TAS or is it a bug? I could see a reason for automatic TAS and ground speed conversions, if/when the dynamic weather module gets implemented
we will have no way to calculate ground speed because we don't have drift meters in most bombers.
(The luftwaffe bombers can correct drift by engaging automation and correcting to keep the sight picture steady while looking through the scope, but the others cant.)

Ju88 gyrocompass: It has been inoperative since the release of the sim. This makes it impossible to use the autopilot in the Ju88, which means it's impossible to level bomb with any degree of accuracy and the 88 is only used as a dive bomber or low-altitude skip-bomber.

Turret controls: If it would be possible, it would be great to implement a command that allows the player to exchange control of the turret with the AI, like it was in the previous IL2 series.

Br20: I haven't flown it much, but i think that the mouse controls for the top turret are reversed. If anyone else knows of any other bugs with it, please report them too.

110 fuel/engines: Now that the developer team is providing us with all the suitable variants of RAF fighters in terms of engines and octane rating, could the same be done for the the 110? I wouldn't consider the need for 109 high octane versions too great because not too many of them were present in the BoB. However, about half the 110 fleet or more was using uprated engines with higher octane fuel. This made it one of the faster fighters in the theater, if not outright faster (acceleration is another matter though :-P ).

Since players tend to fly with more flexible tactical doctrines than the LW did (we don't have Goering threatening us and most of us have read some history books), it would create a lot of interesting scenarios to have the fast 110s employed as either low altitude fighter-bombers or high altitude air superiority fighters, free of the constraints of escorting bombers.

I think that correcting the above points would not only make the sim more realistic but also more enjoyable, enabling it to move to a higher level of tactical/strategic planning. Especially if some SDK/documentation is released for scripting ;)

Don't take my suggestions as complaints. They are just things that i feel need to be added to the sim, along with everything else you are working on. Now that most of the dedicated fighter pilots will be happy and the graphics performance will be improved, two of the most demanded for features will be finished, leaving the team with some free time to work on something else.

So, let's fix the bombers and get some documentation on scripting dynamic campaigns, because it will make the sim highly (re)playable and much more enjoyable, both offline and online. Cheers and keep up the good work :grin:

[pencon]

Does this mean the full time flap hiss actuation noise will finally be history on the bf109? Excellent! That was driving me crazy . Also hopefully the rudder won't continuously be bouncing back and forth in 3rd person view .

[335th_GRAthos]

Thanks for the update BlackSix, good hear that good things are moving forward.

Do not want to be a spoil but, I get nervous when I see counter-clockwise rotation of the PE-2 propellers.
Picture of the real thing below....;)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Pe-2-2004.jpg



@Blakdog_kt: +1 thanks for putting a nice summary of the bomber issues


~S~

[Bounder!]

Oh my word! Thanks BlackSix, fantastic news re the 100 octane spits and hurries! Glad to see FM still being worked on.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

Will WEP in 109 have a noticeable effect on speed? Up to now it was really limited. Or am I doing something wrong?

[JG53Frankyboy]

indeed, a Bf110C-4/N would be nice to have. Lets hope that the two existing 110s will get their MG-FF/M at least....

[GF_Mastiff]

you guys are awesome thank you for 100 OCT.......!!!!!!!

[il_corleone]

Thank you B6, great news, i hope the patch will be ready something in the next weekend rigth? if its true, i think i will play all Weekend, thanks for your work and all the team, and remember the Good things, have good Consecuences :)

[klem]

Thanks Blacksix :)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Added new Hurricane Mk I and Spitfire Mk I variants with constant speed propellers and fuel tanks filled with 100-octane fuel. Older 87-octane variants also remain available. (Please note that the new planes use existing cockpits, so the boost indicator gauge shows new extrapolated values)
WOOT

They did it! They actually did it!

As in good work to all those who posted the proof of 100 octane fuel being used during BoB!

With that said I want to thank all those who contributed to that end..

41Sqn_Banks
Al Schlageter
Artist
Ataros
Glider
IvanK
lane
NZtyphoon
Osprey
RCAF FB Orville
Robo
Seadog
Skoshi Tiger
camber
gavinb
pstyle
winny

And last but not least 1C for being able to see through the oppositions baseless smoke screen! S!

[jayrc]

Thanks BlackSix:grin:

[Redroach]

ah, 100 octane, finally!

otherwise: what blackdog said, plus: The Blenheim IV NEEDS a level stabilizer, even if not historically correct, plus some sight device to look straight forward, for longer-range target identification (perhaps the periscope thingy to the right of the bombsight in the blen's bombardier seat actually did exactly this in RL?)

P.S.: I told you I would be appeased by having Radio commands! :D I can live with some flaws, but that was essential! (could use some more work, though)

[GOA_Potenz]

he Blenheim IV NEEDS a level stabilizer, even if not historically correct

Why to add something that wasn't real, this suppose to be a simulator, not an arcade game with even features for all

[Freycinet]

BlackSix, a question plz: can you please check with Luthier that he has also addressed the lack of correctly being able to select a specific FoV setting that corresponds to our personal monitor size (as we could do in the late versions of the old il2 series). right now we are limited to the 3 settings of "normal", narrow and wide, instead of being able to select between 35 and 90 in 5 degree steps like we should be able to. the result of this is that all ingame objects (including planes, trucks, ships) either look to small or to large compared to their real life sizes we should see from a specific distance. please ask or this to be looked at as a matter of priority (reported in feedback thread before)

Zapatista, check out my latest five vids, you can set the exact FOV you want...

to get the smooth zooming in/zooming out, you have to go into:

Control options,
Camera,
And set "Hold to adjust view" to whichever button you prefer (keyboard or joystick)

- If you then hold down that button and move your mouse forward or backward it will change the field of view in a gradual way.

It is an ok option to have, but it would be much better if CoD allowed you to set a "zoom in"-button and a "zoom out"-button, as in - for example - RoF.

Hope this helps.

[Ernst]

Hello Blacksix,

In future the devs will improve the CEM to include realistic engine limitations? Acctualy in the 109 i can fly all the time with 1.3 ata when it should be only for 5 minutes. Fly all time at 1.2 when it should be 30 minutes etc. I can use the 1.45 ata at will. I say the 109 cause i am used with it but the engine limits shouold be valida to RAF fighters as well. Acctualy i do not see pilots worried to preserve their engines. Normally i like to fly the ac like they would be flied. I set 1.1 ata (only half throtllt) and 2280 rpm for cruise. 1.2 ata and 2400 for continuous climb, but if i want can maintain the power at 100% all time.

[Stealth_Eagle]

Blackdog, good summery of bomber issues. A couple that I have for the Br. 20 (A lovely aircraft that isn't really appreciated by most): if you switch positions while starting your engines online, sometimes a mysterious autopilot will take over, looking down the bombsite will occasionally freeze the game, and the altitude adjustment for the Br. 20 only shows increasing in incriments of 100 despite it being otherwise. Another small feature that I would like to request is more fuzes for the Italian bombs so we can also to low level ship bombing as well.


Thanks for the awesome update BlackSix, hopefully all goes well and can't wait for the sequel to be more formally announced.

[kendo65]

Good news about the FM changes and 100 octane! Thanks for listening.

Nice pics of the Pe-2 as well.

[scotchegg]

Freycinet, can you link the video that shows how to set FOV? Cheers.

[MIRGERVIN]

boost for thr RAF . Great news at last:grin:

[Blackdog_kt]

ah, 100 octane, finally!

otherwise: what blackdog said, plus: The Blenheim IV NEEDS a level stabilizer, even if not historically correct, plus some sight device to look straight forward, for longer-range target identification (perhaps the periscope thingy to the right of the bombsight in the blen's bombardier seat actually did exactly this in RL?)

P.S.: I told you I would be appeased by having Radio commands! :D I can live with some flaws, but that was essential! (could use some more work, though)

For the Blenheim and every other bomber that doesn't have an autopilot, i was thinking of a "command the pilot" mode that would simulate the real procedure. I would also extend this to all existing bombers to simulate the fact that any pilot could be guided through the bomb run by the bombardier.

The way i see it working:

1) Switch to bombardier's seat.

2) Activate "command" mode (new keybinding)

3) The AI keeps the plane level. Up till now it's like a level stabilizer.

4) From this point on the similarities with level stab end. The player uses the same keybindings that are used to command left/right turns from the luftwaffe autopilots, but these have a different effect in "command" mode.

5) Every time the player taps these keys, the AI that is flying the plane is starting a gentle turn to the left/right.

6) Unlike the autopilot function (where the AP turns until the gyro heading matches the requested one), in command mode the turn continues until the bombardier explicitly tells the pilot to level off. This can be done by tapping the keys in the opposite direction: if you told the AI to steer left, pressing the key to steer right will level the plane off, and so on.

7) There would be a slight delay in matching commands to aircraft actions to simulate the time needed for the pilot to react (just like it happens with the AP to simulate their gyro-driven nature)


Such a function would not only solve the current problem, but also efficiently simulate the real thing and whatever gains and disadvantages exist in talking the pilot through the bomb run.

+
no need to use autopilots even in aircraft that have them
aircraft with no autopilots can level bomb with some precision even if only one human player is crewing them

-
less precise than autopilots due to the need to issue "level off" commands



If you guys like this idea, by all means add it as a suggested feature to the bugtracker.


Blackdog, good summery of bomber issues. A couple that I have for the Br. 20 (A lovely aircraft that isn't really appreciated by most): if you switch positions while starting your engines online, sometimes a mysterious autopilot will take over, looking down the bombsite will occasionally freeze the game, and the altitude adjustment for the Br. 20 only shows increasing in incriments of 100 despite it being otherwise. Another small feature that I would like to request is more fuzes for the Italian bombs so we can also to low level ship bombing as well.


Thanks for the awesome update BlackSix, hopefully all goes well and can't wait for the sequel to be more formally announced.

indeed, a Bf110C-4/N would be nice to have. Lets hope that the two existing 110s will get their MG-FF/M at least....


Thank you both for replying with extra information (duh, i totally forgot about the MG-FF/M on the 110s! it's already in the sim because E-4s have it, so it would be no biggie to add it:-P)

I think that maybe we should open a thread only for bomber/twin-engined aircraft issues to generate some buzz. Many of these are small details that seem to be simple mismatch errors when typing the code (to the tune of replacing "left" with "right" or "true" with "false"), especially the control reversal bugs and instruments or equipment that are already present in the sim and work in one plane but not in another.

If they are quick and simple fixes like that, getting the attention of the dev team with a separate thread might help us get faster results, maybe even squeeze a couple of fixes into the upcoming test patch.

I encourage everyone with experience in bombers to post in such a thread in the main forum section (so that we also don't have to derail this one :P), create one and get going. I will manage and/or collate information during the weekend, i can sticky it for a couple of days to get some attention and once it's up and running, i can move it to an appropriate sub-forum. But in any case, what we need is pilots to report in with their findings about:

the sim's bombers in general (doesn't have to be multi-engined, the stuka qualifies too)

twin-engined aircraft

So, we are essentially looking at all bombers plus the dual-role 110.

[hiro]

thanks!


You guys are doing lots of awesome.




Keep it up! It's gonna be legend-

... wait for it... (this is key, :D )


and I hope you're not lactose intolerant because the second half of that word is




DAIRY!

[zapatista]

Zapatista, check out my latest five vids, you can set the exact FOV you want...

to get the smooth zooming in/zooming out, you have to go into:

Control options,
Camera,
And set "Hold to adjust view" to whichever button you prefer (keyboard or joystick)

- If you then hold down that button and move your mouse forward or backward it will change the field of view in a gradual way.

It is an ok option to have, but it would be much better if CoD allowed you to set a "zoom in"-button and a "zoom out"-button, as in - for example - RoF.



that is a very disorienting and clumsy way to do it, and not practical during normal flight or intense dogfighting situations

the point also is that we should be able to view the "in game" CoD world with the right FoV setting for our monitor size (for ex 55 FoV for a 27' monitor) so we can see all objects (planes, vehicles, ships) in their correct sizes, and then use a snap view KB/hotas control to zoom in (and aim at a specific part ) or get a wide view (to increase peripheral view and SA) briefly, and then snap back to a normal view which gives us instantly again the correct perception of object sizes and the distance we are from them !

trying to do that by a clumsy zoom in/out, which doesnt even have a reference point for what is "normal" for you monitor size, doesnt really help. people also use the magic zoom as a way to "game the game" rather then try and simulate a ww2 aircraft pilot experience

we need to be able to set a specific correct FoV setting for our respective monitor sizes, and then key bind the snap view settings we want to use for wide and zoom, which are settings used to try and replicate more closely issues like intense concentration on one object (zoom) or better peripheral vision and SA (wide view) and so represent what we would experience in a cockpit in real life, and reduce the limitations of watching a small screen in our livingrooms

we did already have this option in the old il2 series, where you could set it to any kb key at 5 degree intervals between 35 and 90 FoV, we need that same feature in CoD !

[nakedsquirrel]

Bombsight bugs in the luftwaffe bombers: When automation is engaged, the sight tracks the target correctly by treating user input as metric units. However, the release point is calculated wrong because it treats the "bombsight speed" values as imperial units.

So, if you are flying at 300km/h and input that in the bombsight, the sight will track the target correctly but release wrong. If you convert your speed to mph and input that in the sight, it will not track correctly but will release correctly for whatever it is tracking.


It changed with the most recent build. If you put in IAS and altitude in the bombsight, it will not track correctly, but it will drop on target (you have to force it to stay on target with the raise/lower bombsight button while using bombsight automation You no longer need to convert metric to imperial.


With that... bombsight automation doesn't track correctly, your using IAS instead of TAS, the bombsight is fuzzy, and there is no indication when your bombs have dropped.

To top it off mode 22 has some strange habit of putting your plane into a shallow dive, only leveling out after you fly 100km or so

[catito14]

Hello Blacksix,

In future the devs will improve the CEM to include realistic engine limitations? Acctualy in the 109 i can fly all the time with 1.3 ata when it should be only for 5 minutes. Fly all time at 1.2 when it should be 30 minutes etc. I can use the 1.45 ata at will. I say the 109 cause i am used with it but the engine limits shouold be valida to RAF fighters as well. Acctualy i do not see pilots worried to preserve their engines. Normally i like to fly the ac like they would be flied. I set 1.1 ata (only half throtllt) and 2280 rpm for cruise. 1.2 ata and 2400 for continuous climb, but if i want can maintain the power at 100% all time.

+100000
Completely AGREE with this!
The Engine management is one of the key features of this sim, and now is not completely accurate (regard with the historical data). IMHO the first versions of the sim, had a very accurate engine management system, but with the newest patches, this, change into an "not too much realistic" management mode

[Catseye]

that is a very disorienting and clumsy way to do it, and not practical during normal flight or intense dogfighting situations

the point also is that we should be able to view the "in game" CoD world with the right FoV setting for our monitor size (for ex 55 FoV for a 27' monitor) so we can see all objects (planes, vehicles, ships) in their correct sizes, and then use a snap view KB/hotas control to zoom in (and aim at a specific part ) or get a wide view (to increase peripheral view and SA) briefly, and then snap back to a normal view which gives us instantly again the correct perception of object sizes and the distance we are from them !

trying to do that by a clumsy zoom in/out, which doesnt even have a reference point for what is "normal" for you monitor size, doesnt really help. people also use the magic zoom as a way to "game the game" rather then try and simulate a ww2 aircraft pilot experience

we need to be able to set a specific correct FoV setting for our respective monitor sizes, and then key bind the snap view settings we want to use for wide and zoom, which are settings used to try and replicate more closely issues like intense concentration on one object (zoom) or better peripheral vision and SA (wide view) and so represent what we would experience in a cockpit in real life, and reduce the limitations of watching a small screen in our livingrooms

we did already have this option in the old il2 series, where you could set it to any kb key at 5 degree intervals between 35 and 90 FoV, we need that same feature in CoD !

Agree 100%.
I popped back into 1946 today and it was great selecting 60 degrees as my standard setting - flicking into gunsight view or wide as I needed and then returning to my default 60 degrees.

[Blackdog_kt]

It changed with the most recent build. If you put in IAS and altitude in the bombsight, it will not track correctly, but it will drop on target (you have to force it to stay on target with the raise/lower bombsight button while using bombsight automation You no longer need to convert metric to imperial.


With that... bombsight automation doesn't track correctly, your using IAS instead of TAS, the bombsight is fuzzy, and there is no indication when your bombs have dropped.

To top it off mode 22 has some strange habit of putting your plane into a shallow dive, only leveling out after you fly 100km or so

If it doesn't track correctly then the units (or the tracking code) are probably messed up again. What you describe sounds exactly like one of the methods i was describing before, where the player converts to imperial units for proper release and fights against the wrong tracking, but if i understand you correctly now it happens without even converting to imperial...sounds a bit confusing :-P

I'm not doubting your observations mind you, just thinking out loud to see what the reason behind it might be.

As for the R22 autopilot mode, that is easy. It's probably more of a problem with the 111's engines not producing the expected power settings (they tend to be on the low RPM side, especially noticeable during take-off) than the autopilot itself.

Mode R22 is a wings level function, where the AP turns the aircraft by rudder only. So the general idea is to navigate and roughly line up the target with course steering mode (the one that uses aileron turns), then engage R22 mode from the initial point and fly the bomb run using that one.

I have tried it and it does in fact work quite well, as long as you don't overdo it with the corrections because the rudder will bleed off too much airspeed and you lose even more altitude.

The trick with mode R22 is to get to 300km/h IAS before engaging it, as that seems to be the speed for which it is calibrated. What i usually do is climb an extra 500 - 1000m above my intended altitude, then go into a shallow dive and engage R22. As the aircraft picks up speed and wants to climb i cancel out the tendency with elevator trim, until i'm flying straight and level at 300km/h IAS. Then it's time to enter the speed and altitude values in the sight and make any course corrections.

I have mapped course steering left/right to my < and > keys, so i just look through the bombsight and give it a tap or two to align the target. I let it stabilize between corrections and not overdo it, otherwise it's too aerodynamically inefficient and the speed/altitude drop.

Like i said, the dive probably has more to do with the 111's engines being a bit on the weak side and the fact that it reacts sluggishly to speed/trim changes. I haven't been able to test this in the 88 however, because its gyrocompass doesn't work.

About the bombsight textures now, that is because of the texture loading bug that appeared for most people with the latest test patch. If the PC can't handle loading the textures in one go, it loads lower detail versions of them.

The reason i say "most people" is that i've had this issue since release. I have an Ati 4890 1Gb graphics card and only 3GB of RAM, so i guess it's got something to do with how the textures are managed in terms of available memory.

However, the majority of players with better systems than mine were unaware of this until recently, where apparently the texture loading issue manifested on a wider range of systems. To tell you the truth, i was happy to see it mentioned because now it's a legitimate issue that is going to get looked at, instead of something that only happens at my end :-P

Anyway, here's hoping we have another test patch by this time next week. It will be good to hop on the server and try some bomber sorties with your regular bomber pilots. What i'm expecting to see is a nice group of 5+ Ju88s on a proper high altitude sortie ;)

[BlackSix]

To All:
Please, you have to write bugs here
http://il2bugtracker.com/
and your requests here
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28341
I won't find and take bugs and requests from this thread.

[Insuber]

That's constructive moderation, thank you Blackdog!

[Grey]

Thanks for the update BlackSix, good hear that good things are moving forward.

Do not want to be a spoil but, I get nervous when I see counter-clockwise rotation of the PE-2 propellers.
Picture of the real thing below....;)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Pe-2-2004.jpg



@Blakdog_kt: +1 thanks for putting a nice summary of the bomber issues


~S~


I think the model has the correct direction of rotation:

[IvanK]

Kurfurst you said:

"The Spit II runs on 100 octane by default, but its emergency limits are lower - 9 lbs vs 12 lbs - and is/was at low altitude. It is a bit better at higher altitudes though."

That is not IMO correct. In the case of the SpitII +9lbs basically became the full throttle setting (i.e. the equiv of 6.25Lbs in the MKI) 12Lbs was still available in two ways by way of the throttle gate for take off operations and by Boost Cut out for combat use.

The RAE standard climb tests are flown at +9Lbs Boost for instance.

[klem]

Kurfurst you said:

"The Spit II runs on 100 octane by default, but its emergency limits are lower - 9 lbs vs 12 lbs - and is/was at low altitude. It is a bit better at higher altitudes though."

That is not IMO correct. In the case of the SpitII +9lbs basically became the full throttle setting (i.e. the equiv of 6.25Lbs in the MKI) 12Lbs was still available in two ways by way of the throttle gate for take off operations and by Boost Cut out for combat use.

The RAE standard climb tests are flown at +9Lbs Boost for instance.

+1

Needs fixing but hopefully has been in the new patch.

[_YoYo_]

Cant wait !!! :cool:

[Flanker35M]

S!

Thanks for the update. Shall see how it turns out.

[adonys]

that is a very disorienting and clumsy way to do it, and not practical during normal flight or intense dogfighting situations

the point also is that we should be able to view the "in game" CoD world with the right FoV setting for our monitor size (for ex 55 FoV for a 27' monitor) so we can see all objects (planes, vehicles, ships) in their correct sizes, and then use a snap view KB/hotas control to zoom in (and aim at a specific part ) or get a wide view (to increase peripheral view and SA) briefly, and then snap back to a normal view which gives us instantly again the correct perception of object sizes and the distance we are from them !

trying to do that by a clumsy zoom in/out, which doesnt even have a reference point for what is "normal" for you monitor size, doesnt really help. people also use the magic zoom as a way to "game the game" rather then try and simulate a ww2 aircraft pilot experience

we need to be able to set a specific correct FoV setting for our respective monitor sizes, and then key bind the snap view settings we want to use for wide and zoom, which are settings used to try and replicate more closely issues like intense concentration on one object (zoom) or better peripheral vision and SA (wide view) and so represent what we would experience in a cockpit in real life, and reduce the limitations of watching a small screen in our livingrooms

we did already have this option in the old il2 series, where you could set it to any kb key at 5 degree intervals between 35 and 90 FoV, we need that same feature in CoD !

you can do that using a 3rd party small programm (setjoy or something like that): you assign a key for hold to zoom in IL2CoD, then you're mapping mouse movements to joysticks hatswitch/buttons (same buttons as you assigned in IL2CoD for hold to zoom) pressed in the 3rd party program. that way, you can zoom seamlessly (as in old IL2).

The problem with objects rendered size is something completely different, and it is bad in IL2CoD. The natural size of the objects is rendered in game at around 30 FoV, which is a too small FoV compared to human normal vision's FoV to can be used all the time in game.

So, at this moment, using the human normal vision's FoV (which is around 60), you see the objects smaller and further away than they should be. The correct human vision size/distance for the rendered objects is when using the zoomed in FoV of 30 degree.

This is why, for example, when flying in formation, you don't get the feeling of closeness you're getting when you see WW2 formation flying pictures.

CFS2 was solving this by forcing the apparent size/distance of the rendered objects in normal view.

[Trumper]

To All:
Please, you have to write bugs here
http://il2bugtracker.com/
and your requests here
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28341
I won't find and take bugs and requests from this thread.
hopefully this will stop the 80 pages of drivel we normally end up with.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

+100000
Completely AGREE with this!
The Engine management is one of the key features of this sim, and now is not completely accurate (regard with the historical data). IMHO the first versions of the sim, had a very accurate engine management system, but with the newest patches, this, change into an "not too much realistic" management mode


Alas, because many will whine: oh my engine is getting hot too quickly. This cannnnnot be correct and must be a bug.

Which is so annoying because there is actually a switch turning off realistic engine management for those who want to fly arcade style. Instead of just tweaking their game settings to their liking they whine and whine and whine here until the realistic engine management is tuned into an unrealistic engine management for all. I am just waiting for what is going to happen to the negative cut out. We'll soon end up with none at all or only one which happens when one crash lands. *rant over*

[Osprey]

Why to add something that wasn't real, this suppose to be a simulator, not an arcade game with even features for all

It's a crewed aeroplane. Unless you have a few friends to fly with you then you need an autopilot feature in order to use the bombsight.

[Osprey]

Kurfurst you said:

"The Spit II runs on 100 octane by default, but its emergency limits are lower - 9 lbs vs 12 lbs - and is/was at low altitude. It is a bit better at higher altitudes though."

That is not IMO correct. In the case of the SpitII +9lbs basically became the full throttle setting (i.e. the equiv of 6.25Lbs in the MKI) 12Lbs was still available in two ways by way of the throttle gate for take off operations and by Boost Cut out for combat use.

The RAE standard climb tests are flown at +9Lbs Boost for instance.


Yes it was inevitable that "the worst person on the forum to answer his question" would do so and bend it against the RAF. His argument is of course about 'official clearance' in the manual, which is nonsense in RL combat and what actually happened. Indeed, a different throttle with a gate, 9lbs continuous hence the flight tests @ 9lbs (8.8), recommended 12lbs through the gate for takeoff power to 1000ft however this could still be used below the FTH (about 17k ft) anytime but for limited periods.

[Osprey]

WOOT

They did it! They actually did it!

As in good work to all those who posted the proof of 100 octane fuel being used during BoB!

With that said I want to thank all those who contributed to that end..

Al Schlageter
41Sqn_Banks
camber
gavinb
Glider
NZtyphoon
Osprey
RCAF FB Orville
Robo
Seadog
Skoshi Tiger
lane
pstyle
winny

And last but not least 1C for being able to see through the oppositions baseless smoke screen! S!

Need to add IvanK to this especially, plus Artist and Ataros for their Bugtracker work, and last but not least Kwaitek.

~S~ Gentlemen for researching the facts, bringing them to the table and explaining what was necessary.

[Sammi79]

Thanks B6+1C - it is exciting to watch the development achieve new levels. We are getting close now...

Can't wait for the next patch!

Cheers!

Sam.

[Insuber]

Need to add IvanK to this especially, plus Artist and Ataros for their Bugtracker work, and last but not least Kwaitek.

~S~ Gentlemen for researching the facts, bringing them to the table and explaining what was necessary.

I'm glad that this 100 octane tale has found an ear on the dev's side. And now let's see the practical results ... I highly doubt that the story will end here. :-)

[HessleReich]

Also really pleased to see more and more progress each time i visit, loving the screens and stoked about the reds getting there 9 lbs of meaty goodness. That should surprise us (The Blues) a few times in combat.

[Skoshi Tiger]

This posses the questions, were there any modifications to the merlin XII engine that allowed it to work at the higher boost for the extended periods in 1941?

Or was it a decision based on accepting reduced engine life to keep the aging MKII competitive in air combat?

Or were the 1940 limits too conservative so they were increased?

[JG4_Bendwick]

Thanks Blackdog

I agree with u 100% of your List ..and many more from German Community.
...again thanks for the Bomber BUG post !
i hope the read the Bugtracker and your post.

[bongodriver]

P.S. Curious, isn't it, that there's not a single hint or tests for +12 Spitfire IIs isn't it.


Well see.....

But if we are going down the road of fantasy boosts that are much higher than the limits listed in the engine/aircraft manuals, I want my 1.7 ata 109E, too. Even though if the manuals say something completely different. Hell if official limits are to be ignored on Spitfires, we might as well ignore them on Messerschmitts as well, and come up with whatever fantasy we may like.

LMAO......what are you worried about? the 109 now has a 'magic' rudder.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Even I like to have accuracy as well done as possible this is becoming a joke. The public test is not even out and the megalomaniac threads of nitpick and twist of words accompanied by loud mouthing sidekicks are already about to start :( Why not test FIRST and then check the facts against values obtained? But no..*sigh*

[Bokononist]

This posses the questions, were there any modifications to the merlin XII engine that allowed it to work at the higher boost for the extended periods in 1941?

Or was it a decision based on accepting reduced engine life to keep the aging MKII competitive in air combat?

Or were the 1940 limits too conservative so they were increased?

The Merlin in the 1a had to be modified to accept 100 octane, the Merlin variant in the IIa was already adapted for 100 octane. The 100 octane 1a had similar performance to the IIa, as despite the fact that the IIa had a more powerful Merlin it also had extra weight due to more armoured plating around the pilots seat etc. So the IIa's advantages were, the ability to run at higher boost levels for longer, better protection for the pilot and better high altitude performance.

[Anders_And]

The Merlin in the 1a had to be modified to accept 100 octane, the Merlin variant in the IIa was already adapted for 100 octane. The 100 octane 1a had similar performance to the IIa, as despite the fact that the IIa had a more powerful Merlin it also had extra weight due to more armoured plating around the pilots seat etc. So the IIa's advantages were, the ability to run at higher boost levels for longer, better protection for the pilot and better high altitude performance.

Well in this sim, as in il2 1946, high alt performance is way off for all planes anyway and since engine wear and tear is not modeled, the only advantage left is better pilot protection... maybe one day when Engine wear and tear will actually play an effect might these things be intresting! ;)

It does indeed look however like the developers are actually looking at the Il2 bug report site.. so who knows, maybe this might come in the future ;)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I can't wait to try out that 100 oct Spit

It is just nice to know that if you present the data to 1C that they are able to make the change to make not only the planes more accurate, but history itself! S! 1C

[He111]

P2!!!! looks great!! How many brave men flew and died in such ?

Salute!

.

[JG52Uther]

This is an update thread, not an FM/DM discussion thread. There is a sub forum for that.

[catito14]

To All:
Please, you have to write bugs here
http://il2bugtracker.com/
and your requests here
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28341
I won't find and take bugs and requests from this thread.

Sorry for that B6, there i used the proper places to make the petitions.
Regards

[bw_wolverine]

Really looking forward to the patch! Thanks to everyone at 1C maddox!

[28_Condor]

It's a crewed aeroplane. Unless you have a few friends to fly with you then you need an autopilot feature in order to use the bombsight.

I agree. What could be done is to disable the autopilot when entering more than one player on the plane.

About this talk of 100 octanes, not making sense to me to invoke a limitation of 5 min based only in manual's recommendations
...

Or the motor breaks down after five minutes, or this limitation does not exist ...

In RL, pilots are more interested in prolonging his life, not following rules manual :)

If the engine broke down after five minutes so it should be in the game, otherwise not

[Insuber]

I agree. What could be done is to disable the autopilot when entering more than one player on the plane.

About this talk of 100 octanes, not making sense to me to invoke a limitation of 5 min based only in manual's recommendations
...

Or the motor breaks down after five minutes, or this limitation does not exist ...

In RL, pilots are more interested in prolonging his life, not following rules manual :)

If the engine broke down after five minutes so it should be in the game, otherwise not

We already have in the present game the engine/gearbox failures when exceeding the rpm/temp limitations set by programmers. The essential is that the limitations are correctly defined and coded.

Cheers!

[Anders_And]

I agree. What could be done is to disable the autopilot when entering more than one player on the plane.

About this talk of 100 octanes, not making sense to me to invoke a limitation of 5 min based only in manual's recommendations
...

Or the motor breaks down after five minutes, or this limitation does not exist ...

In RL, pilots are more interested in prolonging his life, not following rules manual :)

If the engine broke down after five minutes so it should be in the game, otherwise not

Well, most likely the engine wont break down at exactly 5 mins but maybe after 10 or 15mins... But engines were not for free and therefor 5mins is a safe limitation as limitations often are well into to the safe side.

However we dont want a predetermined amount of minutes you can run a boost so that you can select it OFF at 4:59 just to switch it on again...

Better would be a randomly selected nr lets say 5,6,7,8,9,10mins, this way the player never knows howlong he can run the boost before the engine gives up... well not exactly like this but you get the point....

[335th_GRAthos]

I think the model has the correct direction of rotation:

Thanks Grey, never saw that picture before!

~S~

[Kobold10]

Great News thanks B6!!!!

The only thing concerning the new patch up to me is communication. Now the question: Will the comms be repaired?
That would boost the gaming fun up!!!

Thanks in advance...

[Tavingon]

New plane looks delicious..

Will this beast be making an appearance

http://www.3dloft.net/g_fullsize_images/pe8_bombrun.jpg

[Winger]

I'm glad that this 100 octane tale has found an ear on the dev's side. And now let's see the practical results ... I highly doubt that the story will end here. :-)

It will only end when the german planes are totally outclassed in any discipline.
I really hope we dont get all Spit performing like the UFO Spit IIa did before the alpha patch. Its FM was just plain stupid overpowered.

Winger

[Skoshi Tiger]

It will only end when the german planes are totally outclassed in any discipline.
I really hope we dont get all Spit performing like the UFO Spit IIa did before the alpha patch. Its FM was just plain stupid overpowered.

Winger

Hopefully the following points mentioned by B6,

Corrected fuel model for more realistic gas mileage.

· Increased drag created by the radiator.


will help make correct engine handling a major concern for pilots. Hopefully it will break us out of the habbit of opening the radiators and charging around at full throttle.

The time limits will come into play naturally due to engine over heating etc. Top speeds won't be effected, but pilots will have to fly at cruise setting and speeds to get to and loiter in the combat area. People won't be able to fly at their maximum energy state for hours at a time. To be successful they will have to plan each of their encounters.

No 109 UFO's either, just as it should be!

All looking good. Roll on patch day!

[Osprey]

Quite. It's not as if anybody even had to deal with IIa's online anyway because they were complained out of the servers. RAF have had to deal with severe under-modelling for a long time and I'm looking forward to this patch.

[Blackdog_kt]

In my opinion the main thing to keep in mind is how to make the sim accurate and not be "vindictive", for lack of a better word, to players of the other team. The balance swings one way or the other with each patch as things get fixed. Ideally, everything would be fixed at once but usually ideal things don't happen in reality. So, we get one fix that favors one side in this patch, another fix that favors the other side in the next one and so on. It's no use getting irritated over it ;)

I'm satisfied with the solution because i wanted both 87 and 100 oct variants in the sim. Having only one or the other was too restrictive for my taste in terms of possible dynamic scenarios eg, in a dynamic campaign a successful bombing effort could deplete fuel supplies and force the RAF to fly the inferior 87 oct versions, but only if they actually exist as flyable models in the sim.

Coupled with the radiator drag adjustments it will make things interesting and at the end of the day that's what i'm after: interesting gameplay within historical performance values.

If the rest of the performance issues are corrected too, we get the best of both worlds. It's through a strange run of luck really, but BoB is one of the few points during WWII where having historical accuracy can also create good gameplay balance without resorting to artificial and unrealistic gimmicks to level the playing field.

The LW had the faster planes but they were harder to manage and fly (manual pitch propellers and less maneuverable), while the RAF had easier to fly aircraft that were a bit slower. This creates a very balanced playing field while using different styles of fighter design.

I think that much of the outcry about Spit IIs was not the FM itself but the relative performance of it compared to everything else. It was probably the fighter that was closest to real world performance, but everything else was so undermodeled that it outclassed everything by too wide a margin, it was almost a win button in moderately capable hands.

I expect that with the new toned down Hurricanes, Spit Is up to spec, Spit IIs as they are more or less, corrected 109 speeds, the inclusion of M-shells and a DB601N variant for the 110s, as well as a second look on CEM for all fighters, everything will fall into place quite nicely and we will have interesting choices to make.

A blue pilot could fly a DB601N equipped 110 and probably be the fastest of all fighters with awesome firepower, but god forbid if he lets down his guard and gets bounced or decides to mix it up a bit: the poor maneuverability and low acceleration will make it very difficult to get back up to high speed and escape.

In a similar fashion, 109s will be vulnerable to being bounced even by Hurricanes depending on situational factors. For example, if the 109 is throttled a bit back to cool the engine down and a Hurricane with a cool engine dives on it and engages overboost.

Or in reverse, a flight of Spitfires might have strained their engines during a high-angle overboosted climb to the bombers, so that when getting bounced by escorts they can't keep pushing the engines further because their engines are already hot.

Performance was very closely matched and victory depended a lot on tactics, individual skill and pure luck/situational factors in each mission. If the sim is properly tweaked, i expect that engine conditions and temperatures at the start of an engagement will carry as much, if not more, weight for the overall outcome of it as the initial energy states of combatants. And i really can't wait until we get there, because for way too long we've been judging everything based on top performance only, without realizing that it cannot be maintained indefinitely in the real world :grin:

[5./JG27.Farber]

Quite. It's not as if anybody even had to deal with IIa's online anyway because they were complained out of the servers. RAF have had to deal with severe under-modelling for a long time and I'm looking forward to this patch.

What servers have you been playing on? They have been available on ATAG axis vs allies for some time. Both the Spit IIa and the Bf109E4 have been available in the numbers around 12 as a limited aircraft... The Bf109E4 has more of a right to be there than the Spit IIa and are both only included as a balancing agent. Yes the FM's have been amiss for sometime but you can only relie on this problem for so long before you have to address your own flying stlye. Right FM or not.

Ive been supportive of the reds need for better FM's but when you actually have those what are you going to complain about then? Ive voted for the red 100 octane and other problems... I hope this fixes things for red pilots.

[CaptainDoggles]

Ignore him, Farber. Osprey isn't interested in a solution, he is interested in winning.

[catito14]

Hopefully the following points mentioned by B6,


will help make correct engine handling a major concern for pilots. Hopefully it will break us out of the habbit of opening the radiators and charging around at full throttle.

The time limits will come into play naturally due to engine over heating etc. Top speeds won't be effected, but pilots will have to fly at cruise setting and speeds to get to and loiter in the combat area. People won't be able to fly at their maximum energy state for hours at a time. To be successful they will have to plan each of their encounters.

No 109 UFO's either, just as it should be!

All looking good. Roll on patch day!

100% agree with you! An accurate and completely real "Complex Engine Management" is fundamental for a flight sim. (Really, we need a "I like" button)

[ElAurens]

Thanks for the update Black 6.

I hope the release version of the patch arrives soon, I miss flying.

[Osprey]

What servers have you been playing on? They have been available on ATAG axis vs allies for some time. Both the Spit IIa and the Bf109E4 have been available in the numbers around 12 as a limited aircraft... The Bf109E4 has more of a right to be there than the Spit IIa and are both only included as a balancing agent. Yes the FM's have been amiss for sometime but you can only relie on this problem for so long before you have to address your own flying stlye. Right FM or not.

Ive been supportive of the reds need for better FM's but when you actually have those what are you going to complain about then? Ive voted for the red 100 octane and other problems... I hope this fixes things for red pilots.

Farbs, I was replying to the post from Winger where he referred to 'pre-patch'. Ignore Doggles, he's just stirring as usual.

[Redroach]

Regarding Blenheim Level Stab:
Don't ever accuse me for pledging for historical inaccuracy! I'm the very last one this applies to! However, the reality is that you're flying mostly alone and don't have the pilot to fly straight and level while playing the bombardier's role.

For the Blenheim and every other bomber that doesn't have an autopilot, i was thinking of a "command the pilot" mode that would simulate the real procedure. I would also extend this to all existing bombers to simulate the fact that any pilot could be guided through the bomb run by the bombardier.

The way i see it working:

1) Switch to bombardier's seat.

2) Activate "command" mode (new keybinding)

3) The AI keeps the plane level. Up till now it's like a level stabilizer.

4) From this point on the similarities with level stab end. The player uses the same keybindings that are used to command left/right turns from the luftwaffe autopilots, but these have a different effect in "command" mode.

5) Every time the player taps these keys, the AI that is flying the plane is starting a gentle turn to the left/right.

6) Unlike the autopilot function (where the AP turns until the gyro heading matches the requested one), in command mode the turn continues until the bombardier explicitly tells the pilot to level off. This can be done by tapping the keys in the opposite direction: if you told the AI to steer left, pressing the key to steer right will level the plane off, and so on.

7) There would be a slight delay in matching commands to aircraft actions to simulate the time needed for the pilot to react (just like it happens with the AP to simulate their gyro-driven nature)


Such a function would not only solve the current problem, but also efficiently simulate the real thing and whatever gains and disadvantages exist in talking the pilot through the bomb run.

+
no need to use autopilots even in aircraft that have them
aircraft with no autopilots can level bomb with some precision even if only one human player is crewing them

-
less precise than autopilots due to the need to issue "level off" commands



If you guys like this idea, by all means add it as a suggested feature to the bugtracker.



Sounds like a good suggestion; however, I don't know if additional programming effort at this point is justified for that. I'd be perfectly happy with a simple LStab. ^^

[Blackdog_kt]

The simple level stab is probably a similar amount of programming, because

a) there is none currently implemented and

b) the one from previous IL2 can't be simply copied over because CoD is written in a different programming language.

What i'm trying to say is, if they spend time to make something like this, at least try to make it look semi-realistic. Not to mention that CoD already has similar code implemented: they would only have to modify the existing code that is used for the luftwaffe autopilots.

P.S No accusations made here, just a suggestion. Hope we get to fly some Blenheims on ATAG soon ;)

[Frequent_Flyer]

[QUOTE=BlackSix;433083]Good Morning!

We’ve completed most of the outstanding tasks this week, most importantly fixing most serious issues and speeding up the graphics engine. The game is now even faster, and the FPS slow-downs have been reduced even further. We are currently testing the new version and fixing various small issues as they are discovered. A public version of the new patch will not be ready before next Wednesday even if everything goes extremely well.

I sincerely hope the "speeding up of the graphics engine", and " the game running even faster " is with the grass, shadows and clouds " ON ". Otherwise I have accomplished this months ago, simply turning OFF features. In addition, since my aim has improved, and I routinely score hits on EA ,will the game maintain its " fastness" while I am trailing a smoking. flame engulfed advesary?

[Osprey]

The simple level stab is probably a similar amount of programming, because

a) there is none currently implemented and

b) the one from previous IL2 can't be simply copied over because CoD is written in a different programming language.

What i'm trying to say is, if they spend time to make something like this, at least try to make it look semi-realistic. Not to mention that CoD already has similar code implemented: they would only have to modify the existing code that is used for the luftwaffe autopilots.

P.S No accusations made here, just a suggestion. Hope we get to fly some Blenheims on ATAG soon ;)


Have you raised a bug on it? That's the way to get it through.

[ElAurens]

I am whole heartedly in favor of some sort of "level stabilizer" or "simulated pilot", for bombers. It would be the difference between one bomber with four human crewmen or four bombers with one pilot a piece on a server, not to mention the help it would be to offline players who have no extra humans about to man the crew positions, and it would get me back flying bombers again, which is something I enjoyed in IL2/46.

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I concur. As bomb aimer one should just be able to give commands to ai pilots to steer left or right on pressing a simple button. Should be not difficult to do I think.

[Sturm_Williger]

...
Performance was very closely matched and victory depended a lot on tactics, individual skill and pure luck/situational factors in each mission. If the sim is properly tweaked, i expect that engine conditions and temperatures at the start of an engagement will carry as much, if not more, weight for the overall outcome of it as the initial energy states of combatants. And i really can't wait until we get there, because for way too long we've been judging everything based on top performance only, without realizing that it cannot be maintained indefinitely in the real world :grin:

This for me is the most important and ideal thing to come out of the game - for too long ( ie. in throughout IL2 and CoD ), we've had "engine management" without the ultimate reason FOR the management.

[Blackdog_kt]

Have you raised a bug on it? That's the way to get it through.

Actually it's not a bug, it's a suggestion for a new feature. What i classify as a bug is when something exists but doesn't work correctly. When it doesn't even exist there is no bug, because there is nothing to work incorrectly.

But yes, i have started a thread dedicated to bombers and twin-engined aircraft here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32592

My purpose is to collect both bug reports and suggestions in one place. Then we can submit the bugs to bug tracker and communicate the suggestions through here.

Personally speaking, i don't want to lightheartedly classify suggestions as bugs. It feels like i'm trying to apply extra pressure to fix my preferred aspects of the sim before those of others. As a result, i think it's misleading to new users and unfair to other players.

Not that i'm holding it against anyone whose interpretation is different, it's just my personal outlook on the whole thing and i find it inconsiderate to the community as a whole. I mean, i watched the whole 100 oct debate from a safe distance and i was getting the same feeling: too many people on both sides trying to argue in terms of bugs when in reality it was a missing feature and as all features, it needs to come with on/off options and/or a way to model availability. Luckily for me, the developers seem to share this view and we will get both variants, instead of only getting one or the other.

I think that i could very easily push for delaying the patch one more week to fix the bombers too. I am a moderator so i could unfairly sticky my own thread without waiting to see if enough people are interested, i'm in contact with quite a few people who fly bombers that would vote in favor of the fixes if i raised a poll, i tend to be calm in arguments and people are more likely to be convinced as a result, etc etc.

What i'm trying to say is, if i aggressively campaigned this issue (like i did with the clickable cockpits during development and we ended up getting just that) i could have a high-prominence thread generating a good amount of pages from other bomber pilots and quite a few votes on the tracker.

Then everyone would have to wait at least a week more for the bombers to get fixed just so i could get my way, while in reality the total amount of time until i got a working gyrocompass on the Ju88 would be the same, regardless if they released two patches to fix things separately or one patch to fix everything in one go. The only difference would be that the fighter jocks wouldn't be able to enjoy the goodies in the meantime, until i also got what i wanted.

And that's why i don't agree with labeling everything a bug. It's like applying unfair pressure with the aim that others cannot have their fun until i have mine, even if the total amount of time needed for the fixes is the same. I mean, how anti-social would that be on my part?

What i'm trying to say is, people should exercise some patience and consideration because if the community at large is desensitized to this method of demanding changes, it won't be long before someone else comes along, does the same thing and gets the developer team to implement things in a way we don't like. ;)


Back on the topic of bombers though, i would invite anyone interested to post in that thread, just to let me know if there is enough interest in the community. If there is, i will sticky it and move it off the front page to a more relevant section so we can continue testing and brainstorming.

[Insuber]

Thank you for the news Luthier and BlackSix. If I were Standard and Poor's: rating CCC, but outlook positive!

Cheers!

[Osprey]

More positive than the euro lol

[JG52Krupi]

This for me is the most important and ideal thing to come out of the game - for too long ( ie. in throughout IL2 and CoD ), we've had "engine management" without the ultimate reason FOR the management.

?

I am not sure what your getting at here, if you don't manage your engine well you damage it...!

[David198502]

waoh!finally something which gets me exciting again...
cant wait to test the new 109 flight behaviour...
and 100octane for the RAF....yes, cant wait to have a challenge again up in the skies.

[David198502]

Ignore him, Farber. Osprey isn't interested in a solution, he is interested in winning.

do you know him?have you flown with him to make that assumption?
i have, and can assure you that your comment is bs.

[Vonte]

As someone who still can't fly for any length of time without CTD (and definitely not on any "historical" severs), I will be satisfied if the "definitive" update works as specified. The one thing that I have noticed, is that the posters who seem to have 64 bit OC have the least problems. Let's hope us 32 bitters are finally invited to the party...

Salute

Vonte

[NLS61]

As someone who still can't fly for any length of time without CTD (and definitely not on any "historical" severs), I will be satisfied if the "definitive" update works as specified. The one thing that I have noticed, is that the posters who seem to have 64 bit OC have the least problems. Let's hope us 32 bitters are finally invited to the party...

Salute

Vonte

Just curious why are you still at 32 bit?

[tomandre81]

Will you fix the most important thing (for me atleast); The input delay / lag or whatever you call it?
When I move my stick or press the gun button there are about half a second delay.
With this I am having extremely difficult hitting fighters.
I have no problem with other sims. For one example: I play the Falcon BMS without any delay problems.

[mcdaniels]

Today is Wednesday... :grin: Hoping to get the Patch today... but - if not: keep up the good work!

[Bf110pilot]

FIX the Outside view dopplar engine sound of the 109 and 110. It cant sound like a motor bike, its a Sin. Return the sound from last patch please, many beg for this easy fix.

Thanks

[5./JG27.Farber]

A public version of the new patch will not be ready before next Wednesday even if everything goes extremely well.

This is confusing as "next Wednesday" can mean two things in English. The actually day and how this percularity works is up to the person saying it. So:



It can mean the next Wednesday comming

OR

it can mean the Wednesday after next...



So did you mean today or a week today?

[kevchenco]

So did you mean today or a week today?

Its like the "Free Beer tommorow sign in front of the pub"

You go there the next day and the sign is still up!:)

[Allons!]

This is confusing as "next Wednesday" can mean two things in English. The actually day and how this percularity works is up to the person saying it. So:

Hi Farber, you should ask for "if everything goes extremely well" , the both wordings combined lead to a possible range between Wednesday of today and the following Wednesday of Wednesday next year..:grin:

[BlackSix]

This is confusing as "next Wednesday" can mean two things in English. The actually day and how this percularity works is up to the person saying it. So:



It can mean the next Wednesday comming

OR
it can mean the Wednesday after next...



So did you mean today or a week today?

It mean today or any day after.

[JG52Krupi]

It mean today or any day after.

Its getting late, will we be getting told if its going to be released today?

[catito14]

Well, seems the things are not going "extremely well" ....

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

I'll stick out my big ugly neck out and say it'll be a Friday update,anyone want to run a book on this.

Oh,and when it comes we'll have the trololo man giving it 100%:grin:

[Volksieg]

Oh,and when it comes we'll have the trololo man giving it 100%:grin:

He shall always be with us in spirit, if not in body. :D

I was hoping for today but, as BS said... it wasn't definite anyway. Here's to hope! I must say I'm feeling a lot more positive about the state of the situation at the moment.... although, to be fair, how I feel about CloD tends to depend on how much the sun is shining that day. :D

[5./JG27.Farber]

It mean today or any day after.

Thank you B6 for your response. Thats what I thought it ment also and is they way I would say it.

S!

[Volksieg]

Thank you B6 for your response. Thats what I thought it ment also and is they way I would say it.

S!

Fingers crossed it's not too many days after today. :)

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

[QUOTE=Volksieg;434633]He shall always be with us in spirit, if not in body. :D

Completley agree mate,one thing is for sure,the Trololo man will sing on the day of the new patch release:grin:

[LcSummers]

Are we talking about beta or the official patch?

[Stirwenn]

As for me, just a serious patch for Dx9 users and consoles for the cash...

[mcdaniels]

The devs do it like the "Debian-way": It is done, when it is done... ;)

[Stirwenn]

As a daily 'nux user, I do not afford the same credit to 1c dev as i give to 'nux dev...

[Volksieg]

A Linux user??? I bet you drink real ale as well, don't you ;)

[Hooves]

I really wasnt expecting anything today. Or next next wednesday. When will you all learn. They havent delivered on a single release, why would they start now. Just come back in a month, and if nothing, wait another one.

[bucsher]

on this friday. everything will change. i feel it :)

[Chivas]

I really wasnt expecting anything today. Or next next wednesday. When will you all learn. They havent delivered on a single release, why would they start now. Just come back in a month, and if nothing, wait another one.

Its impossible to put a fixed date on the type of work they are doing, but people clamor for a possible due date anyway, and then whine when it doesn't work out. Go figure.

[II./JG1_Krupinski]

Let's put it this way:

There is a patch coming. We don't know when it will be here. It is going to include stuff we want. If you've hung around this long, you're probably having a reasonably good time with the game as it is now, so just keep on keeping on and then one day there will be a nice surprise!

But I wouldn't set your clock by any estimation of patch delivery date. It'll be here when it's here folks.

Before today, the last time I flew or did anything in CloD was back in December. I decided to see what was fixed. Should I wait another 7 months?

GG to the team on the Pe-2

[klem]

Before today, the last time I flew or did anything in CloD was back in December. I decided to see what was fixed. Should I wait another 7 months?

GG to the team on the Pe-2

No, another 7 days. The changes since December are at least worth a look.

[NLS61]

It mean today or any day after.

Oh my then it is still not clarified.
So when not yesterday then any following day.
Could well be next Wednesday also :)

[Redroach]

to be fair, he said, there won't be anything "before" Wed even if everything goes "extremely well". And we all know how it goes at 1C :rolleyes:

I could say "well, good, because then it gets more polish", but I've given up on that ^.^

[catito14]

So BlackSix? Any news about the patch´s date?

[Blackdog_kt]

I'd rather the party turn you XP guys away at the door because your dress code is lowering the standards inside......:rolleyes:

That's what the XBox was invented for.

First, let me address the issue you so clumsily raise. As long as the system requirements didn't exclude 32 bit OS platforms when people bought it, the company is obliged to support them. Similarly, if they want to make the sequel 64-bit only, it should say so on the box. Both of these are acceptable. What is problematic is if you say "we'll support 32 bit" and then don't.

It's the same reason they try to optimize the sim to run on the kind of hardware that's printed on the box. If they don't support 32-bit systems, maybe they should do away with the entire spec as well, why not? "Hey guys, we take it back. Go buy a $500 graphics card if you want to fly". Would you be happy with that? Because that's an exact equivalent of what you pointed out to Vonte.


Second, let me get my crayons for a second...

Osprey: The wording of your posts is a tad too elitist, even for a forum of pretend fighter pilots. To the point of provocative i'd say. Which is against the forum rules if done on purpose (willful provocation is the definition of trolling.)


Vonte: Your posts are completely off-topic for the post and draw more people into the argument. You take up a couple of pages all by yourself, instead of doing your replying in a single post and then you proceed to "vent your spleen" in a thread that is of a public announcement type and thus:
1) unsuitable for personal spleen venting and
2) closely moderated to ensure the signal to noise ratio is acceptable

I see your post count is low so i'll just assume you are not familiar with forum rules and guidelines. Please read the sticky containing the rules.


To anybody else whom it may concern: We want people to be able to actually find information and ask questions to BlackSix, without having to wade through inter-personal arguments that are completely unrelated to the topic. This is a thread about the features of a coming patch. It's not a thread about why the patch is taking as long as it does to come out, or what kind of computing knowledge each one of us has.


For the rest who already know the drill and still can't resist all i have to say is, this thread is now locked for cleanup because you can't help acting like babies and jumping on the throat of any random person you feel you can take in an argument :-P

I'm in a good mood today, so no infractions/bans yet, but
S T A Y

O N

T O P I C ! ! !

[Blackdog_kt]

Thread re-opened:

Stay on topic (questions/answers about the update) and refrain from playing forum sniper against your fellow forum users at every conceivable chance. Thank you :grin:

[Thr0tt]

No update today ?

[pstyle]

No update today ?

Today does not finish for a few hours; even in Russia, it is still today.

[Thr0tt]

Today does not finish for a few hours; even in Russia, it is still today.

Really, what an informative post, thanks for the time put in to post this. No wonder this thread gets off topic. :rolleyes:

[hc_wolf]

Really, what an informative post, thanks for the time put in to post this. No wonder this thread gets off topic. :rolleyes:

Thr0tt How can you say this thread gets off topic. Just the other day I was walking down the street and thought to myself... I wonder what time it is in Moscow if I am in Colorado and my cat is eating Tuna on a sand stone tile....

[banned]

No update today ?
History has shown that if you remove your question mark you'll get your answer.

[GraveyardJimmy]

History has shown that if you remove your question mark you'll get your answer.

Posted in : Friday Update, June 08, 2012 thread.

[senseispcc]

Geduld, geduld, patient be patient all shall be there in due time.:cool:

[SiThSpAwN]

Reopened and instantly off topic lol....

[6S.Tamat]

Geduld, geduld, patient be patient all shall be there in due time.:cool:

The people start to want the clod prophecy because the maya one was a fake.

[catito14]

I feel like the Paras on D-Day .... "NO JUMP TONIGHT" ....

[5./JG27.Farber]

I feel like the Paras on D-Day .... "NO JUMP TONIGHT" ....

LoL if it was D-Day they would have aready been there... ;)