4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[SPAD-1949]

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. If you bind the "Toggle Speed Bar" key, you can toggle between Metric/Nautical/Imperial/Off settings for the speedbar.

IL2 should also remember which setting you used last. So if you have it set to imperial in one game, it should start out that way in the next.


Unfortunately, not for me.

[SPAD-1949]

Just found IRL:
When fuel dumps or fuel trains got hit, it would be great if we had some real real great firework like the Dakota train incident:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxkUhVswF5U

[FlyingRustBucket]

can I hope in a fast travel option? Its lack is what kept me from playing campaigns and shelve my copy of il2 1946 :(

[Notorious M.i.G.]

can I hope in a fast travel option? Its lack is what kept me from playing campaigns and shelve my copy of il2 1946 :(

There's time acceleration and a timeskip option already - not sure how you can really go beyond that :confused:

[FlyingRustBucket]

There's time acceleration and a timeskip option already - not sure how you can really go beyond that :confused:

Actually, there is the fast travel of combat flight simulator that skipped right before the action.

Time accelaration isn't really cutting it. It still takes quite a bit of time and its not without its faults. You need to have auto pilot on who is actually starting to fight by himself. You die and then you have to do the whole process again.

I have never heard of timeskip. :|

[IceFire]

Actually, there is the fast travel of combat flight simulator that skipped right before the action.

Time accelaration isn't really cutting it. It still takes quite a bit of time and its not without its faults. You need to have auto pilot on who is actually starting to fight by himself. You die and then you have to do the whole process again.

I have never heard of timeskip. :|

Bind a key for timeskip... it disables the video rendering and renders the scenario out as fast as your CPU will allow. Unlike with games of old... IL-2s scenario is a persistent world while you're playing it. All tanks, vehicles, aircraft and such that are in motion will stay in motion and so the biggest problem preventing the game from going any faster is that your system just will not be able to do all of the calculations that rapidly. I'm sure there's an acceptable loss of precision to a certain point and the timeskip is fixed at that. But it can't go faster.

Still if you're not using the timeskip then maybe you should try. It's a bit dry seeing as the screen is black but it does work.

[Pursuivant]

Just found IRL:
When fuel dumps or fuel trains got hit, it would be great if we had some real real great firework like the Dakota train incident

+1

We need an even bigger, denser smoke and fire effect than we currently have in the game. It would be realistic and meaningful for game play, since big smoke columns can be been for miles and can obscure the ability of bombers to bomb accurately.

It would also be nice to have persistent smoke and fire effects linked to specific targets which could be placed by mission builders, possibly with a setting for how long they will last, to simulate things like destroyer smoke screens.

The only drawback is that really huge smoke or flame effects might slow the game to an unacceptable degree.

While the smoke effects from damaged ships are pretty good, in some cases they could be even bigger, to simulate really massive fires like those that engulfed the USS Franklin (skip to 1:16 on the clip):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTAViMX-w6c

or Tirpitz (skip to 0:56):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pv5Aw4WiOg

Smoke and fire for burning oil tanks and cities should be massive!

For example, the bombing of Ploesti (skip to 4:38 to get a sense of the intense smoke):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDLLoAqum3k

Or the bombing of Tokyo (skip to 2:34 to get a sense of the smoke and fire effects):

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

[ElAurens]

You do realize that smoke and fire effects like you are asking for would grind most computers to a standstill, yes?

HSFX 7 has "improved" (more and larger) smoke and fire effects, (no where near like real life though) and everyone I know has had to turn down some settings to maintain acceptable frame rates. (usually anti aliasing needs to come down).

Computer "gaming" is still a world of compromise for developers. There are lots of things that have to be balanced to give a good overall experience.
Do you not think that they would give us these things if they could?

[Pursuivant]

You do realize that smoke and fire effects like you are asking for would grind most computers to a standstill, yes?

Yes. That's the problem. But, I wonder if there aren't different ways to create large smoke effects.

For example, rather than having smoke from a static source generated by sprites to create dynamic smoke (which kills frame rates if duplicated or enlarged), perhaps it would be possible to create a "static smoke" effect which consists of a simple rectangle or inverted conical polygon which is "skinned" with a series of series of static images to create the illusion of roiling smoke from distance. If done right, it could look good.

At a distance, it might be possible to simulate large fires using 2-d images (like the old smoke trail effects from IL2 4.10 or earlier), changing to 3-d sprite-based dynamic smoke only when planes get close.

For overcast smoke or haze, it would be easy to just change the color of an existing cumulus or light cloud object and allow mission builders to place it at ground level. The option of allowing mission builders to place clouds to recreate cloud conditions over a target or in a dogfight area would also be nice to have.

For haze

[IceFire]

We have some nice new smoke effects in 4.12... Smoke12 is particularly good at simulating large scale smoke effects... the sprites are large but look good enough both at close range and at a distance. They can be seen VERY far away.

[Pursuivant]

We have some nice new smoke effects in 4.12...

Agreed, and thanks to DT for them! I guess if you place enough of them together you can get Ploesti-like effects. Several on a large ship give "close enough" "Franklin-like" effects. I've certainly had trouble targeting certain areas of tank farms or ships due to the thick black smoke, which is quite realistic.

Of course, come to think of it, a lot of the big smoke and explosions on the Franklin were due to secondary ordinance and av-gas explosions from the Franklin's own stores. Giving mission builders the ability to place a delayed explosive, fire or smoke effect on a ship would simulate those things. Realistic for simulating carriers like the Franklin and the Japanese carriers at Midway that got caught with their planes rearming and refueling, as well as tankers and ammo ships.

[spiteful21k]

This going to sound strange but I'd like to see some improvements in Camera views.

Firstly I'd love to be able to cycle through the ships in the game, the same as with aircraft.

And have like a "Battle Cam" which jumps from firing aircraft to firing aircraft. Those that play Strike Fighters would be familiar with this when pushing F12.

[Fighterace]

Any updates on the new P-40 series???

[optio]

There's time acceleration and a timeskip option already - not sure how you can really go beyond that :confused:

It would be nice if they can increase th acceleration limit beyond 8x. IIRC correctly some old sims like ETW allowed time acceleration of even 64x.

[SPAD-1949]

We have some nice new smoke effects in 4.12... Smoke12 is particularly good at simulating large scale smoke effects... the sprites are large but look good enough both at close range and at a distance. They can be seen VERY far away.

Not really.
On Approach its just about 4 km until visibility starts.
In vicinity it looks a bit thin.
Departing visibiolity range ist about 9 km.

[IceFire]

Not really.
On Approach its just about 4 km until visibility starts.
In vicinity it looks a bit thin.
Departing visibiolity range ist about 9 km.

You can see them grids away...10+km for sure.

[Bonz]

My List: :cool:
1. The ability to tailor Kills in a pilots career information so that "Training" kills can be deleted or categorized... Both Air and Ground.
2. Additional maps for the Pacific. Leyte gulf, Luzon, Corregidor, Kwajalein, Ulithi, Tokyo.
3. Redo existing maps of the Pacific.
4. Additional Named/Numbered Essex Class Carriers... including stationary ships.
5. Half sunken battleships, destroyers, frigates, etc. For pearl harbor and other battles.
6. Improvement in the NTRK files to make them editable.
7. Concur on the Taxi-in addition.
8. Give the campaign creator full control over which aircraft the "pilot" will fly in. So that he knows where the "pilot" will be. It will allow senior pilots to fly as wingman without having to create two separate flights. The same way it works in the Full Mission Builder.

Thanks for considering these. Great Job.
Bonz...

[Tolwyn]

6. Won't be possible. The NTRK format is essentially a packet recorder. It's linear data in, linear data out.

[IceFire]

Leyte gulf, Luzon, Corregidor, Kwajalein, Ulithi, Tokyo
I'm looking into mapping again... I thought about a China map but it's a bit overwhelming as I don't know the history of the battles very well.

If any of those listed above were to be done as maps... size? Key positions (airfields, other features), etc.? It seems to me like Leyte would be easier than Tokyo for example (although it would be appealing for missions around the 244 Sentai - also... Ki-61-I-Tei for the love of pete :)).

[DuxCorvan]

Any updates on the new P-40 series???

Yeah, curious about that, too. And I'm really hoping for the once-coming fixed-wing models.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Hey guys bombing changes are wonderfull!!! Most of them are a dream come true. Thanks boys!
Are you still working in triggers and Airborne radar? ship debries? Thanks again!
Happy new year for you!

[ImpalerNL]

Yeah, curious about that, too. And I'm really hoping for the once-coming fixed-wing models.

Maybe a fueltank gauge for the p-40?

:confused:

[IceFire]

Maybe a fueltank gauge for the p-40?

:confused:

New cockpit was mentioned too. I'm sure it will ne fixed there.

[ElAurens]

I'm pretty sure the gauge is on the current Hawk 87, it's just that it's location prevents it from being seen, owing the the view limitations of IL2's cockpits.

The gauge for the main (center) tank in on the floor ahead of the joystick.

A real pilot would only have to lean a bit to see it.

[ElAurens]

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/cockpits/P40-cockpit-800.jpg

Here is a photo of a real P 40 N cockpit.

On the floor, just ahead and to the right of the joystick is the fuel gauge for the main tank.

[IceFire]

I'm pretty sure the gauge is on the current Hawk 87, it's just that it's location prevents it from being seen, owing the the view limitations of IL2's cockpits.

The gauge for the main (center) tank in on the floor ahead of the joystick.

A real pilot would only have to lean a bit to see it.

You know they fixed that issue a couple of patches ago? :cool: You can now lean forward, side to side, etc? So you can see the gauge just fine now but its non-functional. Doesn't move regardless of fuel state.

Like I said... I believe the plan is new P-40E/M external model and cockpit as well. It's basically going to be a new plane.

[Fighterace]

Any updates today?

[Sita]

DT isn't robot team) ... holidays..

[ElAurens]

You know they fixed that issue a couple of patches ago? :cool: You can now lean forward, side to side, etc? So you can see the gauge just fine now but its non-functional. Doesn't move regardless of fuel state.

Like I said... I believe the plan is new P-40E/M external model and cockpit as well. It's basically going to be a new plane.

I'm pretty sure that even with TIR seeing that gauge is nigh on to impossible.

I'll fire up the game and have a look later today.

[ECV56_Guevara]

DT isn't robot team) ... holidays..

of course it will be deducted from your salary...

[Janosch]

So yeah, early Yaks, Fiat G.50, late P-40s and the F6F Hellcat don't have fuel gauges. It's a drag, because I don't want to fly a plane that doesn't show fuel. A workaround would be to put the fuel level as an individual hud option like the speedbar. Wouldn't have to update the F6F cockpit at all, heh, heh, heh.

[Pursuivant]

A workaround would be to put the fuel level as an individual hud option like the speedbar. Wouldn't have to update the F6F cockpit at all, heh, heh, heh.

This is a good idea, especially since the gauges for some aircraft are hard to read without looking down and zooming in.

To expand on it, maybe it would be possible for the player to choose the gauges which appear on the speedbar, such as oil pressure or engine temperature. There should also be an option for listing cooling vent, prop pitch and flap states on the speed bar.

Alternately, the player could get periodic updates on fuel state as HUD messages. This would be particularly useful if you get a fuel leak hit, since sometimes it's hard to determine if the fuel leak is something you can ignore or an indicator that it's time to run for home. For example, "fuel leak, 50% fuel" followed a few seconds later by "fuel leak, 45% fuel" is a lot more helpful that just a single "fuel leak" message.

And, related to HUD messages, it would be nice if the player (or server admin) had more control over HUD messages and how long they persist.

For example, I often open my radiator vents before I go into combat. Later, when my engine inevitably overheats and I get the "engine overheat" message, I will accidentally close my radiator flaps because I forgot they were already fully open. The ability to make the "radiator vents open" HUD message "sticky" would be a useful aid to memory.

More realistically, pilots had no way of knowing if an enemy was destroyed unless they saw it for themselves or had confirmation by from a friendly source. To help preserve "fog of war" server admins or mission builders could disable the "enemy plane (or whatever) destroyed" in the HUD.

[stugumby]

over at M4T there is a new set of pics has quad 50 on trailer and a helldiver???

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=ForumsPro&file=viewtopic&t=18076

[BadAim]

There is no DT logo on the Helldiver shot, and I for one do not remember seeing this in a DT update, so take it with a grain of salt. Not sure what the endgame is for "Saldy" but I'm fairly sure it's just a game. A wankers game.

[ElAurens]

Yeah, that Helldiver looks decidedly low quality, and it doesn't look like any other 3Ds Max rendering from DT that I've ever seen.

[Bearcat]

I just love the music used in these updates...

[Pursuivant]

over at M4T there is a new set of pics has quad 50 on trailer and a helldiver???

There was a Helldiver was released before Christmas by IL2 Free Modding and mirrored on the SAS site. That might be the picture you're seeing. While we can hope that TD will be releasing an "official" Helldiver, I'll believe it when I see it.

[SaQSoN]

The only official DT updates are posted on this site, in the respective thread, by the Daidalos.Team user. Anything else, posted elsewhere is not official and has no relation to a current DT add-on.

[ECV56_Guevara]

But there is a Helldiver on the pipeline....:)
And a lil bird tell me that besides the Helldiver there are a D-520 and a He-112 as third parties projects. Am I Right Mr. SaQSoN???

[shelby]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=500230&postcount=960
I hope this cockpit to be ready for 4.13

[SaQSoN]

But there is ... on the pipeline....:)

There are a lots of WIP stuff at hands of DT and 3rd parties, however, all this is irrelevant to the content of DT addons, unless and until it is posted as official update.

Neither DT members, or DT 3rd parties have strict deadlines for their projects, unless a certain subject is adopted for an upcoming add-on. Usually, this happens when this subject is 99% ready and it's author(s) shows determination and ability to complete it in a relatively short time.

And only when this selected subjects reach alpha-test, or even beta-test stage, they get a chance to go into our public updates.

As for the other stuff - it may never be finished at all, due to various reasons, over which only authors may have control. Therefore, we do not publish any official info about such WIP projects. Otherwise, people may get a wrong impression, that DT promisses to include subjects, which may never be actually finished.

[ECV56_Guevara]

thanks for your very clear answer SaQSoN!
A last one question: Time ago, DT published updates for a future patch regarding some wonderfull features: Triggers, Ship Debries and Airborne radar. ARe these still WIP? or were cancelled?

бог mmy! только lods, чтобы закончить сову?
И, пожалуйста, не совпадайте на мне, я использовал переводчика!

[Pursuivant]

Neither DT members, or DT 3rd parties have strict deadlines for their projects, unless a certain subject is adopted for an upcoming add-on. Usually, this happens when this subject is 99% ready and it's author(s) shows determination and ability to complete it in a relatively short time.

Thanks for this policy. Over the years I've seen way too much "vaporware" on mod sites, where some enthusiastic young would-be modder gets a copy of GMax or Blender and tries his hand at making some sort of grandiose object like a 4-engined bomber. Usually, these projects die somewhere around the unskinned LoD0 model, once the modder realizes there's far more to making add-ons for IL2 than meets the eye.

Even experienced modders or mod teams can run into problems that result in a project being abandoned, like Oceanic Mod Team's gorgeous, but never released, Boomerang and Whirlwind projects that went off the rails when an earthquake destroyed their files.

TD is very conservative in their policies, but they are very reliable and produce first rate work, and I thank them for it.

[SaQSoN]

Time ago, DT published updates for a future patch regarding some wonderfull features

Those updates were shown before we adopted the said above policy, thus they demostrated quite unfinished work. I can not tell you, what is the status of those, as I am not involved directly in development of any of those.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Thanks for this policy. Over the years I've seen way too much "vaporware" on mod sites, where some enthusiastic young would-be modder gets a copy of GMax or Blender and tries his hand at making some sort of grandiose object like a 4-engined bomber. Usually, these projects die somewhere around the unskinned LoD0 model, once the modder realizes there's far more to making add-ons for IL2 than meets the eye.

Even experienced modders or mod teams can run into problems that result in a project being abandoned, like Oceanic Mod Team's gorgeous, but never released, Boomerang and Whirlwind projects that went off the rails when an earthquake destroyed their files.

TD is very conservative in their policies, but they are very reliable and produce first rate work, and I thank them for it.
True 100%


Ok Mr. SaQSoN! Thanks for your answer!

[SaQSoN]

One more thing to the above: both DT members and 3rd parties are, obviously, free to post their personal WIP info (unless it does not affect others work and interests).

So, the pictures, re-posted by someone recently on the M4T forum are really a WIP shots, posted by DT members for their private use. However, they should not be regarded as related to the upcoming add-on, untill and unless it is stated in the official update on this site.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Regarding 3rd parties works, theres enought info about modelling new aircraft and objects in the il.2 modelling bible, but what about maps? The game map´s specs has been published in the SAS forum IIRC, but, there are no tutorials, or tools for map making. There are a lot of talented modders, maybe if you release the tools, or the tips, a lot of new maps will be available. The "microden" way, seems to be precise but, I think that it isn´t the method used in oficial maps. Please consider it.

[SaQSoN]

All you need for map making is Photoshop (or similar program) and a modded game. May be, also some additional small tools, which also available for modders for a long time now. Anyone, who really wants, can build new maps already and can find enough info on how to do it.

[Juri_JS]

All you need for map making is Photoshop (or similar program) and a modded game. May be, also some additional small tools, which also available for modders for a long time now. Anyone, who really wants, can build new maps already and can find enough info on how to do it.

One question just out of curiosity, because in the past I've worked professionally with geographic data:

Were the original IL-2 maps also build using SRTM data converted in Mircrodem, or was other data or another methode used?

[SaQSoN]

One question just out of curiosity, because in the past I've worked professionally with geographic data:

Were the original IL-2 maps also build using SRTM data converted in Mircrodem, or was other data or another methode used?

I don't know.

I can only say about the Kiev map, in which I took part as a 3rd party dev. It didn't use SRTM data, it's elevation was created manually, using 1930s-40s topographic maps.

[Juri_JS]

I don't know.

I can only say about the Kiev map, in which I took part as a 3rd party dev. It didn't use SRTM data, it's elevation was created manually, using 1930s-40s topographic maps.

That's what I've always suspected for the older maps that came with the first Il-2 and Forgotten Battles.
Maybe this explains the relief height inaccuracies that can be seen on some of these maps. For example parts of the Balaton map seem to be too flat, especially the Bakony region north of lake Balaton.

[IceFire]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=500230&postcount=960
I hope this cockpit to be ready for 4.13

Load up your game, go into the quick mission builder, select Hawk 75A-3 or A-4... await pleasant surprise.

[IceFire]

One question just out of curiosity, because in the past I've worked professionally with geographic data:

Were the original IL-2 maps also build using SRTM data converted in Mircrodem, or was other data or another methode used?

Thinking about doing a new map? I've been looking into the details myself...

[shelby]

Load up your game, go into the quick mission builder, select Hawk 75A-3 or A-4... await pleasant surprise.What about mohawk?

[Juri_JS]

Thinking about doing a new map? I've been looking into the details myself...

My own map building attempts were very disappointing. I once had created a map of the northern Kuriles, but when I first opened it in FMB the scale was completely wrong. The islands were much too small and the hills too high. I was unable to fix the problem and that was the end of my career as a map builder.

[ElAurens]

China.

Nuff said.

[Pursuivant]

That's what I've always suspected for the older maps that came with the first Il-2 and Forgotten Battles.
Maybe this explains the relief height inaccuracies that can be seen on some of these maps. For example parts of the Balaton map seem to be too flat, especially the Bakony region north of lake Balaton.

But SRTM data isn't perfect either, since it represents the way the world looked ca. 1990-2000 or even later. After WW2, there was a lot of growth and development in the USSR, China and Europe, and even in the Pacific, so you always have to go back to WW2-era maps to make sure that you've got your towns and cities the right size and to be sure that things like reservoirs and coastlines were actually there in the 1940s.

As an example, I believe that the CoD team wasted a lot of effort creating the "footprints" for British towns and cities based on current data, forgetting the fact that the landscape of the UK is incredibly different from the way it looked 75 years ago.

As another example, volcanic eruptions have made some major changes to the coastline of Hawaii and Rabaul since WW2.

[IceFire]

China.

Nuff said.

I suspect that might be too difficult for my first go around. A lot of roads and towns and such... I'm thinking of Leyte perhaps. A lot of ocean and only some roads and towns in one area.

[Pursuivant]

China.

Nuff said.

Which part? There's a heck of a lot of China to model!

It's also a bit trickier to get right because in addition to the massive development which has taken place in China over the last 30 years, during WW2 the Chinese breached levees along the rivers as they retreated, leading to a lot of flooding that isn't shown on immediate post-war maps.

Related to that, parts of China have wet and dry seasons, so maps of riperine areas during the wet season would look very different from the same map during the dry season. (Technically, this is true for other maps as well, for example, a map of Russia during the spring thaw should have the rivers at a higher level, with flooding along bottomlands.)

Next, the landscape of China can be very diverse, and IL2 maps are quite limited in the number of textures they can use.

And, finally, there aren't a whole lot of good, Oriental/Chinese objects or buildings in the game, so any would-be China map-maker would also need to research and create things like walled 1930s era Chinese villages, Chinese temples and pagodas (different from Japanese), Chinese city objects, etc.

My ignorant guess is that places like Hong Kong and Formosa would be easiest to model in terms of getting the water features right, but you'd have to do a lot of editing of SRTM data as compared to WW2 era maps to scale the urban area down and to get the coastlines back to their 1930s configuration.

[IceFire]

What about mohawk?

I'm sure it's on the list somewhere.. just needs the British specific bits.

[Asheshouse]

Using modern SRTM data provides an excellent and fairly quick start. Having done that its fairly easy to overlay historical maps in photoshop to adjust coastlines and river lines.

Getting the position of road and rail and urban boundaries right is not so easy due to the limitations of the game engine. The best you can aim for is just to get the right feel.

The biggest contribution to the appeal of a great map is probably the production of new artwork for ground textures and the inclusion of bump maps.

This is part of the Rabaul map by Bee. (still WIP)

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/2013120512-58-48_zps06d16fe6.jpg

[IceFire]

Looks good Asheshouse! Is that from the Team Pacific N-G map?

The thing that 4.13 and beyond really need are some great new maps. I see lots of stuff in development that go into Mod packs but I really wish they would make sure they were ready to go (no copyrighted textures, etc.) and offer them up for inclusion in an official map.

We need stuff for online dogfights, offline campaigns, online campaigns, etc. We have a good selection but there are, of course, more out there.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Asheshouse is right about SRTM data. A map could be built quickly from them. The difficult, or better say, time-consuming part is what follows. In particular, detailed maps with historical airfields and dedicated buildings and textures (e.g. Slovakia) may take a many-people team years of research and work.

On the other hand, I guess that adding another generic-looking map with textures and buildings from the current stock game will rise lots of eyebrows to say the least.

My (personal) two cents.

[shelby]

Hope to see soon new development update

[Feathered_IV]

Looks good Asheshouse! Is that from the Team Pacific N-G map?


The image above is from the Rabaul map I'm working on. I haven't seen anything from the PNG group for some years.

The above map was originally an abandoned early alpha from a Japanese group. It's accuracy was very poor and I've been working to get it right,
down to the individual named streets in the township. Using period maps, strike photos and topographical information I've also been able to reproduce
the damage to airfields and installations, to represent how the area looked in 1944 when it was under seige.
It's strictly a mods-on prject though, and utilises techniques and resources outside the default game.

Some more pics from various stages in the map's development if you're interested.

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/Rabaulareacopy_zps89af706d.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/15-4.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/2013112412-51-12_zps9e2a6e6c.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/2013102212-46-18_zps4514bf26.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/2013102012-19-22_zps73f2357b.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/2013120102-45-54_zps2f0c90a3.jpg

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd119/Feathered_IV/grab0273.jpg

[IceFire]

I'm disappointed to hear its a MOD only product... but it certainly looks stunning.

[AG-51_Razor]

That looks AWESOME Feathered IV!!! Can't wait to see it in game.:grin:

[ECV56_Guevara]

I'm disappointed to hear its a MOD only product... but it certainly looks stunning.

If I understand correctly, Feathered is offering his beatifull map:

Some more pics from various stages in the map's development if you're interested.

[Asheshouse]

Feathered_IV -- can you say what the copyright status is of the ground textures which you are using. I understand that you are generally not using stock textures. Are they original artwork?

I guess the build relies on "modded" objects, or re-skinned stock objects? -- but I guess that need not be a major problem.

The curved roads which appear in some of the images will not permit automatic route tracking in FMB, but they do look much better than the stock linear roads.

[Pursuivant]

The curved roads which appear in some of the images will not permit automatic route tracking in FMB, but they do look much better than the stock linear roads.

For a map like Rabaul, the inability to get vehicle columns to track properly isn't that much an issue, since the main targets of Allied strikes on Rabaul were Japanese airfields/aircraft and shipping.

[Fighterace]

An early P-38 F/G/H would go great with this map ;)

[Feathered_IV]

Feathered_IV -- can you say what the copyright status is of the ground textures which you are using. I understand that you are generally not using stock textures. Are they original artwork?

I guess the build relies on "modded" objects, or re-skinned stock objects? -- but I guess that need not be a major problem.

The curved roads which appear in some of the images will not permit automatic route tracking in FMB, but they do look much better than the stock linear roads.

Hi Ash, the textures are all-new that I've made myself. Craters are part of the landscape texture, as the object ones never seem to look right.

[Oscarito]

The curved roads which appear in some of the images will not permit automatic route tracking in FMB, but they do look much better than the stock linear roads.
Good point. The "angled" roads hurt the landscapes IMHO.
If I could choose I would prefer only curved roads in all maps, like those in the pics.
Of course it is necessary to add more waypoints since automatic route tracking is out of question but even so the game would have a better looking...

[sniperton]

Good point. The "angled" roads hurt the landscapes IMHO.
If I could choose I would prefer only curved roads in all maps, like those in the pics.
Of course it is necessary to add more waypoints since automatic route tracking is out of question but even so the game would have a better looking...

And what about campaign generators like DCG or DGen? There are waypoint number limitations per section IIRC. Good-looking roads would be pure eye-candy if no vehicles used them. :confused:

[Wolkenbeisser]

Any word on the new P-40's? I hope there aren't any problems with the new models, I really hope, they are coming, because I plan to use them in my solomon-campaign.

Btw: Early P-40's lost the tailwheel lock within one of the last patches - intention?

[IceFire]

Any word on the new P-40's? I hope there aren't any problems with the new models, I really hope, they are coming, because I plan to use them in my solomon-campaign.

Btw: Early P-40's lost the tailwheel lock within one of the last patches - intention?

Noted in testing and yes this was intentional. The P-40 had a steerable tailwheel rather than a lockable one. Its not fully modelled but the P-40 does seem to have an easier time of it on the ground than many... so there may be a halfway measure in there somewhere.

[Pursuivant]

And what about campaign generators like DCG or DGen? There are waypoint number limitations per section IIRC. Good-looking roads would be pure eye-candy if no vehicles used them. :confused:

A possibility would be to change the way that ground vehicles turn in IL2, so that rather than pivoting, vehicles make turns that follow an arc. Then, each curved road section in the game could be given the same arc of distance as a vehicle is programmed to follow during its turn maneuver. No only would this allow nicer looking roads, it would also make for more realistic looking vehicle movement.

Another possibility might be to program vehicle movement so when ordered to follow roads or railroads, they will follow a particular color "painted" on the map, or to follow roads according to map c (or whatever map layer is used to lay out roads). Likewise, boats could be ordered to follow rivers or coastlines using the same routine.

But that might be very heavy on CPU resources if you have lots of vehicles in the game, since each vehicle would have to check map c as it moves then calculate the angle it must turn to follow a particular road.

This option would also potentially negate the need for waypoints when following roads, except to make a vehicle stop or to go in a certain direction when two or more roads meet.

[ElAurens]

Guys, Guys, Guys,

Much of what you are asking for in these very complicated "wants" would mean a complete rewrite of the game engine, in essence a completely new sim.

Do you not understand that IL2 is very very old already and we are lucky to have a very talented group of volunteers who manage in their spare time to keep this old girl alive a little bit longer?

Some of the things I see you asking for are just outside the scope of a volunteer team who do this for the love of it.

I count my lucky stars every morning when I check the forum that it is still here at all, what with the publisher actively supporting a new sim that is meant to replace IL2/46 and CloD, and actually make money for them.

Be thankful for what you have.

[sniperton]

Guys, Guys, Guys,

Much of what you are asking for in these very complicated "wants" would mean a complete rewrite of the game engine, in essence a completely new sim.


Copy that ;)

[150GCT_Italo]

How about possibility to fly in co-pilot for school? Bombers apart, there will be a/some dedicated aircraft (Tiger Moth, Texan, etc.) with this dual-seat capabilities?
Should be wonderful and could fix a lack coming from firs release.
Thx 4 your work;)

[Treetop64]

All this talk about traffic on curved roads in this game is nice and all, but...

When the game was first in development - or any game simulating a physical environment, for that matter - the environment, or world, was created as a platform with certain rules that all objects within it has to follow. How everything moves in the environment is dictated by rules formulated by the mathematical framework of that environment. IL-2s linear road traffic is one of the manifestations of that.

If one wants to go in and reinvent how road traffic moves in the game, he must go in and rewrite how that part of the environmental framework is built and how it functions, including all mathematical functions associated with the change (the "rules"). In other words, it isn't simply a matter of just telling traffic to follow curves or a color, instead of straight lines, as has been mentioned, but actually rebuilding the environment that allows for road traffic to follow curves.

As can be imagined, it would be a disproportionately large and complex task for such relatively minor effect, and one that carries prohibitive risk since making such a fundamental "core" change introduces the chance of unintentionally altering other parts of object interaction with the environment. Also, it also involves yet another instance of having to go in and change someone else's code, potentially without notes or guidance, and this is something that most coders try to avoid if they can...

Considering it's age, the current road system, while it's not aesthetically perfect, works well. If efforts are made to change how it works then it would obviously be more efficient to just increase way-point and road data resolution to something finer than the - IIRC - 200 meter minimum that the current environment enforces. If doing that risks breaking the world, though, it is probably better to leave it alone and work with what you have.

[Pursuivant]

If one wants to go in and reinvent how road traffic moves in the game, he must go in and rewrite how that part of the environmental framework is built and how it functions, including all mathematical functions associated with the change (the "rules"). In other words, it isn't simply a matter of just telling traffic to follow curves or a color, instead of straight lines, as has been mentioned, but actually rebuilding the environment that allows for road traffic to follow curves.

That's the problem with a lot of suggestions, not just on this thread but also one the "wish list" thread and many request threads I've seen on modding sites. Without understanding how the game is coded, fans have no way of knowing what's an easy change for the developers to made, what's "hard but doable" and what's impossible.

I take it as a given that TD's folks evaluate all those requests in light of their superior knowledge of how the game actually works. Some things, like realistic interactions between heavy bomber crews, NG-copyright content, or massive changes to how graphics work in the game, fall into the "never going to happen" category. Most fall into the "nice idea, but too much work/not something I want to do." category. A very few, ideas, however, fall into the "That's a great idea and it would be easy to implement." category, or even better, "We've been looking for a solution to that problem and you've just found it."

[shelby]

very good update. Will this plane have as an option four bomb racks under the wings as the N1K1-Jc did?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

very good update. Will this plane have as an option four bomb racks under the wings as the N1K1-Jc did?

Only two.

[nic727]

Nice AA gun!

[Gel-ler]

Very Nice Job!
Beautifull Airplane!
Thank´s TD!!!

[stugumby]

Looks fantastic and that towed quad 50 will really shred a low flying jabo.

On the N1K planes how did the cowling guns transpire, if im tracking this right the 1st version had them the 2nd didnt and the 3rd removed the holes in cowling? Reason for my confusion is the fighters that did have mg had the backplates/buffer assembly in the cockpit, example ki-43 series.

[julien673]

Wooooowww tks :)

[Spinnetti]

Looks great!

[Spinnetti]

The image above is from the Rabaul map I'm working on. I haven't seen anything from the PNG group for some years.

The above map was originally an abandoned early alpha from a Japanese group. It's accuracy was very poor and I've been working to get it right,
down to the individual named streets in the township. Using period maps, strike photos and topographical information I've also been able to reproduce
the damage to airfields and installations, to represent how the area looked in 1944 when it was under seige.
It's strictly a mods-on prject though, and utilises techniques and resources outside the default game.

Some more pics from various stages in the map's development if you're interested.

....


Looks great!

[Fighterace]

Thank you for the updates TD, Im looking forward to next weeks update :)

[Il-2Crew]

Thanks for the update DT,

Question, will the Quad 50cal gun be part of a convoy, or have it's own truck to pull it, and if either, will the player be able to "drive" the truck to where they want, or will they be in the gun, with no control over movement around map beyond preassigned way points?
I see it has legs for stability, is it going to be a stationary object? Or will those be retractable?

Thanks again,

il-2Crew

[ArcticWolf]

I haven't flown much over the last year due to my late wife's passing and my Father who was a WWII vet passed away a month later. I was in a hell hole for awhile.

Then I met a new lady and came back and gave 4.12 a go.

WOW!!

http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk128/amyotte666/tumblr_lnxht5WsmG1qes3o2.gif (http://s279.photobucket.com/user/amyotte666/media/tumblr_lnxht5WsmG1qes3o2.gif.html)

Cheers!
Wolf

[IceFire]

Any N1K I think will be a real fan favourite. Some of the players on BF1 request maps specifically because they have the N1K... so more versions the merrier!

[Hunden]

Glad to hear that your out of the hole Arctic wolf and hope you have a better year.

[FlyingShark]

It's good to have you back, Wolf.

~S~

[GROHOT]

Glad to hear you, Wolf.
Be happy with new lady!
And I sad about the death of your father.
Veterans go away in infinity...
Best regards, GROHOT

[yak9utpro]

I'm sorry for your father wolf who was in a real wwii battleground.Unfortunatly even the most worthy men pass away.

[yak9utpro]

Does anybody else hope to see the monster JU-390 in the skies of IL-2?
Even in 4.14 it will be nice to see some flyable beasts (ME-323,JU-390,B-17,B-29) by the way if you happen to make the B-29 flyable you should add a bomb (you know what i'm talking about ☢

[majorfailure]

Does anybody else hope to see the monster JU-390 in the skies of IL-2?
Even in 4.14 it will be nice to see some flyable beasts (ME-323,JU-390,B-17,B-29) by the way if you happen to make the B-29 flyable you should add a bomb (you know what i'm talking about ☢

If you really want that, I think mods do have it.
I wouldn't add it to IL-2, for me its beyond the scope of the game, as this is a tactical combat flight sim, and weapons off mass destruction are best left out. There would be serious balancing issues IMHO.

[ElAurens]

The B 29 is available in HSFX, with the Atomic option.

The Bomb is very undermodeled, I suspect because of computer performance issues.

If you really feel the need to drop massive ordnance, the Pe8 with it 5000 kilo
bomb is already in the game and the bomb does far more damage than than the "atom" bomb in mods.

The B 29 is an interesting aircraft to fly, and is in another world compared to any other bomber in the sim, as it should be.

[Fighterace]

If you really want that, I think mods do have it.
I wouldn't add it to IL-2, for me its beyond the scope of the game, as this is a tactical combat flight sim, and weapons off mass destruction are best left out. There would be serious balancing issues IMHO.

Simply don't add the Atomic bombs to its load outs!!

[yak9utpro]

ok with the ☢ bomb if you don't want it don't use it.
In mods the UP3 and HSFX cockpits are lame.
I know that the game might be affected by this ☢ bomb,anyway with or without it the B-29 would be awsome!
As for the PE-8 with the FAB-5000 is great but I'm greedy on power of destruction,I accept it.

[Rufe]

Mission builder editor

The file selector frame is, initiallly, too small.
Whenever I enter the into mission editor i have to extend the frame.
It would be nice that file selector remember the last frame size...
...or increase the default frame size.

[SPAD-1949]

Mission builder editor

The file selector frame is, initiallly, too small.
Whenever I enter the into mission editor i have to extend the frame.
It would be nice that file selector remember the last frame size...
...or increase the default frame size.

+1

And it would be nice, if I paste a set of copied objects, that the entire Set of objects can be rotated keeping its relative orientation towards each other.

Eg.: If I create a AAA position with 4 guns, sandbag barriers, tents and trenches, copy it to another point and want to change its orientation, this does not work.

Each object rotates around its original insert point.

[IceFire]

+1

And it would be nice, if I paste a set of copied objects, that the entire Set of objects can be rotated keeping its relative orientation towards each other.

Eg.: If I create a AAA position with 4 guns, sandbag barriers, tents and trenches, copy it to another point and want to change its orientation, this does not work.

Each object rotates around its original insert point.

Under "Edit" "Rotate Objects" you can toggle this behaviour. The only issue is that it doesn't remember what you select between loading the FMB so you have to recheck it every time you load up the FMB.

[yak9utpro]

yesterday i told you about nice bombers,today i have another idea which will be an easy job for TD the YAK9-UT NS-45 version (the UT had a lot of mods on its main cannon).
The yak9k is good but the U series has one more cannon and better perfomance.
This exists on mod UP3 but it's not as it should be.
and yes the ut can bring this cannon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-9#Variants

[IceFire]

yesterday i told you about nice bombers,today i have another idea which will be an easy job for TD the YAK9-UT NS-45 version (the UT had a lot of mods on its main cannon).
The yak9k is good but the U series has one more cannon and better perfomance.
This exists on mod UP3 but it's not as it should be.
and yes the ut can bring this cannon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-9#Variants

Possible, yes! The Yak-9UT originally arrived with a very strange armament combination and back a few patches ago we did some research to make sure that it was accurately armed. The NS-45 came up in research and it would be possible to fit it to this aircraft, however, at the time the goal was to avoid any 3D mesh changes and that would have required the addition of a muzzle break on the end of the cannon barrel. So we didn't do it.

If someone wanted to do the work then it could be done very easily.

It's pretty rare that such a modification was done. As it stands, I'm not sure if that version ever reached a combat unit or was used at all.

[Orangeman]

Does anyone know when the Ki-44 Tojo Ki-67 Peggy and D4Y Judy might appear in the unmodded game? I know they already exist as mods. On a similar point I saw that Japancat has made new versions of several in-game aircraft, is Team Daidalos in touch with him about the possibility of porting those over?

[Nil]

Thanks Daidalos Team for all your wonderful work!
The copilot feature is very good! I really love it!
You guys are awesome!!

The Po2 cockpit made by Sita is ready, the exterior model just needs a rework!
why not make it flyable?
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=158420&d=1346005669

[WG655]

Po2 yes please!!

[Sita]

the exterior model just needs a rework!
why not make it flyable?


just because of it ... because External model not good enough ... rework External model is not so simple... in some cases more easier do a new external model from scratch ..

[Pursuivant]

Does anyone know when the Ki-44 Tojo Ki-67 Peggy and D4Y Judy might appear in the unmodded game? I know they already exist as mods. On a similar point I saw that Japancat has made new versions of several in-game aircraft, is Team Daidalos in touch with him about the possibility of porting those over?

TD has a policy of requiring mod-makers to contact them about including their creations in the game.

Also, any proposed add-on has to meet TD's very high standards, as well as clearing copyright. Many mods, while superficially good-looking, have lots of hidden problems, or don't meet the required standards for one reason or another.

[yak9utpro]

Possible, yes! The Yak-9UT originally arrived with a very strange armament combination and back a few patches ago we did some research to make sure that it was accurately armed. The NS-45 came up in research and it would be possible to fit it to this aircraft, however, at the time the goal was to avoid any 3D mesh changes and that would have required the addition of a muzzle break on the end of the cannon barrel. So we didn't do it.

If someone wanted to do the work then it could be done very easily.

It's pretty rare that such a modification was done. As it stands, I'm not sure if that version ever reached a combat unit or was used at all.

I think that TD can easily copy the muzzle break of yak9k to the yak9UT when ns-45 is selected,anyway if you know what 3d engine i have to use and which are the model's path i will try to do the job. :grin:

[Fighterace]

Any update this week?

[shelby]

i hope to hear some news from these
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=444223&postcount=155

[yak9utpro]

I suggest that we send all the recon planes find them.This will be dificult i don't know who kidnaped TD but i will find him.He will be happy if some welding will fix him.

now more seriously i have no idea i sent them a message about it but no respond

[Fighterace]

i hope to hear some news from these
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=444223&postcount=155

Yes those especially :)

[shelby]

will 4.13 have new map?

[arnoritter]

I love the feature that allows to create formations of up to 16 planes by clicking "set target". But it has a major issue. If you have a formation with 16 planes and for example number 5 gets shot, 6, 7 and 8 will crash into 2, 3 and 4. It's easier to understand if you see it happen, so i made a video on this issue. Please, fix it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1X2FV2vv8

[yak9utpro]

I love the feature that allows to create formations of up to 16 planes by clicking "set target". But it has a major issue. If you have a formation with 16 planes and for example number 5 gets shot, 6, 7 and 8 will crash into 2, 3 and 4. It's easier to understand if you see it happen, so i made a video on this issue. Please, fix it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB1X2FV2vv8

never spotted this before. I gave it a go and yes this is a great error!

[GROHOT]

No anything update yet?

[KG26_Alpha]

No anything update yet?

Yes update yet something no ?








.

[Pursuivant]

No news is good news. TD said that they wanted to get the 4.13 patch out relatively quickly and I think they're doing just that. They've given us "teasers" of all the features they're going to add for 4.13, and for the last few weeks they've probably been "stomping bugs" prior to final release.

[julien673]

2 week ;)

Jk ... love your work :)

[Fighterace]

Will the new P-40s make it too 4.13?

[Feathered_IV]

Hope so. The poor P-40E and M series have the most innacurate 3D models out of any aircraft in the game. I'd love to see them updated.

[Pursuivant]

Will the new P-40s make it too 4.13?

Aren't the new P-40s being done by an outside developer? If so, that puts the project beyond TD's control.

I'm guessing that we WON'T be getting new P-40s in the 4.13 patch, since they haven't been shown in any of DT's teaser videos. I'd love to proven wrong, though.

[gaunt1]

Hope so. The poor P-40E and M series have the most innacurate 3D models out of any aircraft in the game. I'd love to see them updated.

Thats a huge exaggeration, there are other models which are far worse than the P-40s, like the He-111. But anyway, Im also looking forward, would be awesome if they were in 4.13. Especially if the K and N variants would be included too! :)

[ElAurens]

You don't remember the He 111 from V1.0 do you?

Now that was an awful model.

Currently the worst models in the sim are indeed the Hawk 87s and, interestingly enough, the IL2, with the Mig 3 a very close third.

[ben_wh]

Currently the worst models in the sim are indeed the Hawk 87s and, interestingly enough, the IL2, with the Mig 3 a very close third.

Not sure whether they are in the right order but good nominations ...

1) Do hope to see the new P-40 3D models making it to 4.13

2) There is a mod (by Aviaskins team) which gave the MiG-3 a new look ...

http://zargos-skins.net/images/visionneuse/mig3-baltique-1rouge/mig3-baltique-1rouge-01.jpg

3) Curiously, it is the namesake of the sim - the mighty IL-2 - that has not received much cosmetic upgrade, stock or mod.

[KG26_Alpha]

Also its missing some skis too :)

http://www.wio.ru/gal2a/bomb2/il2-rs132ski.jpg

[Pursuivant]

Currently the worst models in the sim are indeed the Hawk 87s and, interestingly enough, the IL2, with the Mig 3 a very close third.

Just about all the models from the original IL2 game are showing their age. Not only are the models blocky and in some cases inaccurate, in most cases the DM are wrong as well (e.g., engines that are very likely to stop instantly if they get hit, very high chance of getting multiple control surface disabled results, poorly modeled armor plate and armor glass), and butt-ugly damage textures (notably the Bf-109 heavy damage textures which literally make the plane look like moldy Swiss cheese, although the IL2 and MiG3 damage textures aren't far behind).

Also, while I respect DT's reasons for not making changes (requirement that IL2 run on 15 year old hardware), just about all the planes in the game could benefit from a few extra polygons around the engine and wheels. Mods to improve cowling and wheel appearance really make old models such as the Ju-52 look better.

[gaunt1]

You don't remember the He 111 from V1.0 do you?

Now that was an awful model.

Currently the worst models in the sim are indeed the Hawk 87s and, interestingly enough, the IL2, with the Mig 3 a very close third.

good old times... Original He-111 wasnt much better than the one in European Air War. (Microprose) :)
And yes, the Mig3, how could I forget that! Its indeed a terrible model.

[ben_wh]

... and butt-ugly damage textures (notably the Bf-109 heavy damage textures which literally make the plane look like moldy Swiss cheese ...).
Pursuivant

Until DT works on the issue, there is a solution that may help (at least partly) address this if you use mod - from vpmedia who did a lot of fantastic skins for IL-2.

http://www.mission4today.com/uploads/DL2013/06/152_vp_bf109dmg.jpg

Link: http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads3&file=details&id=1876

Cheers,

[Notorious M.i.G.]

Now that was an awful model.

Currently the worst models in the sim are indeed the Hawk 87s and, interestingly enough, the IL2, with the Mig 3 a very close third.

I don't know, I'd put the MiG-3 as 1st, the P-40 actually has some semblance of curves somewhere :-P

MiG-3 and IL-2 definitely do need a revamp, however. Looking at the IL-2 and IL-10 side by side is painful, and the MiG looks like it's made of Lego.

[yak9utpro]

I don't if thats correct but mig3 model lools like it was included in il-2 sturmovik 1.0 i don't know i began with 4.7 and one of my first impresions was the mig3 realy poor model.I hope for a new one in 4.13.1

[julien673]

Its is the most important think to revamp aircraft .... ??? IL2 isn t going to look like COD .. but we can work whit the gameplay ... don t you think ?!

[Notorious M.i.G.]

Its is the most important think to revamp aircraft .... ??? IL2 isn t going to look like COD .. but we can work whit the gameplay ... don t you think ?!

Of course revamping aircraft isn't a #1 priority, but there are some that have aged horribly and are looking extremely out of place next to planes that have been added more recently (see IL-2 vs IL-10). It would be nice to see some of these planes brought up to par with current appearances.

I'm not screaming that 1946 needs to look as pretty as CloD or War Thunder, and I never expect it to be, but a bit of consistency would be nice. This doesn't have to completely displace TD's efforts in improving the game itself, either - bear in mind a lot of modeling has been done by 3rd parties iirc, point in case Macwan's P-40 revamp.

[christopher0936]

Needs a Lancaster Bomber
an English Channel Map would be good two but it's less important

[Pursuivant]

IL2 isn t going to look like COD .. but we can work whit the gameplay ... don t you think ?!

Actually, I'm glad, in some ways, that IL2 doesn't look like CoD or even the forthcoming Battle of Stalingrad game. Many of the graphical features in those games aren't necessary for a realistic combat flight sim and just use CPU power and take developer time which could be used elsewhere.

IL2 strikes the right balance between "eye candy" and accurate flight performance and damage models.

While there are many ways in which IL2 could be more realistic, I don't really care about things like photorealistic textures, super high polygon count models, or self-shadowing cockpits. Instead, I'd far prefer a flight sim where the developers made absolutely sure that the planes flew, took damage and interacted with their environment just like the real planes did.

The only reason why I've suggested that DT improve the old aircraft models is because it's easy and modders have already done most of the work.

More realistic damage textures would be welcome because they help you determine where shots have hit and how badly damaged an aircraft is. Currently, the damage textures only tell you roughly where you hit and roughly how bad the damage is, because there are only "light" and "heavy" damage textures which are activated when a certain area of a plane is hit.

[yak9utpro]

of course developers should pay more attention on phisics but mig-3 , p-40 and il-2 needs better 3D models they are square in some places.
By the way,avaibility for nose arts on all aircrafts (the most aircrafts had) would be another great idea in terms of graphics.

[Pursuivant]

By the way,avaibility for nose arts on all aircrafts (the most aircrafts had) would be another great idea in terms of graphics.

The problem with the current ability to place nose art on a plane isn't just that it's limited to certain planes, but that it's also limited to just certain parts of certain planes.

While it might be tricky to implement, I can think of two small "eye candy" to improve the current ability to place nose art.

First, the ability to put custom markings, like nose art, anywhere along a plane's fuselage without having to create a new skin for it. This would allow not just placement of the sort of nose art used by most of the Western Allies, but also unofficial markings placed on the fuselage (usually just ahead or behind the cockpit) or tail, as was done by some Soviet and German pilots.

Second, the ability for the game to automatically apply "kill flags" to some player-specified portion of his plane before each mission in a campaign.

As always, there should be option buttons to restrict these options to Air Forces where nose art or kill markings were used historically, and to allow a server host to disallow nose art/kill markings.

[julien673]

Actually, I'm glad, in some ways, that IL2 doesn't look like CoD or even the forthcoming Battle of Stalingrad game. Many of the graphical features in those games aren't necessary for a realistic combat flight sim and just use CPU power and take developer time which could be used elsewhere.

IL2 strikes the right balance between "eye candy" and accurate flight performance and damage models.

While there are many ways in which IL2 could be more realistic, I don't really care about things like photorealistic textures, super high polygon count models, or self-shadowing cockpits. Instead, I'd far prefer a flight sim where the developers made absolutely sure that the planes flew, took damage and interacted with their environment just like the real planes did.

The only reason why I've suggested that DT improve the old aircraft models is because it's easy and modders have already done most of the work.

More realistic damage textures would be welcome because they help you determine where shots have hit and how badly damaged an aircraft is. Currently, the damage textures only tell you roughly where you hit and roughly how bad the damage is, because there are only "light" and "heavy" damage textures which are activated when a certain area of a plane is hit.

Eye candy = Woow ... but its still doesn t look great ( Limited by the polygone (forget your cockpit modder ... ) ... not like COD )

Gameplay = Woow ...and here come to many player

[Volksfürsorge]

Bug fixing? Baby sitting? What is going on?

[nic727]

Bug fixing? Baby sitting? What is going on?

Lol

I want to know too. When will be the next 4.13 dev. update?

[Derda508]

Two weeks?

[Kittle]

While I sincerely doubt my modded IL2 install will ever leave my HD, I am truly excited for BoS. Rise of Flight was a real jump in flight sim fidelity, and it does run well on moderate systems like mine.

AMD Dual Core 2.5 Ghz
nVidia 9800GT 512MB
3GB RAM

It has been stated by 777 that if your system runs RoF, it should run BoS just fine, and that is exciting news to me. CloD is beautiful, but not nearly as functional IMO.

The argument of eye candy vs. content has been going on since the beginning of flight sims, and personally I don't really think the two are that far from each other in effect. All those high fidelity models help with immersion, as do self shadowing cockpits and all the 'little things' that help you forget your sitting in front of a screen.

What TD have done with this 10 year old game engine is nothing short of spectacular. IL2 is so large in scope that I don't think anything will ever really replace it, and with every TD patch it gets better and better.

[TexasJG]

Any update on 4.13's progress? The last update is a little over a month old.

I've purchased BOS, but I agree with the above post.

[ThePilot4ever]

Calm down lads, I'm pretty sure the update is reaching its final stages. They are probably doing tests and bug fixes before release which usually takes alittle extra time.

[Pursuivant]

IIRC, there were 3-4 months of bug-stomping prior to the release of the 4.12 patch, with a similar flurry of "Are We There Yet?" posts after 2-3 months of no updates.

With TD, no news is good news.

[Fighterace]

I'm sure they'll give us an update when they are ready ;)

[yak9utpro]

i messaged them them before for not updating and then they told me that it is a good sign.Which means that they are near to the release. (I hope)

[Treetop64]

They're working hard locked up in my basement. Leave em alone. The sooner they finish, the sooner they eat.

:mrgreen:

[SPITACE]

Hi all i like to see target labels/markers for ground targets in the 4.13 update :grin:

[GROHOT]

Hi all, I think TD work hard and don't have any time to post something news.
Cheerz, drunking GROHOT!

[sniperton]

May I ask for a bit more French squads? Would be a small step for TD, but a giant leap for me. :cool:

[julien673]

Did they fight in ww2 ???

Jk

B)

[sniperton]

Did they fight in ww2 ???

Jk

B)

Sometimes even against the British... ;)

[IceFire]

Indeed! It would be good to have a few of the active French Air Force squadrons that fought in France and later for the Allies and for the Axis as needed. I suspect actually that two air forces would be appreciated here. A French Air Force and a Vichy French Air Force so you could have fights in the desert.

Speaking of adding air forces... in the North Africa and Italy campaign having the SAAF would be good as well.

If any of you have a list of French and Vichy French squadron organizations lets put it together. I'll see if I have a good list of SAAF groups in one or two of my books.

[sniperton]

Here you find all the French/Vichy OOBs:

http://france1940.free.fr/

[Ventura]

With the Sochi Olympics, I could understand a little bit of delay. I'm wondering if TD are various talented and appreciated developers that are actually in different parts of Russia as well as local countries. That being said, I hope they have not been caught up in current events and that they are all doing well.

[IceFire]

With the Sochi Olympics, I could understand a little bit of delay. I'm wondering if TD are various talented and appreciated developers that are actually in different parts of Russia as well as local countries. That being said, I hope they have not been caught up in current events and that they are all doing well.

TD is volunteer team made up of members who are located globally although I would guess at least a fair number live in central or northerly climates and may have been busy watching the olympics. I know I was!

Canadian Hockey... woo! :D

And yes, given the events in several countries, I would hope that things are well with everyone.

[julien673]

Now its back to normal

Vive les canadiens de Mmmmontrrrrrééééééééééaaaaaaaaalllllllll lll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More seriously ... i use Windows 8.1 .... and i can t play anymore whit il2, any help or patch will be good :|

Tks

[Janosch]

The Sochi olympics were great. They rather remind me of the 1936 olympics. History repeats itself, eh?

[KG26_Alpha]

Now its back to normal

Vive les canadiens de Mmmmontrrrrrééééééééééaaaaaaaaalllllllll lll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

More seriously ... i use Windows 8.1 .... and i can t play anymore whit il2, any help or patch will be good :|

Tks

IL2 1946 works perfectly well in Win 8.1

Instal the game to eg:

C:\IL-2 Sturmovik 1946

and not into the

C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\IL-2 Sturmovik 1946
or
C:\Program Files (x86)\Ubisoft\IL-2 Sturmovik 1946

Also

In the Windows compatibility settings enable "Run this Program as an Administrator"

[Pursuivant]

I was just unpleasantly reminded that the armor glass in the cockpit of the Hurricane MkIIb isn't modeled.

Either that, or the Luftwaffe is disguising its 30 mm cannons as Mg 15. :(

Yet another sniper-like headshot through the front cockpit by a "rookie" bomber gunner. This time from 150 meters by the top rear gunner of a Ju-88A-4, a plane noted for its heavy and highly effective defensive armament (not). Just another reminder why bomber intercept missions suck in IL2.

[Igo kyu]

I was just unpleasantly reminded that the armor glass in the cockpit of the Hurricane MkIIb isn't modeled.

Either that, or the Luftwaffe is disguising its 30 mm cannons as Mg 15. :(

Yet another sniper-like headshot through the front cockpit by a "rookie" bomber gunner. This time from 150 meters by the top rear gunner of a Ju-88A-4, a plane noted for its heavy and highly effective defensive armament (not). Just another reminder why bomber intercept missions suck in IL2.
Was that armour glass new with that model of Hurricane, or did they have it in the BoB, and the Spitfires too, as I have always believed?

[Pursuivant]

Was that armour glass new with that model of Hurricane, or did they have it in the BoB, and the Spitfires too, as I have always believed?

While the earliest production versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were built without armor glass, and there were some troubles getting it retrofitted when the war started, by summer of 1940 all RAF fighters had armor glass windscreens.

I'm not sure of the exact thickness, but it was between 3-4" (75-100 mm) and mounted at an angle both to conform with the cockpit shape and to further improve bullet resistance.

While WW2-era armor glass wasn't nearly as effective as modern varieties, in sufficient thicknesses it could stop a rifle caliber bullet, as shown here:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj241/jaepton/Scan0195.jpg

Against anything heavier, however, armor glass was pretty well useless even at extreme ranges.

FWIW, the Luftwaffe also had and used armor glass. This picture gives a sense of the thickness:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQI3CVIA_V5w3Y-WaGkEbZ6KCN2Fhg0YapGY9R1kmlqUnR_RNzchg

According to Capt. Eric Brown, late war German armor glass wasn't as well manufactured and had a slight tint to it.

[Igo kyu]

While the earliest production versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane were built without armor glass, and there were some troubles getting it retrofitted when the war started, by summer of 1940 all RAF fighters had armor glass windscreens.
Interesting.

Was it taken out of lend-lease aircraft, either on arrival or before, or is it just bogus that Forgotten Battles Hurricanes don't have it?

[Pursuivant]

Was it taken out of lend-lease aircraft, either on arrival or before, or is it just bogus that Forgotten Battles Hurricanes don't have it?

The Hurricanes Mk I supplied to Finland in 1939 might have been early production versions that weren't fitted with armor glass, but I'm not sure. The Finnish experts on this forum would probably know, however.

But, even if the armor glass was never fitted, or was stripped for export, it makes sense that the Finns would have retrofitted it - possibly using German stocks - after 1941.

Since the Hurricane MkII series planes were (mostly) Ex-RAF stocks it makes no sense that their armor should be stripped before they were exported. Certainly, the armor and guns would have been left in the Hurricanes flown by the RAF in the USSR and then left for the Soviets once the RAF pulled out. But, again, I don't know for certain.

But, in fairness to IL2, I might be bitching about a "problem" that's actually realistic. Armor glass of the WW2-era period wasn't nearly as strong as it is today, so perhaps it's realistic that a rifle-caliber ball (not Armor-Piercing) bullet could penetrate it 50-100 mm of glass at 100 meters or more. Certainly, a Armor-Piercing 0.30 caliber/7.62 mm MG bullet could easily penetrate that amount of glass about 200-300 m.

Add the 300-500 km/h of airspeed for a pursuing fighter to the basic bullet velocity of about 900 m/s, and penetration is improved even further.

[Jami]

The Hurricanes Mk I supplied to Finland in 1939 might have been early production versions that weren't fitted with armor glass, but I'm not sure. The Finnish experts on this forum would probably know, however.

Well, I'm not an expert but I have some photos I took a couple of years ago in Keski-Suomen Ilmailumuseo (The Aviation Museum of Central Finland). I had an opportunuty to have a look at a Hurricane Mk I which was under restoration. This fighter was delivered to Finland in 7th of March 1940 and it is the only one which is still remaining. You'll find two pictures from these links:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/qzljpkh66z7l0jc/HC452.jpg
http://www.mediafire.com/view/vu404mnuk0444e6/HC452_a.jpg

It seems to me that there is an armor glass fitted, but I'm not sure. It's a pity that I didn't take a closer look at the cockpit glasses when visiting there.

And here is a link to the museum's virtual pages:

http://www.airforcemuseum.fi/flash.asp?file=1

[ElAurens]

Jami, that aircraft most definitely has armor glass.

Great photos, thanks for posting them.

[Pursuivant]

Most distinctly armor glass, same as was fitted on RAF fighters, maybe about 3" (~75 mm).

Thanks, Jami!

[Pursuivant]

Since I'm hating on the Hurricane series (by misusing the poor things by doing really stupid things with them, like hanging out behind massed bombers at 50-100 m), I've discovered a few other bugs.

It appears that the armor that surrounded the reserve fuel tank (the one ahead of the cockpit, behind the engine) and the firewall isn't modeled, or else are modeled in a way such that the armor isn't flush with the fuselage.

The effect is that rifle caliber bullets penetrating from dead ahead, penetrating the fuselage just behind the engine, penetrate the engine firewall and the reserve fuel tank (probably empty since I was flying with 50% fuel) to seriously wound the pilot.

The problem is that there should be about 1/4" (6 mm) of armor plate over the top half of the firewall, plus at least four layers of aluminum (2 for the firewall, 2 for the tank) and possibly more layers of armor that surround the reserve fuel tank that should slow down or stop even an AP 7.62 mm bullet fired from 100+ meters.

Cutaway view that shows what I'm talking about here (assuming bullets penetrate about 25-50 cm ahead of the filler cap and penetrate through the instrument panel):

http://references.charlyecho.com/Aviation/Hawker/Hurricane%20MKI/Cutaway/hurricanecut-1.jpg

This website gives really nice illustrations of what the armor and firewall look like and how they should be mounted:

http://www.jneaircraft.com/am274/2008-2/

As another minor issue, it appears that while hits to the leading edge of the inboard wing will puncture the oil tank mounted there, the black smoke "oil leak" effect only emerges from just behind the oil cooler on the plane's belly.

It also seems to be impossible to get a coolant leak effect (white "smoke"), despite the fact that the coolant radiator and oil radiator seem to have shared the same housing.

[Pursuivant]

Looking into the whole Hurricane armor plate thing, it appears that at least one Hurricane MkX (Canadian built Mk IIb with U.S.-made Packard Merlin engine) with 12 guns, was supplied to the USSR with armor glass. The mounting is visible here, although the armor glass is missing:

http://www.jneaircraft.com/am274/artifacts/

This particular plane has a fascinating history and models several Hurricane variants not available in IL2.

First, it was a Hurricane MkIIa originally fitted with 12 0.303 caliber guns.

Second, once the Soviets got it, they removed the British guns and replaced them with 2 ShVAK-20 mm cannons and two-UBT-12.7 mm MG in the wings, with ejection ports for the 0.303 guns faired over and new ejection ports and chutes fitted for the new guns.

Further pictures show that it was fitted with Soviet wooden propellor blades.

http://www.jneaircraft.com/am274/history/

As you scroll through this web site, you'll notice several places where bullets punched through armor - one through the rear bulkhead to wound the pilot, another where a bullet missed the pilot and the reserve fuel tank bulkheads and then punched through the firewall (missing the armor plate) to hit the engine.

Since the plane that shot down AM274 was probably a Fw-190A armed with MG 17 (7.62 mm) and 20mm cannons, it's proof that rifle caliber bullets could sometimes punch through armor plate if fired at sufficiently close distance - and if they were AP rounds. So, the armor on the Hurricane series didn't make it invincible, but it helped. :)

[IceFire]

FYI: Aside from maybe some details ... we have this variant of the Hurricane. It's the Mark II Field Mod. and it has the ShVAK and UBK machine guns in the wings. It's quite potent actually.

[Pursuivant]

FYI: Aside from maybe some details ... we have this variant of the Hurricane. It's the Mark II Field Mod. and it has the ShVAK and UBK machine guns in the wings. It's quite potent actually.

I thought that model also had a Soviet inline engine rather than the RR Merlin, but I could be confusing it with the P-40 field mod.

I was definitely wrong about the MkII with 12 guns not being modeled in the game. It is, although four of the guns are in the outboard wings (where I didn't notice them :( initially).

For the Hurricane series, the cockpit armor glass appears to be modeled in the cockpit, but not in the external view. I have no idea if it's actually modeled in the DM

I strongly suspect that the armored portions of the fuel tanks and firewall aren't modeled. Either that, or all 7.62 mm bullets fired by German and Japanese bombers are modeled as being AP rather than ball.

As simple error in calculating penetration values by 7.62 mm/0.30/0.303 ball bullets, or the assumption that all bullets of that caliber are AP might go a long way to explaining why bomber gunners are so effective.

[Jami]

Either that, or all 7.62 mm bullets fired by German and Japanese bombers are modeled as being AP rather than ball.
As simple error in calculating penetration values by 7.62 mm/0.30/0.303 ball bullets, or the assumption that all bullets of that caliber are AP might go a long way to explaining why bomber gunners are so effective.

That concerns all Russian bombers and U-2/R-5 as well.

[IceFire]

I thought that model also had a Soviet inline engine rather than the RR Merlin, but I could be confusing it with the P-40 field mod.
Confused with the P-40 Field Mod which uses a Klimov VK-105 off of a Yak or LaGG series. The Hurricane II Field Mod. still features a Merlin engine but with the different armament.

[Ventura]

Great stuff!

If possible in FMB, make Test Runway4 same length as Test Runway3/2 (under 'Stationary Ships) so that a base/airfield can be made with plates that AI will fly to and land on. Currently, Test Runway 3/2 (textured with Marston Matting) does not allow players to taxi off of them without damage. Aircraft 'bounce' and usually loose landing gear.

Most terrain, especially on Pacific Maps is overgrown and prohibitive to any long runways.

[SuperEtendard]

May be i am wrong, but can you just merge 2 runways to make a single larger one? I saw some videos of FMB in which people merged objects in order to make personalized things... Can that be applied to create the larger runways you need?

[yak9utpro]

i'm sorry to be irrelevant with the previous posts but the "no updates is good news" is making me a little nervous.What is going on no updates for so long?

[IceFire]

i'm sorry to be irrelevant with the previous posts but the "no updates is good news" is making me a little nervous.What is going on no updates for so long?

Boring behind the scenes work.

[IceFire]

Great stuff!

If possible in FMB, make Test Runway4 same length as Test Runway3/2 (under 'Stationary Ships) so that a base/airfield can be made with plates that AI will fly to and land on. Currently, Test Runway 3/2 (textured with Marston Matting) does not allow players to taxi off of them without damage. Aircraft 'bounce' and usually loose landing gear.

Most terrain, especially on Pacific Maps is overgrown and prohibitive to any long runways.

If you can find a flat spot then you can create your own runways and taxi ways with the airfield objects added to the very end of the objects list in the last patch. I've been having a blast creating custom airfields for use online.

[TexasJG]

Boring behind the scenes work.

I'm very much hoping for patch 4.13 to be a reality also.

Multiple engine heavy's have always been my personal favorites to fly. As such I have been looking forward to this patch even more so!!
The new bombsight functions, along with the new co-pilot positions are absolutely ground breaking (pun intended) for us heavy iron users.

And then there's the new B-24.

It would be really nice to see some of the proposed Luftwaffe heavy's which never made it into production, make it into the simulation someday,
such as the Me-264B, Ta400, He 274/277.

[IceFire]

I'm very much hoping for patch 4.13 to be a reality also.


Since the 4.09 release it's always been the same story... TD posts a bunch of updates, then its quiet as things are prepared, and then the worries begin. I'm not sure why. The patch always comes along. Remember... it's a team of volunteers. They have day jobs and families.


Multiple engine heavy's have always been my personal favorites to fly. As such I have been looking forward to this patch even more so!!
The new bombsight functions, along with the new co-pilot positions are absolutely ground breaking (pun intended) for us heavy iron users.

And then there's the new B-24.

It would be really nice to see some of the proposed Luftwaffe heavy's which never made it into production, make it into the simulation someday,
such as the Me-264B, Ta400, He 274/277.

Having some flyable heavy, four engined bombers is a blast. I agree completely! Having the Pe-8 has been so much fun. I've flown many a eastern front bombing mission in it with all of the stations modeled... its really quite a blast. The B-24 will also be, I suspect, similarly if not more of a great thing seeing as its so iconic in the west.

Our Dedicated Bomber Squad group will be enjoying this and all of the bomb option enhancements for sure.

Those are some pretty obscure choices. I had to look them up. While they weren't entirely unknown to me... still very obscure. Fascinating from a aviation history perspective. I don't know if we'll ever see them... I am excited by the prospects of the He177 project. It's a AI type for now... but I believe its intended to be made flyable if time and resources are available. As far as optional Luftwaffe "heavy" bombers go... this is the one with a range of use including at Stalingrad. Technically it is four engines although only two propellers.

[Ventura]

May be i am wrong, but can you just merge 2 runways to make a single larger one? I saw some videos of FMB in which people merged objects in order to make personalized things... Can that be applied to create the larger runways you need?

Oh yes, easy to merge two runways. I've even seen someone do two carriers joined at the deck! :)

I actually meant making *shorter* runways as runway 3/2 are shorter than runway 4. And most open flat areas in the Solomons Map are short.

[Ventura]

If you can find a flat spot then you can create your own runways and taxi ways with the airfield objects added to the very end of the objects list in the last patch. I've been having a blast creating custom airfields for use online.

Thanks Icefire! I've been doing the same! :)

But the issue is that the transparent (red) runways that you can build a strip(s) on are a bit too long and it's very difficult to find an ideal flat and clear spot in the Solomons map in the historical battle spots.

What I'm trying to do is create airfields a little closer instead of having to fly from the historical airstrips for playability. Much easier to make testrunway 3/4 shorter than to defoliate the Solomons. (Agent Orange is nasty stuff)

So yes, I too have been creating some really nice main and secondary customized airstrips!

[Pursuivant]

I actually meant making *shorter* runways as runway 3/2 are shorter than runway 4. And most open flat areas in the Solomons Map are short.

It would almost be more convenient for mission and map designers if runways could be created "by the yard/meter". You just designate the portions of the map where you want runway, choose your type (concrete, crushed coral, dirt, grass, PSP, sand or snow), choose the direction, and then enter dimensions for length and width. Overlapping runway textures, as well as textures for taxiways and revetments, could be merged to create one object.

That way, rather than having to create custom airfield templates map builders could lay out historically accurate runways and taxiways "on the fly."

[gaunt1]

It would be really nice to see some of the proposed Luftwaffe heavy's which never made it into production, make it into the simulation someday,
such as the Me-264B, Ta400, He 274/277.

He-111 and Ju-88 is painfully weak and useless from 1942-1943, so in my opinion, there is no place for those prototypes in this game until we get an useful LW bomber that was produced in series, like the Do-217 or He-177 first.

[ElAurens]

I agree, there are so many types of aircraft that were used in numbers, that would be more beneficial to the sim overall, than these "paper napkin" proposed aircraft that did exactly nothing.

Notably, Japanese Army bombers and attack two seater types.

Kawanishi H6K "Mavis".

Lockheed Hudson and Ventura.

D 520

Hell, even the CAC Boomerang can be called far more important than the German never built aircraft.

Not to mention the ship models we desperately need.

[gaunt1]

Yes, the H6K! An extremely important plane.

And in my opinion, cockpits for the existing B-25 variants are also missing. I dont know how different are their cockpits, but in the case of the "C/D" the top turret, and forward cockpit may be the same as in the "J". The ventral position should be simulated like in the Pe-2. In the case of the "H", the gunner positions are definitely the same. So I think the B-25 series only needs pilot cockpits.

[majorfailure]

Yes, the H6K! An extremely important plane.

And in my opinion, cockpits for the existing B-25 variants are also missing. I dont know how different are their cockpits, but in the case of the "C/D" the top turret, and forward cockpit may be the same as in the "J". The ventral position should be simulated like in the Pe-2. In the case of the "H", the gunner positions are definitely the same. So I think the B-25 series only needs pilot cockpits.

Yes, I've always wanted to fly one of the up-gunned B-25s, be it with 1X .50cals or the 75mm version, bet you could create even more havoc than you currently can with the already very nice B-25 - those things are nice attack planes, and if the need arises also decent level bombers.


Notably, Japanese Army bombers and attack two seater types.

Yes, there are quite a few Japanese planes that could be very useful.

[TexasJG]

He-111 and Ju-88 is painfully weak and useless from 1942-1943, so in my opinion, there is no place for those prototypes in this game until we get an useful LW bomber that was produced in series, like the Do-217 or He-177 first.
Agree! the Do-217 and He-177 would make very appropriate and useful addition also, which I'd very much like to see.
As the simulation is IL-2-1946, hence the Me-264B, Ta400, and He 274/277.
Other 1946 heavy bombers, the Ju-390, 6 engines (2 prototypes built) and a FocKe-Wulf "1000x1000x1000" proposal, would make great additions.
If I had the skills, software, technical data, and time, (actually I do have the time) I'd have a go at them myself. I'd likely start with the Do-217.

[*{64s}Saburo]

someone to make the h6k ?? the g3m , the ginga and other seaplanes missing in the games that have yet heavily used during the war ....

[IceFire]

He-111 and Ju-88 is painfully weak and useless from 1942-1943, so in my opinion, there is no place for those prototypes in this game until we get an useful LW bomber that was produced in series, like the Do-217 or He-177 first.
Definitely the Do217 or He177 would be great. Also it would be nice to have the Me410 as the A-1 and B-1 variants were used heavily by bomber regiments as they "upgraded" from the Ju88 and He111. Useful in a variety of other roles as well.

[Pursuivant]

There is no place for those prototypes in this game until we get an useful LW bomber that was produced in series, like the Do-217 or He-177 first.

Several Do-217K variants already exist in the game and the He-177 will be forthcoming in the 4.13 patch. Or, were you specifically requesting flyable versions of these planes?

[Pursuivant]

For "missing planes" almost nobody's mentioned the lack of French and Polish types.

Currently, although there are some frustrating gaps, you can put together early, mid, or late war fighter, attack or bomber campaigns for Germany, Japan (at least the IJN, not the IJAAF), Finland, UK/Commonwealth, USAAF, USN/USMC and the Soviet Union. You can also put together an early to mid war fighter, attack or bomber campaign for Italy.

But, you can only do very limited early war fighter campaigns for campaign for Poland, and technically you can't even do that for France (The Hawk 75 and Ms406 variants in the game are Finnish).

It's easy to forget that both Poland and France had relatively large airforces and were desperately attempting to expand and modernize in the face of the Nazi threat when they were invaded. In both 1939 in Poland and in 1940 in France, had their armies been able to hold against the German Blitzkrieg, the French or Polish Air Forces might have been able to put up a credible defense of their countries.

While there's a natural tendency to want late war planes, there are many fascinating early-war types that nobody seems to know or care about.

[shelby]

He-111 and Ju-88 is painfully weak and useless from 1942-1943, so in my opinion, there is no place for those prototypes in this game until we get an useful LW bomber that was produced in series, like the Do-217 or He-177 first.Ju-188

[majorfailure]

For "missing planes" almost nobody's mentioned the lack of French and Polish types.

Currently, although there are some frustrating gaps, you can put together early, mid, or late war fighter, attack or bomber campaigns for Germany, Japan (at least the IJN, not the IJAAF), Finland, UK/Commonwealth, USAAF, USN/USMC and the Soviet Union. You can also put together an early to mid war fighter, attack or bomber campaign for Italy.

But, you can only do very limited early war fighter campaigns for campaign for Poland, and technically you can't even do that for France (The Hawk 75 and Ms406 variants in the game are Finnish).

It's easy to forget that both Poland and France had relatively large airforces and were desperately attempting to expand and modernize in the face of the Nazi threat when they were invaded. In both 1939 in Poland and in 1940 in France, had their armies been able to hold against the German Blitzkrieg, the French or Polish Air Forces might have been able to put up a credible defense of their countries.

While there's a natural tendency to want late war planes, there are many fascinating early-war types that nobody seems to know or care about.
But for most of these planes there is limited use, both regarding scenario(s) and time frame. And IIRC the maps needed would have to be made, too. IJA/German planes wouldn't need the maps, and could be used for almost the entire war after their introduction.

Maybe it would be a good idea to have a few bombers that are currently AI only made flyable with a working cockpit for pilot/copilot and bombardier without the other crew stations?

[gaunt1]

Several Do-217K variants already exist in the game and the He-177 will be forthcoming in the 4.13 patch. Or, were you specifically requesting flyable versions of these planes?

Yes, flyable. As I said earlier, it is absolutely no fun flying Ju-88 and He-111 starting from 1942, unless there arent any enemy planes around. (in fact, they are already little more than sitting ducks even in 1941), They are completely unable to defend themselves, with their low speed and useless guns.
What makes me really sad, there are more than enough cockpit references for the most important Do-217 variants (E2/E4, K1, M1), but no attempt was made to model them properly (OK, except one mod). We are slowly getting more and more multi engined flyable bombers which is really good, (cant wait for the B-24) but unfortunately none of them are german or japanese. Yes, I know its incredibly hard to model a cockpit, but at least adding a later He-111, (H11 or H16) with better armament would be more or less easier, so we would get a LW bomber that is more useful than what we currently have. One more point: By 1942, LW barely had any H-2 and H-6 variants, they were all converted to H-11/16.
The only is hope that the He-177 cockpit project will start someday. I'd gladly donate money to them, (even though I still think the price is too much) but here in India people arent rich at all, including myself.

[majorfailure]

Yes, flyable. As I said earlier, it is absolutely no fun flying Ju-88 and He-111 starting from 1942, unless there arent any enemy planes around. (in fact, they are already little more than sitting ducks even in 1941), They are completely unable to defend themselves, with their low speed and useless guns.
For an enemy that knows where you are and can predict where you will likley be, you are right.
But the reasonable speed of the Ju-88 can make it a formidable weapon against an unknowing enemy, in with lots of alt, out in a shallow dive - any early war fighte will have trouble intercepting you.
And the He-111 can be used, too, as long as the enemy does not have cannon armed fighters it is flying tank -only head on passes bring them down without using lots of ammo per plane - and against an unprepared enemy a massed formation of He-111 can get results.

That said -both of them are pretty useless later in the war where fighters are fast and well armed enough to successfully catch, overtake and head-on them or even shoot them down from 6'o clock.

[The_WOZ]

I fly the Ju-88 a lot and the main problem I find is the MG-81 range is too small compared to the turret MGs on allied planes.
The MG-81 bullets only exists for about 650/700m, while on allied bombers the bullets can go as far as 1500m or more. This allows fighters to get too close before the gunners have a chance to damage them. (But AI gunners still open fire when the enemy is at 1500m like in other bombers)

[Pursuivant]

But for most of these planes there is limited use, both regarding scenario(s) and time frame.

But you forget that after the fall of Poland and France, Germany stole all the French and Polish airplanes for their own use, or to sell off to their allies. Also, some Polish and French types were flown to Allied or neutral countries just before the German occupation and were interned when they landed. Also, prior to WW2, both Poland and France exported some of their planes to other countries.

That means the better French and Polish types flew for the Germans, German Allies AND the Western Allies in limited capacity until lack of spare parts finally grounded them. So, for 1941-43 scenarios, a few Polish and French types would vastly expand the number of campaign possibilities.

In particular, the Dewoitine D.520, Potez 630, PZL P.37, and some variant of the PZL P.24 would be welcome additions to the game. Not just because they'd give both France and Poland viable fighter and bomber types, but also because they'd round out the Romanian, Italian and German orders of battle!

But, it's all wishful thinking. What new features we get in the game all depends on what the people with the proper skills are willing to make.

[Pursuivant]

I fly the Ju-88 a lot and the main problem I find is the MG-81 range is too small compared to the turret MGs on allied planes.

That's the difference between 12.7/.50 caliber and 7.62 mm/.30 caliber guns.

(But AI gunners still open fire when the enemy is at 1500m like in other bombers)

I haven't encountered this, not even for rookie gunners. Typically, rookie gunners will make a short burst at about 500 m, then stop until you get to about 300 m.

Given the huge number of Ju-88 variants, a "fix" that would both make the Ju-88A more effective and which would work around the problem that the rear gunner can't man both guns would be to introduce a version that has a single window with a twin MG 81 mounted in it.

[gaunt1]

Given the huge number of Ju-88 variants, a "fix" that would both make the Ju-88A more effective and which would work around the problem that the rear gunner can't man both guns would be to introduce a version that has a single window with a twin MG 81 mounted in it.

Agree, it would be great if both guns could fire. As far as I know, in reality, the bombardier/front gunner often left his position and manned the second gun.
Another "fix" would be adding the Ju-88A14, which was more survivable. It was primarily an anti shipping dive bomber variant (but widely used against ground targets on eastern front too), so it had a little more armor to withstand the AAA fire from ships. And it would be really easy to make, both the external model (just add MGFF in place of bombsight window, like the torp bomber A4), and cockpit (A4 torp cockpit, with dive bombsight from ordinary A4)

[The_WOZ]

That's the difference between 12.7/.50 caliber and 7.62 mm/.30 caliber guns.
.

Yeah, I agree a bullet with a relative higher gunpowder load will travel farther, but what I mean is that in game, bullets _dissappear_ after 600m (Just made a test in the QMB and you can fly at 590m from the bomber, directly into the bullet stream of the bottom MG-81z and all the tracers will dissappear right in front of your propeller and you'll not receive a single hit)

Looking at the gun parameters of the game, MG-81 bullets exist (if Im reading it right) for 1.1seconds after leaving the gun.
Russian ShKAS, another 7.62mm gun with higher muzzle velocity but slighty smaller cartridge, the bullets weight is almost the same that the MG-81s, yet it exists for 2.2seconds after leaving the gun.
For the Browning .50 bullet life varies with round type, but is 6.4 secs on average
For the MG-FF, heavier round and slower muzzle velocity, average bullet life is 2.8secs
For the Breda SAFAT 12.7mm, which is a Browning .50 with a smaller cartridge and thus slower muzzle velocity (only 30m/sec faster than the MG-81) the bullet life time is the same as the .50: 6.4 secs on average.


It sure seems something is off with the MG-81, seeing as bullet life time is not exactly directly related with the ballistic properties of the gun.

[TexasJG]

Daidalos Team, it has been two months since any type of official, or semi-official update. Could we get a little something, at least a grunt, be patient, go away, or something please.
Just being a little sarcastic. :rolleyes: :cool:

The bomber functions in this patch are very greatly anticipated, myself anyway.
Thank you for the awesome work this team has done!!
It is greatly appreciated!!

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

What the man above said ;)

[nic727]

They are working hard (or not)...

Can't wait to see what you are doing!

[wWwebBrowser]

All is quiet on the western front.

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

maybe a good sign :grin:

[Pursuivant]

Another idea, which might be within the limits of the IL2 game engine:

Could oil splashes and bullet holes seen in the cockpit view be modeled in the external view?

Could there be damage textures to specifically indicate things like oil leaks from the engine? Maybe not as extreme as this picture, but you get the idea:

http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp202/ruspren/P-47-Lt-Edwin-King-flak-caused-oil-leak-Italy-Jan45_zpsea4a5307.jpg

[nic727]

Another idea, which might be within the limits of the IL2 game engine:

Could oil splashes and bullet holes seen in the cockpit view be modeled in the external view?

Could there be damage textures to specifically indicate things like oil leaks from the engine? Maybe not as extreme as this picture, but you get the idea:

http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp202/ruspren/P-47-Lt-Edwin-King-flak-caused-oil-leak-Italy-Jan45_zpsea4a5307.jpg

bad luck for the guy in the picture :eek:

[Igo kyu]

bad luck for the guy in the picture :eek:
No, he walked away from the landing, it was a good one. :grin:

[yak9utpro]

I don't know what they are doing (if they do something) no matter how boring they call it, i would like to know what it is.
If it is the good sign (that they are about to finish) i didn't see the updtate for longer than a month.
Ok they may have a difyculty but i would like to know.
i'm sorry if i sound a bit mean i just want to know their progress.

[nic727]

I don't know what they are doing (if they do something) no matter how boring they call it, i would like to know what it is.
If it is the good sign (that they are about to finish) i didn't see the updtate for longer than a month.
Ok they may have a difyculty but i would like to know.
i'm sorry if i sound a bit mean i just want to know their progress.

Maybe it's because of what's happening in Ukraine and Crimea? Daidalos Team are Russians no?

[ECV56_Guevara]

Saxon is russian, but the other guys are form all over the world. This silence maybe its a sign the´re ironing the last bugs. I think 4.13 it s around the corner.

[IceFire]

Maybe it's because of what's happening in Ukraine and Crimea? Daidalos Team are Russians no?

TD is a worldwide team of volunteers. So... probably has nothing to do with that.

[nic727]

TD is a worldwide team of volunteers. So... probably has nothing to do with that.

ok didn't know. Thx :)

And to ECV56_Guevara too.

It's because all devs for Il2 Cliffs of Dover and BOS are russians.

[Juss]

Hello,

I am a crazy about of aviation and IL*2 in particular. Later 10year of no gaming, I resumed in hands my control stick on it fantastic game and I was surprised finding a big community. For me IL*2 1946 remains better than his(her) small brother CliffofDover.

Thanks you for your work.


Juss ( Fr)
My Planes: FW190 Aseries / Yak3 of " NormandieNiemen "

[Vendigo]

While waiting for the 4.13 release dare I ask whether DT don't forget to fix AI torpedo attack mode of Kate B5N, which use shallow dive instead of torpedo run?
Also the bug of autopilot still attached to taxi waypoints after manual take off? I reported these bugs before, now just wondering whether they are going to be fixed, could any of DT tell me. Thanks!

[shelby]

Is no news good news?

[Volksfürsorge]

Is no news good news?

They are communication experts.

[Iszak]

Team Daidalos could learn from Team Fusion in this regard...

[_RAAF_Smouch]

Off playing BoS I reckon :rolleyes:

[Luno13]

Remember that these guys are volunteers. But even if they did cease work, I wouldn't blame them. :lol:

[Spudkopf]

As one who chooses to still only to fly the official patched version of the sim', and in no way wanting be one who bothers the TD members with those are we there yet type questions, I do however find myself becoming far more eager than usual for any sort of news from the TD front.

I'm sure that there very good reasons that the team have gone dark with updates announcements, not to mention comments in general, and although the comprehensive updates are greatly appreciated, a simple hello we are still here now and then would help to keep the morale here upbeat and positive.

As always greatly looking forward to what's to come.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Hello everyone,

just to let you know that 4.13 is still in the pipeline. Most of the content is ready but some things need to be integrated and polished. Our wish is to go on with a beta soon. We all hope you will like the patch once it is released. About lack of communications, we are sorry about that but real life can be quite demanding, and IL-2 may fall well below in the priority list for undetermined periods of time.

Cheers

[Spudkopf]

Hello everyone,

just to let you know that 4.13 is still in the pipeline. Most of the content is ready but some things need to be integrated and polished. Our wish is to go on with a beta soon. We all hope you will like the patch once it is released. About lack of communications, we are sorry about that but real life can be quite demanding, and IL-2 may fall well below in the priority list for undetermined periods of time.

Cheers

Thank you, its great to here from you, and all the above is well understood, as life does tend to get in the way, and many of these life things are far more important.

[Iszak]

Hello everyone,

just to let you know that 4.13 is still in the pipeline. Most of the content is ready but some things need to be integrated and polished. Our wish is to go on with a beta soon. We all hope you will like the patch once it is released. About lack of communications, we are sorry about that but real life can be quite demanding, and IL-2 may fall well below in the priority list for undetermined periods of time.

Cheers

Any news are MUCH better than NO news ;)
Looking forward to the patch.

Thank you!

[Sita]

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=81063&page=15&p=2061912&viewfull=1#post2061912
...

[ElAurens]

Very interesting ordnance there Sita.

Spasibo.

[Pursuivant]

Hello everyone,

just to let you know that 4.13 is still in the pipeline.

Thanks for the update. I figured it was mostly bug-stomping.

[Fighterace]

Are the new modelled P-40s available for 4.13?

[Aardvark892]

While waiting for the 4.13 release dare I ask whether DT don't forget to fix AI torpedo attack mode of Kate B5N, which use shallow dive instead of torpedo run?
Also the bug of autopilot still attached to taxi waypoints after manual take off? I reported these bugs before, now just wondering whether they are going to be fixed, could any of DT tell me. Thanks!

And BOY would it be nice (hint, hint) if you could:

1) Have a current waypoint indicator in the wingman command menu, like the torpedo/bomb info (which is GREAT, BTW)

2) Have a way of selecting waypoints when you're the only airplane in your flight.

3) Have a way of selecting waypoints at all, other than being able to command your wingman to fly to next or back to base, especially since he's going to ignore you anyway.

Regardless, as ever Team Daidalos is the beating heart of Il2, keeping it alive, and no words are sufficient to express our thanks.

[E Hood]

For future reference, an addition to the perennial wishlist:

Sometime within the next few days I'll be uploading a new single-mission set to M4T. The base mission is the 9 February 1945 RAF attack on the German Narvik-class destroyer Z33. The stock Norway map includes an area which very closely resembles the target area, deep in Forde Fjord, where the real raid took place. A lot of new skins were made by Hayate for this mission; between those and equally accurate RaFiGer skins for the blue flights, the mission looks very good. However, there is one somewhat jarring visual anomaly: I had to use a Russian single-stack destroyer to stand in for Z33.

The overall outlines of one of the later-model Japanese destroyers - Yukikaze, for instance - would have been much better, but the Japanese DDs all have the name painted on the side of the hull, right in the middle, in huge, white characters.

It is my hope, then, that TD may be able to include a German destroyer, at least something resembling a Narvik-class DD, in a future patch.

Meanwhile, I would like once again to express my gratitude to Team Daidalos. As always, I'm looking forward very much to the next patch...and the next...and the next...knock wood.

[nic727]

I think it could be a great idea one time to create new textures for the whole game. What I mean is that the game is currently with 2006 graphics and I think it should be possible to make a game with new graphic just by making new texture for everything, create new "forest" and include self-shadowing. (OpenGL and DirectX?)

[Pursuivant]

I think it could be a great idea one time to create new textures for the whole game.

2048 pixel skins and ground textures are already available as mods. They really improve the game's look.

[Asheshouse]

just by making new texture for everything

Not a big job then ;)

[KG26_Alpha]

2048 pixel skins and ground textures are already available as mods. They really improve the game's look.

How many hoops are jumped through to get there though.

IIRC not compatible with anything normally flown online either.

If it was to go that way the old system specs would have to be disregarded,
a new game made with completely new specs under 1C's supervision for possible legal matters.
However.......if HSFX were to include it as a switchable option in the JSGME I see a more easily
approachable solution.

:)











.

[nic727]

If it was to go that way the old system specs would have to be disregarded,
a new game made with completely new specs under 1C's supervision for possible legal matters.
.

You can forget me with my poor Intel HD Graphic 1st gen lol. I think everyone in 2014 have a correct specs to upgrade a little bit Il2 1946.

I though about map design that need to be re-done with accurate custom cities everywhere with realistic roads locations.

[Tempest123]

Hello everyone,

just to let you know that 4.13 is still in the pipeline. Most of the content is ready but some things need to be integrated and polished. Our wish is to go on with a beta soon. We all hope you will like the patch once it is released. About lack of communications, we are sorry about that but real life can be quite demanding, and IL-2 may fall well below in the priority list for undetermined periods of time.

Cheers
Thanks for update, I was worried TD had drifted off into oblivion. Now back to IL2

[shelby]

i hope to see more german planes someday

[TexasJG]

I'd like to see more flyable German and Japanese multiple engine heavy's, bombers and transports. The more engines, the more weight, the better!!
If I had the skill's I'd put the effort into making it happen, as I do have some amount of free time.

[Pursuivant]

I'd like to see more flyable German and Japanese multiple engine heavy's, bombers and transports. The more engines, the more weight, the better!!

They'd be interesting to have, but neither the Germans or the Japanese had that many heavy bombers or transport types.

The main German heavy bomber, the He-177 Grief, will be available as a non-flyable plane in the 4.13 patch.

For the Germans, I'd be more interested in seeing more of the vast number of Ju-88 and He-111 medium bomber variants, since they were most important in terms of numbers and tactical usefulness.

For the Japanese, the G3M Nell would be a useful early WW II/Sino-Japanese war IJN type, while the Yokosuka P1Y Ginga/Frances would be a nice late war IJN type. The Ki-49 Donru/Helen would be a good choice for a IJA mid- to late-WW2 type. Having any flyable IJA bomber type would also be welcome.

As for transports, a flyable Ju-52 would be welcome choice for the Axis, since they were used in a variety of combat roles throughout WW2 and were used in limited numbers by Germany's allies, as well as the Luftwaffe. For the Japanese and the Allies, a flyable DC-3/C-47 would be the best choice.

The Japanese never had a really successful Japanese-designed purpose-built transport. Instead, they used bombers or converted bombers (like the G3M, G4M or Ki-21). But, in terms of numbers, the most successful Japanese transport was the Showa/Nakajima L2D "Tabby" which was just a license-built DC-3.

[Janosch]

There's one weather effect that I'd like to see: a rainbow, with colours such as orange, indigo and violet

[sniperton]

Could also be used to calibrate the colours of the display... ;)

[Pursuivant]

There's one weather effect that I'd like to see: a rainbow, with colours such as orange, indigo and violet

That would be very nice bit of eye candy, but getting the physics right would be a bit tricky.

The weather effect I'd like to see is more cloud options.

1) Ability for mission builders to set percentage of cloud cover (e.g., 1 to 10 10ths).

2) Ability for mission builders to set multiple layers of clouds.

3) Ability for mission builders to place clouds in a particular sector of the map and/or in a particular location.

4) Dynamic clouds - which move, appear or disappear as set by the mission builder.

5) Different colors of clouds to represent layers of smog/coal smoke (a yellowish brown haze), fire (black or grayish smoke) and thunderheads (grayish).

6) Ability for mission builders to set transparency of clouds to represent mist or fog and control exact visibility range (in visibility out to X km/miles).

7) Larger and smaller clouds.

8) Different shapes of clouds to represent different cloud types.

9) Ability to set altitude at which contrails form.

10) Option to have contrails persist for shorter or longer amount of time.


Comparatively, a rainbow effect would be easy!