4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[jameson]

We could have wind and clouds that move, and rain. Anyone recall the bonus disc with 4.07?

[FlyingRustBucket]

How about more filters while searching planes, like heavy bombers, jets, attackers and so on and so forth. It would also be very usefull especially in full mission builder on all the objects.

[greybeard307]

One thing I would like to see is are changes to the damage models and reporting. I have never seen "coolant leak" or 'hydraulic faliure" or had a burst tyre or brake failure or seen my windscreen covered by an oil leak, and in all the literature I have read over the years these were the things that were reported to have happened, or how about radio failure or oxygen system failed, or am I being too picky ?

[Pursuivant]

One thing I would like to see is are changes to the damage models and reporting. I have never seen "coolant leak" or 'hydraulic faliure" or had a burst tyre or brake failure or seen my windscreen covered by an oil leak, and in all the literature I have read over the years these were the things that were reported to have happened, or how about radio failure or oxygen system failed, or am I being too picky ?

Random failures due to factors other than combat aren't currently modeled in the game. I think they could be, but they'd mostly apply to hard-core online simmers, since just about everyone else would just reload the mission when a random failure occurs.

Hydraulic failure on landing gear due to combat damage is modeled in the game as of the 4.12 patch, but I don't believe that it's modeled for other systems. It's a nice effect - at least when you're the shooter :).

Oxygen and radio systems currently aren't modeled in the game. Like fuel transfer or electrical systems, it would take a LOT of work to implement them, since new damage models and damage effects would be needed for just about all the planes in the game.

Realistically, it would be difficult to model night fighter operations without better modeling of radio and radar systems. And, to a lesser extent, electrical systems.

[ElAurens]

In the original release of IL2, it was possible to foul spark plugs on a cold engine. It was kind of pointless as all you had to do was hit "refly" to get a fresh plane.

[sniperton]

I have never seen ... my windscreen covered by an oil leak...

Try the Bf 109. The oil on the windsreen obstructs your view so much that even a crash landing is hardly possible. Maybe the effect is realistic that way, but I have the impression that the chance to have it is a bit too high: a single LMG hit into the engine cowling can make you a flying blind pig. :cool:

Anyway, has anyone ever encountered this 'oil on the windsreen' effect on planes other than the 109 (or, possibly, the 190)?

[ElAurens]

The KI 61 will oil it's windscreen.

There are a couple of others.

Remember that the oil reservior tank on 109s is on top of the cowling near the prop spinner. One bullet there and you should have an oiled screen.

[greybeard307]

Thanks for your replies gents. I was thinking more in terms of combat damage to coolant systems on water cooled aircraft rather than random reliability issues, though the valve equipped radios of the day were known to be of limited use even when working, hence Sakai ditching his and sawing off the aerial. I have encountered times when combat damage has caused an engine to over rev but the types of damage seem to be confined to control surface and weapon damage although fuel leak reports cover fuel lines as well as fuel tank damage.

[Janosch]

The oil on the windsreen obstructs your view so much that even a crash landing is hardly possible.

No it doesn't, just a few splotches, and it doesn't get worse as time goes by

[sniperton]

No it doesn't, just a few splotches, and it doesn't get worse as time goes by

Okay, I should have said 'a real challenge' instead of 'hardly possible', but anyway, a blocked lower forward view is a major obstacle in landings, even if you have 6DoF, right?

[majorfailure]

Anyway, has anyone ever encountered this 'oil on the windsreen' effect on planes other than the 109 (or, possibly, the 190)?

Me thinks the P-40 does that too, or was it the Hurricane?

[Spudkopf]

Me thinks the P-40 does that too, or was it the Hurricane?


If I remember correctly, it even happened on the jets in SWOTL, he he he........

[IceFire]

Oil on windscreen... appears on all single engined fighters. I don't think there are any exceptions. It's up to the cockpit artist to determine how much.

[Pursuivant]

Oil on windscreen... appears on all single engined fighters. I don't think there are any exceptions. It's up to the cockpit artist to determine how much.

But only as a result of damage, not as a result of random mechanical failure, which is what I think the original poster was asking for.

I also wonder if it would be possible to get some variation in how much visibility you lose when an oil leak occurs. It seems that some planes get "messier" than others.

[sniperton]

Oil on windscreen... appears on all single engined fighters. I don't think there are any exceptions. It's up to the cockpit artist to determine how much.

I guess the effect is triggered with N percent of probability by hits to the engine block, where N varies from plane to plane, as much as the visual representation of the damage. I understand that N is higher with the 109 due to the position of the oil reservoir tank. What I find strange, however, that N seems to be extremely low for other planes I've flown extensively in the past months: G.50, Mc.200, Finnish Brewster, Hurricane, Yak-1, LaGG-3. In those planes I've been hit hundreds or maybe thousends of times without ever having the oil effect, while every 3rd LMG hit to the engine block of the 109 seems to guarantee for a messy windscreen. This made me doubt whether the effect is modelled at all for other planes.

According to ElAurens 'The KI 61 will oil it's windscreen'. Maybe the effect probabilty is related to the DB powerplant?

[ElAurens]

Well, the DB design engines are "upside down" compared to Allisons, Merlins, Hispanos, well, every Allied inline, this puts their oiling system/crankcase at the top of the cowling.

This was a big topic of discussion years ago at the old UBI forum.

Do bear in mind this title is over a decade old, and there is only so much that the old girl is capable of, and that DT are all doing this on their own time, so there is also a time constraint on everything we ask for.

Personally I'd place improving the 3D and cockpit models of some of the long suffering aircraft in the game ahead of visual oiling effects.

[IceFire]

I guess the effect is triggered with N percent of probability by hits to the engine block, where N varies from plane to plane, as much as the visual representation of the damage. I understand that N is higher with the 109 due to the position of the oil reservoir tank. What I find strange, however, that N seems to be extremely low for other planes I've flown extensively in the past months: G.50, Mc.200, Finnish Brewster, Hurricane, Yak-1, LaGG-3. In those planes I've been hit hundreds or maybe thousends of times without ever having the oil effect, while every 3rd LMG hit to the engine block of the 109 seems to guarantee for a messy windscreen. This made me doubt whether the effect is modelled at all for other planes.

According to ElAurens 'The KI 61 will oil it's windscreen'. Maybe the effect probabilty is related to the DB powerplant?

Could be.... the other thing to keep in mind is that the Bf109 is one of the oldest models and one of the oldest damage models in the game alongside the IL-2 and the MiG-3. They were all upgraded but I wonder how well that was done versus the newer models that appeared during the Ace Expansion Pack and Pacific Fighters and everything else after that...

[Treetop64]

Well, the DB design engines are "upside down" compared to Allisons, Merlins, Hispanos, well, every Allied inline, this puts their oiling system/crankcase at the top of the cowling.

This was a big topic of discussion years ago at the old UBI forum.

Do bear in mind this title is over a decade old, and there is only so much that the old girl is capable of, and that DT are all doing this on their own time, so there is also a time constraint on everything we ask for.

Personally I'd place improving the 3D and cockpit models of some of the long suffering aircraft in the game ahead of visual oiling effects.


I remember that topic. It became a big deal. I think it was Billfish who posted archive pics of aircraft that suffered catastrophic oil leaks from battle damage that settled the issue.

I agree there are far more pressing visual issues with this antique game than oil effects on windscreens, and you nailed it with the quality of the legacy cockpits.

[Spudkopf]

Personally I'd place improving the 3D and cockpit models of some of the long suffering aircraft in the game ahead of visual oiling effects.

Could not agree more

[nic727]

Can't wait to see more of 4.13m :D

[TexasJG]

Can't wait to see more of 4.13m :D

Second that.... :cool:

[Pursuivant]

What I find strange, however, that N seems to be extremely low for other planes I've flown extensively in the past months: G.50, Mc.200, Finnish Brewster, Hurricane, Yak-1, LaGG-3.

According to Finnish reports, they thought that the B.239 was sabotaged due to its initial propensity towards oil leaks. (Actually, it was just shoddy work by the Brewster company or use of worn out engines. With typical creativity, the Finns solved the problem by reversing the oil rings.)

The F4UA1 corsair was also vulnerable to oil leaks on the canopy. The ground crews figured out that taping over the oil tank access panels was a decent workaround, but this gave some F4Us a distinctive appearance.

http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/05/03kepford.jpg

[shelby]

what else to expect from the 4.13

[greybeard307]

My original post was not solely about visual oiling effects, but more to do with introducing combat damage such as a hit to cooling sytems causing reports such as " Radiator Damaged - Engine Overheat - Engine Inoperable" which was much more common in real life than "Rudder-Elevator Controls Damaged"
I accept however that it would involve a vast amount of work on all the liquid cooled planes and is unlikely to happen.
Another idea is for the aircraft you are flying to go on autopilot when you pause to reset or change controls midflight instead of becoming a lawn dart,

[RPS69]

My original post was not solely about visual oiling effects, but more to do with introducing combat damage such as a hit to cooling sytems causing reports such as " Radiator Damaged - Engine Overheat - Engine Inoperable" which was much more common in real life than "Rudder-Elevator Controls Damaged"
I accept however that it would involve a vast amount of work on all the liquid cooled planes and is unlikely to happen.
Another idea is for the aircraft you are flying to go on autopilot when you pause to reset or change controls midflight instead of becoming a lawn dart,

You don't receive the report. But the damage happens.

In some planes it will cause engine seizure, in some others huge and fast overheat that would lead to seizure.

It is allready there, but you don't get a text confirming it.

[Pursuivant]

My original post was not solely about visual oiling effects, but more to do with introducing combat damage such as a hit to cooling sytems causing reports such as " Radiator Damaged - Engine Overheat - Engine Inoperable" which was much more common in real life than "Rudder-Elevator Controls Damaged"

This is an excellent idea and wouldn't be that hard to implement. Currently, there aren't "Coolant leak" or "Coolant Pressure Dropping" or "Oil leak" or
"Oil Pressure Dropping" messages in the HUD. Such information would be obvious to the pilot or flight engineer from the cockpit/engine gauges, more so than information such as "Cannon/machine gun jammed."

Ideally, there would be progressive messages similar to pilot hits - Oil/coolant leak > Severe oil/coolant leak > Engine failure imminent > Engine inoperable.

Admittedly, some of this info would be obvious, especially for single-engined planes. But, for multi-engined planes or jets, or planes with engines mounted behind the pilot, this info would be very helpful.

[ElAurens]

You should not need an aritificial pop up to tell you that your engine has run out of oil or coolant.

It should be quite obvious with the drop off in power, rise in temps as shown on the gauges ( you do look at your gauges don't you? ), and the terrible grinding clanking noises eminating from your power plant.

[greybeard307]

Yes ElAurens you are quite right, I can remember times when I have heard noises of distress from a smoking engine which makes louder and louder squeaking and screeching noises as the power output drops until it fails completely. So it would appear the effects are there, but not the HUD warnings, fair enough, as you say in reality you would see the effects on the various cockpit gauges.

[Reaps]

You should not need an aritificial pop up to tell you that your engine has run out of oil or coolant.



We have artificial pop-ups for things as obvious as engine failures, I don't see why an option for pop-ups for things leading up to engine failure should be considered a bad thing. Don't like it? Turn it off. Not really a top-of-the-line issue though, methinks

[jt_medina]

Respawn AI in dogfight missions.

I know other objects can be respawned but I'd like to be able to do the same thing with the AI.

Sometimes I create a dogfight mission with tanks, static ships, all that stuff then I add a group of AI bombers for example. I think it'd be very useful if we could respawn that AI when they get destroyed or they land at their base.

When I play a dogfight mission in multiplayer where the goal is to sink some ships and destroy an enemy base but there isn't simply enough human players to fill the gap. If we could add respawnable AI would be perfect.

[ElAurens]

Actually if you could have multiple respawn times for an AI flight would be very cool.

Place one AI flight with it's waypoints and then have multiple spawn times for it. Be a cool way to create waves of bombers, for example.

[Pursuivant]

It should be quite obvious with the drop off in power, rise in temps as shown on the gauges ( you do look at your gauges don't you? ), and the terrible grinding clanking noises eminating from your power plant.

Yes, it's generally obvious when a single-engined plane is in trouble. For multi-engined planes, not so much.

A HUD message indicating problems with the engine would be helpful for people flying without the cockpit, people with small/single monitors and/or without Track-IR or equivalent technology to quickly check the gauges.

It would also be helpful for people flying an unfamiliar plane or a plane where the gauges are in a foreign language or in an obscure location. (Wait, you don't know exactly where the oil pressure gauge is on the Avia B.534 and you don't speak Czech? Obviously, you're not hard-core enough! :) )

In any case, a HUD message indicating a problem with an engine would be realistic for planes with a co-pilot and/or flight engineer, assuming that the HUD serves as a substitute for the intercomm system.

[Pursuivant]

Actually if you could have multiple respawn times for an AI flight would be very cool.

+1. It would save mission builders a lot of work. Create one formation of bombers (or whatever), set it to respawn n number of times every X minutes and you've simply and quickly created an otherwise very time-consuming mission.

Allowing random factors when spawning or respawning AI planes would also be helpful. For example, you could create a bomber stream by having planes spawn around a fixed point at slightly different altitudes and coordinates, traveling at slightly different speeds, but all following the same course and waypoints.

For even more fun, you could have random types of planes or even random altitudes or vectors!

Basic respawn would just require a setting for the number of formations to be spawned and a timer to set the intervals between spawning times.

Randomized respawn would require parameters for the mission builder to set randomness in respawn time, altitude, longitude, latitude, course, airspeed and waypoints.

Totally random respawn would require parameters for the mission builder to set plane lists, loadouts and pilot skill.

Of course, much of this functionality exists in Uberdemon's UQMG ( http://uberdemon.net/index2.html), but it would be cool to see it incorporated into the FMB or even the QMB.

[gauderio]

Please make these changes to pollute less the game screen

ORIGINAL GAME SCREEN

http://oi61.tinypic.com/fo0g2c.jpg

NEW GAME SCREEN

http://oi61.tinypic.com/nqtwy0.jpg

[Pursuivant]

Please make these changes to pollute less the game screen

Moving the HUD messages so they don't "cover the sky" and interfere with spatial awareness would be a good idea. Either they could be moved to the lower right hand corner like in the drawing above, or they could be made to disappear when the pilot's view isn't focused straight ahead (realistic, since the pilot can't see his controls when he's looking to his right or left).

[Derda508]

That´s a really good idea!

[pencon]

What I think would be really cool is actual people manning the guns on the ground , and being able to strafe the crap out of them as they shoot back at me .And destructible environments - buildings etc I know that will probably never happen though sigh .....

[Treetop64]

Please make these changes to pollute less the game screen

Agree 100%. Also a much smaller font, or at least user-configurable font sizes, would be very much appreciated.

[IceFire]

What I think would be really cool is actual people manning the guns on the ground , and being able to strafe the crap out of them as they shoot back at me .And destructible environments - buildings etc I know that will probably never happen though sigh .....

There is a stationary M2 .50cal (both AA and field mount) and MG 42 available for ground mounted machine guns. They do shoot at aircraft if they come into their field of view.

Buildings are already destructible although its a fairly simple setup. Destructible environments such as geometry changes to the ground is probably not possible given the current game engine. It was programmed in the late 1990s remember.

[Feathered_IV]

Agree 100%. Also a much smaller font, or at least user-configurable font sizes, would be very much appreciated.

Definitely. The fonts are still optimised for low resolution monitors of nearly fifteen years ago.

[rollnloop]

Moving the HUD messages so they don't "cover the sky" and interfere with spatial awareness would be a good idea. Either they could be moved to the lower right hand corner like in the drawing above, or they could be made to disappear when the pilot's view isn't focused straight ahead (realistic, since the pilot can't see his controls when he's looking to his right or left).


Another simple idea would be a toggle key, so when you want to check your HUD (because a special control doesn't move in 3D cockpit, like radiator position in most older ones) you can, and when you don't want text you can get rid of it.

[Pursuivant]

Another simple idea would be a toggle key, so when you want to check your HUD (because a special control doesn't move in 3D cockpit, like radiator position in most older ones) you can, and when you don't want text you can get rid of it.

That would be much more convenient than permanently disabling HUD messages in the conf.ini.

[IceFire]

That would be much more convenient than permanently disabling HUD messages in the conf.ini.

Good idea! IL-2 BoS has the exact same feature... tap a button and the HUD and all elements associated with it are hidden from rendering including speed bar, map elements, icons, etc. It all goes away so you can take screen shots or just fly without any extra aids. Press a button and it comes back.

[ElAurens]

Great idea.

[Bearcat]

Bear in mind that you can also customize your HUD messages.. There are certain HUD messages I have totally removed .. I can look out the window to see f my lights are on.. and look at my flapos lever to see where they are.. My radiator is now on a slider so I don't need that info on the HUD either.. Other info can be edited so that say .. instead of Power: 90% it could just read P: 90% ... this is doable now if you have a modded install (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=39099). It isn't quite what is being discussed here but it can unclutter the hud quite a bit. If you want to remove an entry altogether.. like say the Engine On message (prop spinning .. engine on duhh.. ;) ) just remover the text altogether on the right. This way you can customize it to however you want to. Save the file and back it up somewhere and you are good as gold.

[gauderio]

I do not want to remove the hud message. Just want her to be in a better place.
Remove the hud message was not my intention in this idea. Just put it in a better place. Right side down.


sorry my english.

[stugumby]

it seems we are getting closer to some undetermined event, one has to ask are we within the standard always changing 2 weeks yet? A read me soon would be schnizzileite!

[_1SMV_Gitano]

There is no beta yet so I would not hold the breath for two weeks... :)

[stugumby]

Such is life,maybe I will fill the void with mission building. Haven't used the mt or Italy maps. Hope all is well in TD world!

[cperleberg]

Well, this may just be rattling around, but here's a relatively easy something I'd like to see in an update: How about the ability to export the Control Assignment screen to a csv file? I'm currently in the process of assigning hotkeys and sure would like the ability of just generating a list of all the current commands and all the current assignments. Should be relatively easy...

Chris P.+

[JtD]

You basically have that in the users directory already (settings.ini in the relevant user subfolder).

[cperleberg]

You basically have that in the users directory already (settings.ini in the relevant user subfolder).

Well, yes and no. The names given in the settings file look like variable names, not the display names. "Weapon0" in the settings file, for example, is actually Weapon 1. There are a number of other examples. Maybe it's just a matter of adding the strings to the settings file.

[TexasJG]

Just to pass on some news about 4.13,
Sita has posted a brief update on the Russian form Sukhio RU.

Re: 4.13 ... ну вот и Новости ... (http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=81063&page=18&p=2090497&viewfull=1#post2090497)

Sita, If I may take the liberty, I hope with your blessings, I have re-posted your update here for all of us English speaking IL-2 Sturmovik Daidalos Team fans.

I have used "Google Translate" to translate Sita's message into English.
Sorry if it is not correct.

and as far as screenshots ... nuuu ... forgive me .. my colleagues in honor of the holiday ...
I do not know ... that's why it was not stated in the basic update ... (and there is no advertising and I push my vain attempts))) ....
please note that the screens from an early alpha .. so it is not without errors ...

а что до скринов ... нууу... да простят меня мои соратники .. в честь праздника ...
не знаю ... это почему то не было в заявлено в основных апдейтах ... (и это не реклама и мне проталкивание моих потуг)) ) ....
прошу учесть что скрины из ранней альфы..так что не без ошибок ...

[ElAurens]

Needz m0ar P40...


:cool:


Looking great actually.

[Sita]

Lol :D

[Derda508]

Needz m0ar P40...


:cool:


Looking great actually.

Relax, I heard a little bird whisper that the delay is because they decided to release only with all the new P 40s.

[ElAurens]

Thanks!

[Sita]

in those topic on sukhoi was someone else unofficial update

[Treetop64]

Loved the "saddle" in the SB-2's turret lol.

Really looking forward to this update. Thanks! :cool:

[shelby]

WIP???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GByV1_vfvr8#t=59

[Woke Up Dead]

Looks like a flyable U2. For racing the convoys of trucks.

[Sita]

WIP???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GByV1_vfvr8#t=59

yep ... some kind) ... for the some of next patch ...

[ElAurens]

Never seen ground textures like that in the stock sim.

[Sita]

Never seen ground textures like that in the stock sim.

It's Moscow mod map from Oknevas ...

[Juri_JS]

Sita, can you tell us more about the new loadouts for Soviet planes?

At the moment I am working on a DGen night bomber campaign, so I especially like to know which aircraft will get SAB flare bombs.

[Sita]

Sita, can you tell us more about the new loadouts for Soviet planes?

At the moment I am working on a DGen night bomber campaign, so I especially like to know which aircraft will get SAB flare bombs.

something about new load outs you can see there -

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

http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=81063&page=15&p=2062065&viewfull=1#post2062065

about SAB flare ... that ordnance added to USSR bobmers ... almost for all ... except Pe2 if i rightly remember now

for some bombers was widened numbers of load outs .... for example SB m100 became full bomber plane ... not only 6x100

[Woke Up Dead]

The new Soviet bombs look great, the Il-4 with three big bomblet dispersing bombs will be a awesome.

I have another request for bombers, a simple one I think: I'd like the ability to turn off automation to ALL of my bomber's gunners with one button. This will prevent them from firing at targets that are too far for them to effectively hit. Currently you have to jump into each gunner's seat and turn off automation one-by-one, then jump back in to turn it on. Conserving ammo is important in the Soviet bombers, and not advertising your position to everyone within two grids through tracers is important to all bombers.

Thanks,

Woke Up Dead

[Fighterace]

Relax, I heard a little bird whisper that the delay is because they decided to release only with all the new P 40s.

Awesome

[Derda508]

yep ... some kind) ... for the some of next patch ...

So they plan to gon on even after 4.13

Whoopie! THAT is really good news!

[Pursuivant]

I'd like the ability to turn off automation to ALL of my bomber's gunners with one button.

Even better would be a crew command which allows the player to specify the range at which gunners aboard his airplane open fire.

[22GCT_RedBaron]

I can't wait any longer...Please 1SMV_Gitano, 6S.Maraz, tell us something. Thank you very much

[TexasJG]

Cool video!!

[TexasJG]

I cant't wait any longer...Please 1SMV_Gitano, 6S.Maraz, tell us something. Thank you very much

Second, I'm really looking forward to the new heavy iron functions!!

[ElAurens]

You do realize that DT has nothing to do with BoS?

BoS is a totally independent development and only uses the "IL2" name because it is published by 1C who owns the rights for that name.

[ElAurens]

A suggestion for weather conditions.

As we all know, getting a proper cloud deck/overcast is next to impossible to do in the FMB.

"Poor" conditions really are not that bad, but the next step up, "Blind" is just too much.

So, how about when selecting "Poor" weather instead of having the sky be it's usual bright blue, why not make it gray? It would be a far more convincing feeling for poor weather than the broken clouds and blue sky that we currently get with "Poor" selected.

[ElAurens]

A photo to illustrate...

http://imageshack.com/a/img844/5020/pemz.jpg

This screen shot was taken on the Norway map.

Condition set to "Poor", cloud height at 1000 meters. Date, March, 1942, 7am.

Looks pretty nice for poor weather in Norway in March I'd say. Now if the color of the sky was gray instead of blue, it would give more of a total overcast/poor weather effect, without having to add more GPU eating clouds.

Just an idea.

[Fighterace]

When can we see the Readme file for 4.13

[Vendigo]

Can DT revise the scoring system so that a kill is scored even AFTER player's plane has been destroyed, for example when you ram a bomber and it falls after your own plane has already hit the ground then the kill is not scored.
Thanks!

[gauderio]

Another thing i wanted in patch 4.13 is the same War-Birds server system with advancing frontiers and capturable airbases. They did a mod with these options to use with the HSFX 7, but this system is based on Ultrapack 3 FMB.

This would give greater dynamics in the game. This option was added in FMB.
This is possible in 4.13 ?

Please understand that the IL2 1946 is dying, people are migrating to the new simulators (CLOD or BOS) and you need to present really interesting changes to prevent this migration. The 4.12 was a really big step, but more is needed on 4.13

See how the War-Birds mod Ultrapack 3 based works
www.war-birds.com/what_is_warbirds_mod.php
Today this is the server that more attracts players. It's a big, big differential.


Sorry my english again
English by google translator
;)

[IceFire]

Interesting ideas... Still new changes and features won't prevent the migration. Eventually the newer products will take over just as IL-2 took over from the generation of sims before it. It took a while to happen. People have been saying it's dying for 5-6 years now and yet every weekend I can log in to Battlefield1 and see 30-60 players going all day long. Not bad :)

And there's a huge number of folks who play single player only.

[gauderio]

Yes, but forget what i said about migration and focus on the idea of capturable airbases and advancing frontiers. It already exists in the Ultrapack 3 Full Mission Builder, then is possible add this in 4.13
Just want to import this.

I will also ask the same thing for the next HSFX. Someone has to accept this idea. I'm trying to do my part suggesting this.
;)

[Pursuivant]

And there's a huge number of folks who play single player only.

Yep. I think that IL2 strikes the right balance between realism and variety.

And, the fact that it's an old title makes it cheap and easy to run even on a low-end computer. That means it's very accessible to new flight simmers (i.e., annoying teen-aged noobs who will eventually evolve into snarky and cynical hard-core simmers) and to folks in parts of the world which aren't as rich as North America, Europe and Japan. Sarcasm aside, I think that's an excellent thing.

[Sita]

counter-strike 1.6 )))

[TexasJG]

For me, when finally having time to get back into flight simulations,
1) All ready had a purchased IL-2 1946 DVD (actually have all version, including BOS)
2) IL-2 runs beautifully on my machine, BOS won't, & forget DCS world, not even gonna try (until have built a new machine) .
3) No other title even comes close to the scope and content of IL-2 1946 4.12, even more so w/ HSFX

So, IL-2 is going to be on my hard drive for a long while (at least two more weeks).:mrgreen:

[shelby]

the il-2 is the best ww2 sim forever and i hope to see the Polikarpov R-Z in the game

[gauderio]

I requested here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40958&page=54

SAS answered the request.

Now i hope the Daidalos also make this changes on 4.13

HUD Log messages moved to bottom right corner of the screen.
Mod by SAS~Storebror
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=40899.0

:grin:

[TitusFlavius]

See how the War-Birds mod Ultrapack 3 based works
www.war-birds.com/what_is_warbirds_mod.php


WarBirds based on 4.12.2m with HSFX7.02 and NOT on UP3!
Please read the webside again.
http://http://www.war-birds.com/

[gauderio]

WarBirds based on 4.12.2m with HSFX7.02 and NOT on UP3!
Please read the webside again.
http://http://www.war-birds.com/

TitusFlavius, I know, i play on War-Birds server everyday, but THIS FUNCTION IN SPECIAL IS STRACTED BY UP3 SYSTEM. This function does not exist in 4.12 or in HSFX but EXISTS in UP3. This system came from the UP3 adapted for use in 4.12 with hSFX by War-Birds server.
Understand now ? They got this function from UP3 and they created a mod with it to be used in 4.12 with HSFX.
I know my english sucks, but read better what i wrote from the beginning.
;)

see the video (UP3 FMB)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQjEO0NLVpc

[daidalos.team]

I requested here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40958&page=54

We added this two days after you requested it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22994642/HUD_option.jpg

[gauderio]

Oh thanks.
Many people will like it, you'll see.
:grin:

And about my other requests, any chance ?

1 - Effect of the sun in the cockpit as it is in Cliffs of Dover - could be chosen in the "video options" menu (or other menu: Landscape high settings for example, enabling and disabling - Enable effect of the sun - Disable effect of the sun - Is this possible ? Make it on/off in the video options. Who has a modest videocard just might disable the option.)
2 - Add new flyable aircrafts (G.55, Typhoon, Lancaster, Bloch 152, Dewoitine D520...)
3 - New maps (especially English Channel)
4 - Advancing frontiers and capturable airbases

Thanks again.

[Sita]

Effect of the sun -- you mean cockpit self shading?

[Derda508]

We added this two days after you requested it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22994642/HUD_option.jpg

Great! Thanks a lot!

[shelby]

can you add in options menu the limited bombs option separate from the limited ammo option?

[Pursuivant]

We added this two days after you requested it.


Thanks! That's quick service!

[Pursuivant]

can you add in options menu the limited bombs option separate from the limited ammo option?

Or, if you want to make things a bit more complex, three options for limited ammo:

Limited ammo
Limited rockets
Limited bombs/torpedoes

Also, an option to turn off unlimited ammo during a mission would be welcome. That way players could practice bombing, torpedo and rocket attacks as much as they want until enemy planes show up or their plane takes damage, then jettison stores in order to dogfight or flee.

Admittedly, about as realistic as breast implants, but fun!

[Pursuivant]

Effect of the sun -- you mean cockpit self shading?

Or possibly sun glare. I've noticed that sometimes sun glare effects persist in external view when the game is paused, even when you pivot so you're not facing the sun. Not only is it somewhat unrealistic, it also messes up screen shots.

Lens flare effects can be turned off in the conf.ini.

[gauderio]

My english is not good
I referred to this effect

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/11/jan/dover3.jpg

[Oscarito]

Yes! Shadows in the cockpit.
No, unfortunately seems that the old IL2 game engine does not suport this. But Mr. Avala has proposed something called "cockpit shining" in which the cockpit gets brighter or darker depending on the angle of incidence of light. Good effect! Better than nothing. Don't know about the current status of this work, assuming it was not canceled...

[yak9utpro]

11-01-2013, 05:29 PM DT gave us the first info of 4.13 ,now they are still adding more feutures.I hope they stop before the update reaches 10GB how will we ever download it?

[IceFire]

My english is not good
I referred to this effect

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/11/jan/dover3.jpg

That is called "self shadowing". It's actually fairly complex as I've been told to do that unless the 3D engine was designed for it from the start.

[TexasJG]

Thanks Daidalos Team for an Official post!!

[Treetop64]

Wow, speedy response on the HUD info request!

...and no, the game engine does not support self-shadowing. It's just too old. The environment was written before self-showing was even a thing a games, so there you go...

[rollnloop]

Can we have the same option "bottom of screen" for subtitles ? (à la EAW)

A togle key for HUD would be fantastic too, i often don't need the text (read gauges, lever position) but sometimes i need it temporarily when controls don't move in cockpit.

[nic727]

Wow, speedy response on the HUD info request!

...and no, the game engine does not support self-shadowing. It's just too old. The environment was written before self-showing was even a thing a games, so there you go...

Can we mod the engine?

[dFrog]

Can we mod the engine?

You mean re-write the core of the game ? Well, then you can make whole new game, sell it and become damn rich...

[Iszak]

Well, but then there's this fella, Ankor, who activated selfshadowing and bumpmapping in CFS3/WOFF via D3D wrapper library...And the CFS3 engine is even more ancient than Il-2's.....

[nic727]

You mean re-write the core of the game ? Well, then you can make whole new game, sell it and become damn rich...

Maybe Daidalos Team and us can start Il2 1946 on a new engine, but wich one? Home made engine, Unreal Engine, Cry Engine, etc???

lol

But maybe they can tweak the current engine, by changing some stuff from scratch (sorry I'm not a game developper, so I don't really understand how it work)?

[nic727]

Well, but then there's this fella, Ankor, who activated selfshadowing and bumpmapping in CFS3/WOFF via D3D wrapper library...And the CFS3 engine is even more ancient than Il-2's.....

I found that : http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=39599

Look cool

And that : http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3881675/DirectX_8_to_9_converter_updat#Post3881675
(We could have DirectX 11 in Il2 1946 by following the same steps lol)

[IceFire]

Maybe Daidalos Team and us can start Il2 1946 on a new engine, but wich one? Home made engine, Unreal Engine, Cry Engine, etc???

lol

But maybe they can tweak the current engine, by changing some stuff from scratch (sorry I'm not a game developper, so I don't really understand how it work)?

It's fairly "easy" to add things like modified AI parameters or new bomb release settings. Changing the engine is a major undertaking. Consider that Activision has been using the same ID Tech engine technology for Call of Duty games dating back to at least CoD 4: Modern Warfare if not earlier. They only changed the core engine as of this year's November release. That's a half dozen or more years of large team that is highly funded, deciding that a new engine switch was far too big of a task.

Now take that down to a volunteer group of enthusiasts like Team Daidalos. It's just not going to happen.

For a new engine... check out IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad and their Digital Nature engine which they built over several years for Rise of Flight.

[Iszak]

Now take that down to a volunteer group of enthusiasts like Team Daidalos. It's just not going to happen.



Unless they ask Ankor nicely :grin:

[dFrog]

Unless they ask Ankor nicely :grin:

Ha ha ha, with TD's high and mighty approach to others it has to be Ankor who must ask TD if they would like to use his work...

[Iszak]

Ha ha ha, with TD's high and mighty approach to others it has to be Ankor who must ask TD if they would like to use his work...

You mean TD doesn't actively search for ways to make IL-2 better for everyone beyond their own yard? :shock: Is this like their official stance or smth? If so there must be a good reason for it, right? Maybe the contract with 1c/maddox is like a collar and a leash that severely limits their degree of freedom and whatnot?

CFS3 is largely forgotten by Microsoft on the other hand......

P.S. Anyways, I'm just an end-user of their patches, so I shouldn't complain while they keep comin'.

[AnKor]

Well, but then there's this fella, Ankor, who activated selfshadowing and bumpmapping in CFS3/WOFF via D3D wrapper library...And the CFS3 engine is even more ancient than Il-2's.....

Hi! I'm that fella :)
Well, I was wondering why Il2 still don't have such features modded in, but I suppose it is just more difficult to get them working there.
You see, CFS3 graphics engine is very primitive - closer to DirectX 7 than 8, doesn't have any programmable shaders and thus uses very standardized and straightforward set of drawing functions. It was relatively easy to get (almost) all required information out of them without even looking at the engine code.
IL2 on the other hand is very likely to be optimized for its own custom shaders which may make extracting geometry and lighting data more complex. Though I don't really know any specifics, never looked into it.

[Iszak]

Hi! I'm that fella :)
Well, I was wondering why Il2 still don't have such features modded in, but I suppose it is just more difficult to get them working there.
You see, CFS3 graphics engine is very primitive - closer to DirectX 7 than 8, doesn't have any programmable shaders and thus uses very standardized and straightforward set of drawing functions. It was relatively easy to get (almost) all required information out of them without even looking at the engine code.
IL2 on the other hand is very likely to be optimized for its own custom shaders which may make extracting geometry and lighting data more complex. Though I don't really know any specifics, never looked into it.

Thank you sir, for explaining this stuff. If you ever manage to crack it and implement it, you'll bask in forever glory and be praised till kingdom come, with Il-2 community being much bigger than CFS3 and OFF and all. ;)

[AnKor]

I understand about the size of community, but it is unlikely I will be doing anything for IL2 - I don't have much free time and as I know it is primarily played in OpenGL mode and I don't know a thing about OpenGL programming.

[Iszak]

Then maybe your example will inspire someone else to carry the torch! Kudos anyway!

[yak9utpro]

ok why don't TD communicate with ankor to make this game better even only on Direct x mode?

[ElAurens]

Well, because IL2 is totally optimized for OpenGL, and no one that is serious about having the game look good and run at it's best plays it in DirectX.

And frankly, all these visual effects that keep getting asked for, and sometimes added to the old girl, drag it's performance down. My frame rates have taken a hit with the new smoke that was just implemented, for example.

This game engine traces it's roots to the late 90's. There is only so much that can be done with it, and frankly, I'd be happier with more content than eye candy. Like the new P 40s we will be getting, or more maps, or other 3d model improvements.

For now, IL2/46 is still the king of WW2 air combat simulation, though at some point it will be replaced by a newer game, maybe. Currently there is nothing that I am seeing on the horizon that looks to be able to knock IL2/46 off the top of the mountain, but some day that sim will come.

Enjoy the old sim now, while it's at it's peak, and for what it is.

[dFrog]

You mean TD doesn't actively search for ways to make IL-2 better for everyone beyond their own yard ? ...

Exactly.

[Feathered_IV]

Interesting. I remember trying to get the Flanders crowd to try the ENB mod back in the day of OFF version 1. None of them would try it. They all thought I was trying to send them a virus. :???:

[KG26_Alpha]

Introducing shadow shaders in OGL optimization would bring IL2 1946 leaps and bounds forwards.

Even if it were just the cockpits that got the shadow treatment :)

[Tolwyn]

Uh. My card doesn't support OpenGL 2.0. I depend on the game to still be close to the original specs, if you want fancy graphics, maybe CLOD?



Introducing shadow shaders in OGL optimization would bring IL2 1946 leaps and bounds forwards.

Even if it were just the cockpits that got the shadow treatment :)

[gauderio]

Uh. My card doesn't support OpenGL 2.0. I depend on the game to still be close to the original specs, if you want fancy graphics, maybe CLOD?


Because of this we are asking for this option can be enabled or disabled by the user as an option in SETTINGS SETUP. Maybe adding one more option in settings like ULTRA HIGH or as a simple switching SHADOWS ON/OFF
Who want to use, use, who does not want to use, just disable the option. Like any other option in the setup. The user chooses he wants to use this settings or not.


sorry my english.

[Iszak]

Because of this we are asking for this option can be enabled or disabled by the user as an option in SETTINGS SETUP. Maybe adding one more option in settings like ULTRA HIGH or as a simple switching SHADOWS ON/OFF
Who want to use, use, who does not want to use, just disable the option. Like any other option in the setup. The user chooses he wants to use this settings or not.


sorry my english.

What he said.

Your English is good enough to convey your thoughts, don't you worry.

[nic727]

What I saw about AnKor work, we could change DirectX 9 feature in the game like he did with CFS3... Like better water, lighting, smoke shadow, water reflection, self-shadowing, etc.

[majorfailure]

This game engine traces it's roots to the late 90's. There is only so much that can be done with it, and frankly, I'd be happier with more content than eye candy. Like the new P 40s we will be getting, or more maps, or other 3d model improvements.

I'm with you there. I'd bet nearly noone plays IL-2 for its good look by now. The content on the other hand makes it shine. Better to improve that aspect further IMHO.

[ElAurens]

Exactly, because content is the problem with every single "replacement" for IL2 that is currently being developed, or was so.

CloD is still just about 109e vs. Spits and Hurries... Sadly stillborn and a dead end.

DCS WW2, well, maybe in 10 years they might have two or three maps and perhaps 4 aircraft flyable...

BoS, is on thin ice financially, is working against an almost impossible time constraint, and will have very limited plane sets and a single map, and will have to prove itself before I, and lots of others put our cash on the barrel head.

IL2/46 will be the WW2 air combat sim of choice for some time yet.

[IceFire]

ElAuren's is right... Newer products have new and better engines from the get go and that is where the future will be but IL-2 1946 has enormous strength in the variety and depth of detail of content. It will take a successor years to get there.

I will say that I think IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad is the most likely in my mind to succeed. It's launching with 8-10 planes which is about what the original IL-2 Sturmovik launched with in 2001. Give it some time.

[gauderio]

IL2 Sturmovik 1946 interface is almost perfect.
No need to do something different as the clickable panel and other real bullshit they did in Cliffs of Dover. Improve graphics would be enough. The same interface, the same variety of aircrafts and maps from IL2 1946 with better graphics would have a new game a great success.
IL2 1946 should be the basis for any other simulator that wants to succeed.
It's not because i'm accustomed to the controls or the interface. It's because it really is the best system. Here in Brazil we have a phrase for this, something like "should not make changes on the team that is winning".

I do not know if IL2 BOS will be a success. It may seem so at first because it is new, but it is limited. Only one map, only one scenario, only German and Soviet aircraft ... The CLOD is equal and it's boring. I have the CLOD and I refuse to play that crap. And who wants to fly P51 does what ? I like the variety of IL2 1946. I have HSFX and UP3 with DBW. If they can improve the graphics i'll fly the IL2 1946 by another 20 years. No other simulator outperforms the IL2 1946.

sorry my english again ;)

[Derda508]

Well I do have CloD and with all the ATAG Patches it is beautiful. When I want to see nice landscape, and water and when I want to see the sun playing on the control panel, then I fly around with CloD for 10 or 15 minutes.
When I want to have a WW II airwar sim, then I turn on Il-2 1946 and fight on hundreds of maps with hundreds of different aircraft.
And when I am in a fight I really don´t have time to enjoy the landscape or care about some nice little shadows ...

[TexasJG]

Daidalos Team, Thank you for the really great work you have done!!

[seamount]

I hope this is the right place for my post.

First of all thank you Daidalos Team for what you did and what you are doing.

Now what i would like to see in IL2:
I "quick" record my manouvres to see how i perform a barrel roll, hammerhead and landings too but the ntrk never show what i did. in recording of 5-6 minutes it's very bizarre, for instance, that when i go to see the tracks, the plane is not able to re-make the barrell roll I performed, it just begins to roll then stops.
when i land (maybe an almost perfect landing) the plane go half under/into the concrete of the track, etc etc.
when i shoot at a plane, in the playback i see the enemy plane breaking and 1-2 seconds afterward i see the fire of my mg ...

I know many people have the same problems

i think this is a big problem because sometimes it's very funny to see it and maybe create a movie but how to do it with those problems ?
but, more important, i think that to learn "how to" one of the most useful thing is to see how they came on your 6, how they approached you and/or how they react to your attack/defence ... so not just fun/movie etc.

so i really think that it would be very appreciate by the community if it could be fixed

[Treetop64]

The longer a replay is recorded, the lower it's "resolution". It's as if the recording function has a fixed budget of data points. If it's a short one or two minute recording, the data points are very close together and you get very precise replays. If the recording is, say, ten minutes or more, the data points are spread further apart and you see "gaps" in the replay.

[felix_the_fat]

another replay problem may arise thru the weather settings.
Early versions of Il2 did not allow variable wind settings. With later versions though, having turbulence "on" can upset the replay of a track, as the turbulence is newly generated "at random" with each replay, and so differently affects trajectory of aircraft, etc. So, turn weather off, if you want to record.
Felix

[KG26_Alpha]

Uh. My card doesn't support OpenGL 2.0. I depend on the game to still be close to the original specs, if you want fancy graphics, maybe CLOD?

Original game was/is coded for OGL & Dx so no change there.

You can quite happily sit there looking at it unaffected by OGL coding that the rest of us are looking at as it is at present with perfect mode and water 4 (Nvidia) and effects 2 etc etc.

Thats not to say a rework of the Dx8 or Dx9 IL2 1946 is using could be as good or better than OGL
but i suspect a rewrite of the complete game textures would be in order if its optimized for OGL only.

Quite frankly its your choice using a 8+ year old PC.

:rolleyes:

Because of this we are asking for this option can be enabled or disabled by the user as an option in SETTINGS SETUP.
Maybe adding one more option in settings like ULTRA HIGH or as a simple switching SHADOWS ON/OFF
Who want to use, use, who does not want to use, just disable the option. Like any other option in the setup.
The user chooses he wants to use this settings or not.
sorry my English.

Yes all good there.

[Iszak]

Uh. My card doesn't support OpenGL 2.0. I depend on the game to still be close to the original specs, if you want fancy graphics, maybe CLOD?

And what card is that? 3dFX VooDoo? ;)

[Tolwyn]

And what card is that? 3dFX VooDoo? ;)

Geforce 6600.
OpenGL 1.5

[Iszak]

But Geforce 6600 IS OpenGL 2.0/2.1 compatible, so what's the problem? O_o

[IceFire]

Original game was/is coded for OGL & Dx so no change there.

You can quite happily sit there looking at it unaffected by OGL coding that the rest of us are looking at as it is at present with perfect mode and water 4 (Nvidia) and effects 2 etc etc.

Thats not to say a rework of the Dx8 or Dx9 IL2 1946 is using could be as good or better than OGL
but i suspect a rewrite of the complete game textures would be in order if its optimized for OGL only.

Quite frankly its your choice using a 8+ year old PC.

:rolleyes:



Yes all good there.

Actually it's all OpenGL... the DirectX mode is a wrapper only. It'd be interesting to see development of a more modern DirectX mode. It'd open up the door to all kinds of possibilities but its no small task and it would be years in the making.

Another game had a similar kind of experience. FreeSpace 2 was a space combat game that came out in the late 90s. The source was opened by the developers and the community has been busy working on it ever since. The visual effects have come a long way but we're talking a decade worth of open source development done by a pretty hardcore team. I suspect that in many ways that engine is a lot simpler than what IL-2 hooks into.

[shelby]

hope to see mc200 serie1 cockpit

[KG26_Alpha]

Geforce 6600.
OpenGL 1.5

And what card is that? 3dFX VooDoo? ;)

But Geforce 6600 IS OpenGL 2.0/2.1 compatible, so what's the problem? O_o

I'm gonna call him Trollwyn on DD TS next time Im on there lol

:)

Actually it's all OpenGL... the DirectX mode is a wrapper only. It'd be interesting to see development of a more modern DirectX mode. It'd open up the door to all kinds of possibilities but its no small task and it would be years in the making.

Another game had a similar kind of experience. FreeSpace 2 was a space combat game that came out in the late 90s. The source was opened by the developers and the community has been busy working on it ever since. The visual effects have come a long way but we're talking a decade worth of open source development done by a pretty hardcore team. I suspect that in many ways that engine is a lot simpler than what IL-2 hooks into.

Yea I know fella I'm just going through the motions for a certain member here :)












.

[DD_crash]

I am sure that he would appreciate that Alpha :) Tolwyn has threatened to upgrade his puter when he can get someone to do it.

[Pursuivant]

I fly at lot of Quick Combat bomber intercept missions. One single-engined fighter vs. big formations of massed bombers.

That means I inevitably take hits to the front of the plane, usually clustered around the engine and cockpit, even when I use proper tactics.

To see the effects of my gunnery I usually fly in arcade mode. That means I see exactly where the bullets hit - both mine and theirs.

While I've complained about specific fighters being quite vulnerable to attacks from dead ahead before, I now think that it's a generic problem, from Bf-109 to Yak.

1) Frontal armor doesn't seem to be modeled at all for single-engined fighters. That is, armored propeller mounts, armor in front of oil or fuel tanks mounted ahead of the pilot in the nose, armored firewalls between the engine compartment and the pilot, and armor glass to the pilot's front don't seem to slow down bullets at all, even against rifle caliber bullets at several hundred meters of range.

Additionally, the "armoring" effects of bullet penetration through liquid aren't modeled at all.

For example, I regularly get pilot wounded results from bullets which pass through the fuel or oil tank bulkhead/armor, through the oil/fuel tank itself (about 20-30 cm of liquid for an oil tank) and then through the forward firewall armor!

While this is realistic for 20 mm or 0.50 caliber bullets, it seems impossible that a 0.30 caliber bullet could do the same.

PK results usually occur when a bullet goes directly through the armor glass. Again, realistic for a .50 caliber/12.7 mm bullet or a cannon shell, but not so much for a 7.62/.30/.303 bullet, especially at much more than 50 meters range.

2) There seem to be gaps in frontal armor. That is, all the plane models have a slight gap between where the armor plate for the forward firewall ends and the armor glass begins. Often, I get PK results from bullets which pass through the bottom of the cockpit frame between the armor plate and armor glass.

If that's realistic, congratulations to the modelers. I suspect, however, that there would not have been gaps, since engineers and mechanics would have closed them or engineered overlaps between armor plate and armor glass.

3) Engines, especially inline engines, seem to be extremely vulnerable to just about any damage. It doesn't matter what plane you fly, if it's got an inline engine, any hit from dead ahead through the prop boss will usually smoke it.

While this sort of damage is realistic for hits to oil and coolant radiators, and for hits from 0.50 caliber or larger bullets, it seems a bit unrealistic for shrapnel hits at anything other than point-blank range, and for rifle-caliber bullet hits to engines at ranges beyond about 100 meters.

First, the game doesn't appear to model all the parts between the propeller spinner and the engine block (perhaps another 25-50 mm of mixed aluminum, mild steel and tool steel).

Second, it doesn't appear that the game models angle of penetration, chance that the bullet will ricochet or fragment, or the inherent toughness of the engine block itself (perhaps 25-50 mm of cast iron, with about 1/10 the penetration resistance of homogenous rolled armor plate).

Since I'm not sure that the game can model angle of armor penetration, and I know it can't model the exact thickness of each engine block, it seems more reasonable to apply some sort simple penetration reduction modifier based on "angle off" from the gun to the target, which isn't applied at 0 or 90 degrees, and is maximized at 45 degrees. Additionally, there should be some sort of randomized penetration reduction (perhaps 1-20%) for any engine hit to represent chance of fragmentation, ricochet, hits to non-vital parts and the inherent toughness of the engine block.

4) It seems far too easy to blow big pieces off of bombers. For example, my target of choice these days is the Wellington, and despite its notably strong geodesic construction, the damage modeling allows me to blow the entire nose, wing or tail off using just a few 20 mm cannon shells!

The same problem applies to other notably tough aircraft such as the Ju-88, B-29 or B-17.

While I know that parts breaking off is supposed to represent the sort of catastrophic damage that the game can't properly model, it still seems unrealistic for bomber to be torn apart by anything other than a collision with another bomber, severe fire or massive explosion. I find it unrealistic that I can blow the wings off a B-17 or a Wellington with just a few 20 cannon hits.

Would it be possible to model lethal damage to bombers without modeling breaking parts? For example, would it be possible to set the threshold at which the crew bails out of AI planes and the plane becomes unflyable short of the level at which the wings come off?

[ElAurens]

Every inline engine I know of has an aluminum engine block, and I rather think that they are not 1 to 2 inches (25 to 50mm) thick.

However, I do agree that the inline engines are too fragile.

Fly the P40 for a while. I'm sure that the tail gunners could simply use
7.65 Browning Walther PPKs and bring them down with one shot.

[Janosch]

^Would you guys, like, have some raw data, like, you know, logfiles, tracks or screenshots to pass around, so others could verify your claims on the (perceived) shortcomings of damage modeling?

[Pursuivant]

Every inline engine I know of has an aluminum engine block, and I rather think that they are not 1 to 2 inches (25 to 50mm) thick.

I believe that all WW2-era high performance aircraft engines had cast iron blocks and that cast aluminum blocks are mostly post-war. Remember, aluminum was a somewhat scarce resource for many nations during WW2, whereas mild steel was relatively common.

I admit to eyeballing the exact thickness of the engine block using cutaways of Merlin and Daimler-Benze engines. But, remember, inline aircraft engines are big (~3/4 metric tonne, nearly 1 English ton, vs. 200 kilos/300 lb. for auto engines) and are designed to deal with much greater forces than auto engines.

I'm not saying that aircraft engine blocks are bullet-proof by any means, since cast iron is relatively soft and brittle as steel goes. But they're going to be a bit tougher to penetrate than auto engines, which is mostly what you see being shot up by various guns on YouTube.

There are also four different damage states the game engine needs to model for damage effects to inline engines - no functional damage (i.e., pitting of the engine's exterior, but no penetration), penetration of the block around the gearbox (= oil leak and eventual failure or seizure of the engine due to gearbox overheating), penetration of the block around the cylinders (= coolant leak and eventual seizure of the engine due to overheating of cylinders) and the penetration of both the exterior block and one of the cylinders which results in loss of engine compression and a fuel leak in addition to the effects of a coolant leak).

As a variation on penetrating the cylinder, there's also the possibility of damaging one of the pistons, cylinder head or camshafts, or one of the spark plugs or part of the wiring harnes, which would reduce engine compression and possibly cause overheating or engine seizure without the fuel or coolant leak.

Since engines in IL2 are modeled as solid blocks of metal, it seems that the simplest way to model the different types of hits would would just be to assign random percentages of no functional damage, coolant leak, oil leak, fuel leak and compression loss/engine seizure based on bullet energy, with .50 caliber or better bullets having a chance of multiple different hits, but with .30 caliber bullets just getting one type of hit (and with fuel leak/loss of compression/engine seizure hits being very rare).

Given the fluid pressures and temperatures involved, I think that IL2 is realistic, if not a bit generous, in allowing damaged inline engine to survive as long as they do. But, since I'm ignorant about these things I'll defer to others with more experience.

[Pursuivant]

^Would you guys, like, have some raw data, like, you know, logfiles, tracks or screenshots to pass around, so others could verify your claims on the (perceived) shortcomings of damage modeling?

True, if you don't have pictures it doesn't exist!

I will try to upload pictures.

For others who wish to add pictorial evidence, set up a 16 bomber vs. 1 fighter QMB mission and turn arcade mode on.

To prove my point, be sure to use planes with weak rear defensive armament, like the Ju-88A or He-111H, or with massed rifle caliber MG in turrets, like the Wellington.

Use Ace level AI and stupid tactics like hanging out at 100-300 m right behind a bomber formation.

You'll get the results I described soon enough; loads of PK, pilot wounded and badly smoked/seized engines, usually following just a few bullet hits. As a bonus, you'll occasionally get a control cable hit (esp. for the older planes like the Bf-109 or the Soviet fighters) from hits that penetrate the engine and forward firewall.

[Pursuivant]

Pictures

#1: Yak 1B - Pilot arm wound through gap between forward armor plate/engine firewall and cockpit combing at medium-long range.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14424&stc=1&d=1401765054

#2: P-40B just after getting "shot-shotted" at extreme range through the propeller boss by Ace He-111H-2 gunners. Note the remarkable accuracy since the nearest enemy plane is over 700 meters away! (So much for fixing "sniper" AI gunners. :( .) I got the "engine overheat" message within seconds after the hit, and the engine was whining badly indicating that engine seizure was going to happen just a few seconds later. This problem seems to be unique to the P-40 series.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14425&stc=1&d=1401765076

#2 P-40B just after getting shot at medium long range by Ace He-111H-2 gunners at a slight angle off. Engine smoking badly due to oil leak with only a few minutes of life left. The bomber that inflicted the hit was over 300 meters away, just outside of the frame in the upper right hand corner. Note the remarkable grouping of two bullets within 1 foot of each other against a maneuvering target!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14426&stc=1&d=1401765088

Happy yet?

And, mind you, I didn't have to work for these results at all. They represent 3 consecutive missions!

[ElAurens]

Pursivant, you had better do some more research,

The Merlin had an aluminum engine block with steel cylinder liners.

From Wiki:

Basic component overview (Merlin 61)

From Jane's:[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin#cite_note-27)
CylindersTwelve cylinders consisting of high-carbon steel liners set in two, two-piece cylinder blocks of cast "R.R.50 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiduminium)" aluminium alloy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_alloy) having separate heads and skirts. Wet liners, ie. coolant in direct contact with external face of liners. Cylinder heads fitted with cast-iron inlet valve guides, phosphor bronze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor_bronze) exhaust valve guides, and renewable "Silchrome" steel-alloy valve seats. Two diametrically opposed spark plugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark_plug) protrude into each combustion chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_chamber).PistonsMachined from "R.R.59 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiduminium)" alloy forgings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forging). Fully floating hollow gudgeon pins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudgeon_pin) of hardened nickel-chrome steel. Three compression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Compression) and one oil-control ring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piston_ring) above the gudgeon pin, and one oil-control ring below.Connecting rodsH-section machined nickel-steel forgings, each pair consisting of a plain and a forked rod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecting_rod). The forked rod carries a nickel-steel bearing block which accommodates steel-backed lead-bronze-alloy bearing shells. The "small-end" of each rod houses a floating phosphor bronze bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushing_%28bearing%29).CrankshaftOne-piece, machined from a nitrogen-hardened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitriding) nickel-chrome molybdenum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum) steel forging. Statically and dynamically balanced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_balance). Seven main bearings and six throws.CrankcaseTwo aluminium-alloy castings joined together on the horizontal centreline. The upper portion bears the wheelcase, supercharger and accessories; and carries the cylinder blocks, crankshaft main bearings (split mild-steel shells lined with lead bronze alloy), and part of the housing for the airscrew reduction gear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller_speed_reduction_unit). The lower half forms an oil sump and carries the oil pumps and filters.WheelcaseAluminium casting fitted to rear of crankcase. Houses drives to the camshafts, magnetos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_magneto), coolant and oil pumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_pump_%28internal_combustion_engine%29), supercharger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger), hand and electric starters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starter_motor), and the electric generator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_generator).Valve gearTwo inlet and two exhaust poppet valves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poppet_valve) of "K.E.965" steel per cylinder. Both the inlet and exhaust valves have hardened "stellited (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellite)" ends; while the exhaust valves also have sodium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium)-cooled stems, and heads protected with a "Brightray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightray)" (nickel-chromium) coating. Each valve is kept closed by a pair of concentric coil-springs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coil_spring). A single, seven-bearing camshaft, located on the top of each cylinder head operates 24 individual steel rockers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocker_arm); 12 pivoting from a rocker shaft on the inner, intake side of the head to actuate the exhaust valves, the others pivoting from a shaft on the exhaust side of the head to actuate the inlet valves.

The Allison V 1710 also had an aluminum block, as did the Daimler Benz DB series, as did the Hispano and it's Russian copies, etc... etc... etc...

If these large (26+ Litre) engine had been made of cast iron they would have been far too heavy for aircraft use.

[Pursuivant]

The Merlin had an aluminum engine block with steel cylinder liners.

I stand corrected then, and I feel stupid because I looked at that very page and somehow missed the aluminum reference. It also appears that cast aluminum block engines date to WW1 (Hispano-Suiza produced the first one).

Anyhow, that would explain why some inline engines are so vulnerable. Bullets will generally go right through aluminum, although some grades of aluminum make decent armor (the M113 APC had 3/4" of aluminum armor which prevented penetration by most small arms fire).

So, it's not so simple as figuring joules of energy vs. mm of homogenous rolled armor and dividing by some factor to get penetration of cast iron!

[Pursuivant]

More pictures

#1 Bf-109E-4 getting smoked by a Wellington III Ace gunner at medium range (~300 m when hit) from a shot from above. I didn't play it out, but I'd suspect that the engine has 5-10 minutes to live. Also notice two different bursts of MG fire passing extremely close to the plane from other Wellingtons at extreme range (600+ meters). Kind of a poster child for toning down Ace AI gunners, especially since most gunners were trained to hold their fire until the enemy got within 500 m.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14428&stc=1&d=1401771087

#2 Bf-109E-4 getting smoked by a Wellington III at medium range (300 m) by a shot through the prop. Expected engine life 5-10 min.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14427&stc=1&d=1401771087

#3 Same as above but notice the remarkably tight grouping of hits on the Bf-109s nose at 450+ meters!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14429&stc=1&d=1401771087

#4 P-51B flamed by Ace Wellington III gunner at about 200 meters while maneuvering. While the shot doesn't show it effectively, one .30 caliber bullet was sufficient to set the forward fuel tank on fire, and another shot smoked the engine. A better view would have shown the bullet hitting right in the middle of the forward fuel tank. And this wasn't a fire that broke out after fuel hit the engine, the plane was suddenly engulfed in flames.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14430&stc=1&d=1401771087

[Pursuivant]

A couple more pictures of the P-51B's vulnerabilities.

#1: P-51B after getting zapped by the nose gunner of an Ace AI Wellington III at about 200 m range while closing at about 550 kph, so perhaps about 750-800 kph total closing speed. Normally, I'd call this a fair hit - lots of extra energy, close range and I wasn't maneuvering much - except that you'll notice that none of the bullets' trajectories actually directly penetrates the engine block or the cooling system! (The bullet at the top was also glancing.)

Even with a soft aluminum engine block and lots of extra energy on the bullet, there's a good chance that realistically all of those bullets would have ricocheted rather than penetrating.

And, ONE glancing shot was sufficient to instantly seize up the engine. No warning, just a dead engine. Not realistic behavior even for a mortally wounded engine.


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14431&stc=1&d=1401800105

#2 P-51B after getting hit by the tail gunner of an Ace AI Wellington III at 450 m. This one caused a coolant leak, so perhaps 5-10 minutes of engine life.

In addition to a remarkably tight bullet grouping by the quad machine guns (almost no dispersal at all - the bullet in the wing is from the head on pass I took earlier) at extreme range, you'll also notice that the bullet that inflicted the fatal damage penetrates exactly where the P-51 had 1/4" of armor plate! So, either an AP bullet or the armor plate over the coolant tank isn't properly modeled.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachment.php?attachmentid=14432&stc=1&d=1401800123

[Pursuivant]

Despite what I posted above, I think there are some places where shots between gaps in armor are realistic. While complete armor diagrams are hard to come by, especially for Soviet planes, it appear that there could be gaps in armor, especially between armor glass and the forward armored firewall.

For example, on many planes, there is a slight horizontal gap between the firewall armor and the armor glass. This means that shots from directly ahead and slightly above can get through the gap to injure the pilot.

[Tolwyn]

Hey! I'm not trolling!

While it's true that newer Geforce drivers may, on paper, deliver openGL 2.x support, I've tested on a couple machines with the nvidia A7n8x MB and my exact same card and I couldn't for the life of me get the newer Geforce WHQL drivers to "take" forcing me to go back to some older Geforce drivers.

Yes, I've removed the drivers, selected standard VGA and rebooted and tried manually pointing to the *.inf file and also trying to run the nvidia SETUP on the latest drivers. No luck.




I'm gonna call him Trollwyn on DD TS next time Im on there lol

:)



Yea I know fella I'm just going through the motions for a certain member here :)












.

[KG26_Alpha]

Hey! I'm not trolling!

While it's true that newer Geforce drivers may, on paper, deliver openGL 2.x support, I've tested on a couple machines with the nvidia A7n8x MB and my exact same card and I couldn't for the life of me get the newer Geforce WHQL drivers to "take" forcing me to go back to some older Geforce drivers.

Yes, I've removed the drivers, selected standard VGA and rebooted and tried manually pointing to the *.inf file and also trying to run the nvidia SETUP on the latest drivers. No luck.

What operating system ?

[DuxCorvan]

@Pursuivant: Those pics show what the problem really is, and is not engine frailty: it's the incredibly unrealistic gunner accuracy in this game, when most RL reports and accounts testify gunners were more a dissuasive resource than a real threat for pursuing fighters, except at close distance and straight flying.

As I've stated many times gunners in this game -both AI and human- have it too easy to aim and shoot. AI because it cheats, humans because a real gun station would never move as fast, accurately and lightly as a mouse pointer.

If real gunners were so effective, then contraptions like the Defiant would have been a resonant success, and not the failure they were.

[ElAurens]

Good point Dux.

[Pursuivant]

@Pursuivant: Those pics show what the problem really is, and is not engine frailty:

I'm not disagreeing that there is a problem with IL2's gunnery model, but I also think that there are problems with damage modeling, as some of my pictures pointed out - like one rifle-caliber bullet causing an instant fire in a self-sealing fuel tank which was designed to survive exactly such attacks, or instantly making an engine stop.

The ability for gunners to easily track targets is just one of the problems.

* IL2 makes flexible guns much more inherently accurate than they should be, by ignoring natural bullet dispersion over range due to atmospheric factors, and lack of inherent accuracy due to turbulence, slipstream buffeting and airframe vibration.

* Gunners have much better and faster ranging abilities than in real life, especially at long range. Functionally, even experienced turret gunners were useless at much beyond 500 meters. For this reason, experienced gunners held their fire until their targets were within 300-500 yards. Yet, there's an abundance of evidence that IL2 AI gunners are not only opening fire at 700-800 meters, but also score multiple hits!

* IL2 ignores the fact that it's very difficult even for skilled airmen to properly estimate range in the absence of other objects to help judge size, and in thin, clear air at higher altitudes which makes distant objects seem closer than they are. It's also difficult for the human eye to adapt to looking for distant object in the absence of other objects to focus on. Experienced airmen had to focus first on a distant part of the plane, and then start looking for distant foes once their eyes adapted.

* In some cases the game overestimates a gunner's ability quickly to slew a hand-held gun around, especially when when the plane is pulling Gs or is traveling at high speeds and the gun barrels are hanging out in the slipstream.

* 4.12 went a long way towards making gunners less accurate when the plane is maneuvering, it still doesn't go far enough, IMO, to make it difficult for gunners who aren't seated and strapped in to shoot while the plane is pulling Gs.

For example, the gunner in the top turret of the IL-4 had just a "hammock" to sit on, with no back or foot support and no seat belt. How he was supposed to shoot when the plane was doing anything other than flying straight and level is a puzzle.

* IL2 ignores any change of flexible gun or crew "malfunction." Turrets and guns never jam, turret windows don't ice up at altitude, guns never ice up due to cold or overheat after they fire long bursts, and gunners don't need to spend time changing magazines or belts when they run out of ammo. Nor do gunners suffer from frozen or numb fingers, have their goggles fog up, suffer from hypoxia or slip on piles of spent shells at their feet.

* While 4.12 introduced a realistic lag time for gunners to "acquire" their target (that is, detect it, identify it as hostile, calculate a firing solution and aim prior to opening fire), I'm not sure that it's applied evenly, nor is there greater target acquisition time when attempting to shoot targets at extreme (i.e., beyond 300 meter) range.

* AI skill levels for bombers are too "generic" and it's highly unrealistic for an entire bomber crew to have even Veteran level skills, much less Ace level.

For example, in 1942-43, many U.S. bombardiers and navigators never got gunnery training and even graduates of gunnery school got so little effective realistic practice that they had to be retrained once they got to the combat zone. Even worse, until about 1943, many Soviet air gunners didn't get ANY realistic gunnery training!

So, you might have an Average or even Veteran pilot, plus a few Average gunners, and a few Rookies (or even men who were completely unqualified and whose skills are even lower than IL2 currently models).

* Gunners with restricted arcs of fire and limited ranges of motion are far too effective.

For example, I find just about all the gun positions in the Ju-88 or He-111 to be useless at effectively engaging a maneuvering enemy, since they have such limited visibility and arcs of fire. And, for just about all of the gun positions in those planes to engage planes at the extremes of your arc of fire you have to move the gun in such a way that you can't aim.

Realistically, any gunner lying on his belly is also going to have to contort his body to take shots at targets as the edges of his arc of fire which will further harm accuracy.

Based on this, I think that any gun with much less than a 120 degree cone of fire (e.g., most tail gunners in two-seat attack aircraft) should have severe penalties to hit anything other than a non-maneuvering target, both due to the limited ability to track the target before it enters your arc of fire and the limited arc of fire itself.

Despite this, I've regularly taken hits while maneuvering in a single engined fighter from the ventral and rear guns of the He-111 or Ju-88, even at extreme ranges.


* If IL2 wanted to have historically realistic gunnery, Rookie level gunners (i.e., those selected for gunnery training school) would achieve a maximum of 1% hits against a slowly maneuvering target flying roughly at 90 degrees of deflection to the gunner's plane at 250-300 yards while more more less flying in parallel to the gunner's plane - similar to training conditions against target drogues towed by slow-moving target tugs attempting to simulate "combat curve" fighter attacks.

Lesser deflection and less maneuvering would slightly boost hit percentages, faster movement or more maneuvering by the target would drastically reduce hits, as would engaging targets at longer ranges. Closer targets would progressively boost hits, to a maximum of about 5%.

Average level gunners (i.e., graduates of a good gunnery school) would have 2% basic accuracy, Veteran 3% and Ace 5%. These represent realistic hit percentages expected for graduates of late-war USAAF, USN/USMC and RAF gunnery schools, and tests of veteran gunners.

All of these levels assume some level of formal gunner training. Remember, a fair number of gunners had NO training, or such bad training as to represent no real training!

[Aviar]

Another possible solution for dealing with this issue is seperating AI Gunner(s) Skill from AI Pilot Skill. Presently, all planes have one Skill setting. If you want your bomber pilot to have a Veteran Skill setting, all of the AI gunners will also be Veterans.

If you attempt to control the AI gunnery issue by dropping their Skill setting to Rookie, the pilots then become basically useless. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to seperate the two Skill settings, but this addition could have a very positive effect on gameplay.

Aviar

[Pursuivant]

If you attempt to control the AI gunnery issue by dropping their Skill setting to Rookie, the pilots then become basically useless. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to seperate the two Skill settings, but this addition could have a very positive effect on gameplay.

I'm not sure the IL2 game engine would easily allow that change.

Anyhow, I've noticed that Ace bomber pilots seem to collide with each other more than rookies do!

[Tolwyn]

XP

What operating system ?

[Ventura]

Despite what I posted above, I think there are some places where shots between gaps in armor are realistic. While complete armor diagrams are hard to come by, especially for Soviet planes, it appear that there could be gaps in armor, especially between armor glass and the forward armored firewall.

For example, on many planes, there is a slight horizontal gap between the firewall armor and the armor glass. This means that shots from directly ahead and slightly above can get through the gap to injure the pilot.

Please excuse my ignorance since I don't delve too much into the arcade portion that shows the bullet strikes.

Do each one of those bullet lines represent one bullet or a volley? I ask because in game, planes do occasionally fly through a stream of gunfire.

I do agree that larger planes/Bombers tend to fall apart too easily. But given a simplified factor (I'm assuming it's much more complicated) how much more 'tougher' would you make the larger panes closer to a realistic catastrophic failure?

[Pursuivant]

Do each one of those bullet lines represent one bullet or a volley? I ask because in game, planes do occasionally fly through a stream of gunfire.

IL2 models individual bullet trajectories and does a good job of it. Each arrow represents one bullet. "Starbursts" represent fragments generated by explosions.

You can set up arcade mode by setting "arcade = 1" in your conf.ini file.



I do agree that larger planes/Bombers tend to fall apart too easily. But given a simplified factor (I'm assuming it's much more complicated) how much more 'tougher' would you make the larger panes closer to a realistic catastrophic failure?

I'd alter damage models for twin-engined to 4-engined bombers so that wing or fuselage failures only appear if the plane is involved in a collision with a plane of similar size, is hit by an explosive shell of 30 mm or larger, has its bombs or fuel blow up, suffers a prolonged and severe fire (i.e., a massive fuel fire that goes on for at least 5 minutes), goes into a long high-speed dive, or suffers prolonged and extreme g-forces (i.e., in excess of 3 G for at least a minute).

For cumulative damage from 20mm and smaller rounds, and from collisions with small planes, there should be some other mechanism to indicate "the plane doesn't fly anymore". Possibilities include extreme levels of drag or loss of lift, or inability to control the plane due to damage cable runs and control surfaces.

I think that this would be easy to implement, since all the developers would need to do is set an energy threshold required to trigger a particular breaking part effect. As a very rough guess, I'd say that for light bombers and dive bombers this would be .50 caliber, for lightly built medium bombers and transports it would be 20 mm, and for anything bigger it would be 30 mm.

I believe that this is realistic because if you look at film footage of bomber shoot-downs by fighters, the lethal damage is almost always from engine failure, fire, or pilot kills. Rarely, you get a bomb hit or fuel explosion which blows the plane apart. Control surfaces might come off, but the plane itself is never broken apart just by gunfire.

The pictures of bombers you see falling in pieces are due to the plane suffering a direct hit by flak, from its bombs or fuel exploding, or from it being torn apart by air resistance or g-forces.

Remember, the Luftwaffe estimated in 1943 that an average pilot required 20 20mm cannon hits to bring down a B-17 from the rear. There's no way that a B-17 or any other big, heavily built plane (B-29, B-24, Ju-88, Wellington) is going to fall apart after just 5 or so 20mm cannon hits, as I've often seen when flying IL2.

[RPS69]

There's no way that a B-17 or any other big, heavily built plane (B-29, B-24, Ju-88, Wellington) is going to fall apart after just 5 or so 20mm cannon hits, as I've often seen when flying IL2.

I really want to see some proof about this statement.

BTW, some few extintions back, when most of us were young, someone complained against the effect of buzzaw as something missing on il2, when using .50s

but even then, 5 20mm shots to brake a B-17's wing, is absolutelly outstanding in my game experience.

[Buster_Dee]

The B-17 had warren truss rather than spar. It was notoriously hard to bring down if trying to "saw the wing off." The B-24, with large spar, was more accommodating.

[Pursuivant]

The B-17 had warren truss rather than spar. It was notoriously hard to bring down if trying to "saw the wing off." The B-24, with large spar, was more accommodating.

A good example of exactly how the B-24 wing spar would fail under stress is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lioRCye2Dug

About 1 minute in.

The B-17 wing could fail if you got enough cannon shells in just the right place.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/432815-4/B-17F_Destroyed_by_Me-262

Assuming that the caption is correct and the Me-262 was able to "buzz-saw" the B-17's wing at the wing root, rather than just weaken the wing sufficiently that wind resistance and gravity finished the job, that still indicates that it took four closely spaced 30mm cannon hits to take a wing off a B-17!

Perhaps I'm overstating the case that 20 mm or .50 caliber hits should never be able to take the wing off a 4-engined bomber, since in combat anything can happen, but I think it should be a very rare event - perhaps 1 in 100 or 1 in a 1000. Certainly, I shouldn't be able to consistently and quickly take the wings off a B-17 using a Bf-109G firing a few 20 mm shots from 300 m.

What I'd find to be much more realistic is those same bullets starting catastrophic fires that spread, then having the wing fail under stress after a few minutes as the fire softens up the aluminum. Or, have damage that makes the plane enter a spin or steep dive which causes wing failure.

For more lightly-built and smaller planes, the "buzz saw" effect is highly realistic and well implemented in IL2.

[RPS69]

Well... you may cut a B17's wing with 20mm fire from german planes, but this will require a Bf110, or a 190. Doing that with a 109 is absolute suicide. You really need to place a very good burst to acomplish that. It is better to just go for the fire. After they are on fire you may just choose another target.

I ratherly enjoy looking at the planes on fire those 20mm generate, but they go down slowly from it. Only when there is an explosion, and generally in the engines. Also, they need lots of impacts to start a fire.

Self sealing tanks should work fine against machine guns, but against canons their efectiveness will be far less.

One thing I will complain about bombers, it's the high life expectancy of gunners in ALL bombers. It wasn't like that a lot of patches away, but right now, killing a gunner, even on very exposed positions, is much more difficult than before.

[jameson]

Arnie's still flying rear gunner in the IL2 !

[Pursuivant]

Well... you may cut a B17's wing with 20mm fire from german planes, but this will require a Bf110, or a 190.

Like I said, taking off a B-17's wing with 20mm fire should be possible, but quite rare.

Perhaps there could be some sort of tracking mechanism in the game that would register how close various .50 caliber and 20mm hits are to each other and only trigger the most catastrophic effects in big planes if there are sufficient hits within a certain radius.


Self sealing tanks should work fine against machine guns, but against canons their efectiveness will be far less.

Self-sealing tanks were mostly designed to survive hits by shrapnel and single rifle caliber bullets. Also, they didn't seal instantly, so any hit to a fuel tank will result in some leakage. While it should be extremely rare, or even impossible, for a single flak fragment or .30 caliber/7.62 mm bullet to start a fire in a self-sealing fuel tank, a concentrated burst of fire from a .30 caliber MG, a few hits by a 0.50 caliber MG or even a single hit by a 20 mm gun should have the POTENTIAL to start a fire or unstoppable fuel leak. It shouldn't be a sure thing, but he risk should be there

One thing I will complain about bombers, it's the high life expectancy of gunners in ALL bombers.

I have to partially disagree. In comparison to an airplane a human is a small target, and for many gun positions the gunner was an even harder target because he was hidden behind armor or was seated, kneeling or crouching which made him a harder target. So, getting a solid hit on a gunner is quite tricky, especially at range.

But, what I've notice in IL2 playing in Arcade mode, is that the "instant kill" locations on a human figure in the game are tiny. To get a "pilot kill" or "crew killed" result you have to get a head shot - right through the middle of the head. To get a pilot wounded/crew wounded result, you have to hit the torso. I haven't yet figured out the parameters for arm or leg hits, but I think that they only are triggered by hits to the thigh or upper arm.

But, realistically, any hit by a .30 caliber fired from a MG through the neck or torso is likely to result in serious injury or death. Should the victim survive, they are also likely to have serious bleeding and are likely to quickly go into shock due to blood loss and pain. Functionally, that means they're dead, since they're out of combat.

While modeling effects of gunshot wounds is tricky, as a very rough model, the farther you get from the heart and spine, the longer the victim has to survive. If TD wanted to make crew more vulnerable, they could expand the "instant kill" area for .30 caliber bullets to cover the entire head, all of the neck, and line down the torso centered on the spine and extending about 15 cm to each side. While not all of these hits will result in an "instant kill" functionally, the effects are the same.

The exception is that there should be a small chance that rifle caliber bullet hits to the head not kill, but will result in unconsciousness for some period of time. This allows the game to model what happened to Saburo Sakai, and a few other extremely lucky but less famous pilots. But, if this option is implemented, the game would need to have some method of telling the player that the "black screen of death" just represents the pilot being knocked unconscious.

ANY hit by a .50 caliber or larger bullet is likely to render a crewman non-functional, and is almost certainly going to result in immediate death or severe bleeding which quickly leads to death. One of the reasons that .50 caliber is preferred for sniper rifles these days is because just about any hit is likely to result in fatal injury.

Likewise, it doesn't appear that gunners are rendered less effective by any sort of hit other than outright kills (although crew are vulnerable to bleeding. A few times, I've seen delayed "gunner down" messages when playing in arcade mode.) I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that the game engine ignores the effects of wounds to gunners, other than bleeding.

Were the game to properly model arm wounds to gunners, gunners manning hand-held guns would have a very difficult time moving their guns around or holding them steady following an arm hit. Gunners manning turret guns would have difficulty elevating, turning or firing their guns based on which hand was hit.

Leg hits wouldn't be as big a deal for gunners as for pilots, except:

1) gunners who have to stand or kneel to man their guns are effectively out of combat.

2) gunners who must use foot pedals to control a gun turret (e.g., the ball turret gunner on the B-17 or B-24) couldn't elevate or depress their guns.

3) Seated gunners who must use their legs to brace themselves in place would have a much more difficult time firing their guns.

So, Aviar's comment that Arnold Schwarzenegger, in his role as Terminator, is manning all the guns isn't far off the mark!

[Buster_Dee]

I just wanted to point out that the B-17 and B-24 Sperry ball turret pedals didn't control the turret in the way you suggest. The left pedal moved and was used to adjust range to target, as indicated by the site reticule changing in width. The gunner moved his left foot to adjust the "uprights" as needed to keep the target wingspan framed as the enemy got closer. That "told" the computing sight the rate of closure. Using hand grips, the gunner also kept the target framed laterally, "telling" the computing sight how the target was moving left-to-right, etc. The site also received own-aircraft altitude, own-aircraft speed, and it's elevation and azimuth position with respect to own-aircraft.

The right pedal was a footrest. However, some turrets had a back-up foot switch to fire the guns when failures forced the gunner to disengage the drives and crank the turret by hand. I don't think the Sperry ball had that.

[Pips]

I'd just like to hear of some news from the guys. The last time anything was posted was back in January - 6 months ago!

[Buster_Dee]

Pips, I wish I could give you something useful, but I'm just a modeler. Projects are alive and moving from what I can tell. The B-24D Monguse and I built seems in good shape now, but it requires some new tech due to the peculiarities of turbine-assisted supercharging and semi-automated mixture control found in US heavies. We had not crossed that bridge before. Computing gun and bomb sights have opened their own challenges.

Please bear with us.

[gaunt1]

In comparison to an airplane a human is a small target, and for many gun positions the gunner was an even harder target because he was hidden behind armor or was seated, kneeling or crouching which made him a harder target. So, getting a solid hit on a gunner is quite tricky, especially at range.

The common tactic of LW and Hungarian fighters was to kill the rear gunner of IL-2s first. It resulted in extreme casualties amongst gunners. It wasnt easy of course, but also not that so difficult.

Anyway, I also agree, B-17 and B-24, maybe even He-111 should be much harder to shoot down. In fact, they arent much more durable than La-5/7, and definitely less durable than IL-2!

[ElAurens]

Pips, The B-24D Monguse and I built seems in good shape now, but it requires some new tech due to the peculiarities of turbine-assisted supercharging and semi-automated mixture control found in US heavies. We had not crossed that bridge before. Computing gun and bomb sights have opened their own challenges.

Please bear with us.

Interesting, as the P 47, which we have had for a very long time, is also turbo-supercharged, and all late US aircraft have the "auto rich" and "auto lean" feature, as do many British aircraft.

I'm guessing this means they have been incorrectly modeled all along?

And thanks to you and Monguse for the tireless effort on that beautiful B 24.

[IceFire]

Interesting, as the P 47, which we have had for a very long time, is also turbo-supercharged, and all late US aircraft have the "auto rich" and "auto lean" feature, as do many British aircraft.

I'm guessing this means they have been incorrectly modeled all along?

And thanks to you and Monguse for the tireless effort on that beautiful B 24.

Very good point. I wonder if any of this might have an impact on the P-38 or P-47 as well.

[Buster_Dee]

Shows you why I'm only a modeler lol. I don't think turbine supercharging was ever actually modeled (e.g., no axis for variable adjustment). I don't fly much, but I have the impression that Auto-Rich and Auto-Lean were never really done either. The advantages are high altitude and long range, neither of which is very appealing to the average player. On the other hand, Auto-Lean could really stretch a light fuel load, letting you carry more bombs--provided you know enough to avoid cooking the engines.

I need to get back to my paper airplanes. Lord knows I'm out of my depth here ;)

[IceFire]

Shows you why I'm only a modeler lol. I don't think turbine supercharging was ever actually modeled (e.g., no axis for variable adjustment). I don't fly much, but I have the impression that Auto-Rich and Auto-Lean were never really done either. The advantages are high altitude and long range, neither of which is very appealing to the average player. On the other hand, Auto-Lean could really stretch a light fuel load, letting you carry more bombs--provided you know enough to avoid cooking the engines.

I need to get back to my paper airplanes. Lord knows I'm out of my depth here ;)

Most of us probably are :) I know of maybe a handful on the forums here and elsewhere that truly understand all of the mechanical bits and pieces and how they affect performance. The rest of us have a passing understanding at best.

Laying out some B-24 missions and it's great to hear that development is getting there.

[ElAurens]

Can't wait to put that early Liberator on my Aleutians scenario.

[Buster_Dee]

Can't wait to put that early Liberator on my Aleutians scenario.

Me too. I've been under the hood for so long that all I want to do is watch someone else do something with it for a change.

[Royzewic]

Anybody know the release date? I know itis on the way, but do they know when they will give it to us?

[kennel]

Anybody know the release date? I know itis on the way, but do they know when they will give it to us?

No idea we all need to be patient

[Janosch]

Anybody know the release date?

24th of June, said the little bird. No hurry.

[Ventura]

24th of June, said the little bird. No hurry.

Coincidence? or ever the court jester as it's 'two weeks for sure' !;)

[daidalos.team]

Anybody know the release date?

When ready.

There is no release date set within the team.

The only user, posting a release date, or any other DT-related news, which can be 100% trusted is this one.

Anyone else is just trolling, or speculating.

[nic727]

No news since January :(

I'm dying!!!

[wWwebBrowser]

Hello daidalos.team

I don't know how much you know, but could you give us a unofficial "read me" of features that you 80% think have been implemented? Things that were under serious consideration last contact with the DTModers, Thank you.

I am looking forward to seeing how much they improve on the game, 4.11 to 4.12 was a lot as far as options and game smoothness went, And I have confidence that this patch will equal or exceed that.

Thank you again

[IceFire]

No news since January :(

I'm dying!!!

You should get that looked at! :cool:

[Royzewic]

Hi everyone and the Team! I experienced the Lavochkins are so... bugged or something, when they climbing vertical they still getting energy for 1-2 seconds, or don't lose any at least.
I'm playing IL-2 1946 since 3 years, told to myself -No, it cannot be- and other vulgar words in my language, but it's very annoying. So, please fix this flight model if is there a way.

Best Regards:
Royzewic

[Treetop64]

Hi everyone and the Team! I experienced the Lavochkins are so... bugged or something, when they climbing vertical they still getting energy for 1-2 seconds, or don't lose any at least.
I'm playing IL-2 1946 since 3 years, told to myself -No, it cannot be- and other vulgar words in my language, but it's very annoying. So, please fix this flight model if is there a way.

Best Regards:
Royzewic

Lol...

This is an old, old, OLD issue. Like, about a decade old. It's a legacy of one of Oleg's super-mega-ultra-uber-performing Lavochkin FMs. The La-7s in particular were all but unstoppable. It was normal for AI (and even a live player in cases) to sustain high-speed bat turns and steep climbs without losing much energy at all. In addition, they were nearly indestructible. I can't count how many jokes were made about "Soviet Stronkest Delta Wood is Bestest!" in the old Ubi forums.

Believe it or not, what we have now is actually a toned-down version of the old Lavochkin's FM; it's not nearly as OP now as it used to be, though it is still quite formidable. In reality, the La-7 was a very strong and dynamic aircraft, more than a match in a dogfight against even the FW-190s. Not sure how well the relative performance between the two is represented in the sim, but now it is generally considered acceptable by many in the community (either that, or we simply got tired of making noise about it over the years lol), considering what Luftwaffles had to contend with before...

Sorry if that doesn't help your concerns, but I just thought it was a funny topic that brought up a lot of interesting memories and topics. :)

[gaunt1]

Hi everyone and the Team! I experienced the Lavochkins are so... bugged or something, when they climbing vertical they still getting energy for 1-2 seconds, or don't lose any at least.
I'm playing IL-2 1946 since 3 years, told to myself -No, it cannot be- and other vulgar words in my language, but it's very annoying. So, please fix this flight model if is there a way.

Best Regards:
Royzewic

Also, it is impossible to stall/spin with La-5FN. It really looks like there is a strong bias towards Lavochkins, they are the only aircrafts in the game that still have that exaggerated flight models. From the russian side, Yaks are very well modeled (except Yak-9U, a little bit too fast), so Lavochkins should be fixed to match historical accuracy. There are quite detailed test reports available from NII VVS, these should be used as reference.

[IceFire]

Lol...

This is an old, old, OLD issue. Like, about a decade old. It's a legacy of one of Oleg's super-mega-ultra-uber-performing Lavochkin FMs. The La-7s in particular were all but unstoppable. It was normal for AI (and even a live player in cases) to sustain high-speed bat turns and steep climbs without losing much energy at all. In addition, they were nearly indestructible. I can't count how many jokes were made about "Soviet Stronkest Delta Wood is Bestest!" in the old Ubi forums.

Believe it or not, what we have now is actually a toned-down version of the old Lavochkin's FM; it's not nearly as OP now as it used to be, though it is still quite formidable. In reality, the La-7 was a very strong and dynamic aircraft, more than a match in a dogfight against even the FW-190s. Not sure how well the relative performance between the two is represented in the sim, but now it is generally considered acceptable by many in the community (either that, or we simply got tired of making noise about it over the years lol), considering what Luftwaffles had to contend with before...

Sorry if that doesn't help your concerns, but I just thought it was a funny topic that brought up a lot of interesting memories and topics. :)
Indeed, the situation was much worse and got quite a bit better. I think the G limit modelling implemented by TD had the largest effect on the aircraft as it can still technically perform the bat turn but it will break the airframe doing it. Also the German planes got some much needed love as well.


Also, it is impossible to stall/spin with La-5FN. It really looks like there is a strong bias towards Lavochkins, they are the only aircrafts in the game that still have that exaggerated flight models. From the russian side, Yaks are very well modeled (except Yak-9U, a little bit too fast), so Lavochkins should be fixed to match historical accuracy. There are quite detailed test reports available from NII VVS, these should be used as reference.
I wouldn't mind a look at the La-5/7 series FM again. The problem with the La-5FN not stalling I believe is to do with elevator authority. Every other La-5/7 can pull quite a bit harder but also stall... so in some ways the La-5FN is a bit handicapped although in some ways its a benefit as it artificially prevents the pilot from stalling it seriously. It also reduces its peak ability.

[gaunt1]

I wouldn't mind a look at the La-5/7 series FM again. The problem with the La-5FN not stalling I believe is to do with elevator authority. Every other La-5/7 can pull quite a bit harder but also stall... so in some ways the La-5FN is a bit handicapped although in some ways its a benefit as it artificially prevents the pilot from stalling it seriously. It also reduces its peak ability.

Well, maybe you are right, but still, when I tested the maneuverability of the La-5FN, versus an ace AI A6M2, I couldnt outturn the Zero, but I definitely could keep up with it. In a red vs red test, Yaks had no chance in a turning fight vs La series. The Yak-3 was close, but still not enough. The La-5 was good, that cannot be denied, but not THAT good.

[IceFire]

Well, maybe you are right, but still, when I tested the maneuverability of the La-5FN, versus an ace AI A6M2, I couldnt outturn the Zero, but I definitely could keep up with it. In a red vs red test, Yaks had no chance in a turning fight vs La series. The Yak-3 was close, but still not enough. The La-5 was good, that cannot be denied, but not THAT good.

Somewhat unrelated may be the turn times being a little too low.

The trick with the Yak is that although it's a good turner (and generally gets better as the series goes on) the best turn speed is at a medium speed around 300 or 350kph. Keep it at that speed and you can out turn any opponent that the Yak is likely to face in a historic battle.

The La-5FN seems to turn well at more speeds... which may be an error. I'm not sure. It is a top performer which I wouldn't want to take away from it. But it would probably benefit from a close look.

[gaunt1]

Correct me if Im wrong, but I read somewhere (dont know where, it was long ago) that the Lavochkin's initial turn rate was excellent, but sustained wasnt that good. Still much better than 190, and comparable to 109G. So unlike Yaks, it wasnt a true dogfighter, but had incredibly good low altitude speed performance, and it was best employed as an energy fighter.

Concerning speed performance:
From NII VVS tests (most reliable source I think), it is revealed that low altitude performance (up to 3000m) is more or less OK for La5/F/FN, ingame but above that, they are either too fast (15-20km/h - La-5FN, 20km/h - La-5) or way too fast (30km/h - La-5F) And this is if we compare the best performing aircraft tested by NII VVS and what we have ingame.

Real turn rates are 1-1.5 seconds worse that ingame. This sounds insignificant, but it isnt.

La-7 is a different beast, which was definitely far superior to any german plane. We would need an additional 1944 version, with lower performance as in NII VVS tests.

[Pursuivant]

Here's two "eye candy" options for multi-crew planes:

1) The ability to order specific AI crew to bail out without triggering a full-crew bailout. That is, you could order just the bombardier or tail gunner, or both, to bail out.

2) The ability for a player controlled crewman to bail out without triggering a full-crew bailout. That is, you as tailgunner could bail out leaving the rest of the crew behind.

The first option is a nice bit of eye candy for bomber pilots who want to give badly wounded and bleeding crew a chance of surviving, albeit it possibly in captivity.

Historically, it wasn't uncommon for Western Allied bomber crew over Axis-occupied Europe to bundle their grievously wounded colleagues into their parachutes and toss them out the escape hatch. The idea was that the wounded man was almost certainly going to die if he had to spend many hours at high altitude before he could get medical care, whereas the Germans might take pity on him and save his life if he survived the parachute drop.

Another reason for the first option is to simulate the heroic bomber pilot who orders everyone out of the plane except for himself prior to attempting to land a badly damaged plane, or orders everyone else out while he attempts to keep a mortally wounded plane flying prior to bailing out himself.

The second option is sort of silly, but I guess it would allow players to quit a mission without ending it.That way you could still watch the action from your parachute or some other view. For online players, bailing out would be slightly less of a dick move than just logging out of the server.

Either option could also be used to simulate secret agent drops, with a particular crewman actually being a spy/partisan. It would allow any bomber that doesn't have a dedicated paratrooper loadout to drop a few parachutists.

[nic727]

Two months left?

[Pershing]

Any news about 4.13? Should we hope or already not?

[Tempest123]

When ready.

There is no release date set within the team.

The only user, posting a release date, or any other DT-related news, which can be 100% trusted is this one.

Anyone else is just trolling, or speculating.

Thanks for update, I'm reeeeaaalllly wanting to take a B-24 out for a spin.

[SPEKTRE76]

Hey TD Dev's, got a couple of quick suggestions for you on the upcoming patch.

First Suggestion: Aircraft/Ships/Vehicle/Objects/Target sorting (including stationary). --- Can you please make it to where we can select aircraft or other objects for use in the QMB/FMB something like this: Allies > US > Navy > Fighters > F4U-1a. Objects> Buildings > Airfield > US Hangar

Second Suggestion: Manual Landing Gear: --- Can you re-code to make it to where all I have to do is hold down a key on my keyboard Instead of repeatedly punching it several times.

Third Suggestion: Amount of objects at one time to add --- Make it possible to add as many as 32 aircraft/vehicles/ships/personnel at one time in the FMB. Because frankly 4 at a time just gets crazy with the amount of clicking we have to do.

*side note it would be cool to actually have historic levels or aircraft on the carrier. 8 on deck to spawn and the rest spawn inside and get brought up by the elevator.


--

[RayVad]

Second Suggestion: Manual Landing Gear: --- Can you re-code to make it to where all I have to do is hold down a key on my keyboard Instead of repeatedly punching it several times.

Why would you want to have that?!
All you need to do if you would like to have this, is to program a controller to repetitively sent these key presses.
Personaly i like the manual gear for some planes. It keeps you busy as would be in real during take-off or landing :)

A quick seach on internet did return this if you do not have special controllers. Maybe you can give it a try:
http://www.computerhope.com/tips/tip209.htm
http://www.autohotkey.com/

Cheers,
Ray

[Treetop64]

Hey TD Dev's, got a couple of quick suggestions for you on the upcoming patch.

First Suggestion: Aircraft/Ships/Vehicle/Objects/Target sorting (including stationary). --- Can you please make it to where we can select aircraft or other objects for use in the QMB/FMB something like this: Allies > US > Navy > Fighters > F4U-1a. Objects> Buildings > Airfield > US Hangar

Second Suggestion: Manual Landing Gear: --- Can you re-code to make it to where all I have to do is hold down a key on my keyboard Instead of repeatedly punching it several times.

Third Suggestion: Amount of objects at one time to add --- Make it possible to add as many as 32 aircraft/vehicles/ships/personnel at one time in the FMB. Because frankly 4 at a time just gets crazy with the amount of clicking we have to do.

*side note it would be cool to actually have historic levels or aircraft on the carrier. 8 on deck to spawn and the rest spawn inside and get brought up by the elevator.


--

Not really sure adding more layers in the FMB menus is terribly necessary. More trouble than it's worth, really. Once you use the FMB a few times you become very familiar where most everything is anyway.

As for the gear suggestion: Manually operated gear was a relatively labor-intensive procedure, and repeatedly pushing a key is a good way of simulating this. The suggestion of simply holding down a key for a few seconds in this regard is pointless, and defeats the purpose. Now, on the other hand, your suggestion would be an excellent idea for some of the Russian aircraft, where the pilot actually had to hold a controller in place to fully actuate the gear and flaps; that is something I would love to see implemented!

[Pursuivant]

Not really sure adding more layers in the FMB menus is terribly necessary.

It would sure help the learning curve, though!

If not sub-menus, then possibly a search option or an auto completion feature, so that you can type "Jadgpanther" or just "Jadgp" and you're taken to the first relevant option.

Spektre's idea about allowing more than 4 objects to be placed is good, especially if it allows you to do things like place an entire tank company, artillery battalion or heavy bomber wing in historical formation with one click.

It would also be cool if you could add your own custom formations to the FMB, to simulate specialized formations. That would save the trouble of having to reenter the information or mess with cutting and pasting information from other missions.

As for the gear suggestion: Manually operated gear was a relatively labor-intensive procedure, and repeatedly pushing a key is a good way of simulating this.

It also gets the time required about right.

In some cases, manually operated gears could be dangerous. For example, in the F4F, if the landing gear wasn't locked (or even if it was but the forces were extreme) under G-forces the gear could extend violently, and the spinning crank handle could injure the pilot's leg! Experienced F4F pilots learned to position their leg to keep the crank from spinning before they entered a high-G maneuver which was likely to make the gear extend.

Now, on the other hand, your suggestion would be an excellent idea for some of the Russian aircraft, where the pilot actually had to hold a controller in place to fully actuate the gear and flaps; that is something I would love to see implemented!

+1 on this idea!

[IceFire]

I like the idea of a search function but I'm not sure I would welcome the added menus. This might be power user versus casual FMB user but adding that many menus would slow me down.

I do like the idea of a formation building function. So you could specify 12 or 16 bombers or something like that and then you told them to hold a box formation. That'd be nice!

I'm not sure how much reworking would be required to do that...

[Tempest123]

Second Suggestion: Manual Landing Gear: --- Can you re-code to make it to where all I have to do is hold down a key on my keyboard Instead of repeatedly punching it several times.
--


Well its annoying but I like that it was added because it shows me that the dev's paid attention to detail and were interested in trying to replicate a hand crank.

[SPEKTRE76]

Suggestion: Mixed Battery gun configuration

Detail: It has been a historic fact that the F6F-5 Had a mixed battery of four 12.7mm machine guns and two 20mm cannons on the inner wings. While only some were manufactured with all six as 12.7mm. I have attached a snap shot from the Naval Historic Center that details this along with some VERY helpful flight data information which would aid in a more improved flight model. Classname could be F6F-5mb


PM me if you want the whole article. I have to e-mail due to forum upload limitations.


http://s7.postimg.org/8kl131dpn/Capture.jpg
http://s8.postimg.org/tc6qu1yph/Capture.jpg

[Pursuivant]

It has been a historic fact that the F6F-5 Had a mixed battery of four 12.7mm machine guns and two 20mm cannons on the inner wings.

This would make a very cool mod, but I believe that any official improvements or changes to Northrop-Grumman planes are off limits due to the consent decree.

[IceFire]

Suggestion: Mixed Battery gun configuration

Detail: It has been a historic fact that the F6F-5 Had a mixed battery of four 12.7mm machine guns and two 20mm cannons on the inner wings. While only some were manufactured with all six as 12.7mm. I have attached a snap shot from the Naval Historic Center that details this along with some VERY helpful flight data information which would aid in a more improved flight model. Classname could be F6F-5mb


PM me if you want the whole article. I have to e-mail due to forum upload limitations.


http://s7.postimg.org/8kl131dpn/Capture.jpg
http://s8.postimg.org/tc6qu1yph/Capture.jpg
We're any standard F6F-5s equipped with this mixed armament? I've seen dozens and dozen's of pictures of Hellcats and never seen this on a regularly equipped F6F-5. The F6F-5/N with radar pod was equipped in such a way.

Also not sure if we can make modifications to any thou shall not be named aircraft manufactured by this company...

[Pursuivant]

We're any standard F6F-5s equipped with this mixed armament? I've seen dozens and dozen's of pictures of Hellcats and never seen this on a regularly equipped F6F-5. The F6F-5/N with radar pod was equipped in such a way.

Presumably, the U.S. Navy first did tests with the mixed 20mm cannon/0.50 caliber MG armament, and then added the radar pod to make the nightfighter variant, so "day fighter" versions of the F6F-5 with mixed armament existed.

Even if this variant never made it past the testing ground, it's still a cool idea, and would make Hellcat a more effective bomber interceptor.

But, like I said, it's a cool MOD idea. DT can't touch it due to the consent decree. Talk to the excellent people at SAS or Free Modding.

[nic727]

Can we have an update?
We have nothing since January. :(

[TexasJG]

A Request for,
FoW option for recon spotted units (ground, ships, aircraft, etc.) to stay on the map for x amount of time after the recon plane moves out of the range it can spot the unit. And even better, a time stamp option adjacent to the spotted units icon on the map, and also, along with options for the units type, heading and speed stamp as of the last sighting adjacent to the spotted units icon.

[Pershing]

can we have an update?
We have nothing since january. :(

+100500

[nic727]

Can we have pictures, videos or something else?

I'm dying!!!!!!!!!

[Spartan18a]

Dear Team Daidalos,

I know that you were offered and accepted the He112 and that you will included it in one of your new patches. I would like to ask you if it will be in the 4.13 or 4.14.

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,28629.0.html

Thanks a lot and keep on with this amazing simulator :-P

[Sita]

like i said on SaS you need ask not DT ... ask Author of model ...

as far i know author of he112 have conversation with DT some about year ago ... model was checked and given some advice to author of model ... from that time i can't see any movement ...

would be really good if work on that plane will be continue ...

all possible... but most likely in 4.14 ...

[BadAim]

Presumably, the U.S. Navy first did tests with the mixed 20mm cannon/0.50 caliber MG armament, and then added the radar pod to make the nightfighter variant, so "day fighter" versions of the F6F-5 with mixed armament existed.

Even if this variant never made it past the testing ground, it's still a cool idea, and would make Hellcat a more effective bomber interceptor.

But, like I said, it's a cool MOD idea. DT can't touch it due to the consent decree. Talk to the excellent people at SAS or Free Modding.

From my recollection, the 20mm's gave a lot of trouble at higher altitudes due to the actions freezing. The only Hellcats I have ever read about using the 20's were the night fighters, as they were intended to be bomber interceptors and it was considered worth the trouble to use the cannons (The base where they were trained is close to me and I have a book that is locally published that goes into great depth on the subject). Otherwise the light construction of the typical Japanese aircraft rendered the 20mm not worth the trouble.

All of that said, I also think we'll have to look to the mods to make this a practical addition to IL2.

[Deagle_Bubi]

When 4.13:confused:
In 2 weeks:twisted:

[nic727]

When 4.13:confused:
In 2 weeks:twisted:

Maybe they are skipping 4.13 to do 4.14?

[HW3]

Maybe they are skipping 4.13 to do 4.14?

Maybe they just shelved the whole thing, and moved on to a different project. We haven't had an official update since mid January, and it is the end of July now.
:confused:

[KG26_Alpha]

e-mail them and see if they need help with anything ............

:)

[Juri_JS]

e-mail them and see if they need help with anything ............

:)

My last two e-mails to TD, in which I had offered some additional data for the units lists, weren't answered, so I guess they are no longer checking their mail account.

[Sita]

believe me ... they are here ... they are read ... but not have enough strength answer to everyone ....

4.13 really almost finished ... team have not anything new to show ... some small features which invisible to the naked eye.... nothing Huge and exciting like B24 or something similar ...

[nic727]

My last two e-mails to TD, in which I had offered some additional data for the units lists, weren't answered, so I guess they are no longer checking their mail account.

So sad that I don't know how the whole thing work. I would like to help, but if it's dead, it's sad :(

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

Patience is a virtue gentlemen, the average length of time between TD patches has been 15-17 months. Unless I'm mistaken it's only been 9 months since 4.12 was released. So I would suggest that we still have some time to enjoy the sights and sounds of all we have prior to the next round of mission updates needed to account for all the new content.

[Sita]

5 year without stopping .. it's hard ...

did you know that collect of content for 4.13 was started the day after release of 4.12

[FA_Retro-Burn]

Life always gets in the way

[RPS69]

Frequent patches are nice, but when you run long campaigns, they are a nuisance.

Anyway, it will be good to show some future activity without promissing nothing, just to keep people interested.

Any TD post will generate at least 300 answers inside some tenths of topics.

[Oscarito]

I think the "Impatience meter" concerning to a new update release ranges in accordance with how much people play the game.
Current average time between updates is quite good for me, considering that real life commitments cause that I usually play only some few hours weekly, and two weeks or more without playing is a common instance.
Given this, I find myself still enjoying features from the last update when the new one is being released.
And considering that those guys are offering everything as a pleasant gift I must say that I'm very satisfied!

[KG26_Alpha]

My last two e-mails to TD, in which I had offered some additional data for the units lists, weren't answered, so I guess they are no longer checking their mail account.

Yea I said "help with anything" and not "your thing" :)

I'm sure there's read me's that needs language checks or some mission testing needed to make sure everything debugged correctly perhaps ?

&

Better to offer help than sit here bleating like sheep "wheres v4.13" etc etc etc

:)

So DT is there anything we can help you with ?

[Sita]

As far i know Juri_JS is work in some kind cooperate with Asura in his new Dgen engine ... i think in his letter was somthing interesting ...

[Sita]

So DT is there anything we can help you with ?


help with that http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=192349 )))

[Janosch]

Apart from mountains and hills, all the maps in Il-2 are flat. However, in real life, the Earth is more or less round, so for 4.13 all the maps should be slightly curved as well.

[Igo kyu]

Apart from mountains and hills, all the maps in Il-2 are flat. However, in real life, the Earth is more or less round, so for 4.13 all the maps should be slightly curved as well.
I know what you mean, but it probably can't work with the game engine. The altimeters, and the air pressure, probably work on the height above a flat plane, if you curved the map in the middle the height at ground level would probably be above the service ceiling of most aircraft.

[RPS69]

I know what you mean, but it probably can't work with the game engine. The altimeters, and the air pressure, probably work on the height above a flat plane, if you curved the map in the middle the height at ground level would probably be above the service ceiling of most aircraft.

No way!!

A curveed horizon effect at higher altitudes would be enough, and it is allready there.

I really wish to kow how much altitude difference there will be on our maps sizes in between map borders and map center... actually is not that difficult to calculate, but it won't improve the game a bit.

The only advantage I could imagine is getting lost behind the horizon flying low, but that distance is far greater than 10Km, so, I don't see the point.

These are not jetliners, they are short range fighters, and attack aircraft, on reduced scale maps.

[julien673]

Its is the must important think ? Seriously !

[Treetop64]

Apart from mountains and hills, all the maps in Il-2 are flat. However, in real life, the Earth is more or less round, so for 4.13 all the maps should be slightly curved as well.

Arguably too far beyond the practicality scale to be a worthwhile implementation for the majority of maps in the game, save for the Solomons and similarly ginourmous maps. Even then - unless your're flying up in the "direct-to" business jet flight levels of FL380 and higher - the visual difference would be negligible. Also, the way the game models visibility would have to be rebuilt. Not really worth the trouble.

Also, "more or less round"...? Lol.

The south pole is more or less cold... :-P

[Igo kyu]

Also, "more or less round"...? Lol.

The south pole is more or less cold... :-P
It's an imperfect sphere:

This bulge results from the rotation of the Earth, and causes the diameter at the equator to be 43 km (kilometer) larger than the pole-to-pole diameter.

It is very close to the ideal sphere.

[nic727]

It could be nice to have a patch where you can play without disc :)

[Pursuivant]

It could be nice to have a patch where you can play without disc :)

I'm not sure that TD are allowed to mess with copy protection features.

Anyhow, the mod that allows you to play without using a disc is readily available. It's a tiny file that overwrites the stock file and has no other effect on game play. It also appears to be stable even when older versions of the mod are added to newer patch versions.

While these days I play an otherwise stock version of the game, I still use the no CD mod for convenience and to save wear and tear on my original game discs.

[DuxCorvan]

It could be nice to have a patch where you can play without disc :)
Just buy the game at GOG. It's just ten bucks (when it is not in a sale, then is even cheaper), and it's an updated, DRM-free copy you can download anytime, anywhere, and play.

[nearmiss]

Just buy the game at GOG. It's just ten bucks (when it is not in a sale, then is even cheaper), and it's an updated, DRM-free copy you can download anytime, anywhere, and play.

Who is GOG. I would like to recommend non-steam version to a friend.

[IceFire]

Who is GOG. I would like to recommend non-steam version to a friend.
Good Old Games: http://www.gog.com/

[nearmiss]

That GOG.com sounds fine, but he want's it today. Anyone know where can get a download version of Il2 Sturmovik 1946 - non steam?

[Pfeil]

That GOG.com sounds fine, but he want's it today. Anyone know where can get a download version of Il2 Sturmovik 1946 - non steam?

GOG(Good Old Games) only does downloads, go to this page (http://www.gog.com/game/il_2_sturmovik_1946) to buy and download IL-2 1946.

Unlike steam, you don't need any additional software, it just installs and plays.

[TexasJG]

37. Auto / Analog radiator control function, for the switching of the radiator control directly between analog or auto radiator control without going through the digital preset radiator positions as currently is. Similar to Autoprop control.

[P-38L]

Hello Daidalos Team.

First of all let me thank you for all this great job you have done to the best flight simulator of all times.

I have a question: viewing the new option that you are going to implement on the simulator to have co-pilot seat activated, are you going to put this option in the Pe-8 and the TB-7 M-40F too? Both airplanes have co-pilot on their cockpits.

Thank you very much.

[Sita]

its not official opinion ... just my own ..
Pe8 and TB7 wouldn't have pit for second pilot ... by two reasons ...
1. in game we didn't have pit for second pilot ... (didn't have 3D model for it)
2. Unlike TB3 or B25 or B24 or other plane with two pilot ... TB7 and Pe8 have very not ergonomically positioned of secondary pilot place, right behind seat of first pilot ... from that place extremely hard to piloting the plane

in 75-80% it will be almost blind fly.

[KG26_Alpha]

Not sure it will be used, the co-pilot seat, but the human bombsite seat + human pilot could be :)














.

[TexasJG]

IF (and a really big if)
OculasRift support were to be implemented,
and some sort of animation or such for both players and/or player pilot and bot pilot, to be implemented,
which would be a lot of time and coding...

[P-38L]

This idea is based on having less AI airplanes and more flyable aircraft. Maybe some of these can be implemented.
The way to do it is to get on an AI plane and make it flyable based on the model that is flyable.

------------------------------------------------
B-25J-1NA, 1944 (Flayable)
B-25C-25NA, 1943: move the top turret a little back of the airplane.
B-25G-1NA, 1943: same as above and delete the front gunnger position and add more guns.
B-25H-1NA, 1943: just delete the front gunner position and add more guns.
------------------------------------------------
Bf 110 G-2, 1943 (Flayable)
Bf 110 C-4, 1940: just open the cockpit of the gunner.
Bf 110 C-4/B, 1940: same as above.
------------------------------------------------
D.XXI sarja 3 EArly, 1939 and D.XXI sarja 3 Late, 1941 (Both flayable)
D.XXI Danish, 1938; D.XXI Dutch, 1938 and D.XXI sarja 4, 1941: just add the cockpit from the one of the above airplanes and make some minor modifications.
------------------------------------------------
IL-4, 1942 (Flayable)
DB-3F, 1941: just add the cockpit from the above airplane.
------------------------------------------------
G4m1-11, 1941 (Flayable)
G4M2E, 1945: just add the cockpits and perhaps more power.
------------------------------------------------
J8A, 1937 (Flayable)
Gladiator I, 1937: just add the cockpit.
Gladiator II, 1938: put a three blade propeller and perhaps more power.

Make flayable in all weather conditions the J8A, 1937 that only is shown in snow weather, same as the I-15bis (skis), 1937; I-16 Type 24, 1939; I-16 Type 5 (skis), 1935 and the I-16 Type 6 (Skis), 1937 airplanes.

A J8A, 1937 for aircraft carrier just add the arresting hook.
------------------------------------------------
He 111 H-6, 1941 (Flayable)
He 111 Z Zwiling, 1942: just add the same cockpit and 4 or 5 more seat for the second fuselage. The center fifth engine can be calculated proportionally with the other four engines.
------------------------------------------------
MC.202 Serie VII, 1942 (Flayable)
MC.202, 1942: just add the cockpit.
------------------------------------------------
Hawk 75A-4, 1940 (Flayable)
Mohawk IV, 1941: just add the same cockpit with minor changes and perhaps more power.
Sarvanto D.XXI: just add the same cockpit with minor changes and perhaps modify the power.
------------------------------------------------
Mosquito FB VI, 1943 (Flayable)
Mosquito B IV, 1941: just add the same cockpit.

A Mosquito for aircraft carrier just add the arresting hook and folding wings.
------------------------------------------------
Hawk 75A-3, 1940 (Flayable)
P-36A, 1938: just add the same cockpit and perhaps modify the power.
------------------------------------------------
Re.2000, 1940 (Flayable)
Re.2002, 1943: just add the cockpit with minor changes and modify the power.
------------------------------------------------
SB 2M-100A, 1937 (Flayable)
SB 2M-103, 1938: just add the same cockpits with minor changes and modify the power.
------------------------------------------------
Thank you, and wishing that some of these ideas can be implemented.

[TexasJG]

HFSX has implemented some of these already I believe.
Anyway, almost all aircraft are flyable with HFX7.