4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[Woke Up Dead]

You'll never ever achieve a cheat or exploit free environment.

What do you mean by "Cheating?"

Exploiting?

The current system does a check like an MD5 Hash check on the game files in use.

Are you running mods?

If so, that's kinda on you.

If you're running stock, then the checkfiles option in Conf.ini is pretty good.

There's a cheat that lets you fly around without fuel and without your engine ever overheating that works on stock servers, I've seen it discussed on a Russian server forum, maybe that's what Deagle_Bubi is talking about.

[P-38L]

Hello Daidalos Team

What about to make flyable de Ju-52 to transport Cargo and/or passengers. And the ability to fly online and, on a local network the crew can play as a passengers, and they can be seated next to the windows and enjoy the fly.

If they want they can jump from the airplane with parachutes.

Transporting cargo can be used to make a mission to carry on some supplies and count as a target to get points.

Thus, it would be the only flight simulator to have the option of flying as a passenger.

Thank you

[IceFire]

There's a cheat that lets you fly around without fuel and without your engine ever overheating that works on stock servers, I've seen it discussed on a Russian server forum, maybe that's what Deagle_Bubi is talking about.

That's not the worst either. Unfortunately I'm not sure how much can be done with the source code wide open like it is.

[Sita]

Transporting cargo can be used to make a mission to carry on some supplies and count as a target to get points.



that not exactly Ju52 .... buuuut .....




oh sorry wrong Pict ))

[ECV56_Guevara]

Li-2 flyable!!!! Thanks Sita!!!

[Sita]

i'm just have started ...)

[Sita]

Li-2 flyable!!!! Thanks Sita!!!

i must say, you are very clever) to identify plane by engine control)

[Janosch]

There's a cheat that lets you fly around without fuel and without your engine ever overheating that works on stock servers, I've seen it discussed on a Russian server forum

That's not proof that such cheat exists.

Of course, it's logical that if you fly without fuel (it's spelled "gliding"), the engine won't run, and therefore it doesn't overheat.

[nic727]

Flyable C47 where you need to drop paratroopers over enemy base :)

[stovak]

Speaking of C47s, I've noticed that if you have icons on, the C47 and Li-2 are both labelled 'Douglas'. Didn't they used to be labelled 'C47' and 'Li-2', at one time, or am I remembering wrongly? The other DC3 variant, the L2D, gets its own label.

[IceFire]

Speaking of C47s, I've noticed that if you have icons on, the C47 and Li-2 are both labelled 'Douglas'. Didn't they used to be labelled 'C47' and 'Li-2', at one time, or am I remembering wrongly? The other DC3 variant, the L2D, gets its own label.

There's some inconsistencies in some of the labelling... but it wasn't too unusual for aircraft to sometimes be identified by their parent companies. A few updates would be good to label the C-47 and Li-2 specifically. The IL-4 is also labelled as a DB-3 which is appropriate for the earlier versions but not for the IL-4 version which is otherwise represented separately.

Very minor corrections.

[Treetop64]

Lol, wow.

Sita is psychic.

[nic727]

Today I want to talk about the futur. What about a new engine for v. 5.00?

I was looking at some Warthunder screenshots and I know this game is arcade, but the graphics are amazing. I was thinkg about we could take a graphic engine like Unreal Engine 4 or just making a new version of the current Il2 engine... (for that we should just take two years without Il2 1946 update and just focus on improving the game engine) The only thing I don't know is how to completly update the game like that? Maybe a new disc version like a completly new game, but just called Il2 Sturmovik?

There are the pictures I was looking to :

http://warthunder.com/upload/image/1000x700/25041411.jpg
http://warthunder.com/upload/image/1000x700/25041414.jpg
http://warthunder.com/upload/image/1000x700/25041412.jpg

[Treetop64]

Frankly, I never thought that War Thunder's graphics - while nice - were all that great (mine are at full-sliders at monitor resolution), especially in the resolution for most of it's aircraft textures, which seem primitively low (though it's a big help with optimization). War Thunder's graphics leaves room for improvement by contemporary standards.

It does feature a lot of new effects like light ghosting, bump mapping, etc. and some other fluff like Sepia, Vignettes, and other filters. I will say that the terrain is quite nicely modelled when cranked to full terrain resolution, however.

At any rate, talking about implementing such drastic changes and building a new environment using IL-2's antique engine is pointless, and it's been discussed before. It's like trying to compete in modern motorsports by installing a turbocharged hybrid V6 with KERS into an old Lotus 49. Cool to talk about and carry out, but ultimately pointless and wasteful and, in the case of IL-2, hardly possible.

In this case, it's just smarter and more economical to build a new game from a clean sheet, as has already been done with BoS. Besides, the modding community has produced some very good maps and effects that maximizes IL-2's capabilities and, in some ways, stresses them. That is about as much as one can expect from this old girl.

Keep in mind that the IL-2 environment is more than twelve years old now...

[nic727]

Yeah, you are right about the engine is too old to change everything like that.

Whatever, I don't really like the economic model of Battle of Stalingrad, because I have Rise of Flight and it's annoying that you need to buy the game 2 or 3 times if you want to play on a different account than your brother.

It's just a wish, but what I would like is a complet remake of Il2 1946 with the name of "Il2 Sturmovik" and being made by fans and for fans. Make the same things as IL2 1946 with a lot of free contents, etc. For the moment it's only a wish, but who know, maybe in 5 years :) (or in two weeks)

[ElAurens]

nic727,

I think you will find that the title "IL2 Sturmovik" for your proposed fan built sim would get you in front of a copyright judge in short order.

Just sayin'.

What we have now with the original sim, and it's expansions and the work of TD is all we will ever have, and it looks increasingly like we will never see it's equal.

The reasons for it are many and well known to anyone that cares to put an objective eye on the situation of the genre in the wider sphere of electronic gaming, and to be honest about the actions/wants/rants of the player base as well.

We have lived through a golden age, we will not see it's like ever again.

Be sure.

http://imageshack.com/a/img633/7756/4aTdJS.jpg

[nic727]

nic727,

I think you will find that the title "IL2 Sturmovik" for your proposed fan built sim would get you in front of a copyright judge in short order.

Just sayin'.


If we ask to 1C?

Whatever, we can always make a game with a new name, but I like Il2 Sturmovik. lol

[IceFire]

If we ask to 1C?

Whatever, we can always make a game with a new name, but I like Il2 Sturmovik. lol

1C would defend their claim on the title pretty vigorously I would imagine...

Especially since they have a retail product bearing that name currently selling (IL-2 Stumorvik: Battle of Stalingrad).... http://il2sturmovik.com/

[nic727]

I know that, but my first idea was to remake the game with modern graphic. It was not to make a full new game, yes it can, but my idea was that it could be published by 1C and made by Daidalos Team and some fans.

[SaQSoN]

I know that, but my first idea was to remake the game with modern graphic. It was not to make a full new game,

Are you aware, that remaking the game with modern graphic is pretty much equal to making a full new game?

[nic727]

Are you aware, that remaking the game with modern graphic is pretty much equal to making a full new game?

yeah... whatever. :)

[GF_Mastiff]

yeah... whatever. :)

and not to menschen it take less for Microsoft Office and Dragon speak to make those programs and they charge way more on avrg. $75.00 and sell way more.

I don't here people crying about those being to expensive.

[SaQSoN]

I don't here people crying about those being to expensive.

The guy wants a premium product, worth of thousands of hundreds of man-hours of work for free. DT is great, they surely can make it in no time, since, as everybody know, they don't need to sleep, eat, or care about their families!

Don't ruin his sweet illusion, please.

[majorfailure]

DT is great, they surely can make it in no time, since, as everybody know, they don't need to sleep, eat, or care about their families!

Sleep, food and family are totally overrated things, that only keep unworthy minions from working 24/7.
So can we please have our perfect graphics simulation, and by christmas this year, and while you're at it, why don't you add ALL the missing planes... And for free of course, we'll promise we'll contribute not a single thing to your effort - and if you only forget to fix ONE little bug, we will cry bloody havoc.

No really - I'm looking forward to the next patch - and I'll gladly and gratefully take all the FREE content you provide. This game is still alive - lets keep it that way for some more time.

[nic727]

I never asked them to work 24/24 and 7/7... It was just an idea to make something modern with our favorite game. It can be in spare time like they are doing right now, or it can be a completely new team of volunteer. I could be in, but not now, maybe in two years. But like I wrote before, it was just an idea.

[IceFire]

I never asked them to work 24/24 and 7/7... It was just an idea to make something modern with our favorite game. It can be in spare time like they are doing right now, or it can be a completely new team of volunteer. I could be in, but not now, maybe in two years. But like I wrote before, it was just an idea.

It's a nice sentiment. But you have to realize that building a whole new game from scratch, as done by volunteers, would take many years. It's problematic because by the time such a project was brought to fruition... the technology would be out of date again and it'd look aged.

There are plenty of indie game developers out there, small 2-3 person teams, but they tend to do small scale games. Certainly nothing approaching simulation level. It's complex stuff.

I think we have to be thankful we have something as solid as IL-2 1946 to work with. It's not as pretty as the newer stuff but the basics of it are still solid.

If we want to talk about visual upgrades... then upgrading the stock texture artwork for vehicles, aircraft, and the maps would go a long way to making the game look more beautiful without a game engine re-write. Something that can be done piecemeal.

[Treetop64]

I never asked them to work 24/24 and 7/7... It was just an idea to make something modern with our favorite game. It can be in spare time like they are doing right now, or it can be a completely new team of volunteer. I could be in, but not now, maybe in two years. But like I wrote before, it was just an idea.

Nic, you're missing the point.

The near-whimsical manner in how you talk about it glosses over the sheer scope of the task. Imagine the suggestion of building a brand-new modern nuclear aircraft carrier for the U.S. Navy on an old structure (with boilers) that was originally built as a seaplane tender, and that it could just be done by a bunch of hobbyists on their own spare time. As absurd as that sounds, that is akin to the sheer lopsidedness of your suggestion.

It's fine that you're so impressed by War Thunder's visuals (though there are better options available in that regard...), but that's an entirely different game, much more current, and with it's own structure specifically built to handle those visuals that you like so much.

IL-2's environment can indeed be improved, but overhauling it to such a degree would constitute an entirely new product (i.e. BoS, Eagle Dynamics, etc...), and renders the idea of doing such work in IL-2 redundant.

[The Radge]

Hello! :)
I would like to ask DT, what is estimated time of the 4.13 release?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

About this 'upgrading engine' discussion... I'd imagine, that there are people out there, who could programm external approaches, which work with the game graphics as they are... say like postprocessing etc. We have Bloom effects already available for DirectX ... something like that.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Hey Caspar! Where were you :-P? Get back to work!
Seriously, for some people effects are at the top of the requests. For other of us, there is no need to improve them. A few days ago I reinstalled Age of Empires II, just to play a few games again. It was a classic, of course there new games of the same genre, but AoE still got something.
I want more inmersion but in a different way, perhaps airborne radar, navigation aids, manable flak.
Caspar, please, tell us.. will be a surprise in the patch???


How is Shinden going?
Lanc?
Uhu ?
520?
86?
115?
Potez?

[Sita]

Hey Caspar! Where were you :-P? Get back to work!


LoL :D

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Caspar, please, tell us.. will be a surprise in the patch???

If so - it would be a surprise for me too. :D

I must admit, I'm a bit out of the current development, just because of private issues... almost since a year now. Have some minor projects ongoing, thats all. Hope, I can catch up some (not so far away) day.

[Sita]

we miss U Caspar)

[Pursuivant]

It's just a wish, but what I would like is a complet remake of Il2 1946 with the name of "Il2 Sturmovik" and being made by fans and for fans.

I've wondered how much it would cost to buy the "old" IL2 Sturmovik franchise from its current owners. If the sale was done right, the new owners might be able to get around the ban on Northrop-Grumman "intellectual properties."

But, I think that IL2's graphics are "good enough" and that you really don't want to improve them that much.

Things like dynamic lighting and photorealistic models and scenery are mostly eye candy which just slow down frame rates and increase development time. They make for pretty pictures and aid immersion when you're flying around, but you mostly don't notice them when you're in a dogfight.

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.

[shelby]

for me the only thing that must be done is the historical rework of the stock maps

[nic727]

for me the only thing that must be done is the historical rework of the stock maps

Agree

[RobN]

The patches have been of a very high quality in my opinion, and I want the team to keep 4.13 up to the normal standard. I am prepared to wait.

[Vendigo]

Currently in full mission editor it's possible to make big formations of fighter planes only if they carry bombs, because if they don't have bombs, then second, third and all other flights will circulate above the first flight in escort pattern.
Could DT fix this please!

[Buster_Dee]

I've wondered how much it would cost to buy the "old" IL2 Sturmovik franchise from its current owners. If the sale was done right, the new owners might be able to get around the ban on Northrop-Grumman "intellectual properties."

But, I think that IL2's graphics are "good enough" and that you really don't want to improve them that much.

Things like dynamic lighting and photorealistic models and scenery are mostly eye candy which just slow down frame rates and increase development time. They make for pretty pictures and aid immersion when you're flying around, but you mostly don't notice them when you're in a dogfight.

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.

None rings true for me. If clubbing seals is most important, then 46 should still be good enough. In my opinion, CLoD failed simply because it was forced out the door against the developers wishes. I'm buying other sims just to help keep the genre alive. What keeps me away from playing them is that they are not enough like CLoD. Defending a score is fine, but I want to defend a city that looks like a historic city. The visible history is the draw for me.

[Fighterace]

I've wondered how much it would cost to buy the "old" IL2 Sturmovik franchise from its current owners. If the sale was done right, the new owners might be able to get around the ban on Northrop-Grumman "intellectual properties."

But, I think that IL2's graphics are "good enough" and that you really don't want to improve them that much.

Things like dynamic lighting and photorealistic models and scenery are mostly eye candy which just slow down frame rates and increase development time. They make for pretty pictures and aid immersion when you're flying around, but you mostly don't notice them when you're in a dogfight.

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.


Who would be interested in buying the old IL-2 franchise?

[Pursuivant]

The visible history is the draw for me.

Alright, I agree that some of the cities look a bit lame. Cities like Berlin should have city blocks rather than individual houses. That might also aid frame rates.

But, what I was getting at was that, as a matter of priorities, what would make the sim more "immersive" for a hard-core WW2 history geek, improvements to the flight models or improvements to graphics? Both are important, but which is more important?

It seems to me that the main things that make the newer sims like RoF, CloD, IL2:BoS which are beyond the capabilities of IL2 are the things like dynamic lighting and self-shadowing.

Below that, there are lots of little (or not so little) graphics tweaks that affect combat which might be possible:

* More and bigger clouds reflecting different weather types. Could also represent fog.

* Placeable clouds.

* Placeable smoke or dust clouds. Important for daylight bombing. Really important for desert maps, which we'll be getting with 4.13.

* Large, long lasting fires to aid night bombing and to make "pathfinder" missions worthwhile.

* Simple sun-glare effects to make distant planes more visible.

* Better contrails - can be set to appear at different levels and can be set to last longer, so we can see images like this:

http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/stpauls2.jpeg

[Pursuivant]

Who would be interested in buying the old IL-2 franchise?

I have no idea. It depends on the price and who the fans are. Obviously, anyone who buys it would have to love the game rather than make a quick buck off of it. It also depends on what the restrictions on the sale would be.

[Buster_Dee]

I just wrote a post longer than yours. Luckily, it was not longer than the DEL key.

[Asheshouse]

For me, most of the visuals in IL-2 are great, given the limitations of lack of dynamic lighting and self shadowing. Some of the later maps like Slovakia and later mod maps really show what can be done in landscaping terms within the limits of the game engine.

Having done a little map building work in the past the greatest flaw to me is the inability to make roads and railways follow true curves. This just looks plain wrong even from a distance.

Other lesser issues include inability to represent small rivers (and streams), lack of proper modelling of river banks, rail cuttings and embankments etc and consequently the unrealistic appearance of bridges which all have steep approach ramps rather than blending into the surrounding land.

-- and while I'm on a role, all bridges and therefore rivers having to be fixed at sea level.

[KG26_Alpha]

Yea local weather would be cool too :)

But !!

Isn't it still the only game having collision damage with bridges, buildings and trees ?

[majorfailure]

Yea local weather would be cool too :)

But !!

Isn't it still the only game having collision damage with bridges, buildings and TREES ?
...that you can't really see from the side. I really sometimes wish there were no collision model with those trees.

[Buster_Dee]

That would all be on my list.

Ah, those trees are one of my fondest memories. I was flying with 242 at the time, and there was a Squad who generally gave us a shellacking. One meet, we outnumbered them and thought we actually had a chance. They stayed out of sight 'til we ran out of gas, then they bombed our airfield as the last guy (our CO) was landing. I tried to take off again from the apron.

All I got for my troubles was a mouth full of those trees.

[Sup_Bigans]

Great work guys!

I don't know if I'm late. Anyway may you also add this italian fighter?
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,37239.0.html

Thank you

[Ibis]

[QUOTE=Asheshouse;707827]For me, most of the visuals in IL-2 are great,

Having done a little map building work in the past the greatest flaw to me is the inability to make roads and railways follow true curves.
---------------------------------------

There are curved roads here:
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,39938.24.html

in Bee's Rabaul. Scroll down.
cheers,
Ibis.

[Asheshouse]

I am aware of Bee's excellent map. --- I even get a mention in the credits ;)

What Bee has done provides a good visual mod but loses the stock game functionality of road and rail, like auto placement when map building and auto tracking of the route by vehicles when mission building.

What may be needed is similar to what is in Clod, in that road and rail appear to be defined by freeform splines which then control the placement of road/rail plates and also control the vehicle movement, but that would require some serious coding input.

[TexasJG]

After doing much searching, and not understanding the inherent limitation of placing height of objects until finding this post (http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,27171.0.html) at SAS.
Yes, this would be greatly appreciated to have the option to place height for all objects, as case in point,
On the MTO map, at a certain desert castle, it would be really nice to mount small AA artillery on top of the castle wall towers. Would also make it possible to build ship yards as proper (ships in dry dock).
Maybe something Daidalos Team could/would look into?

For reference;
From SAS "in COD game there is the ability to choose the elevation of all objects, in Il2 there is this ability for only some smoke :(.
it would be very useful for example placing DCA on roofs or tops of some bunkers or prevent static objects to "sink" into some scenery
the particularity of these smokes can't be expanded to all objects?"
and reply by SAS~Malone
"but i think we are meaning more objects like AA weapons, and such.
that height solution of KB's is only good for static objects, from the Objects list in FMB.
it doesn't work the same, say, for a stationary aircraft, or artillery, etc.
those FMB objects also require a separate object entry for each different height, so it's not all that practical.
if we could elevate all objects as we can with the smoke objects, simply with the mouse, it would really be great. :D"
Reference also from SAS
FMB Tutorial 06 - Advanced Objects Tips (http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,23731.0.html)

[Igo kyu]

All water in 1946 and earlier versions of IL*2 is at sea level. I don't know why that was originally chosen, but it makes a lot of things/dificult or impossible that might otherwise be possible or even easy.

[sniperton]

Many older games with 3D maps have this limitation (e.g. the Total War series).

The 3D shape of the landscape is generated from a greyscale elevation map, where zero elevation (the darkest black) is defined as water, while the rest of pixels are used to define terrain elevations. This way, you can create pretty realistic flatland landscapes with lakes and canals, and pretty realistic hilly landscapes without rivers, but it's impossible to create a realistic river valley where the water comes down to sea level.

There must be some workarounds. I've seen mountain lakes (water on a non-zero elevation level) on some modded maps, but generally it seems to be a game engine limitation that all water is always 'flat' and on the same elevation level.

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

That should not be a problem, raise the terrain a bit and you dont need to terrible working bridges!

About mountain lakes .. and rivers .. I can life without them .. but those bridges ... arrrggg :(

[stugumby]

Is there any possibility of 1941-2 yak or il2 on skis for 414 or beyond? Or a I-16 24 on skis?

[IceFire]

Is there any possibility of 1941-2 yak or il2 on skis for 414 or beyond? Or a I-16 24 on skis?

Do you mean a Yak-2? They were nearly all destroyed in the opening days of Barbarossa so it'd be pretty obscure.

It looks like IL-2s were trialed with skis so it could be a thing. I don't think the I-16 Type 24 was ever fitted with skis but my information could be incorrect on that.

The skis were largely a detriment to performance and outweighed any advantage they had in airfield operations. Sounds like they ditched them pretty soon after they were introduced. The ones we have in game are fascinating to fly given how poorly the aircraft that have them fitted suffer.

[P-38L]

As far as I know, the delay of the 4.13 update is because the He-177 is not flyable yet. We have waited for more than a year. My idea is release the great 4.13 update with the AI He-177 to start enjoying those great facts according with the 4.13 pdf document. The He-177 can wait to be flyable for the 4.14 update plus another great items created for DT. Thank you.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Hi P38 ! I dont think so about He177 flyable!

Hola P-38 no creo que este demorandose la salida del parche por la inclusion del He 177. Debe ser muy dificil planchar todos los bugs del B24 cuatrimotor supongo. Saludos.

[Janosch]

We have waited for more than a year.

No, we have been waiting for 2 weeks

[TexasJG]

In FMB, in the Date/time dialog box, a box giving the historical sunrise & sunset times for the day selected, and the Full Moon, New Moon dates for the year and month selected.

[Treetop64]

As far as I know, the delay of the 4.13 update is because the He-177 is not flyable yet. We have waited for more than a year. My idea is release the great 4.13 update with the AI He-177 to start enjoying those great facts according with the 4.13 pdf document. The He-177 can wait to be flyable for the 4.14 update plus another great items created for DT. Thank you.

I'm compelled to agree.

4.12 was released without the (very badly needed) remodelled P-40, a plane which was originally intended to be released with 4.12. Not to mention that the P-40K will apparently never be in the picture, considering it's importance in the PTO throughout 1942-43, but that's another matter...

While it would be most welcome in the game, I believe that most would happily accept 4.13 without the He-177, an aircraft that was almost as dangerous to it's own crews as it was intended to be to ground targets, saw only very limited production, and saw more use as a hack than a bomber.

[IceFire]

As far as I know, the delay of the 4.13 update is because the He-177 is not flyable yet. We have waited for more than a year. My idea is release the great 4.13 update with the AI He-177 to start enjoying those great facts according with the 4.13 pdf document. The He-177 can wait to be flyable for the 4.14 update plus another great items created for DT. Thank you.

I can guarantee that it's not the He177 holding anything up. The AI model was implemented a while back. Still testing and crushing bugs through the whole thing.

[IceFire]

I'm compelled to agree.

4.12 was released without the (very badly needed) remodelled P-40, a plane which was originally intended to be released with 4.12. Not to mention that the P-40K will apparently never be in the picture, considering it's importance in the PTO throughout 1942-43, but that's another matter...

While it would be most welcome in the game, I believe that most would happily accept 4.13 without the He-177, an aircraft that was almost as dangerous to it's own crews as it was intended to be to ground targets, saw only very limited production, and saw more use as a hack than a bomber.

I think there was hope early on that Macwan's new P-40s might make 4.12 but as it was there was not much time and lots more to do. They are gorgeous in 4.13 and it's great to have them.

I wouldn't discount the P-40K, L, N or any other model. Macwan is pretty passionate... it's just a matter of how much time is available.

[Pursuivant]

All water in 1946 and earlier versions of IL*2 is at sea level. I don't know why that was originally chosen, but it makes a lot of things/dificult or impossible that might otherwise be possible or even easy.

An odd choice if you think about it, because very few (none?) of the original IL2 maps featured areas which were at sea level.

[batistadk]

Hey TD!

Happy New Year for you guys (never too late)!

Thank you very much for the update. It's good to hear from you, and that old lady is receiving all the care she deserves.

More than ever excited with 4.13, and with the promising new content.

batistadk

[Cloyd]

Hi TD,

Good to hear from you guys. It all sounds great! Thanks for the update.

Cloyd

[P-38L]

Hello TD

It is nice to hear good news. Happy new year to you too.
Thank you for the update.

[GF_Mastiff]

update? what update?

[IceFire]

update? what update?

This one:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=708228&postcount=13

Just a quick status update.

[nic727]

Thank you!

Can't wait :P

[Vendigo]

If this thread is the right one to post wishes for the future patches, I would like to have an option in FMB to have planes already damaged at the start of the mission. For mission building it would be great to choose between light damage (just some bullet holes in fuselage) / medium damage (bigger holes in fuselage and wings and shattered cockpit glass) / heavy damage (all previous damage plus a small trail of smoke or fuel leaks).
Thanks DT!

[Pursuivant]

If this thread is the right one to post wishes for the future patches, I would like to have an option in FMB to have planes already damaged at the start of the mission. For mission building it would be great to choose between light damage (just some bullet holes in fuselage) / medium damage (bigger holes in fuselage and wings and shattered cockpit glass) / heavy damage (all previous damage plus a small trail of smoke or fuel leaks).
Thanks DT!

+1.

As it stands, if you want to start the game with damaged planes you need to set up a scenario where the planes go through an area of heavy flak first, and hope for the best.

A better option would be to have a "damage brush" option that allows you to assign light or heavy damage to a particular plane part, as well as assigning critical hits like gun jams, oil, fuel or coolant leaks, and pilot or crew injuries.

I suspect it's possible to assign this sort of damage in an internal "debug" mode, but nobody's yet created a mod to make it available to the masses.

[ECV56_Guevara]

After all these years...it s incredible how good ideas are still coming. Maybe are not doable but some of it are amazingly simple. I enjoy reading the forum in the suggestion topic, and find a lot of good points, like Vendigo and Pursuivant one.

[baball]

It would be really cool if we could select between hiding numbers on planes or hiding their national insigna. Another option that I would like to see in next patches is the possibility to have random numbering on each plane instead of the current system where every flight has number 1, 2, 3, 4 ,etc.

[Feathered_IV]

In QMB, once I set up a mission with various formations of aircraft. All skinned and set at the right skill and loadouts, it would be really great if there was a "Reverse Teams" button that switched the sides from allied to axis. So that I could quickly and easily experience the same mission from different sides.

[Pursuivant]

It would be really cool if we could select between hiding numbers on planes or hiding their national insigna. Another option that I would like to see in next patches is the possibility to have random numbering on each plane instead of the current system where every flight has number 1, 2, 3, 4 ,etc.


The numbers for Soviet planes could also use an upgrade. The current font looks like poor cousin to Comic Sans.

[Treetop64]

The numbers for Soviet planes could also use an upgrade. The current font looks like poor cousin to Comic Sans.

Yep. Got sick of that "slapped on" painted look years ago. Been using Mat Manager for the better part of seven years now, and it goes a long way in improving most numbers and decals in the game, but it doesn't convert numbers on aircraft introduced after Aces released their final version of Mat Manager.

[Pursuivant]

Yep. Got sick of that "slapped on" painted look years ago. Been using Mat Manager for the better part of seven years now, and it goes a long way in improving most numbers and decals in the game, but it doesn't convert numbers on aircraft introduced after Aces released their final version of Mat Manager.

Mat Manager is/was wonderful, but like you said, it's getting old.

I haven't yet implemented them in my installation of the game, but I came up with much more "Cyrillic" looking numbers based on the stencils applied to some Yak aircraft. I've only got them as .tif or .jpg formats rather than as an actual font, though. See the attachment below.

TD is welcome to them. PM if you want them.

Alternately, it would be fairly simple to rip off some off some of the more interesting Cyrillic serif fonts; since there was a subtle but distinct "Soviet" style of typography. This site has lots of interesting possibilities.

http://smashinghub.com/30-free-russian-fonts.htm

Kremlin Imperial and Kremlin Advisor have numbers that are fairly close to stencils in pictures I've seen.

[Joao611]

I just had a 96MB update to IL2 1946 on Steam, game's version is still 4.12.2M...
wut

[Oh Chute!]

I'd like to suggests a small synopsis by team D that outlines where the development for 4.13 sits as we enter 2015. I have been away for a bit and removed from actively participating in the forum. Between discovering that we have been targeted by the spammers and attempting to stumble through the 108 odd pages of this section, it ain't exactly enlightening as much as it has been blurry and confusing. :lol:

If anyone wants to do me the kindness of catching me up with all this I would be appreciative. I feel like my house was broken into while I was out.

Cheers
Oh Chute!

[sniperton]

After 3 alpha and 2 beta versions they are testing a Release Candidate. This was reported nearly two weeks ago:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40957&page=2

So I think it will be out in another two weeks. Really ;)

[KG26_Alpha]

I'd like to suggests a small synopsis by team D that outlines where the development for 4.13 sits as we enter 2015. I have been away for a bit and removed from actively participating in the forum. Between discovering that we have been targeted by the spammers and attempting to stumble through the 108 odd pages of this section, it ain't exactly enlightening as much as it has been blurry and confusing. :lol:

If anyone wants to do me the kindness of catching me up with all this I would be appreciative. I feel like my house was broken into while I was out.

Cheers
Oh Chute!


Catch up by reading the read me files for the latest releases.

[Jumoschwanz]

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.

I will back this up 100%.

I would not care if I had to use the graphics and plane-set from the original IL2 Demo, I want a bug-free and accurate flight simulator, not a Hollywood action movie.

All of the problems with IL2 and the community that has flown it have roots in poorly executed wet-dreams by hackers and modders more interested in themselves and entertainment than flight simming.

[perproqra]

Request for TrackIR users

-option to set TRack-Z axis to control (smooth) zoom FOV

with
-on/off option for Track-Z controls zoom out to wide view
-on/off option for Track-Z controls zoom in to close (gunsight) view


like this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS1yYGtzZ9A

Thanks

[Deagle_Bubi]

in2weeks?

[RayVad]

in2weeks?

Yep, pretty sure...2 weeks...😁

[Treetop64]

Well, it's going into two years. Maybe that can be the new catchphrase instead?

"Two years. Surely." :razz:

[N2O]

Well, it's going into two years. Maybe that can be the new catchphrase instead?

"Two years. Surely." :razz:

Two years?... Or through twenty? Or two hundred... or through two thousand years?... :shock:

[RayVad]

I personally would prefer to leave it like "2 weeks". Since that does not sound as a very long time. Also when it is shifted to another two.:grin:

[Oscarito]

It's said that waiting makes the heart grow fonder, so...

[wheelsup_cavu]

Well, it's going into two years. Maybe that can be the new catchphrase instead?

"Two years. Surely." :razz:

It has been a little over 15 months since v4.12.2 was released at M4T.
Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:39 pm (Pacific Standard Time). :cool:
http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=4407

So far the longest time between patch releases for 1946, that I know of at just over 21 months, was between the v4.09 beta release and the v4.09 Daidalos Team release.
4.09 Beta Out!!! (12-26-2007, 11:54 PM) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2462
4.09 Official Release (10-02-2009, 06:32 AM) http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=10276


Wheels

[Fighterace]

Is the final Readme out soon?

[Pershing]

Any news about 4.13?

[KG26_Alpha]

Any news about 4.13?


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40957&page=2

[Pershing]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=40957&page=2

I meant something fresh..

[KG26_Alpha]

well

unless you want a blow by blow account of the monotony of testing over and over again ............

rest assured when something is ready to show you it will be in the thread I linked

there's nothing worse than constantly being asked the same thing over and over again



:)

[magot]

We are close to RC2 version. Most bugs was fixed, now working on fixing new map.
Sorry for long delay.

[Gel-ler]

Thanks Magot for the news!!!
You know how kids are when they have to wait for something!!!!

[ElAurens]

From where I stand no apology is necessary magot.

You guys are doing this on your own time, for free, and have to sneak in the work between the issues of real life that we all deal with, and still you are able to bring us large improvements to what is still the best WW2 air combat sim of all time.

I think some of the members of our little community don't understand this.

Even from what little I have helped out in the past, I understand just how hard what you folks do can be.

You have my thanks. Carry on as best you can.

[Tuco22]

From where I stand no apology is necessary magot.

You guys are doing this on your own time, for free, and have to sneak in the work between the issues of real life that we all deal with, and still you are able to bring us large improvements to what is still the best WW2 air combat sim of all time.

I think some of the members of our little community don't understand this.

Even from what little I have helped out in the past, I understand just how hard what you folks do can be.

You have my thanks. Carry on as best you can.

This.

There are still Things in 4.12 i haven't even tried yet. ><

[TexasJG]

There are still things in 4.10 I'm trying out for the first time!!
Wow

[KG26_Alpha]

Tipping V1's
not shooting them :)

Using the Fritz X or HS-293 weapons
or X4 guided missiles

lol

loads of stuff people never tried or tested

my self included as I have missed some other unused features
in the game

[majorfailure]

Tipping V1's
not shooting them :)

Using the Fritz X or HS-293 weapons
or X4 guided missiles

lol

loads of stuff people never tried or tested

my self included as I have missed some other unused features
in the game
Been there, tried that, can I have my new patch now please?:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D
Ah and add to that list: Torpedo bombing, Level bombing, and ground attack all using a SM-79
Shooting down planes with bombs, if this is too easy with anthing clustery, try real bombs - though it may have become next to impossible with the revised bomb fuses.

[Woke Up Dead]

Ah and add to that list: Torpedo bombing, Level bombing, and ground attack all using a SM-79

Add "dog-fighting unsuspecting fighters" with the SM-79, it's a really fun plane, I've flown it more than any other bomber since it came out in a TD patch.

[KG26_Alpha]

Add the 672x2kg bombs to interesting fun load outs as well on the SM-79.

Makes a mess of an airfield

:)

[Woke Up Dead]

Add the 672x2kg bombs to interesting fun load outs as well on the SM-79.

Makes a mess of an airfield

:)

By the way, do you know what the second, lower bomb-sight is for on the SM-79?

[KG26_Alpha]

By the way, do you know what the second, lower bomb-sight is for on the SM-79?

I only ever use the fore sight and have never seen an explanation of the rear sights use.

Its in the read me v4.09m how to use the sight and an explanation of its limitations.
Page 21
http://download.softclub.ru/pub/il2_platinum/files/update/4.09_Guide.pdf
Italian guide
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maw-superaereo.it%2F2013-06-01-16-58-14%2F2013-06-01-19-32-29%2Fdocumenti.html%3Fdownload%3D15%3Atutorial-traguardo-jozza&ei=6PfsVN2eEIOa7gboTA&usg=AFQjCNG1WnPWwy8VfWOYXoXMPUYgnpuR8A&sig2=02sPZm0LdknBTLM3eR33Rw
Youtube vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a89ydrKoXM

[wheelsup_cavu]

Tipping V1's
not shooting them :)

Using the Fritz X or HS-293 weapons
or X4 guided missiles

lol

loads of stuff people never tried or tested

my self included as I have missed some other unused features
in the game

I always broke my wing off when I tried to Tip the V1's.


Wheels

[Sita]

yep... me too

never know how do it right ...

[Tennie]

Which just goes to show just how challenging it must have been in real life!:shock:

[Pursuivant]

Maybe not for 4.13, but for the update after that.

A small change to the FMB and/or QMB that allows you to assign the same skin to all aircraft in a particular flight, or all aircraft of a particular type.

As it stands in the QMB and FMB, you need to select skins by plane, which makes it a bit tedious to assign an entire formation or squadron with the same skin.

[E Hood]

From where I stand no apology is necessary magot.

You guys are doing this on your own time, for free, and have to sneak in the work between the issues of real life that we all deal with, and still you are able to bring us large improvements to what is still the best WW2 air combat sim of all time.

I think some of the members of our little community don't understand this.

Even from what little I have helped out in the past, I understand just how hard what you folks do can be.

You have my thanks. Carry on as best you can.

A slightly dated "Hear, hear!" We're very lucky to have Team Daidalos at all. They do beautiful work, and that fact that the patches are gratis is, in this day, unbelievable.

[RPS69]

Maybe not for 4.13, but for the update after that.

A small change to the FMB and/or QMB that allows you to assign the same skin to all aircraft in a particular flight, or all aircraft of a particular type.

As it stands in the QMB and FMB, you need to select skins by plane, which makes it a bit tedious to assign an entire formation or squadron with the same skin.

You know that you can edit your mission files with a text editor?

In general when I build something repetitive on the FMB, I just do it once, and then I copy and paste it on a text editor. Is faster that using the game editor anyway. After that I will open the file again and check that everything is running smooth.

I also keep forms to re use them doing copy and paste. Very useful whrn bulding campaigns.

[Pursuivant]

You know that you can edit your mission files with a text editor?

Good tip for the FMB, at least if you know the name of the skin you want to assign.

Not so handy if you want to set up a largish mission in the QMB. Hence the suggestion.

[shelby]

From the creator of the campaign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx1uEHBpzOo

[Vendigo]

From the creator of the campaign


Looks like it's the default Khalkhyn Gol map, isn't it?

[shelby]

Looks like it's the default Khalkhyn Gol map, isn't it?Yes and i hope someday to see the ki-30 to replace the val and the kate

[yak-9]

hi people.
i'm interested in flatter modeled effect with upcoming update.particularly for yak family. for early versions flatter starts on 550km/h currently and does not depend on altitude.on 650km/h plane crashes.it is not right since it should depend on altitude and can not be lower than max horizontal speed. if yak has 580km/h top speed at altitude-flatter should start at least at 600km/h at same altitude as far as i understand.
yaks now have extremely "wooden feel" because of this(
could you explain whats going on?

[The Radge]

Hello!
I have found a cool image, I think you guys will agree with me,
I think it may be cool "promotion" for the upcoming E13A ;)

http://warwall.ru/_ph/3/151033951.jpg

What do you think?

[Pursuivant]

I think that Jake's got seconds left to live.

And if it's a copyrighted image, the picture is a no-go for any patch.

[Treetop64]

I think that Jake's got seconds left to live.

lol...

[nic727]

Message from January :

"We had 3 Alpha and 2 Beta versions - and currently the first RC in testing. Thus we are pretty sure, that it won't be too long until the final release of 4.13."

What happened?

[ElAurens]

Apparently you have never beta tested huh nic?

January was only 2 months ago. The team is very small, much smaller than
a professional dev team could muster.

Something to consider.

[Pursuivant]

January was only 2 months ago. The team is very small, much smaller than a professional dev team could muster.

And they have day jobs, which slows things down even more.

I still say that DT should have an official and publicly-stated policy of delaying updates by one week for every "are we there yet" post. :twisted:

[Janosch]

I still say that DT should have an official and publicly-stated policy of delaying updates by one week for every "are we there yet" post. :twisted:

Uh huh... but I think two weeks should be enough instead

[Pursuivant]

Uh huh... but I think two weeks should be enough instead

Two weeks . . . be sure! :D

[Nil]

Thank you Daidalos team and the other to ALL your wonderful work.
I like so much the work you do, I really enjoy playing this game!!

[Sita]

Thanks for your kind word sir)

[Music]

Are we still allowed to add Ideas here, if so, would it be possible to have the last 10 meters/feet of altitude in more detail, 1 thru ten, not just one to ten.

And also, would it be feasible to make the four bomber formation larger, more planes following the same flight path. Maybe a 16 box formation, and you can select which ones, or all, and they will fly as that flight, drop on that target.

*1^

* 2^ *3^

*4/

*5^ *6^

*7/ *8^

*9^ *10/ *11/

*12/ *13^ *14/

*15^ *16/

^On / Off

And pick different altitudes for different flights, "if you want a mission with Vals and Kates coming in high and low.

Thanks,

Music From Canada

[ECV56_Guevara]

Hey guys, any news ? I mean, I m not asking a release date, but status of the patch, if its possible any news about the future of the team will be welcome. Thanks in advance, regards.

[Sita]

yep we got some good news ... but for now i can't tell about it ...

I do not want to scare luck)))

[ECV56_Guevara]

*fingers crossed*
Ty Sita!

[Fighterace]

So excited

[stugumby]

I'm checking 3_4 Times a week,but staying busy making place holder missions etc. It will be greatly received indeed.

[Feathered_IV]

Thanks Sita. Still here and love yer work. ;)

[shelby]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srq_0xAnra4

[Sita]

one shot one kill

[shelby]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2kxk8USflU

[Sita]

yeah)) we have alot strange stuff)

[shelby]

I hope the patch will come soon :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_LE6uPk4hw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYhPL4Aol7o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPa67sZnwkw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKCYdeP8csI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idoLqkzs0_4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOmCLz3ZMt8

[Sita]

ha ha.... it's look like Dev.Update)))..

[KG26_Alpha]

Exactly !!

[shelby]

here some more wip :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooe35RaSSus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEiUv3SuS4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9XCvpKfR-0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b4Mi7Gudkw

[Pursuivant]

Looks like good things are coming for fans of Soviet and German bombers in the next patch!

[Sita]

Bombsight is footage from 4.13 one of early version... but Sights is work like in video ... and will be in 4.13 ...

All the night things is very early WIP ... like adition into night fighter subjects...

[shelby]

sita will the 4.14 contain the he111 variants made by yt2?

[Sita]

Try to ask about it Yt2))) i hope for that ... but it depends from Yt2 ... if he want he will do)

[ECV56_Guevara]

I don´t get what is the light navigator AAA video is. Can someone explain me????
Thanks in advance.

[Sita]

I don´t get what is the light navigator AAA video is. Can someone explain me????
Thanks in advance.


for now it's only idea ... can't give any promise about it ... but ...

it very interesting thing ... in VVS RKKA in some special cases AAA projector was used like some support equipment for night mission ...
that video is example of some of that equipment ...
ground crew take AAA projector and put it on ground to target direction with some time periods ... or make some figure by light ray from projector .... like arrowhead in video ...

[ECV56_Guevara]

ohhhh good news Sita! Thanks!! Any advance in nigthfighting ;) ????? Sorry I had to ask :-P

[KG26_Alpha]

Looks like good things are coming for fans of Soviet and German bombers in the next patch!

Don't worry , there's a special treat for US bombers too.

[Pursuivant]

it very interesting thing ... in VVS RKKA in some special cases AAA projector was used like some support equipment for night mission ...
that video is example of some of that equipment ...
ground crew take AAA projector and put it on ground to target direction with some time periods ... or make some figure by light ray from projector .... like arrowhead in video ...

So, searchlights were used to form a "pointer" which guided the bombers along the correct flight path to the target?


I thought that it might have something to do with the way that searchlights were used to track aircraft for night fighters and AAA guns.

Historically, searchlight batteries were ordered to search particular sectors of the sky, possibly guided by radar or sound ranging equipment.

Once one searchlight detected a plane, two or more other searchlights in the area would then quickly focus their beams on the same plane.

The multiple converging beams made it almost impossible for the plane to escape the searchlights by taking evasive action, and clearly identified the plane to flak and night fighters.

So, to get night AAA ops right, you'd need to have searchlights randomly sweep the sky (or sweep certain sectors of the sky, with some aid from radar) until they detect a hostile target.

Searchlights can also detect a target when it silhouettes itself under clouds or against the moon, or a target makes itself visible (fire or turning lights on).

Then, 2+ searchlights converge on the target, and all the lights track it until the plane is out of range.

AI planes will attempt evasive action (typically by "corkscrewing") while the searchlights attempt to follow it.

Flak automatically "sees" and preferentially targets planes being tracked by searchlights. (Even if they can't see the plane, they can still aim using the converging searchlight beams. Later in the war, some flak was radar directed.)

Night fighters automatically "see" and home in on planes being tracked by searchlights.

Night fighters with radios can command flak batteries to stop firing once they begin their intercept.

[RPS69]

Night fighters with radios can command flak batteries to stop firing once they begin their intercept.

Actually, there were known safe positions for the fighters to attack.

Many searchlights got more range than the Flak batteries they support, and also, searchlights blinded navigators. not allowing them to aim on their targets.

[Fighterace]

Can't wait to see the new P-40's, they're going to be awesome.

[Buren]

Can't wait to see the new P-40's, they're going to be awesome.

B-24D! :cool:

Hope to see a sneak peek of the "special treat for US bombers", too!

[mothergoose870]

Are there new P-40 models being introduced with 4.13? this interests me greatly

[wWwebBrowser]

Is it too late to request Anti lock brakes. I have destroyed more planes after landing because my brakes locked up.:mad:

[Tolwyn]

Well, if you have it as a button, it's 100% on or 100% off.
You COULD assign it to an axis...

In the upcoming (uh... who knows when) patch, there will be differential braking and stuff.

Is it too late to request Anti lock brakes. I have destroyed more planes after landing because my brakes locked up.:mad:

[ZacharyB]

Some planes already have differential braking, it's just not seen as a message on the HUD. It's activated by turning the rudder and braking at the same time. You can see it in the Mosquito and the jets.

[Buster_Dee]

I haven't looked, but I think some brake gauges back that up (differential braking). By the way, the B24 did not have differential brakes; they had a dual brake system that let each pilot contribute to the brake strength. Both left brake pedals operated one system that fed both mains, and both right brake pedals operated a second system that fed both mains. I think the idea was that, if all systems were functioning, both pilots pressing both brake pedals could apply 4 times the pedal pressure. I don't know if that translated into 4 times the total pressure at the main wheels. In R/L, turning was done by throttles and prop wash against the rudders. The gauges in our model respond the way they should, but I think our programmers made it more of a differential system for those not having the benefit of multi-axis quadrants. I find it hard to turn just the same. But I'm sure there will be experts soon after we release--which I don't control :)

[Pursuivant]

Is it too late to request Anti lock brakes. I have destroyed more planes after landing because my brakes locked up.:mad:

I'm sure that if they had anti-lock brakes in the 1940s, you'll have them in the game. ;)


And, tap your brakes rather than stomping on them.

[BravoFxTrt]

Looking good TD, keep up the good works.

[Invertigo]

Hi. Absolutely love the B-24! Watched the video on youtube and can't wait ... :grin:.

The B-24 does, however, definitely have differential brakes. The castoring nosewheel (offhand, I can't think of a single WW2 combat plane with a steerable nosewheel - lol) only travels 45 degrees left and right which precludes pivoting on a mainwheel, yet in the B-24 training film they demonstrate mainwheel pivoting showing how it drags the nosewheel across the ground thereby excessively wearing not just the main tire but the nose tire as well and so shouldn't be done ... like they just did (must've been my dad :rolleyes:).


Check out the diagram here: www.skepticalmedia.com/atc.html page 64 brake system.

Only two more weeks -- wooot!

[KG26_Alpha]

The game has modeled some aircraft's nose wheel as steerable to compensate for lack of the users input controls on multi-engine aircraft
as most will have a stick with twist grip for rudder and single throttle lever for one engine.

Needed for steering
Rudder pedal toe brakes
Separate engine controls

Its all about compromise, unless it was made an option :)

[N2O]

Hi, guys! :)
Dear DT, whether it is impossible though approximately to tell, in what period of a patch will definitely not be? We will allow - 2 weeks live quietly and all relax - two weeks there is nothing to wait - we will glance here then. That it was possible to live quietly though few weeks, and that everyday unfulfilled hopes for its exit dement :mrgreen:
Thanks!:grin:

[Monguse]

We are currently on RC3 and hopefully will have a release "shortly".

[ElAurens]

Thanks for the update Monguse!!

Looking forward to flying the B 24 over New Guinea.

[batistadk]

Hey, that's great news!!!

Just perfect Monguse, thank you. And thanks to Sita too, for his heads up on another thread.

Good luck with the patch, TD, you guys rock!!!:grin:

batistadk

[TexasJG]

We are currently on RC3 and hopefully will have a release "shortly".
Thank you for the update!!
much rather have a later release than the bugs.
Wish had the knowledge to be able to contribute some, actual continent that is.
Although as soon as 4.13 is out, fully intend to start writing a new CH HOTAS map file for the new functions.

One of the things don't see mentioned here much at all, but it would be so helpful to overcome, is the (java code) objects limitations as it's so called at least for version 4.14, unless of course this is one of the "Top Secret Classified" updates of 4.13. ;)

And just wondering if HSFX 8 has been in development in conjunction with 4.13, as it has been with the previous versions.

Thanks again Daidalos Team!!

[N2O]

We are currently on RC3 and hopefully will have a release "shortly".

Ok, thanks a lot! ;)
I wish all team success! And that I will erase either a finger, or the F5 button soon :mrgreen:

[N2O]

I congratulate on a holiday of solidarity of the workers working all over a patch 4.13!
http://lol54.ru/uploads/posts/2008-12/1230572876_2749.jpg
:mrgreen:

[Ibis]

Thank you, it'll be worth the wait I'm sure.
cheers.

[Treetop64]

That "shortly" is in quotes makes me nervous.

Does it mean it'll be ready in a couple weeks, or does it mean "No, this time it'll be Christmas of this year, for sure this time!"

:lol::lol::lol:

[Oscarito]

Preferable than "Two Weeks" IMHO...
BTW, "Two Weeks" seems to be very appreciated by some people as a definition for short periods of time:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11069070/I-can-take-Kiev-in-two-weeks-Vladimir-Putin-warns-European-leaders.html
:mrgreen:

[KG26_Alpha]

That "shortly" is in quotes makes me nervous.

Does it mean it'll be ready in a couple weeks, or does it mean "No, this time it'll be Christmas of this year, for sure this time!"

:lol::lol::lol:

Whats to be nervous about ?

Its ready when its ready :)

[Fighterace]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srq_0xAnra4

This looks so badass

[Feathered_IV]

Fingers crossed the Aichi E13A makes it in. :cool:

[KG26_Alpha]

Fingers crossed the Aichi E13A makes it in. :cool:

Possibly
AI

[Deagle_Bubi]

Some news?

[HW3]

Two weeks, be sure.;)

[nic727]

Two weeks, be sure.;)

Two weeks on Venus... "Each day on Venus takes 243 Earth days"

[N2O]

Two weeks on Venus... "Each day on Venus takes 243 Earth days"

OM and his followers newcomers from space?! And they continue to live on time of Venus?! :confused:
:mrgreen:

[robday]

OM and his followers newcomers from space?! And they continue to live on time of Venus?! :confused:
:mrgreen:

If "OM" means Oleg Maddox, he has not been involved in the development of IL-2 for a long time, he no longer has anything to do with it. His "Followers", as you put it, are "Team Daidalos", a group of enthusiasts who develop add-ons for the game in their own time for no financial reward and have to fit this in around their lives in the real world. They will release the patch when it is ready, not before!

[N2O]

If "OM" means Oleg Maddox, he has not been involved in the development of IL-2 for a long time, he no longer has anything to do with it. His "Followers", as you put it, are "Team Daidalos", a group of enthusiasts who develop add-ons for the game in their own time for no financial reward and have to fit this in around their lives in the real world. They will release the patch when it is ready, not before!

Thanks, cap!
It is a little sense of humour, I think, to you won't prevent. Tell the address, and I will send it to you. :mrgreen:

[Volksfürsorge]

Two weeks on Venus... "Each day on Venus takes 243 Earth days"

1701 days for dogs on venus

[N2O]

1701 days for dogs on venus

1701 days are 4 years and 8 months. That is the patch will be in March, 2020 :shock:

[Sita]

oh... interesting ... so we got a lot of time i think ... yes? :D

[N2O]

oh... interesting ... so we got a lot of time i think ... yes? :D

And unless someone can forbid it to you?... Unless common sense :mrgreen:

[Malkav]

It seems that when the patch is finally released, it will need only a handful of fans. Most of which are already in Warthunder

[Sita]

or in Clod (with TF) or in BzS ...

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

im still here since 2001!

[stugumby]

well, you can always dabble into the interestingly frustrating world of the CUP modules, exploding palnes, disappearing cockpits and missions that dont work anymore...but once you get it working it i sindeed shiznitteeeee...

[Tuco22]

I don't mind the wait so much, checking this forum every day at noon and 5pm has become such a habit that its going to be a weird few years after release.

[Treetop64]

It seems that when the patch is finally released, it will need only a handful of fans. Most of which are already in Warthunder

There are better alternatives to War Thunder, including 1946. IMO going from this game to War Thunder is a huge step backwards, unless one is interested only in visuals.

Kinda like going from a smooth-running, superbly maintained 1965 Ferrari 250GT with only slightly weathered and chipped paint, to a 2010 Hyundai Accent that gets a different set of used spark plugs and a new paint job about every other month or so.

[majorfailure]

There are better alternatives to War Thunder, including 1946. IMO going from this game to War Thunder is a huge step backwards, unless one is interested only in visuals.

Kinda like going from a smooth-running, superbly maintained 1965 Ferrari 250GT with only slightly weathered and chipped paint, to a 2010 Hyundai Accent that gets a different set of used spark plugs and a new paint job about every other month or so.

If only used copies of ancient IL-2 had nearly the value of an old used Ferrari 250GT.... Maybe I should keep mine for a couple more years. And then exchange it for a used old Porsche 356 -any of those would do.

[RPS69]

There are better alternatives to War Thunder, including 1946. IMO going from this game to War Thunder is a huge step backwards, unless one is interested only in visuals.

Kinda like going from a smooth-running, superbly maintained 1965 Ferrari 250GT with only slightly weathered and chipped paint, to a 2010 Hyundai Accent that gets a different set of used spark plugs and a new paint job about every other month or so.

Anyone that could compare flying/playing with IL2 to Warthunder or similar offers, should keep on WT, and forget everything about IL2. They don't deserve it.
Also for a campaign builder, having a bit of stability, is actually a bonus. Some changes in between patch versions, could ruin a whole campaign set.

[idefix44]

May be IL2 is it an average game, but it is the best of all the WWII flight simulators

Thanks TD. Keep in mind the sim spirit.

[Vendigo]

how...much...longer...

[KG26_Alpha]

how...much...longer...

Steady there.......... not long now :)

[majorfailure]

how...much...longer...

neeeeed.....fix....of......new.....il2........cont ent........

[Sita]

http://www.panzerkampfwagen.cz/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=4725&rowstart=620#post_241236

[shelby]

i hope this will be the final version :)

[Sita]

we all hope in it)

[KG26_Alpha]

i hope this will be the final version :)

Final version of what ?

[shelby]

of the RC

[Azimech]

I'd love to test it, I've been playing Kerbal Space Program since late 2012 after flying the IL2 series almost a decade. Maybe the update will pull me back in?

[Treetop64]

I'd love to test it, I've been playing Kerbal Space Program since late 2012 after flying the IL2 series almost a decade. Maybe the update will pull me back in?

If you like, try Orbiter 2010 (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/) for a more realistic approach to simulated space travel. It requires commitment on the user's part to "study up" before you can think about a rendezvous with the ISS, but it is well worth it and extremely rewarding, especially if you're using a downloadable third-party spacecraft (http://www.orbithangar.com/browse.php), which are often of a higher fidelity and more realistic than the default DeltaGlider. There is also an Orbiter 2015 in current beta development.

Kerbal is fine, but I found it too simplified, and it omits key features of orbital mechanics to that end.

[RobN]

Yes, Orbiter is great. Super-immersive and intellectually satisfying. :cool:

[_RAAF_Firestorm]

Orbiter is an absolute GEM of a simulator. Highly recommended and its incredible that its free!

[Marabekm]

From one of the few pilots that still fly stock and not HSFX, thank you guys for the new patch. Especially enjoyed flying my Cr-42 around the new Tobruk map.
Everything is awesome. Now to go make some missions.

[Fergal69]

I have DVD version of 1946, but purchased the Steam version of 1946 as well.

Will the Steam version automatically update via Steam as at present it hasn't?

[Azimech]

If you like, try Orbiter 2010 (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/) for a more realistic approach to simulated space travel. It requires commitment on the user's part to "study up" before you can think about a rendezvous with the ISS, but it is well worth it and extremely rewarding, especially if you're using a downloadable third-party spacecraft (http://www.orbithangar.com/browse.php), which are often of a higher fidelity and more realistic than the default DeltaGlider. There is also an Orbiter 2015 in current beta development.

Kerbal is fine, but I found it too simplified, and it omits key features of orbital mechanics to that end.

Yeah, I've used Orbiter for years, but wanting the same as Harvester, only with him having the brains and resources to really build a game.

But it's the mods that really kicks KSP into a new level, and it's a start to even more greatness. Orbiter too omits N-body physics, at least in KSP a modder is working on it. Surely one day our machines will be powerful enough for fluid dynamics.

Right now I'm working on building piston engines (already invented the KSP turboshaft engine). Once the plugin for ignition timing is ready, we'll start building planes with them, 1903 style. We expect a technological race and in 5 years we'll have a multiplayer game where you have pilots flying the hardware we invent, build and refine.

But first ... 4.13 time!

[christopher0936]

Is anyone here? nobody's said anything in two months.

[christopher0936]

the last post in the reply thread was two months ago... plz no let die D:

[Sita]

4.13 is out ... time to go forward )

[Tuphlandng]

4.13 is out ... time to go forward )


Go forward to 4.14?

[Sita]

4.13.1 at first ...

[stugumby]

Can you guys put the old p40 stationary back into the FMB, as it stands now we have the old p40 flyable but when looking at stationary planes on older missions there is no way to remove them except to manually edit them out in note pad in the mis file.

[Tuphlandng]

4.13.1 at first ...

Thanks Sita You guys are the best

[IceFire]

Can you guys put the old p40 stationary back into the FMB, as it stands now we have the old p40 flyable but when looking at stationary planes on older missions there is no way to remove them except to manually edit them out in note pad in the mis file.

Group selecting them works just fine too.

[Nil]

Thanks Sita You guys are the best
Yes, Indeed, they really are the best.
By their work and dedication, they make our awesome IL2 even better.
I love flying with B5N, new russian bombers...
I LOVE their work
Il2 is still alive thanks to them!

4.13.1... sweet

[zxwings]

Il2 is still alive thanks to them!
LOL, I bet that without them, IL-2 1946 would sitll be alive, and that the mojority of its players nowdays would not abandon it if it were still 4.09m stock game.

If you decorate a tree, you don't say that "you" make the tree alive. It's the quality of Oleg's IL-2 that lets it be alive, not the "official" modders.

[gaunt1]

TD did far more to this game and community than Oleg ever did! So please, refrain from such statements...

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

Totaly agree!!

TD did so much, and put so many new features into the game where Oleg said there is no time for, or is impossible ...

Thanks TD

[Buster_Dee]

These discussions always seem foreign to me. I don't think my work for TD is better than Oleg's. I don't think I'm better than modders, and I DO understand I am not that different (though I'm a turtle to their rabbit). I don't add detail because I'm better; I do so because I am an inexcusable eye-candy junky. Between the volleys, I see a family of fans. My brother and sister argued like masters. Because they knew I had no skills in it, they just let me stand back and smile. I may sound stupid, but I'm smiling now.

If I can wander off target for a minute (and don't take this as my next project--I'm just interested), has anyone ever seen pictures of the MK IV radar installation in the Defiant cockpit? Please PM me if anyone has a lead. I don't want to steal this thread.

[Nil]

Hey guys I need your help,
Since the last patch, I cannot taxing properly.
I mean I can not turn left and right anymore.
I use the "wheel brake" button and the rudder to turn usually, now it is not working anymore.
It happens with Pe8, Il4, B5n, D3A.
How do you do? thanks you very much for your help :-P

[Sita]

yes we know about that issue ... in list ....

[Nil]

yes we know about that issue ... in list ....
Thanks Sita !
Maybe make a "left brake" button and a "right brake" button as we have already those axis

[Janosch]

Change the default take off spawn point position towards the rear end of the carrier deck.

[shelby]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgmupAC3vaM

[Tolwyn]

For the old and non-tech geeky, what am I looking at?
I see that the before and after vids are different, but what's changed or happening?

[Sita]

hard to see that in video ... but now in ships all gun are firing... with normal rate of fire ...
before that for example quad gun turret firing by one barrel but with x4 rate of fire ...

it was a try to compare old and new version

[stugumby]

Just curious as to whether there will be any map fixes or upgrades or new maps etc in 413.1 Im wanting to do some 42 new guinea missions of IJN landings at Buna etc and Oro bay anti shipping attacks but the current maps have only parts of whats needed or have a years later airfields everywhere etc. Also Goodenough island stranded troops and allied landings etc.

[KG26_Alpha]

For the old and non-tech geeky, what am I looking at?
I see that the before and after vids are different, but what's changed or happening?

hard to see that in video ... but now in ships all gun are firing... with normal rate of fire ...
before that for example quad gun turret firing by one barrel but with x4 rate of fire ...

it was a try to compare old and new version

Turrets & gunners now under independent fire control
Firing solutions are independent rather than en-mass

[Sita]

like one of my friend discribe it ))
mg fire was:
---------------------------------------
=> => => => => => => => => => => =>

mg fire now:
---------------------------------------
=> ----- => ---- =>
=> ----- => ---- =>
=> ----- => ---- =>
=> ----- => ---- =>

[71st Mastiff]

wow nice work.

[Pursuivant]

Turrets & gunners now under independent fire control. Firing solutions are independent rather than en-mass

A welcome improvement to ship "AI" behavior.

Also, it sounds like another step towards getting Flak Towers into the game.

[Pursuivant]

Looking through the i18n file, I noticed an omission in the US 15th AF order of battle, possibly the most famous US fighter group of them all, the 332nd FG "Red Tails" AKA "Tuskeegee Airmen".

Here is suitable data, if any DT member wishes to add the following units to the regInfo.properties file:

15AF_332FG_99FS 332nd Fighter Group, 99th Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_100FS 332nd Fighter Group, 100th Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_301FS 332nd Fighter Group, 301st Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_302FS 332nd Fighter Group, 302nd Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"

regShort.properties data:

15AF_332FG_99FS 99th FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_100FS 100th FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_301FS 301st FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_302FS 302st FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF

Copyright-free squadron patch art here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/332d_Expeditionary_Operations_Group

[Sita]

Looking through the i18n file, I noticed an omission in the US 15th AF order of battle, possibly the most famous US fighter group of them all, the 332nd FG "Red Tails" AKA "Tuskeegee Airmen".

Here is suitable data, if any DT member wishes to add the following units to the regInfo.properties file:

15AF_332FG_99FS 332nd Fighter Group, 99th Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_100FS 332nd Fighter Group, 100th Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_301FS 332nd Fighter Group, 301st Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"
15AF_332FG_302FS 332nd Fighter Group, 302nd Fighter Squadron "Red Tails"

regShort.properties data:

15AF_332FG_99FS 99th FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_100FS 100th FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_301FS 301st FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_302FS 302st FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF

Copyright-free squadron patch art here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/332d_Expeditionary_Operations_Group

Done ... wait till 4.13.1)

[Music]

http://i1099.photobucket.com/albums/g388/FS_Music/untitled.png_zpshjb46mjk.jpeg (http://s1099.photobucket.com/user/FS_Music/media/untitled.png_zpshjb46mjk.jpeg.html)

Had to Sita / DT :c)

Looking forward to this.

[Pursuivant]

Done ... wait till 4.13.1)

Thanks!

If it would be useful I can add further Allied units which served in the MTO.

[Pursuivant]

Maybe not for 4.13.1, but here's a complete and corrected Order of Battle for the USAAF 15th AF, which was based in Italy from approximately 1943-45.

Changes:

* Many units added
* Some group nicknames changed or removed to reflect WW2-era names (many bomber groups were deactivated after WW2, then later reactivated as transport units)
* Some WW2-era nicknames added.
* Bombardment Groups equipped with B-17 or B-24 are designated as (Heavy), per period practice.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the following existing entries in the RegInfo and RegShort files should be removed, since the squadrons are assigned to the incorrect group. I've removed them from my updated OOB.

15AF_450BG_716BS 716th BS, 450th Bombardment Group, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_717BS 717st BS, 450th Bombardment Group, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_718BS 718d BS, 450th Bombardment Group, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_719BS 719d BS, 450th Bombardment Group, 15th AF


RegInfo.properties
15AF_111RS 111th Reconnaissance Squadron (Fighter), 68th Reconnaissance Group, 15th AF
15AF_122LS 122nd Liaison Squadron, 68th Reconnaissance Group, 15th AF
15AF_14FG_37FS 37th Fighter Squadron, 14th Fighter Group, 15th AF
15AF_14FG_48FS 48th Fighter Squadron, 14th Fighter Group, 15th AF
15AF_14FG_49FS 49th Fighter Squadron, 14th Fighter Group, 15th AF
15AF_14FG_50FS 50th Fighter Squadron, 14th Fighter Group, 15th AF “Strikin' Snakes"
15AF_154RS 154th Reconnaissance Squadron (Fighter), 68th Reconnaissance Group, 15th AF
15AF_154WRS 154th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron, 68th Reconnaissance Group, 15th AF
15AF_15PRS 15th Photo Recon Squadron, 5th Photo Recon Group, 15th AF
15AF_16RS 16th Reconnaissance Squadron (Bomber), 68th Reconnaissance Group, 15th AF
15AF_1FG_27FS 27th Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Group, 15th AF
15AF_1FG_71FS 71st Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Group, 15th AF “The Ironmen"
15AF_1FG_94FS 94th Fighter Squadron, 1st Fighter Group, 15th AF “Hat In The Ring"
15AF_2641SG_855BS 885th Bombardment Squadron, 2641st Special Group, 15th AF
15AF_2641SG_859BS 859th Bombardment Squadron, 2641st Special Group, 15th AF
15AF_2BG_20BS 20th Bombardment Squadron, 2nd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Buccaneers”
15AF_2BG_429BS 429th Bombardment Squadron, 2nd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_2BG_49BS 49th Bombardment Squadron, 2nd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Wolves”
15AF_2BG_96BS 96th Bombardment Squadron, 2nd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Red Devils”
15AF_301BG_32BS 32nd Bombardment Squadron, 301st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_301BG_352BS 352nd Bombardment Squadron, 301st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_301BG_353BS 353rd Bombardment Squadron, 301st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_301BG_354BS 354th Bombardment Squadron, 301st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_301BG_419BS 419th Bombardment Squadron, 301st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_310BG_379BS 379th Bombardment Squadron, 310th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_310BG_380BS 380th Bombardment Squadron, 310th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_310BG_381BS 381st Bombardment Squadron, 310th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_310BG_428BS 428th Bombardment Squadron, 310th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_317BG_34BS 34th Bombardment Squadron, 17th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_317BG_37BS 37th Bombardment Squadron, 17th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_317BG_432BS 432nd Bombardment Squadron, 17th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_317BG_95BS 95th Bombardment Squadron, 17th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_319BG_437BS 437th Bombardment Squadron, 319th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_319BG_438BS 438th Bombardment Squadron, 319th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_319BG_439BS 439th Bombardment Squadron, 319th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_319BG_440BS 440th Bombardment Squadron, 319th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_31FG_307FS 307th Fighter Squadron, 31st Fighter Group, 15th AF “Stingers"
15AF_31FG_308FS 308th Fighter Squadron, 31st Fighter Group, 15th AF “Emerald Knights”
15AF_31FG_309FS 309th Fighter Squadron, 31st Fighter Group, 15th AF “Wild Ducks"
15AF_320BG_441BS 441st Bombardment Squadron, 320th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_320BG_442BS 442nd Bombardment Squadron, 320th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_320BG_443BS 443rd Bombardment Squadron, 320th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_320BG_444BS 444th Bombardment Squadron, 320th Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_321BG_445BS 445th Bombardment Squadron, 321st Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_321BG_446BS 446th Bombardment Squadron, 321st Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_321BG_447BS 447th Bombardment Squadron, 321st Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_321BG_448BS 448th Bombardment Squadron, 321st Bombardment Group (Medium), 15th AF
15AF_325FG_0HQ 325th Fighter Group, HQ Flight, 15th AF “The Checkertail Clan"
15AF_325FG_0HQ 325th Fighter Group, 15th AF “The Checkertail Clan"
15AF_325FG_317FS 317th Fighter Squadron, 325th Fighter Group, 15th AF “The Checkertail Clan"
15AF_325FG_318FS 318th Fighter Squadron, 325th Fighter Group, 15th AF “The Checkertail Clan"
15AF_325FG_319FS 319th Fighter Squadron, 325th Fighter Group, 15th AF “The Checkertail Clan"
15AF_332FG_099FS 99th Fighter Squadron, 332nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “Redtails/Tuskeegee Airmen"
15AF_332FG_100FS 100th Fighter Squadron, 332nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “Redtails/Tuskeegee Airmen"
15AF_332FG_301FS 301st Fighter Squadron, 332nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “Redtails/Tuskeegee Airmen"
15AF_332FG_302FS 302nd Fighter Squadron, 332nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “Redtails/Tuskeegee Airmen"
15AF_376BG_512BS 512th Bombardment Squadron, 376th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Liberandos”
15AF_376BG_513BS 513th Bombardment Squadron, 376th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Liberandos”
15AF_376BG_514BS 514th Bombardment Squadron, 376th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Liberandos”
15AF_376BG_515BS 515th Bombardment Squadron, 376th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Liberandos”
15AF_37PRS 37th Photo Recon Squadron, 15th AF
15AF_449BG_716BS 716th Bombardment Squadron, 449th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Flying Horsemen”
15AF_449BG_717BS 717th Bombardment Squadron, 449th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Flying Horsemen”
15AF_449BG_718BS 718th Bombardment Squadron, 449th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Flying Horsemen”
15AF_449BG_719BS 719th Bombardment Squadron, 449th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Flying Horsemen”
15AF_450BG_720BS 720th Bombardment Squadron, 450th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Cottontails”
15AF_450BG_721BS 721st Bombardment Squadron, 450th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Cottontails”
15AF_450BG_722BS 722nd Bombardment Squadron, 450th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Cottontails”
15AF_450BG_723BS 723rd Bombardment Squadron, 450th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Cottontails”
15AF_451BG_724BS 724th Bombardment Squadron, 451st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_451BG_725BS 725th Bombardment Squadron, 451st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_451BG_726BS 726th Bombardment Squadron, 451st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_451BG_727BS 727th Bombardment Squadron, 451st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_454BG_736BS 736th Bombardment Squadron, 454th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_454BG_737BS 737th Bombardment Squadron, 454th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_454BG_738BS 738th Bombardment Squadron, 454th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_454BG_739BS 739th Bombardment Squadron, 454th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_455BG_740BS 740th Bombardment Squadron, 455th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Vulgar Vultures”
15AF_455BG_741BS 741st Bombardment Squadron, 455th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Vulgar Vultures”
15AF_455BG_742BS 742nd Bombardment Squadron, 455th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Vulgar Vultures”
15AF_455BG_743BS 743rd Bombardment Squadron, 455th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Vulgar Vultures”
15AF_456BG_744BS 744th Bombardment Squadron, 456th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Steed's Flying Colts”
15AF_456BG_745BS 745th Bombardment Squadron, 456th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Steed's Flying Colts”
15AF_456BG_746BS 746th Bombardment Squadron, 456th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Steed's Flying Colts”
15AF_456BG_747BS 747th Bombardment Squadron, 456th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Steed's Flying Colts”
15AF_459BG_756BS 756th Bombardment Squadron, 459th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_459BG_757BS 757th Bombardment Squadron, 459th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_459BG_758BS 758th Bombardment Squadron, 459th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_459BG_759BS 759th Bombardment Squadron, 459th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_460BG_760BS 760th Bombardment Squadron, 460th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_460BG_761BS 761st Bombardment Squadron, 460th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_460BG_762BS 762nd Bombardment Squadron, 460th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_460BG_763BS 763rd Bombardment Squadron, 460th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_461BG_764BS 764th Bombardment Squadron, 461st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Liberaiders”
15AF_461BG_765BS 765th Bombardment Squadron, 461st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Liberaiders”
15AF_461BG_766BS 766th Bombardment Squadron, 461st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Liberaiders”
15AF_461BG_767BS 767th Bombardment Squadron, 461st Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Liberaiders”
15AF_463BG_772BS 772nd Bombardment Squadron, 463rd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Fleagles"
15AF_463BG_773BS 773rd Bombardment Squadron, 463rd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Fleagles"
15AF_463BG_774BS 774th Bombardment Squadron, 463rd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Fleagles"
15AF_463BG_775BS 775th Bombardment Squadron, 463rd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “Fleagles"
15AF_464BG_776BS 776th Bombardment Squadron, 464th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_464BG_777BS 777th Bombardment Squadron, 464th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_464BG_778BS 778th Bombardment Squadron, 464th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_464BG_779BS 779th Bombardment Squadron, 464th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_465BG_780BS 780th Bombardment Squadron, 465th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_465BG_781BS 781st Bombardment Squadron, 465th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_465BG_782BS 782nd Bombardment Squadron, 465th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_465BG_783BS 783rd Bombardment Squadron, 485th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_483BG_815BS 815th Bombardment Squadron, 483rd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_483BG_816BS 816th Bombardment Squadron, 483rd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_483BG_817BS 817th Bombardment Squadron, 483rd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_483BG_840BS 840th Bombardment Squadron, 483rd Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_484BG_824BS 824th Bombardment Squadron, 484th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_484BG_825BS 825th Bombardment Squadron, 484th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_484BG_826BS 826th Bombardment Squadron, 484th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_484BG_827BS 827th Bombardment Squadron, 484th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_485BG_828BS 828th Bombardment Squadron, 485th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_485BG_829BS 829th Bombardment Squadron, 485th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_485BG_830BS 830th Bombardment Squadron, 485th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_485BG_831BS 831st Bombardment Squadron, 485th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_52FG_2FS 2nd Fighter Squadron, 52nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “American Beagles"
15AF_52FG_4FS 4th Fighter Squadron, 52nd Fighter Group, 15th AF
15AF_52FG_5FS 5th Fighter Squadron, 52nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “Spittin' Kittens"
15AF_5PRG_32PRS 32nd Photo Recon Squadron, 5th Photo Recon Group, 15th AF
15AF_82FG_95FS 95th Fighter Squadron, 82nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “Boneheads"
15AF_82FG_96FS 96th Fighter Squadron, 82nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “The Slugging Jackrabbits”
15AF_82FG_97FS 97th Fighter Squadron, 82nd Fighter Group, 15th AF “Devil Cats”
15AF_97BG_340BS 340th Bombardment Squadron, 97th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_97BG_341BS 341st Bombardment Squadron, 97th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_97BG_342BS 342nd Bombardment Squadron, 97th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_97BG_414BS 414th Bombardment Squadron, 97th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_98BG_243BS 243rd Bombardment Squadron, 98th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “The Pyramiders”
15AF_98BG_343BS 343rd Bombardment Squadron, 98th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “The Pyramiders”
15AF_98BG_344BS 344th Bombardment Squadron, 98th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “The Pyramiders”
15AF_98BG_345BS 345th Bombardment Squadron, 98th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “The Pyramiders”
15AF_98BG_415BS 415th Bombardment Squadron, 98th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF “The Pyramiders”
15AF_99BG_346BS 346th Bombardment Squadron, 99th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_99BG_347BS 347th Bombardment Squadron, 99th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_99BG_348BS 348th Bombardment Squadron, 99th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF
15AF_99BG_416BS 416th Bombardment Squadron, 99th Bombardment Group (Heavy), 15th AF

RegShort.properties
15AF_111RS 111th RS, 68th RG, 15th AF
15AF_122LS 122nd LS, 68th RG, 15th AF
15AF_14FG_37FS 37th FS, 14th FG, 15th AF
15AF_14FG_48FS 48th FS, 14th FG, 15th AF
15AF_14FG_49FS 49th FS, 14th FG, 15th AF
15AF_14FG_50FS 50th FS, 14th FG, 15th AF
15AF_154RS 154th RS, 68th RG, 15th AF
15AF_154WRS 154th WRS, 68th RG, 15th AF
15AF_15PRS 15th PRS, 5th PRG, 15th AF
15AF_16RS 16th RS, 68th RG, 15th AF
15AF_1FG_27FS 27th FS, 1st FG, 15th AF
15AF_1FG_71FS 71st FS, 1st FG, 15th AF
15AF_1FG_94FS 94th FS, 1st FG, 15th AF
15AF_2641SG_855BS 885th BS, 2641st SG, 15th AF
15AF_2641SG_859BS 859th BS, 2641st SG, 15th AF
15AF_2BG_20BS 20th BS, 2nd BG, 15th AF
15AF_2BG_429BS 429th BS, 2nd BG, 15th AF
15AF_2BG_49BS 49th BS, 2nd BG, 15th AF
15AF_2BG_96BS 96th BS, 2nd BG, 15th AF
15AF_301BG_32BS 32nd BS, 301st BG, 15th AF
15AF_301BG_352BS 352nd BS, 301st BG, 15th AF
15AF_301BG_353BS 353rd BS, 301st BG, 15th AF
15AF_301BG_354BS 354th BS, 301st BG, 15th AF
15AF_301BG_419BS 419th BS, 301st BG, 15th AF
15AF_310BG_379BS 379th BS, 310th BG, 15th AF
15AF_310BG_380BS 380th BS, 310th BG, 15th AF
15AF_310BG_381BS 381st BS, 310th BG, 15th AF
15AF_310BG_428BS 428th BS, 310th BG, 15th AF
15AF_317BG_34BS 34th BS, 17th BG, 15th AF
15AF_317BG_37BS 37th BS, 17th BG, 15th AF
15AF_317BG_432BS 432nd BS, 17th BG, 15th AF
15AF_317BG_95BS 95th BS, 17th BG, 15th AF
15AF_319BG_437BS 437th BS, 319th BG, 15th AF
15AF_319BG_438BS 438th BS, 319th BG, 15th AF
15AF_319BG_439BS 439th BS, 319th BG, 15th AF
15AF_319BG_440BS 440th BS, 319th BG, 15th AF
15AF_31FG_307FS 307th FS, 31st FG, 15th AF
15AF_31FG_308FS 308th FS, 31st FG, 15th AF
15AF_31FG_309FS 309th FS, 31st FG, 15th AF
15AF_320BG_441BS 441st BS, 320th BG, 15th AF
15AF_320BG_442BS 442nd BS, 320th BG, 15th AF
15AF_320BG_443BS 443rd BS, 320th BG, 15th AF
15AF_320BG_444BS 444th BS, 320th BG, 15th AF
15AF_321BG_445BS 445th BS, 321st BG, 15th AF
15AF_321BG_446BS 446th BS, 321st BG, 15th AF
15AF_321BG_447BS 447th BS, 321st BG, 15th AF
15AF_321BG_448BS 448th BS, 321st BG, 15th AF
15AF_325FG_0HQ 325th FG, HQ, 15th AF
15AF_325FG_0HQ 325th FG, 15th AF
15AF_325FG_317FS 317th FS, 325th FG, 15th AF
15AF_325FG_318FS 318th FS, 325th FG, 15th AF
15AF_325FG_319FS 319th FS, 325th FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_099FS 99th FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_100FS 100th FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_301FS 301st FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_332FG_302FS 302nd FS, 332nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_376BG_512BS 512th BS, 376th BG, 15th AF
15AF_376BG_513BS 513th BS, 376th BG, 15th AF
15AF_376BG_514BS 514th BS, 376th BG, 15th AF
15AF_376BG_515BS 515th BS, 376th BG, 15th AF
15AF_37PRS 37th PRS, 15th AF
15AF_449BG_716BS 716th BS, 449th BG, 15th AF
15AF_449BG_717BS 717th BS, 449th BG, 15th AF
15AF_449BG_718BS 718th BS, 449th BG, 15th AF
15AF_449BG_719BS 719th BS, 449th BG, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_720BS 720th BS, 450th BG, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_721BS 721st BS, 450th BG, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_722BS 722nd BS, 450th BG, 15th AF
15AF_450BG_723BS 723rd BS, 450th BG, 15th AF
15AF_451BG_724BS 724th BS, 451st BG, 15th AF
15AF_451BG_725BS 725th BS, 451st BG, 15th AF
15AF_451BG_726BS 726th BS, 451st BG, 15th AF
15AF_451BG_727BS 727th BS, 451st BG, 15th AF
15AF_454BG_736BS 736th BS, 454th BG, 15th AF
15AF_454BG_737BS 737th BS, 454th BG, 15th AF
15AF_454BG_738BS 738th BS, 454th BG, 15th AF
15AF_454BG_739BS 739th BS, 454th BG, 15th AF
15AF_455BG_740BS 740th BS, 455th BG, 15th AF
15AF_455BG_741BS 741st BS, 455th BG, 15th AF
15AF_455BG_742BS 742nd BS, 455th BG, 15th AF
15AF_455BG_743BS 743rd BS, 455th BG, 15th AF
15AF_456BG_744BS 744th BS, 456th BG, 15th AF
15AF_456BG_745BS 745th BS, 456th BG, 15th AF
15AF_456BG_746BS 746th BS, 456th BG, 15th AF
15AF_456BG_747BS 747th BS, 456th BG, 15th AF
15AF_459BG_756BS 756th BS, 459th BG, 15th AF
15AF_459BG_757BS 757th BS, 459th BG, 15th AF
15AF_459BG_758BS 758th BS, 459th BG, 15th AF
15AF_459BG_759BS 759th BS, 459th BG, 15th AF
15AF_460BG_760BS 760th BS, 460th BG, 15th AF
15AF_460BG_761BS 761st BS, 460th BG, 15th AF
15AF_460BG_762BS 762nd BS, 460th BG, 15th AF
15AF_460BG_763BS 763rd BS, 460th BG, 15th AF
15AF_461BG_764BS 764th BS, 461st BG, 15th AF
15AF_461BG_765BS 765th BS, 461st BG, 15th AF
15AF_461BG_766BS 766th BS, 461st BG, 15th AF
15AF_461BG_767BS 767th BS, 461st BG, 15th AF
15AF_463BG_772BS 772nd BS, 463rd BG, 15th AF
15AF_463BG_773BS 773rd BS, 463rd BG, 15th AF
15AF_463BG_774BS 774th BS, 463rd BG, 15th AF
15AF_463BG_775BS 775th BS, 463rd BG, 15th AF
15AF_464BG_776BS 776th BS, 464th BG, 15th AF
15AF_464BG_777BS 777th BS, 464th BG, 15th AF
15AF_464BG_778BS 778th BS, 464th BG, 15th AF
15AF_464BG_779BS 779th BS, 464th BG, 15th AF
15AF_465BG_780BS 780th BS, 465th BG, 15th AF
15AF_465BG_781BS 781st BS, 465th BG, 15th AF
15AF_465BG_782BS 782nd BS, 465th BG, 15th AF
15AF_465BG_783BS 783rd BS, 485th BG, 15th AF
15AF_483BG_815BS 815th BS, 483rd BG, 15th AF
15AF_483BG_816BS 816th BS, 483rd BG, 15th AF
15AF_483BG_817BS 817th BS, 483rd BG, 15th AF
15AF_483BG_840BS 840th BS, 483rd BG, 15th AF
15AF_484BG_824BS 824th BS, 484th BG, 15th AF
15AF_484BG_825BS 825th BS, 484th BG, 15th AF
15AF_484BG_826BS 826th BS, 484th BG, 15th AF
15AF_484BG_827BS 827th BS, 484th BG, 15th AF
15AF_485BG_828BS 828th BS, 485th BG, 15th AF
15AF_485BG_829BS 829th BS, 485th BG, 15th AF
15AF_485BG_830BS 830th BS, 485th BG, 15th AF
15AF_485BG_831BS 831st BS, 485th BG, 15th AF
15AF_52FG_2FS 2nd FS, 52nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_52FG_4FS 4th FS, 52nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_52FG_5FS 5th FS, 52nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_5PRG_32PRS 32nd PRS, 5th PRG, 15th AF
15AF_82FG_95FS 95th FS, 82nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_82FG_96FS 96th FS, 82nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_82FG_97FS 97th FS, 82nd FG, 15th AF
15AF_97BG_340BS 340th BS, 97th BG, 15th AF
15AF_97BG_341BS 341st BS, 97th BG, 15th AF
15AF_97BG_342BS 342nd BS, 97th BG, 15th AF
15AF_97BG_414BS 414th BS, 97th BG, 15th AF
15AF_98BG_243BS 243rd BS, 98th BG, 15th AF
15AF_98BG_343BS 343rd BS, 98th BG, 15th AF
15AF_98BG_344BS 344th BS, 98th BG, 15th AF
15AF_98BG_345BS 345th BS, 98th BG, 15th AF
15AF_98BG_415BS 415th BS, 98th BG, 15th AF
15AF_99BG_346BS 346th BS, 99th BG, 15th AF
15AF_99BG_347BS 347th BS, 99th BG, 15th AF
15AF_99BG_348BS 348th BS, 99th BG, 15th AF
15AF_99BG_416BS 416th BS, 99th BG, 15th AF

[flyer138]

Is there a way to increase planes in wings from 4 to 8 or even 12..16?

With larger wings, bigger formations would be possible and easier to craft.

Currently, the mission builder options are very rich but it is still very cumbersome to create missions with large formations that should stay together.
An increased wing size would help to keep aircraft together.

In my opinion, missions with the many wings needed for large formations are difficult to create and handle with the tiny wing size of 4. Even 16 planes begin to cause some trouble as there are already 4 wings doing essentially the same (rout or target).

Maybe the larger wing size should only be used for bombers or some kind of formations like the V, echelons or lines / columns.

I am not sure if this has already been raised.

[Pursuivant]

Is there a way to increase planes in wings from 4 to 8 or even 12..16?

The possibility of increasing the size of a single formation to 16 would be welcome since that would allow even the largest squadrons to be assigned to a single unit.

What would be really helpful in the FMB is if the mission builder had the option of specifying the number of flights within a formation and then the formation of each flight.

For example, if you just want 12 planes in one big echelon, you specify "1" for the number of flights, and then "echelon left" for flight formation.

But, if you wanted 12 planes in four flights of 3 "vics" - typical of many bomber squadrons, you specify "4" for the number of flights then specify that each flight takes a "Vee" formation.

Given enough formation options, you could model just about any formation used.

Obvously, a graphical user interface where you can use a mouse to set spacing, formation, etc. for an entire squadron would be most flexible, but I'm not sure that poor old IL2's interface is up to the task.

An increased wing size would help to keep aircraft together.

To keep different squadrons together, there should be a command in the FMB, for "hold formation with X".

Possibly, the list of player commands could include an option that allows a sufficiently high-ranking pilot to command other squadrons to join his squadron and follow his orders.

[Music]

I was just thinking it would be nice if we could have the ability to attach the home base to a formation of bombers, so when you respawn on a server like setting, you are spawning near enough to them to protect, not spending 5 min trying to catch up to them, all the while watching them get picked off by enemy fighters in the distance.

It would also be good for target practice, though you'd be shooting down friendlies, (just turn off their chute and there will be no witnesses).

Cheers!

**edit** Should be in "beyond 4.13" thread

[dimlee]

Is there a way to increase planes in wings from 4 to 8 or even 12..16?

With larger wings, bigger formations would be possible and easier to craft.

Currently, the mission builder options are very rich but it is still very cumbersome to create missions with large formations that should stay together.
An increased wing size would help to keep aircraft together.

In my opinion, missions with the many wings needed for large formations are difficult to create and handle with the tiny wing size of 4. Even 16 planes begin to cause some trouble as there are already 4 wings doing essentially the same (rout or target).

Maybe the larger wing size should only be used for bombers or some kind of formations like the V, echelons or lines / columns.

I am not sure if this has already been raised.

Well, the question is: how this larger wings will fly...
I do some missions occasonally (just for own usage) and keep wing size of 3, not more. Because wings of 4 behave crazy sometimes, planes collide too often.

[RPS69]

Well, the question is: how this larger wings will fly...
I do some missions occasonally (just for own usage) and keep wing size of 3, not more. Because wings of 4 behave crazy sometimes, planes collide too often.

Actually, only fighters were flown by fours.
Bombers wings were a three plane formation.

I generate a three bomber wing, and then edit the mis file, and copy paste the flight, doing some minor changes in height, X, and Y. I ussualyy rerun the mission once or twice just to check htat they don´t colide between themselves while reaching WP's.

[Pursuivant]

Actually, only fighters were flown by fours.
Bombers wings were a three plane formation.

There should be an option to have either 1, 2 or 3 plane "default" formations within the FMB, and possibly even the QMB.

From there, you could choose squadron or section formation based on base formation.

1-plane base formations: echelon left or right, line abreast, line astern, "loose deuce" ("rotte"), Vee ("Kette"), loose/modified Vee, gaggle (no formation).

2-plane base formations: echelon left or right, line abreast, line astern, "loose deuce" ("rotte").

3-plane base formations: Vee ("kette"), loose Vee/modified V, echelon left or right, line abreast, line astern, Shotei (rear 2 planes weaving behind leader), "Section and Stinger left" (2 plane line abreast, 1 plane stepped back and to the left and above), "Section and Stinger right".

Division/Squadron formations based on 2 plane sections: echelon left or right ("rotte"), "finger four" ("schwarm"), line abreast, line astern, diamond, square.

Division/Squadron formations based on 3 plane sections: echelon left or right, line abreast, line astern, diamond.

Options:

Step plane/section/division up (5 m increments)
Step plane/section/division down (5 m increments)
Step plane/section/division forward (5 m increments)
Step plane/section/division back (5 m increments),
Set plane/section/division as weaver - i.e., will weave back and forth at rear of formation to improve chances of spotting enemy AC).
Maneuver as: Plane/Section/Division/Squadron (i.e., planes will hold formation with formation leader as best they can rather than maneuvering on their own).
Fluid Fighter Tactics: Y/N (If this option is checked fighters within a section or division will use "fluid pair" or "fluid four" tactics, taking turns in attacking and switching lead as necessary.)

[Sita]

del ...

[stugumby]

Ever notice the low level attack behavior of the A20 series? When dropping regular bombs or para frags the ideal solution is to drop and get out quickly,no return to strafe etc. unfortunately both A20C,G drop and sometimes climb while dropping parafrags and then go every which way and return to strafe until all target destroyed or they get shot down. I think that the fm for these needs tweaked to reflect a more historical drop and keep going waypoint/ordnance driven fm. Also there is no way to set ai bomb fusing, try a 200/400 meter low level bomb run with b25C and watch your ai flights blow themselves up over enemy airfields and shipping. Perhaps a use of torpedo plane fm could be triggered by ordnance selected etc. parafrags drop puts planes into line astern and they have to climb to avoid plane in fronts bombs, or if using waypoint normfly put the formation to finger four or line abreast a waypoint before thru a waypoint after target. Also needed are A20C and B25C gunships for the PNG maps. For ground objects camouflaged junks and barges and Maru ships in varying paint schemes, last,lci, hospital ships etc. thanks TD for reading and for all you've done for us.