Please release Storm of War to keep us busy in the meantime, while we wait for your great 4.10 patch.

Enjoy the sun everybody! :)

+1 ;-)

Guys, you are too busy i decided to help. Be sportsmanship!:eek:

New update! :twisted:

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6007/delayq.jpg

What is "The Slot"?

and thanks for the info.....still hope one day to be able to skin static aircraft ;)

Cheers, MP

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rgia_pol89.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slot

Team Pacific's Slot map has been available as a mod for quite some time.

It is an excellent map, that has several versions depicting different time periods. It was exhaustively researched and is one of the best maps in the game. Bougainville to Guadalcanal is a very long flight.

Team Pacific is currently working on a New Guinea/New Britain map that is very pretty too. Because of the immense size of the area, and owning to limitations of this old game engine it is rendered at 80% scale.

I read somewhere from one of "THE SLOT" developers that tne NG map is a possible for inclusion in the upcoming 4.10 version of TD's release as well. The SLOT is an exceptional addition and I have it on good authority that the New Guinea is even more exceptional.

he New Guinea at 80% reduced size will NOT make MUCH difference to IL2 users, unless of course the 80% applies to objects and airbases.

Most player users on missions hit 8X right after takeoff to get to the action waypoints quickly, which makes actual distances non-important.

It might be worth discussion. In my opinion any map at over 80% for large areas doesn't make alot of sense in the IL2 maps.

Yes, I appreciate realism like the next person. In a situation... like the MSFT CFS2 where real satellite data is often used for terrain, landscapes, etc. then full size is the only recourse. Then again, the old CFS2 allows users to fly across map areas (borderless).

If Oleg is using satellite real world data for his maps in BOB SOW I suspect he'll need to make it possible to fly across map areas. This would be a great improvement. Also, it would probably mean that third party maps would be playing an important part in the the BOB SOW very quickly.

The prospects for BOB SOW are exciting.

All objects and bases, etc... are the correct size. Just the map itself is 80%.

It's absolutely stunning.

Are there any images available? I'd love to see the progress on that map.

80% of real size sounds just fine to me. It'd be a very valuable map historically with so much of the air war fought over this area. If it's scaled down a bit to make it work... so be it. I'd just love to have some more Pacific territory to cover.

Sorry to ask,that might drive some mad,but,what of so exciting that Slot Map have?

Umm... well.. it's one of the most historically significant areas in the central Pacific. Quite a bit of air combat (and otherwise) happened in this area. It'd be like the Eastern Front maps missing Kursk or Stalingrad.

The scenery in the Slot maps is fabulous and the multiple maps of the area are supplied in many date ranges. You do not fly over 1945 airbases unless you choose 1945 maps of the region. You don't have to overlook airbases that didn't exist at the time of your missions.

The aircraft in the Pacific were hot performers after 1943.

The carrier takeoffs and landings is also a big part of Pacific operations.

The Slot is also where the IJN's air service was defeated. It would never recover from Guadalcanal. Japan's fate was sealed in the waters of and skies over the "slot". The rest of the pacific war was a very bloody, very costly mopping up operation. So, yeah it's important.

It's pity that we won't have full range of pacific theatre A/C (ie Grumman) at our map/mission making disposal

http://www.mission4today.com/images/...aythatsign.gif

South West Pacific
 

Yep, the Solomons and New Guinea campaigns from mid 1942-early 1944 was where the IJN and IJA air arms were chewed up and destroyed in a battle of attrition. One of the best periods for IL2 campaigns, as the opposing forces are pretty evenly matched and you have to make the best use of the aircraft that you fly (although shame about the FMs and DMs currently in the game) to survive.
The Slot map together with Lowengrin's DCG are a great combination to recreate this struggle. The New Guinea map will be a fantastic addition to the game and open lots of new possibilities.
Almost obligatory reading for anyone interested in aerial warfare in the SW Pacific during this period, and anybody else who likes reading a well written history of aerial warfare in general, is "Fire In The Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific" by Eric M. Bergerud (2000). Its a fantastic read, and I highly recommend it. Great sections on the aircraft involved, tactics, and interesting pilot interviews. Actually I just noticed that you can read the entire book on line at http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=82355094!!

Hi Daidalos Team, my first post here, sorry if it have been asked before, i would know if in the next patch will be a better widescreen support. thanks ;)

Hmm,...I don't think it will be in 4.10 yet but maybe in one of the next updates, who knows.
For now what you can do (if you haven't already), is opening your confini file and copy the following:

width=1680
height=1050
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=1
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=0
EnableResize=0
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=0
Use3Renders=0

In the first lines set your desired screenresolution.

~S~

thanks FlyingShark, already done that, but i noticed is just a 4:3 cropped view.. i lose my artificial horizont and other instruments... hope TD will address this soon

regards

The LOD issue should as well be fixed along with the widescreen bug. I'm still using 800x600 resolution on my 19" 5:4 LCD online in order to see the dots.

Try this! IL2FOVCHANGER

Oh yes. I used to use (:D) 1024x768 on my 22" CRT. Now with Vista 64, I can't get around the 60Hz bug anymore (probably because M$ thinks everybody has a TFT anyway, there aren't even CRTs on the market anymore). This issue is solvable for DirectX by setting a complete refresh force for all resolutions, but this doesn't kill the bug for OpenGL renderer. Tools like RefreshForce or the override function of ATi Tray Tools that worked like charm in XP or Vista 32 don't work with 64bit anymore... bummer.

So I have to use my desktop resolution which is 1280x960 - well, I had it set at 1600x1200 in the past, but I want to save some lifetime of my CRT, it's getting blurry there, but it's still 100% fine at 1280. But I can't see shit with those little dots now... only 109s, Las, Stukas etc which have those 5 times bigger LOD models :cool:

It's also extremely hard to spot ships... usually I see their fire before I can find the dot... it's too late already when the whole ship pop out of nowhere :D

tried this also... but it's me or it only change the FOV not adding the missed lateral parts of screen?

I'd really appreciate it if TD could comment on the aspect ratio/fov issue and whether or not it's something they can fix.

Thanks in advance.

I don't think it is hard to change the FOV (i.e. allow more degrees for widescreens). However, wider FOV may reveal "holes" in planes, so this can be an obstacle for fixing wide screen. The same is for 6DOF - reworking lots of planes needs too much work.

I have 1920 x 1200 24" monitor

I gave up on all the widescreen stuff.

The standard IL2 factor for resolution is the best go, even if you have black sections on the left and right of the screen.

Elongated aircraft, crazy looking wingspreads, etc. just turn the IL2 into some kind of distorted mess.

SOW may be different I don't recall Oleg saying anything specific about how screen resolutions will be handled in SOW

This "distortion mess"happens only when saveaspectratio is set!

Yeah, I use 1400 X 900 no problem, saveaspectratio should be zero not 1, and juts enter your resolution. This is how you get widescreen.

I gave up on the widescreen couple years ago.

As I recall, even when I got it to work it chopped off the top and bottom. Actually, I was seeing less of the air battle area.

So... are you saying with widescreen you can see everything you can see that is available in IL2 views.

yes but you will lose the upper and lower part of screen... what you will have is a cropped visual.. and you will lost the rear mirror and the artificial horizont and other instruments... have you noticed that? try with saveaspectratio=0 and you'll see that you'll have the same horizontal view, not a pixel less, but more vertical view...

Of course with a widescreen resolution a bit of the top and bottom picture is missing in comparision with 5 to 4, but with a TrackIr or a similar device you don't feel it as you field of view is restricted anyway in any resolution.

I doubt it. large FOV will certainly help in high deflection shooting senarios, where your eyes should concentrate on the reticle and enemy.

Just imagine shooting with an uncropped widescreen in my signature.

i think that given a data width the software crop the height to maintain aspect ratio... but what if you give an height and expand the width? i don't know if it will be simple to implement but i think that today that widescreens are most used it is a must have for a full immersion. I LOVE IL-2, and i think this should have implemented ASAP instead of new flying planes or other stuff (don't throw flames now please :-) ) Right now i'm flying with the 2 black lateral bars, i found it that i have more visual than expanding it...

+100000000000000000000000:-)

I think more FOV for Widescreen is a must. I used FOV changer with maximum FOV= 100 ( stock is 90) and i have no problem with any plane ( no holes etc).

I got the same size of view in my Widescreen ( 16:10) with FOV=100 like in 4:3 ascpect ratio and FOV=90 - so i used 1440x900 with full screen ratio and i dont loose any part of view.

So im sure that making maxium FOV=100 for Widescreen users is not so hard task and bug free. It would be nice if TD would make such.

I haven't compared the two directly but I usually fly with a wide FOV so I didn't notice that the mirrors or guages where being cropped out. It depends on which aircraft too, some of the "newer" aircraft (PF and beyond I guess) have a nice range of FOV, whereas some older aircraft have a FOV that is too close to the instrument panel, so its like flying with tunnel vision.

There is a difference between field of view (number of degrees encompassed in the image) and field of view (number of degrees not obscured by the cockpit). Il-2 actually lets one distort the image so as to see more degrees than a screen's width alone would allow.

I'm guessing that what you're most likely seeing with the Pacific theatre aircraft are simply better cockpit designs intended for visibility during carrier landings.

i did some tests, i mapped 2 keys in IL-2 "increase FOV" and "decrease FOV", and here is the result. the screenshots are taken with the black bars and standard FOV, the sovrimpressed screenshot is taken with SaveAspect=0 and i pressed 2 times the increase FOV key. it looks identical.. with no distortion... can somebody confirm that? if this is true than we just need to map the 2 keys and tap increase FOV 2 times every time we start a new flight... i'm using 1440x900 i don't know with other resolutions if it is the same.. :)

Like Kwiatek said, it can't be that hard. I play a lot of old games like the first Rainbow six games, Ghost Recon, In Cold Blood, Deus Ex,... at my job on my labtop and they can be set at 1440 X 900 resolution. Those do have the option ingame and they just look a bit nicer. So, if I can play those old titles at widescreen resolution, I'm sure Il2 should have the possibility to.

~S~

As i said implement FOV=100 ( stock is 90) in game would change thing a lot. Actually there is a need to used external soft FOV changer to have real Widescreen view in game without losing any part of view ( like in 4:3). SO implement FOV=100 and also some things from Widescreen Mod ( like new map, menu etc) will give us real widescreen option. I think it shouldn't be so hard if it was alread done by some moders.

S!

Interesting subject, but I expect to hear on the 4.10 news here :!:


It would be time we have any probable date of release :(

TD will probably release it when it's ready. They probably shouldn't have given an expected release date in the first place. They probably won't make the same mistake again...

They probably should release it if they said they would. Project management would PROBABLY help on the next release. Free time or not, if you say your going to do it then do it. it is called accountability.

l

And who exactly are TD accountable to?

Given the attitude of some people, I could understand it if they said '*** the lot of you, if you can't do anything but moan, we'll find something else to do with our free time'...

Accountability is probably the first and foremost reason that this project is running late. These men are accountable to their families, their jobs, and to their real world commitments as well as their own desire to put out a top quality product well before any need to pacify entitlement age twits who need to have everything they want immediately.

So,because of that,I can give a suggestion.

Call me anything for saying this,but an open Beta would be the solution.
We get what we want,and we report any problem if we find them.
Hundreds of people looking for bugs in a world (literaly) looks more eficcient than a few dozens that unfortunately doesn´t have enough time.

BTW,say anything,but not that I mean TD is incompetent and useless.

IMHO - the type of bugs they're probably trying to identify and solve are the type of bugs that are deal breaker types that lock up your machine, drag your performance down to unflyable frame rates or conflicts that corrupt your install and generally bugger up everything. There would be allot of variables they need to test before they can be confident it won't be unstable.

I'm sure the last thing they or you want is to release an unstable beta patch that is not everything they were intending it to be, undoes all their hard work and requires a rushed fixer patch for those that rushed to install it can fly again - or a complete re-install, which would unnecessarily annoy allot of people.

It's in everyone's best interest to let TD do their thing, for as long as it takes, it's up to them when they think it's safe for general community download. It might seem that a dozen or more beta testers wouldn't be as fast as 100 or more but in reality trying to sift through all the complaints and error reports to get to the bottom of 1000 problems in a forum style feedback system would be an absolute nightmare. It would be much better to have a small group with direct contact with those developing it...as they have now.

Just my opinion ;)

Amen

I think you are just overexaggerating a little bit. There are many people in the world who provide free softwares (including games, and big ones in our genres) or other stuffs. They also have their daily obssession. But once they made a promise, they would try their best to fulfill it. It is called responsibility, which has nothing to do with money. One should be responsible to what he/she said. They should try hard to live up to their promise. Just imagine how the world will become if everyone doesn't care about what he/she said.

Making promise gives other people hope, which is also a pleasure. Fullfilling it will greatly delight yourself and those people even more. So don't give people pleasure and then destroy it.

Make a promise, and live up to it. Or don't make any at all.

So you are telling TD not to release the patch?

Exactly what 'promise' did anyone make anyway? Look at the original posting:
It was only ever provisional, and has since been substantially revised by (amongst other things) 1C/MG giving access to development software that TD didn't have - in the short term, this obviously slowed things down.

Can I suggest that anyone who feels 'let down' by TD stops complaining, unless they have something constructive to add. Endless whining isn't going to make anything happen quicker...

The open Beta for 4.09 just generated a heap of whining about "make it official".

People will whine and whinge no matter what you do.

Hopefully TD are aware that the majority of players are extremely grateful for their hard and free work and patiently await the next exciting update :D

+1

TD can always say "bugger it" and stop any further production and not release anything at all.

I too, am anxiously waiting for this patch to be released, however I would want it working properly and have than riddled with bugs and get turned off this great game.

Then we would trade release whining for "OMG it doesn't work... TD suxxxx0rs" whining.

Well at least it would be a change then ;)

They say a change is as good as a rest - might get us 4.11 faster? Or maybe we should buy some machines for TD members that make whining noises? I'd pitch in.

Lol?
Thought by the SSs everything was going well,no major bugs,at least.
Wanted to help,since till august I have plenty free time.

At less i would like to known what is happening. No respect at all with IL2 fans.

Management of expectatives
 

Just maybe we forgot that this people have been able to make things work not too long ago.

These people, and yes I mean the TD team members, didn’t start just now to deliver value to this sim.
As individuals, they have been doing so for quite a while and the community has been able to appreciate it.

With some perspective, most of us have a clear idea of how this sim has evolved in the last year and a half.
How things have change in the virtual skies and how our own expectations have also change.

Does anyone know where the limit is…?

When things have become formal, when the team signs some kind of agreement, when 4.10 cohabitates
(competes?¿) with the SoW updates, only then… things seem to be getting confusing and maybe difficult
to explain or understand.

I am sure, almost, that this is a matter of “management of expectations”. We see ourselves as clients but
also as members of a community.
As clients “WE WANT” as members of the community “WE TRY TO UNDERSTAND”.

Salutes Majo.

Thank you, I wouldn't say it better myself. Also as we tried to explain several times, the schedule posted was provisional and yes, we have changed too many things compared to the original intended content for 4.10.

Open beta - no added value for TD or IL-2 fans. We are aware of the issues, it takes time to polish/fix them. Minor bugs we may not catch will be addressed via dedicated bug reporting thread and fixed in 4.11.

I guess it will need to be repeated on weekly basis and even though it has been said in this thread already:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...postcount=1208

Lesson learned from 4.10 development however: To release much smaller and less complex patches with small content in the future = less complaining and less work for us. :cool:

4.10 Update: We have initiated another round of beta testing last week. Still things to do, but it's another step closer.

Thanks for patience and do enjoy the summer till it lasts.

Martin

thank you Martin... you guys always do a great job!! thumbs up!!

Alberto

Great to see the emplimentation of additional inputs/axis for multi-engine aircraft. Can we see this happen with wheel brakes in future patches as well?
As a real pilot using rudder peddals in-game, a single-axis for wheel braking has always bugged me about this sim series.

\/

Thanks for the update, Martin! It is much appreciated.

Thanks,

Fafnir_6

Most of the planes in game have this kind of "single-axis" system. There's usually a brake lever and rudders just control how the pressure is distributed between gears. If you check the D.XXI, you can see the whole valve system and how rudder pedals move the brake pressure valve.

We probably could do a the dual brake axis system, but it would need to function side by side with the old (current) system.

The existing system could probably use a bit of "tuning" as it is, perhaps it's just me but the differential brakes only seem to kick in at full rudder. It makes planes with quirky ground handling just impossible (like the He111). To have pedal actuated differential braking on the appropriate planes would be a great bonus. That's a small issue though compared to all the other stuff going on with 4.10.

Oh, yeah. Thanks Martin!

Things not mentioned before?

Its historically correct and what you would have to put up with if you flew one of these old aircraft in real life :D

Some of the planes in the sim had toe brakes but not many.

You can still map the brake axis in the game to one of the toe brakes for proportional brake control but need to move the rudder for differential braking.

Works fine for me (CH PRO Pedals) ... BTW the Dunlop Triple Brake Gauge in the lower right of the B534 cockpit is fully functional and is a great way of checking your brake setup. It displays exactly how much pressure is going to left and right wheels.

Our "things not mentioned before" list is longer than "things mentioned" list :-P Lots of small improvements and fixed like that strange He-111 ground handling for example.

Few pics... Lets call it dev update ;) I'm not going to explain these. You need to figure it out yourself what's going on here.


Edit: changing pics to thumbnails

...

...more...

.

S!

Nice updates Viikate. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks Viikate, amazing stuff! Love the map annotations. And the radar towers! :)

No radars here. First one is allied YG beacon. The antenna part at the top of the mast rotates at 2 RPM. Any plane capable of listening YE transmissions (coming from carriers) can listen YG too.
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/ecat/img/cat-1301.jpg

Second one is normal AM radio tower. For example it could be "Radio Honolulu" at Pearl Harbor. Mission builders can create very specific radio broadcasts with sound clips and players can use radio stations for navigation or just to keep boredom away on long flights. For Pearl Harbor attack, mission builder could put sound clips to folder "samples\radio\RadioHonolulu\19411207". These could be heard only when mission date matches the folder. For any other dates, the samples would be played from the "RadioHonolulu" folder.

Tanks!
Broken airscrews of the 88 are real great!:)

Awesome update Viikate! I'm especially happy to see both the G.50 with a proper spinner for Med operations as well as the Bf110 with corrected engine nacelles. I requested both of those a long while back and I'm absolutely delighted that they will be in 4.10. The redone Ju88 looks great too.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Awesome shots ViiKate,

Thanks very much for the update http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/041.gifhttp://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/041.gifhttp://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/041.gif

Nice!!! :d

i want it! i want it! :D
Thanks for the great update!

Wow! Excellent update, Looks fantastic, can't wait now. The radio broadcasts are fascinating, and the new "night" with runway lights and ILS, wasn't expecting that!

The guided bombs dropping from the B-29 raise as many questions as they answer...


:cool:

Amazing work!
 

Amazing work TD! I can see why it is taking so long - there is so much new stuff here and the new nav aids alone are such a huge step!

Have you heard of the "Schwan" floating radio beacon the Germans developed? It could be laid in a line across large areas of water by pathfinders to allow following bombers to navigate exactly to the target. It was to have been used in a Mistel attack on Scapa Flow for example. But after the Tirpitz was sunk our big ships went east to fight the Japanese so it never happened.

Anyway, the beacons etc are so welcome. Thanks a lot and keep going :)

amazing
 

I gathered the following from those pics
1. a parachute droppable torpedo, possibly circling/homing from a A-20G
2. underwing werfer rockets jettisonable for the bf-110 and bf-109 series
3. guided bombs dropped from b-29
4. cockpit of some type of la-7 / la-9 judging from the nose air scoop
5. very handy map with waypoints and distances in degrees and km
6. nite cockpit shot of some type of nav aid in use
7. some type of superimposed reticle on a i-153 telescope
8. damage model improvements for the wooden propellor and the under cabin escape hatch on a ju-88 torp plane

i stand impressed and awaiting the new patch quite eagerly, im itching to build a hs-129 campaign.
Does anyone know if the rear of the ju-88 rudder has been tweaked to remove the interior view??

First time I'm hearing about this. Any info about this is greatly appreciated. I couldn't find anything with Google.

However we do have option to have submarine or destroyer working as a floating NDB. For example sub could be shadowing a convoy and guiding bombers to the convoy.

Nice pictures and news. Thanks for the update.

1. Yes it's Russian circling torp. Similar like the FFF/LT350 already shown in the video.
2. Correct. Mesh is new because the old one was way too small. Thanks to Zorin for pointing this out.
3. Yes. Razon.
4. Old La-5 pit but showing that RDF instruments (РПК-2 or РПК-10) are removed when the new navigation option is enabled. Most of the early Russian fighters didn't have needed equipment/antennas installed.
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4485/076rp.jpg
5. Yes and distances are available as nautical miles for players that have set imperial units in speedbar.
6. It's B-25 pit. Only flyable in game which as more advanced ILS instrument. It's showing the glide path. Pilot with good instrument flying skills can land it in total darkness without any runway lights.
7. Bad screenshot actually :grin: Just a small fix so that the reticle doesn't overlap the ironsight bead.
8. Nothing new about the prop damages. Two pics was just to show that crew ejects from bottom hatch when plane is in air, but for obvious reason they need to eject the top blister after belly landing.

So nobody can guess what the two Hs-129 shots mean?

Hs-129 got a rear view mirror.

As for the Bf-110, will there be a GM-1 system option available?

hmm, mirror but both shots show muzzle flashes, maybe no more blinding yellow light in the cabin while firing?? and the paint scheme looks different as well.

Yes, it looks like the muzzle flashes are suppressed enough that they aren't substantially larger at night.

The G.50 is a bit of a mystery for me. I'd always wanted one with bomb racks, but the change seems to be possibly some tweaks to the model and a mysterious modification of the gunsight...?

The yellow light that muzzle flashes emit to model surfaces is now changing dynamically. More ambient light -> less visible yellow flash on model surfaces.

Ah,I knew it.Only good surprises!

I'm off on holiday now but it's mentioned by Dr Alfred Price in "Last Year of the Luftwaffe" and by Capt Eric Brown DSO RN in "Wings of the Luftwaffe", where he shows the Schwan launching tube in the rear of the Kondor Fw-200. As he both flew the Kondor and shot two down he'll know his stuff :)

He also mentions the Kondor transmitting D/F signals itself that subs would home in on.

Can a DF beacon be placed on open water? So Mistels (for example) could track it like a Schwan on the way to Scotland.

Is it possible to include ALTITUDE as well as the waypoint distance and heading? That would be ultimately helpful....

I would be careful about complete removal. I think some planes per regiment would have them. The Russian regiments had people with titles like Regimental Navigation Officer and I cannot be sure but I would think a few planes would have them fitted and others would follow them.

Can't they be a loadout option please?

Some planes definitely had them - the Pe-2 springs to mind. The IL-10 should also have them fitted.

Pe-2 & Il-10 have RDF instruments always. Also one La-7 variant, since it had a D/F-loop antenna. I've never seen a Lagg-3 with one. But if it's really needed we'll have to figure out something. I think that binding to loadout wouldn't be very graceful solution.

BTW: googling FuG 302 "Schwan-See" gives better results.

Not planned yet. It would be possible to add as a loadout but it would need few extra tricks. This was R2 right? I'm not sure if this would be worth the effort. It seem that LW pilots were not too happy with this rüstsatz because it removed the rear gunner and shifted CoG too much rearwards. So I'm guessing that it wasn't used much. Or do you have other info?

Yes, having the altitude on the map is critical, requesting altitude from ground control is not very accurate I find as they say "Altitude 01, or 03" or something equally cryptic. If ground control would say "3000 metres" or 3000 feet or something that would be better.

This is great news! :grin:

Will the transmissions stop once the radio tower has been destroyed?

+1

Yes, this would be very helpful.
When flying offline missions the mission briefing quite often fails to mention what altitude to fly or patrol at.
Even when the briefing does mention an altitude you are still left to wonder if you have to achieve that height by waypoint 3 or 4 or 5 .......:confused:

As TD are well into beta testing I would think that it is too late to add this detail to 4.10 , but perhaps it could be added to 4.11?

Very nice update though. The drool glands have kicked in again.:grin:

Dear Viikate and the TD team:
fantastic stuff! you guys are the greatest - as is your detailed knowledge of all & sundry concerning WW2 aircraft.
yours, Felix

when droping the weapons from the wings like the mortors wfr. does it effect the drag?

also dito for the fuel tanks.

I'm more curious to see if fuel tanks have an impact effect (or even do small amounts of damage). Just vanishing is a little creepy...

YES! That's going to be the very first thing I'm going to try and do.

Something to do with the muzzle flash?