@ Xilon. A long time ago I saw on National Geographic a documentary about the I-400, that sub. The Japanese wanted to bomb LA, San Fransisco and other cities with "bio-bombs". The Japanese tested some bio-weapons in China in the 1930's. The Japanese thought that conventional weapons wouldn't work because they looked at the BoB and Britain didn't surrender, so they thought that bio-weapons would have more effect, but the project was very expensive and the allies were winning the war already.

Oh yes,that´s a good one,and I´m not sure,but I guess it went throught production?

Another two things for 1946 would be Graf Zeppelin with Ju-87C and Bf-109T and the Aquila,with the Reggiane with a hook.
I know people will say "to the hell with those",but I believe ground objects mustn´t be so hard to work,and Bf-109 and Ju-87 will need small tweaks.
I-400 idk,it will need the M6A Seiran.

But all those would be a great surprise in IL2.As you see,I love naval engagements.

EDIT

Oh,there were another carrier submarine,the I-15,and the E14Y,a recon plane.

Same view
 

Hello to all

It is possible to add when in LAN game the other players can view the movements of your plane, I mean all the control surfaces.:confused:

In my case I play with four players, I am the pilot in a B-25 and the other 4 are my gunners. If I start one engine, none of the other players see the engine moving, only after I start the second engine. If I move the control surfaces the other players doesn't see that movements. Even the map doesn't update when I reach a point, the other players only see the guided line started in the original started point. The airplane in the map is correct, not the navigation line.:!:

I have a list of things that does not match:

* Ailerons = No
* Rudders = No
* Elevator = No
* Engine = Yes
* Engines = No
* Folding wings = Yes
* Arresting hook = Yes
* Open canopy = Yes
* Lights = Yes
* Map = Yes and No (only the airplane is correct, the navigation line don't)
* Guns = Yes
* Landing gear = Yes
* Bomb bay door = Yes

I know could be a matter of frame rates, but at this time the computers are better and better every day and less expensive, so they are capable of perform such tasks.:)

Thank you.

P-38L: It's not a matter of frame rates, but way back it was removed because of excessive network traffic. If it can be reinstated I don't know.

TD, long ago I have e-mailed you with a J-aircraft article regarding the A6M2 speed witch is surely incorrect in IL2 but didn't have any answer.

So again here is the article:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/r...erformance.htm

Also, I already inform you that the Ki-84 speed of 687 km/h does not reflect even the highest Japanese standard with 95 octane fuel. This speed was only obtained in post war trials with 120 octane. In the best conditions Japanese Hayates achived 624 km/h. This information can be found in any source about the Ki-84.

Any word about make these corrections for the incoming patch?

This is a secondary work, but a correction of the Japanese planes cockpit colors, witch most are incorrect would be very welcome.

Request
 

Hello TD

Ive got a few suggestions


1) a supercharger whining sound at high speed, or high rpm, wich is hearable
from the cockpit


2) when flying from the cockpit you should be able to hear the wind rushing,
and this becomes louder when your airspeed becomes higher
(currently this this sound isnt moddeled at speeds lower than 800
km/h)


3) random engine irregularities, like a hesitating engine when starting up,
or when applying full throttle with a cold engine :grin:


Thanks for working on improving Il2 Team Daidalos, and id like to hear your opinion.

Thats untrue. Its there all the time, loudest when open cockpit (i.e. I-16).
Its just quiet mostly.



4.10 will have more complex engine reliability features, so you can break your engine more easily with bad behaviour. Its optional in settings though.
Irregularities as you say, it won't.

Forgive me,
it is possible on more in detail about it? :)

Weather
 

Hello to all

What about variable weather, in a random mode. And depending of the weather affect the engine and the fly.

Wind is another fact that is not present in a good weather, wind does not depend of the weather, we can fly in a beautiful day and have a windy day.

More realistic AI aircraft in takeoff and landing, the Tupolev TB-3 is the only airplane that in takeoff action the torque acts real, the other AI aircraft are perfectly trimmed.

Thank you.

What you mean?There is already different weather in IL2.

Indeed.When AI aircraft is landing seems like a force field is dragging them to the runway.All landings looks exactly the same.

+1

This would be great, would love to see it 'reinstated'.

Hello all,

I would like to add a few requests for some of the later patches, if I may...

1) In the difficulty settings, would it be possible to add a Partially Unlimited Ammo" selection to the Limited/Unlimited ammo setting, where gun/cannon ammo is unlimited but disposable stores (bombs, etc) are not? We currently play with a lot of first-timers or inexperienced pilots on our server(getting them hooked on IL-2), who are often discouraged by playing with limited ammo because of their n00b gunnery skills. Having unlimited ammo on helps this but presents a problem when bombs and such are required since those are unlimited as well and are always present, seriously degrading performance (this will likely be a bigger issue once 4.10 is out).

2) CG upgrades for existing aircraft including (I'm not sure if you have these planned or not): He111 (the wheels are too small a diameter, please enlarge them to historical proportions at the very least), Ju87B-2 LOD0 rear gunner station is not accurate when viewed from the outside, IAR80 series needs new wheels and a high-resolution default skin (I believe the unlicensed modding community has already done this, maybe they could contribute?), the Fi156 & R-10 could both use an exterior LOD0 CG update like you guys have done with the Hs129 and Ju88. There are likely many more planes from the original IL-2 that need an update as well(MiG-3, Ju52, DC-3 variants, etc).

3) Flyable Hs123 and AI Hs126. I have detailed resources from the original maintenance manuals, flight manuals, and handbooks (including information needed for building the damage model) for both of these types. I will be happy to make them available should you decide to pursue these.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

+1.
I would like another intermediate step: limited, but higher ammunition setting. Twice the real load, for example. Generally speaking, I would like all possible intermediate options, to make the learning curve less steep by offering more incremental steps. This should be beneficial to bring in new players.
Thank you, TD.

A thing that I always found difficult to master in Il2 is the trim.

In real world airplanes, you set the speed with the stick or yoke, and then you use the trim to reduce stick force. When the stick force is zero, the plane is trimmed for that speed.

As most joysticks don’t have stick force, this method cannot be implemented, but there are surely other systems. The simplest that comes to my mind is to set the speed with joystick, and then have a button or key that adopt this as the trim speed.

In black shark you set speed with joystick, then press a button and immediately return the joy to the neutral

Am I the only one who has no requests?! The stuff I have seen from DT is great and they have a lot of ideas and a bunch of good people onboard to realise even more than we can imagine! So guys stay tuned and enjoy the show!

I'm not directly allowed and further more, I'm not the optimal person to speak about it, as it wasn't made by me at all.

Just as much as... you will have to be carefull with WEP and even flying 100% all the time.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but when you go to land and you're not the squad leader with a wingman following you, he will follow you straight to the ground and for every other landing will probably end up in the dirt, sometimes even dead. All this with no option to tell him to break off or go around to land himself. I've lost quite a few AI pilots this way and it has been the second leading killer of friendly AI wingmen. You dont get the option to tell him to go land or do something else because you're not the flight lead.

It would be nice to send an order to your wingman wether or not your the squad leader, if someone flies on your wing you should be able to direct him if he isn't able to judge for himself that flying into to the ground to stay with a plane that is attempting to land is a bad idea.

I think the best bet would be to be able to tell your wingman "we're here, start your landing routine" or at least have the entire flight acknowledge its RTB time, not follow wingman to death. :|

Again, could you please limit the AI too? Not everyone is flying online, and the AI is difficult enough to combat (I dare say that Ace AI is better than the average human pilot online, from my short experience on the servers).

I'm all for more realism, in fact, I've made Il-2 as realistic as possible (turned off map, HUD messages etc.). But trying to catch an enemy who's pushing 110% is not fun, neither realistic.

Please, considerate this TD.

IL2 pilots must be able to cruize comfortably.

Make's no sense we have a sim, which the objective is try do simulate the reality and have a basic flight procedure more difficulty then in RL. The current trim system is really uncomfortable.

I hope this doesnt make the gap even bigger between the strong radial engine La's and other inferior fighters.

Note that inferior planes are the ones who need to push their engine to the max to compete...

I do not agree. May AI could manage his plane energy better, but never an average online player is more easy to combat than an AI. Human players are much better.

Who said that? :grin:

The reality is not, that you just have to push a button and your plane is flying straight as you wish. Furthermore most planes do not have trim on all axis, while some have. Would be a bit unlogic to me that all planes should have such a feature then.
I don't think, its uncomfortable as it is now, nor is it unrealistic. Approach your cruise speed and adjust separate trim axis and you are fine - as you would do in RL.

I have actual flying experience and the trim in IL2 seems fine to me. I understand what is being said, but because our pc joysticks are not actually connected to an aircraft its the best solution for now, just trim until the VSI is at 0 and you are holding the cruise attitude. Not all aircraft have in-flight adjustable trim, some only have elevator trim and some have no in-flight adjustable trim. Most of the US aircraft have all axis adjustable trim, whereas some of the british and german fighters like spits, tempests and 109's have only in-flight adjust on the elevator trim. Now that being said, some aircraft have trim tabs on the control surface (ailerons) which are adjusted outside of the aircraft before flight, and this I'm sure was the case with spits and 109's.

there's no computer on-board these old planes that can adjust your trim based on what your airspeed is, the trim is manually controlled, and anyone who knows how these planes were designed to work understands that the faster you go, the more lift u get, so the more trim you need to apply, there's no way the plane, being 100% seat-of-pants, no automatic controls, could know how much trim to apply no matter what speed your going, so you need to do it yourself.

By reference to black shark I meant only that the press of a button would set the current position of elevator as no force position, so that when I let the stick immediately to the neutral position, the plane will not pull up but fly as few seconds before. No automation. I have CPL/IR and I must say that the way it is now is rather realistic, but if you are using only keyboard presses, it takes much longer time to trim than in RL, when you know the plane you are flying.

Exactly what I was thinking.

In aircraft of the period you had to adjust the trim manually to get 'hands off' flight. The sim is the same. Automatic trim adjustment at the push of a button would be unrealistic.

Also, the rate at which trim can be applied is deliberately limited in the sim, as in early versions, people were using 'trim on a slider' to enhance manouverability. Yes, out-of-trim flight makes dogfighting difficult, but everyone has the same problems...

You dont get my point...if i have sliding trim, I can move it quickly to an approximately trimmed position, because I know how much force I have on the stick and I´m used to the trimming system. Here in il2 if you dont have axis for trim, it takes longer time to hold the button. maybe it would be better to have increments...like I could estimate I will need five presses of a button. That would be also realistic and quicker

You don't need to agree. I don't want this to be enforced upon players, but I do want it as an option. And yes, AI is harder. A human pilot may be better than me, but if he's worse, I will shoot him down - instead of chasing him for 40 minutes, engine flat out, until it dies.

The stupidity of the situation is that even in a historically faster aircraft I'm forced to fly slower than the AI in a slower plane, just to preserve my engine. This will become even worse in 4.10 if the AI is not limited too.

It's neither historical, nor fun.

If you have IL-2 set up to use the keyboard for trim, it should work that way anyway. Pressing a key repeatedly is the best way to move trim to a known position, e.g. for takeoff. Holding it down is very hit-and-miss except in the rare cases where the aircraft has a working trim position indicator, like the Mosquito (all axes) or the Spitfire (elevator only) for example.

I didnt know it works also this way. Thanks

Dear Daidalus team i like much more this seaplane.
https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models...mman-Duck.html

i like much moore this Movie "Murphy's war" but i don't remember the name of this seaplane yes i look in google yes is it GRUMAN J2 F-6 bellissimo beautiful seaplane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcZlV...eature=related

But because have FRANCE insigna? this seaplane is American use also France?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMyMJ...eature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman...ns_.28J2F-6.29

Yes, the Duck would be a nice plane to add to IL-2. The only problem is that it was made by Grumman. As TD have already stated, legal dificulties mean they can't do any Grumman aircraft...

I'm not sure I'd quite call it beautiful. Interesting, yes, but beautiful?

I think I have posted this elsewhere recently :D

It would be very useful if the smoke color could be toggled between white red and blue. This would make great aerobatic displays and screen shots.

This could be controlled by hitting the smoke key. First time gives white smoke then hit it again to change to red smoke and once more for blue smoke.

How about Lockheed Harpoon instead of the Duck?

Well how about making the Columbia J2F Duck. they built 330 of them after production was transferred from Grumman.

I'd love to see this.

There are unofficial modders working on appearance and loadout mods for the JU-52. They've already reworked the engines and loadouts for the C-47.

Speaking of which, how about having cargo load for cargo aircraft? No 3D work is needed, just loadouts which add "virtual mass" to the plane, which can't be dropped.

+1. AMEN! Ditto! Seconded! Priority One!

I'm a pure off-liner and nothing peeves me like unrealistic AI engine management (and unrealistic AI behavior in general). As Burdokva said, it's neither realistic nor fun, which means that it's indefensible no matter how you look at it.

For you purely on-line folks who don't think that AI behavior is an issue, imagine that there were server settings which allowed the host to turn off complex engine management, engine overheat, blackouts and redouts, pilot head shake, clouds and realistic gunnery for one team but not the others, and that you always had to fly for the disadvantaged team. Would you think that was fair? Would you fly on that server?

This is not new! Offline players have known for years the AI stinks.

If you want the best offline AI performance there is one air combat sim that will do the job. The BOB II WOV with latest updates. You will experience the most comprehensive AI package you've ever encountered OFFLINE.

Gripes about IL2 Offline AI performance are very old news.

Offline players have expectations of a much improved AI for the BOB SOW.

Given that vast majority of IL2 players are entirely or mostly off-liners, and that solving problems with AI helps on-liners as well, what's to lose by upgrading AI behavior? Why should we just accept that it's "very old news" that "AI behavior stinks" in IL2, and a go play another game if we want a decent off-line fight?

Fixes for many AI behavior problems in IL2 already exist, either as current or upcoming patches from DT, or as widely-used mods. That makes me think that it can't be that hard to implement fixes for the rest of the AI behavior problems, should the wonderful people at Daidalos Team choose to spend their time doing so.

Don't forget AI are used online in CooP missions, I don't fly dogfight servers at all due to the pointless nature of them.
But
Online AI is very important and undergoing some changes IIRC for v4.10

You need to go to Hyperlobby and check out the number of people using Forgotten Battles.

The Offline player has NEVER been the priority user with IL2.

I do agree, AI performance upgrades would be great. It's just that rants aren't going to get it done, because we all know about the problems with the AI. Maybe, I was a bit short with you. It's just not a new problem.

That's kind of strange...i seem to recall mr Maddox himself stating that the amount of online players are nowhere near the amount of copies sold, which points to the fact that the vast majority of players are mostly offline pilots.

I think it's just a case of one group receiving a much higher visibility. I mean, if a million people are onliners but they have forums, tournaments, mission and skin packs and so on, they are well-known and exposed. There could be 5 million people who fly mostly offline and nobody would know about them because, well, they just don't spend enough time online to have this kind of exposure. Heck, some may live in remote parts of the world where even a dial-up connection is a luxury. That is, nobody outside the Maddox team would know about them...because if one had inside info, like an accurate number of sold copies to compare to the amount of average hypperlobby IL2 users over a period of 10 years, the comparison is pretty easy to make.

I think we'll be pleasantly surprised, i mean TD is already looking into visibility/clouds issues for the AI. With the addition of improved engine management and G-load stress limits, i doubt they would work so hard to release such highly anticipated features if they weren't sure they could ensure a level playing field to make it fun and rewarding to use.

I don't know how much work it would be to rework the AI routines, but what i do know is that forcing some limits on the way the AI work their engines could be done in an easier way that would still work...just edit the upper limit of throttle values for AI pilots and they'd fly normally. I wouldn't care about their lack of overheat and nobody would need to script complex routines to make the AI judge when to throttle down, if they flew by default in a regime where no overheat occurs to begin with. This could suddenly make the AI massively less challenging, as they would never push their aircraft beyond the safe limits, but then again there are shortcuts. Instead of coding an AI that constantly monitors their temperature gauge, we could just have a trigger that said "when attacked, go to 110%+wep for a specified time, then go back to the restricted/normal settings". For example,

Take off: Full power (110%) for 30 secs-1 minute, or until a certain combination of altitude and speed is reached.
Continuous Climb Power: What the operational manual states as max continuous power, which conveniently enough is the 100% setting in many planes in the simulator.
Cruise: The same as climb (ie, max continuous power), or slower depending on the speed values set by the mission.
Dive: Let them manage it themselves like they do now.
When attacked: Full power for up to 1-2 minutes, then back to max continuous power (ie, 100% without WEP).

This is just a quick and dirty "algorithm" that doesn't take into account things like the loss of manifold pressure with altitude or vice versa, the fact that boosted engines made for high altitudes can be damaged if the throttle is moved all the way forward when on the ground or flying in lower altitudes.

For example, some P47s could make 52" of manifold pressure at almost 25000 feet (or was it 27k? don't exactly remember) and this was the "never exceed" WEP limit, to be used sparingly in emergencies. That was with full throttle and full turborcharger at high altitudes. If one was to shove the throttle forward when parked on the taxiway it would probably reach and exceed the 52" limit before the throttle lever reached its full travel distance, maybe even before the turbocharger kicked in, since the outside air pressure (which is what is inducted into the engine, ie its "starting" pressure before turbochargers boost it even higher) on the ground is so much higher than that on 25000 ft. In fact, it was forbidden to engage the turbocharger below 8000ft for fear of over-boosting the engine.

As you can see, it's quite complicated and i certainly wouldn't expect TD to spend enormous amounts of time on getting it right for a 10 year old game engine. We know that certain things are iffy in the way that IL2 models the piston engines, we have accepted this drawback and we are very glad to see TD working on it for free.
What most people are interested to see is not a sudden appearance of a new, extreme realism combustion engine model when the base engine models this area a bit sparingly to begin with (in SoW on the other hand i would welcome it, it's a new product after all), but to see the new improvements and features apply equally to player and AI. To that effect, having some "quick and dirty" methods like the one i described above would be enough to satisfy the players (well, most of them at least :grin: )without TD having to over-work themselves by writing completely new AI modules for engine management.

Yep, out of the half dozen or so people I know personally that play or have played IL2 I am the only one to ever venture online.

I have no idea what the actual priority for online versus offline play is in IL2 however they do seem to keep it surprising balanced overall.

However their is a general trend for the game industry as a whole. A priority is often given to keeping online gamers happy. I think the reasons for this are:

- Firstly because, as you say, the most vocal people online in forums are online types. Typical offline players will only login once every few months to download a new campaign.

- Secondly because the majority of game REVIEWERS are young male online players as well. (This also explains the tendency for gungho FPS games on consoles like XBox ... whereas in reality the worlds most successful game is the Sims and the biggest selling game system is the Nintendo DS).

- Thirdly because even if the online players are a minority a few vocal individuals complaining that the "fireball spell is nerfed" or "0.50 cal is pathetic" can undermine game sales.

I suppose what I am saying is that whilst in reality offline players are still the core market the online players are so loud and obnoxious you have to cater to them :D


EDIT:

oh and back on topic. The advantages of the AI are just there to give them some hope of surviving. If its ever changed PLEASE leave the Ace settings alone.

On a side note I am forever amused by complaints about the Ace AI shooting. Whats with that ? Is it an ego thing where you want the game nobbled so you can claim you kill everything on Ace ? Just set the AI to veteran instead and stop complaining.

Asking again,but...

I´m not sure if some might dislike this one,but,for 1946 there should be a US based map.
New York would be more than awesome,but it would have a lot buildings (general and specific ones).
Maybe Los Angeles?Or Washington.

Let's stick to reality and not fantasy.

I think a good (and simple) addition would be some new background artwork and loading screens, kind of a refresh for 4.10. Cant wait for 4.10 now, esp. the g-limits and AI changes.

blackdog_kt

Not quite, regardless of what may have been said. We got all kinds of graphic improvements, aircraft, objects,etc. The FMB was never improved since IL2 1.0 by Oleg.

Year after year no improvements. There were miniscule improvements in the AI, but nothing that made that much difference.

Offline players thrive from missions and campaigns, since they aren't playing online. I can name many issues with the Offline game, but they've been discussed so many times it's really not worth taking it there.

Oleg has indicated a very much improved BOB SOW, along with a very competent mission builder programming, etc. I do think the Offline game will take a nice leap forward.

The TD does indicate some exciting improvements in areas that will be a huge improvement for offline players, including FMB and AI improvements.

If AI programming was easy then none of the sim developers would do entertainment software but stuff for the military ... for big $$$ or €€€. ;)

This isn't the place to get into a debate about on-line vs. off-line. Other posters have done a good job of explaining the importance of the off-line community.

I will make two points however:

1) On-liners tend to be more dedicated, hence more passionate and more active in doing things like skinning, co-op mission creation and modding. They are also more likely to spend time on internet forums.

2) In addition to composing the bulk of sales for IL2, the off-line community of "casual" gamers is the natural training ground for future on-liners. If you're dedicated enough to really learn to fly well off-line, to the point that even Ace AI doesn't challenge you, you'll eventually go online.

The two communities are like two hands on the same body. They mostly operate mostly independently, but they need each other.

I know it's not a new problem. No offense taken.

True. Realistic and truly challenging AI is an art, and will probably be very difficult until we get computers which function more like human brains.

I don't expect perfection in AI, but I very much dislike AI that uses "cheats" not available to a human player and I always have; it just seems like sloppy craftsmanship/programmer under a deadline (no insult intended to DT members).

What would vastly improve play is to give the same realism options to AI aircraft as player-controlled aircraft. By default, AI would have complex engine management, engine overheat, blackout and redout and clouds off, just like it is now. If that bothers you, you could turn those options off. If you wanted more of a challenge, you could give the AI unlimited ammo as well. If you were a masochist or wanted endless "gunnery practice," you could make the AI planes invulnerable.

Difficulties programming AI notwithstanding, I believe that many of the problems with AI are solvable without too much effort.

1) Odd attack patterns for ground attack aircraft - fixed in 4.09 patch (Thanks DT!)

2) Bombers shooting each other down - to be fixed in 4.10 patch (Thanks DT!)

3) AI planes seeing through clouds - to be fixed in 4.10 patch (Big thanks DT!)

4) Stupid AI single fighter tactics - Fixed by Certificate's AI mod. Possibly very easy to implement into an official patch should he approach DT. The only flaw that I've noticed in that mod is that even Ace AI still have a tendency to go into a steep climb when pursued by a high-energy enemy.

6) Perfect Situational Awareness by AI - partially solved by a French mod team. Possibly easy to implement into an official patch should they approach DT.

7) Perfect engine management by AI - Probably a couple dozen lines of code to fix assuming that there aren't dependencies on other parts of the program or other problems. Give each AI some percentage of perfect engine management based on pilot skill, say 100% for Ace, 98% for Veteran, 95% for average and 90% for rookie. Let's see some AI smoke when a rookie pilot mishandles the fuel mixture or supercharger settings!

8 ) No engine overheat by AI - Probably a couple dozen lines of code to fix assuming no other problems. Slow down AI in non-combat situations to 50-80% of maximum speed and have them open their radiators all the way. In combat, have them fly at 90-100% speed, only using maximum power/WEP for running away, closing on enemy fighters and climbs. If top speed isn't needed and map temperature is high enough (i.e., not Winter Finland or Moscow map) have them open radiators partially or fully. When diving or turning, have them throttle back and open radiators with some chance of error based on percentages suggested for engine management. When engine overheats, have them reduce maximum power until engine cools to normal.

9) Killer bomber gunners - Probably a single freakin' line of code to fix to change the algorithm used for aim point, reducing basic accuracy and taking G forces and slipstream effects into account. If you want to get fancy, introduce a penalty for hand-held guns and a bonus certain types of turrets (those with stabilization, remote control and/or reflector sights). Old beta testers of the original IL2 game report that in one version of the beta, bomber gunners were "just about right" in their accuracy, but that the decision was made to make gunners more effective.

10) AI gunners don't correct aim point if their shots don't have enough lead - Probably a couple of lines of code to add or reprogram, making AI gunners increase their lead by X% per fraction of a second, or otherwise change their aim point, until they hit, risk stalling the plane or the target is destroyed or escapes. As it stands, I can smugly fly straight and level for several seconds with a rookie AI plane on my tail, knowing that they will blaze away without ever changing their lead.

11) AI crashes into hills, especially on take-off and landing - Possibly too difficult to implement, since it would require extensive terrain recognition programming or reprogramming which gives feedback into aircraft energy management as well as heading. Problems with crashes on take-off and landing are due to problems with defining take-off and landing patterns on maps, not AI.

12) Lack of AI team tactics - Probably too difficult to implement and in competition with SoW. Would require extensive study of WW2 aerial tactics and lots of coding. I wouldn't wish this on any programmer, especially once you get into permutations of squadron tactics.

13) Crew of burning AI aircraft don't always immediately bail out - Probably one line of code to fix. If the plane is on fire and fire extinguishers fail to work, crew automatically bails out or attempts a forced landing/ditch if they're too low to bail out.

14) Crew of crippled AI aircraft don't always behave appropriately - A more complex problem since it requires coding to cover several different situations and terrain recognition. Any crippled aircraft should drop ordinance and Return to Base, if possible: currently, bombers which are unable to maintain altitude don't always immediately drop ordinance and continue along with the rest of the squadron. Seeking friendly territory, land (when over water) or an open area for forced landing would require too much work. Instead, have crew bail out when a plane falls below 500-1000 meters and can't gain altitude. If a plane can't gain altitude below 500 meters, have it attempt a forced landing/ditching.

Agreed, I don't want Ace AI nerfed either. No punk kid shoots down a virtual Erich Hartmann (or whoever) without a serious fight. People should know that Ace AI is deliberately very tough, with unrealistically accurate gunnery (not aim point, but concentration of fire). Normal maximum skill for AI planes in a campaign or mission should be Veteran.

This phenomena also occurs with player controlled planes as well when using autopilot.

That would require lots of new objects (U.S. skyscrapers, apartment blocks, barns and houses) and new terrain textures (square U.S. fields rather than European style ones) for a part of the world which never saw action during WW2. As a mod, sure, but not as an official part of a patch originally focused on the Russian Front.

If I were begging for new maps with lots of new objects, I'd ask for a maps of Moscow, Eastern Poland, Western Poland/East Prussia, the Ruhr Valley, Ploesti, Truk atoll, Rabaul and Tokyo. That's a lot of work, though, and I'd prefer to let DT work on the stuff that only they can do.

Realistically, I'd love it if makers of certain modded maps were to donate their work to DT. I'm thrilled that the Slot map will be part of Patch 4.10, and there are some other lovely maps out there which would fit right into IL2's scope - like the maps of the Alps/Southern Germany, Murmansk and Northern Finland/Norway.

That's why I "let George do it" on the way to or from the target. ;)

Computer cheats, I cheat.

Since I'm bombing this forum with "I wanna" posts, here's one more:

Would it be possible to add settings which add "gremlins" and performance downgrades to the game?

1) An option which allows you to degrade engine performance? This simulates wear and tear on the engine and/or lower-octane, poor quality fuel.

2) An option which allows you to slightly degrade aircraft damage and G-stress capacity? This simulates wear and tear on the airframe and/or shoddy construction (as found in very late war German and Japanese planes, as well as some Soviet planes built using inferior materials).

3) An option which allows you to slightly degrade aircraft speed? This simulates patches and dents in the skin, dirt, multiple layers of paint, etc.

4) An options which slightly degrades handling? This simulates improperly adjusted control cables, etc.

5) An option which allows you to increases an airplane's mass? This allows for variations in pilot weight, presence of cargo (even fighter planes had storage compartments), or more radical things such as carrying a passengers when the plane wasn't rated to do so.

6) Random equipment failure (i.e., engine conking out, instruments not working right, radio not working)?

7) An option which lets you vary the ammunition loadout for your guns between ball, tracer, armor piercing, armor piercing incendiary, etc.? That would nicely simulate different ammo loads used by aircraft in different theaters of war.

8 ) Mission builder options which let you start play with damaged or degraded aircraft.

Ideas 1-6 would shut up a lot of those endless FM/DM and gun effectiveness debates. Idea 7 would add an extra challenge, especially when flying unreliable or experimental aircraft. Idea 8 would be fun for setting up "in media res" scenarios, where you must rescue or escort a damaged plane, or nurse an damaged plane back to base. All of these ideas are be useful methods of "handicapping" more experienced players without forcing them to fly a different model of airplane.

Maybe this has been answered,

but with the new night settings in 4.10, having the ability to ask for runway lighting will this be available for carrier ops?

I have found this to be another little quirk with the FMB that carriers dion't have the deck lights on them.

Random weapons jamming based on each one design would be nice too.

Soviet machine-gun technician Viktor M. Sinaisky recalled:

"The Shkas machine gun had a high rate of fire but it also had 48 ways of jamming. Some of them could be fixed immediately, some could not".

Something, that would be great for 4.11:

The possibility to assign skins to (player) planes in FMB. Combined with a checkbox like the one we have with weapons (where the editor can choose changeable or unchangeable for the players).

This way missionbuilders could for example clearly define which plane - out of a bunch of the same planes - is the recon plane (cause it wears for ex. a "bare metal and cameras" skin). You could also assure, that everyone ist flying for ex. RAAF Roundels instead of RAF Roundels. You could even prevent people from flying desert skins over england.

Would add much to immersion - just my 2 cents.

Yes yes New York is important during ww2 is a primary target of German and Italian.
New York border coast enemy U-boat and secret raid is in project.

New York rappresent all America for european New York is a city over european escape from europe and land to sea port of new york
yes yes the Port of New York is important.


and another map important is the coast of california for japanese raid or the coast north america canada.

Los Angeles
San Francisco
ecc.ec.

BUT NEW YORK IS PRYMARY IS IMPORTANT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSZQ7Crpi4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNTRjahBYU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeBFz2nISw0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlJl1LfDP4

Hi, there are two planes i would like to bring in attention

ki44 Shoki
( a mid-war japanese interceptor, would be a great enrichment for the japanese planeset)

H8K1/2
(Il2 needs a flyable flying boat, it can serve as a well defended japanese bomber
as well, flyable it would see a lot of use) - although not build in great numbers it played an important role throughout the war

So, any chance TD?:-P

is there any chance that we can have stationary ships 3 and 4 with an option for either air start or ground start, at present you can only get air start with these when use as bases.

Please is possible make this effects in the new patch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqGrk5Nzbvc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvXQB...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hizQ...eature=related

Please!!!
Make one control for "open parachute" (many pilots open then parachutes in low altitude for don´t be a target for enemy pilots) ...
And if is possible make the bailing out in first person.


Many tank´s

Oh yes!I remembered what plane I was going to ask.
The He-177.It was said that was a death trap,but,looked like to been produced in large numbers.

That would require, that every player has every skin of that mission on his HD before the mission starts. Its not a very practical way.

I think its better to care for proper default skins for immersions, so skin download can be kept off. Its also better for traffic issues. If anyone pleases to fly dessert skins above England (what?) ... ehm Normandy, then he can just do so and noone else will notice this.

Thanks for the reply Caspar

You are sure right regarding net traffic. And yes, I like your idea about the default skins. But somthimes player want to use their own skins. For example in a LAN Party (where we enable Skin download):

Let's say 4 Players have to wear the Skin with the white spinner on their Spitties and with the letter codes A to D.

At the same time 6 other Players have to wear the Skin with the red spinner on their Spitties and with the letter codes E to J.

This way, the player chooses his plane at the beginning not only by type, but also by his personal markings (some skins in our squadron are reserved for "their" players, sometimes even with killmarkings).

And the reason, why I would really like to see something like this in a future patch: After every flight on our LAN-parties we watch the .ntrk on a beamer (drink a beer :cool:) and try to find out, which plane was flown by whom. And sometimes I make little movies from these .ntrks (with fraps, moviemaker, etc.). Without my desired change I always have to note the aircraft type and letter code befor starting the mission.

So in our squadron everybody has all our Albatross-skins (we have our own "skin releas cycle" for this).

The problem of lacking skins as you describe it could be resolved by taking the default skin for every player, who lacks of the requested skin.

I know it's kind of a special wish, but who is not interessted in seeing his own aircraft on the screenshots in our squadron newspaper (yes, we have one)?

I can understand, if it's not possible to fullfill my request (I guess it depends on how much work this will be - no idea), but it would be reeeeaaaaallly great. So please have a second look at it.

Btw: Thanks TD for your superb efforts! :)

Perhaps this might seem a bit of a stupid question, but with the moving dogfight server that will be (at least as far as I know it's still going to be in!) in 4.10, I seem to remember reading we'd be able to fly alongside AI.

Does that mean though that AI will count towards server population? For example, if I have a server with 10 slots in it, and have 6 AI aircraft, does that mean there are only 4 slots available for human players? Or do AI not count towards that?

I agree... I think user defined defaults is best.. that's why I use that skin thingy... I know some were concerned that people would turn all the enemy defaults to pink or something.. but a crappy pilot will get shot down by a better one.. even if he sees it coming... We just allow skin downloads... lest face it... at this point if your rig chokes on skin downloads then you need an upgrade.. a bare bones rig of 2010 will be better than a top of the line rig of 2001, when all this deliciousness started..

The problem with default skins is that you need a totally different set for every map in the sim. And that does not take into account different time periods.

Then there is the issue of incorrect, or worse, totally wrong, national markings.

The sim has always had really awful US and Japanese markings, and it still does in stock installations. Even the mods only camoflage them with non reflective textures.

There has to be a way to make skin DL work in this day and age. It's not like we are on a 56K dialup anymore.

Probably already been requested but I think a "check six" key would be very useful, just a key that quickly pans to look over your left or right shoulder (maybe 2 keys, one for each side), as it is now it is about 4 or 5 key presses to see behind, and in that time its very easy to get shot down.

I'm not at my computer right now so can't confirm but I'm pretty sure theres options for setting a key or button to any of the views available anyway isn't there? Would just need to be set to something, unless you're asking to have a key to lean left or right and look behind?

If you cant afford a head tracking device, you might want to use Snap views instead of pan.

Also you can, in the conf, speed up the pilot's head turning speed.

O really? I'll have to check that out, thanks. Yes snap view unfortunately does not go all the way back to your six, just about 90 degrees off your shoulder

Ahh. Try pressing Page Down when trying to look over your shoulder with snap views. ;)

Thnkx!! Problem solved, now I have no excuse for getting my butt kicked, lol.

As someone said of static planes skins,it would be good to change ground vehicles skins too,but that´s asking too much.

Dude, buy trackIR by now....sell a kidney if you have to. Seriously.

It's that good? Never tried it

I own TrackIR and honestly can't fly 1946 without it.

A simple turn of the head and you can look wherever you need to....

check out: http://naturalpoint.com/trackir/

Also look for any vids on youtube

And if can't or don't want to afford it: http://www.free-track.net

How TrakID work?You turn your head,"the pilot" turns his head following the movement?
If so,how can you look at bigger angles?

the movement is accelerated -- looking slightly to one side lets you almost check 6

to be honest if my trackIr is not working I just do not bother flying, flying without trackIr is like returning to 1980's Duke Nukum for me these days

Which is all OFF-TOPIC

sooo ... on topic ... will 6DOF support ever happen or are the current cockpits just too patchy ???

DT has said several times that 6DOF will not be implemented in '46, specifically because of the problems with all the 2D cockpits.

To meet their quality standards would require remaking about every cockpit in the sim.

Mistel and ships
 

Dear Team Daidalos!

I know you have your hands full, and I'm not asking for anything to be done right away, merely if something will be possible:

The Mistel parasite was made to attack ships. Unfortunately, due to the damage system of ships in IL2, a well aimed Mistel will just pass through the ship and break appart, to explode on the other side without damaging the ship. The only thing it seems able to do against ships is hitting carriers in the deck area. In-game, we are left with using the Mistel as an over sized bomb against land targets, which are neither historical nor much fun compared to attacking ships.

Would it be possible to have a look at how the Mistel's payload work, so that the nose section function like a bomb rather than as a plane in-game? Would a possible solution be to for example program the game to handle the charge as a bomb that is released and explodes when the Mistel hits something? The Mistel is a very exiting plane, and hunting ships with it (like it was intended to do) would be a great boon for the offline community.

I may have mentioned this earlier: But it might be a good idea to have strafing and bombing behaviours be dependent on waypoint altitude (much as level bombing and dive bombing behaviours are already). This could deal with the complaint of B-25's strafing inappropriately.

It could also lead the way to letting AI gunners strafe (assuming that they aren't Il-2 gunners - who have too little ammunition for this behaviour)

There is a reason why the He-111 carried its heaviest weapon firing forward:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuMhpx2u3a0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH3Hu...A0A51DFF5F17A2

Maybe TD could make tracks exportable to format which could be interpreted by other programs? I.e. by TacView (http://lomac.strasoftware.com/tacview-en.php), which is used for analyzing LockOn/DCS tracks now. That would make teaching novice pilots a lot easier.

However, I think it should be taken with care. It should export only those track, which are allowed to be exported. Some server option is needed, which would allow or deny such exports, so that people could not abuse such tracks in virtual wars.

The night of IL2.
In european IL2 maps you can see a weak sunlight coming from the horizon.
Is that midnight sun?
If so,it shouldn´t happen on western european maps (except Norway and Finland) and Mediterranean maps?

Requesting- Pitch
 

I was wondering if in the patch we could get the ability to pitch our guns along with what we already have in convergence.

Thanks

When you set convergence, guns are pitched automatically, so the convergence point always lays on the sight line.

My understanding is that this will be addressed in 4.11.

Fafnir_6

IMO, guns convergence is best set by the program. The Il2 is well done, and when you are online you know GC is set equitably for all aircraft.

I remember the MSFT CFS2 online where all kinds of convergence tricks were used. I recall corsairs that could knock you down from 3,000 meters.

You can make convergence changes in IL2, but you can't do weird stuff with it.

Gun harmonisation in game is a little too simplistic though. At the very least the ability to choose between point bore sighting and pattern bore sighting on aircraft that had both would be very useful.

Here is a good article on mid war USN pattern boresighting:

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Air...nBoresighting/

Right, I understand your interest. Just remember ONLINE what it would mean. Flying offline against the AI, who cares.

When you check into Hyperlobby look at all those involved on Forgotten Battle servers. Look at all the other game servers. I'd say don't fix it... if it isn't broke.

There is a continued huge following on Forgotten Battles and it all is caused by the way Oleg has done the IL2 for Online Play.

I am not really sure of your point.

Whilst its true a lot of online players treat the game more as a 3d first person shooter I played online for several years back around 2002/2003 and my observation was most online players are not stupid, they can manage quite complex engine management for example. It also seems to me there were a lot of online players, especially playing co-ops and virtual wars, that actually liked historical accuracy.


However ASIDE from all that pointless online versus offline nonsense which can be fun to argue about but is really totally off topic:

- if you recall 3 or 4 years back a lot of online players were unhappy with the switch to box/pattern harmonization on the American planes like the P51

- the ability to optionally switch aircraft currently using a box harmonization to a point bore sighting would greatly increase the lethality of the 0.50 cal for online players who are a good shot whilst allowing new players to keep the box pattern


To be honest I don't see this as an offline/online issue at all.

As we are getting radio navigation in 4.10, I was wondering what system the Japanese had for find their way home to the carriers?

Yes, if something was done historically, and actually in action and not just tested far from the frontlines, and was extensively used, it should be in the game. More convergence options would , after some learning, help people flying all fighters with wing mounted guns, not only US fighters, but also my Fw 190. ;):rolleyes:

Normal RDF equipment and carriers have NDBs. Check the IJN carrier-borne planes. They have D/F-antennas and instruments in pit.

The fuselage guns of the FW190 were parallel, the wings guns intersected at 600m.

Makes we wish I could have parallel guns in the game too.

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/290/fw190gun1.jpg
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/7283/fw190gun2.jpg