Yes, Padlock.

I think it was a major improvement when introduced about twenty years ago. It meets player's impossibility to change his point of view simply rotating his head and became indispensable for all combat sims to keep track of target, virtually rotating view direction exactly like pilot moves his look.

Although more realistically implemented, recently, by Track-IR, still remains the big gap between reality and screen available resolution to detect what player is looking for, not to mention cost that not everyone can afford and personal idiosyncrasies which may hamper its use.

I think a good compromise to keep realistic enough internal padlocked view, would be get rid at least of canopy frame obstructions, since not really causing loss of visual contact. I agree that ship and ANY object visible in "View Objects" preview should be padlockable for obvious reasons.

I just hope that some clever boy of Daidalos Team read this thread, maybe at least one of these dreams can be realized!:rolleyes:

Regards,
GB

+1 I still haven't made the jump to Track IR :\.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Then there's the reason that I hate padlocking ground objects - even after you've made your pass on a ground target, padlock forces you to keep on looking over your shoulder for a moment until it gets around to panning back to forward view!

That really gets your attention when you've just made a fast, low pass and really want your view to be forward!

Setting padlock so that you have the option of snapping back to forward view, or not following the target once it's out of your sight, would be very welcome!

It would also be nice if you had the option of padlocking onto infrastructure like buildings, or choosing a location on the ground to padlock onto, that would be welcome when you need to orbit a location, or when you're making an upwind or downwind leg of a landing pattern and want to keep your eye on the runway.

There is already a command for this. See my first post (7).

Aviar

+1 on checking out the airfields on the Slovakia map.

Good post, these are some of the things that have always confused me about IL2. It's very realistic in certain areas, but not in others. The airfields are a perfect example, with obstacles around the runway, and the thin runways (but that is not always the case on certain maps, or with custom runways). The new Solomons map has great, historically accurate airfields, and I understand its not really feasible to redo all the other maps.
Takeoff needs to be corrected, but spawning from static plane positions should solve this for custom missions. I'm not sure why by default the aircraft would be set up line astern down the runway for takeoff, if you're the leader you're starting your takeoff from 1/4 of the way down the runway, that's bogus, esp. if your carrying bombs.
Flight planning needs work, and this was one thing I noticed immediately back in 2001 when I got Il2, and it has seen a little improvement but not much. There is no altitude shown for waypoints, and that's basic. No time for different legs, no fuel consideration (its a guessing game for the player), no speed listed either, or type of formation and no wind information. It leaves a lot for the player to include in the briefing, and unless you write it down, its missing from the in-flight map anyways. This forces the player to hit auto pilot on missions with no nav-aids because there isn't enough info.
The funny thing is that these are all factors that can be set in the FMB (ex. wind can now be set in great detail), so it's not like IL2 is lacking in realism, they just are hidden on the briefing map.


And the air-ground comms are so bad (expect maybe the vectors, these are okay). Why does the tower yell at aircraft in panic telling them to go around, and why does the tower sound angry when I ask for landing clearance? Sounds like someone left the janitor to run the airfield. I would gladly volunteer my voice to fix some of these things.

I think that the "angry" ground controller voice is just for the Germans, and that it's more of the way that that particular German accent sounds to the ears of native English-speakers.

I always mentally imagine the German ground controller as a pompous ass with an invented "von" in front of his surname, who got shipped off to the front lines because his superiors back in Berlin couldn't stand him.

We have some Voice Packs at M4T that can be used to help with that problem. http://www.mission4today.com/index.p...ownloads&c=587


Wheels

R/R/R and other ideas.
 

Just few ideas

1) Long time ago, Daidalos Team said that they were going to implement the Refuel/Repair/Rearm option. I would like to have this in the next update.

2) Another idea: if we are having right now the navigation option, the map should be only a map, nothing more. With no moving objects or your own icon moving across the map. In real life in WWII era while you were airborne you had a map, a paper map, with the location of the airfield, antennas with their own designation.

3) Variable and randmoize weather. You get airborne in a beautiful sunny day, and few minutes later suddenly start raining.

4) The only AI aircraft that is affected for the torque is the TB-3 (the bomber with four engines), the rest of the AI airplanes are always perfectly trimmed, what about to implement torque in all AI airplanes.

5) Key combination for realism in starting engines. Eg: Master, Alt, Avionics, fuel pump, primer, etc.

6) In HOTAS controls we have power and prop. I think MIXTURE should be implemented too.

7) Randomize animation of animals in an area designed in FMB. For example horses, cows and others.

8) Since pilot figure can run, we can get advantage on this to have more "life" in airports, like people (mechanics, pilots, officers) walking, and vehicles moving. I know in FMB you can get moving vehicles, but this option stops when the end of the line finish.

9) Light from an airplanes illuminates the ground. But when you put light icons in FMB they don't illuminate the surfaces or ground around it. Why?

Thank you.

topography of map to bombers.