Sorry if this has already been asked/answered, but with the new night effects, how will aerodrome lighting be dealt with? Will we be able to request the 'flare path' lights are turned on from the air? Will the touch down floodlight area come on automatically?

Cheers

PPanPan

They passed each other

Interesting...

What was their up and down, and side to side separation?

Just curious, I know it's an improvement. We are all tired of an AI (enemy or friendly) that always attacks it seems regardless of altitude or distance.

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ljgmXx07R8

Stop at 6:20 and look at the orders (esp. order #6)! ;)

Very unlikely unless Oleg do something but I wouldn't count on that.

Same mission only different clouds setting. Red flight at 500m,Blue flight at 1500m
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1285/grab0000b.th.jpg

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/192/grab0001.th.jpg http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8726/grab0003jz.th.jpg http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9784/grab0002e.th.jpg

I hope this is clear enough.

FC

Quick question for new AI Visibility reaction under following conditions:

Same as in video at night (allies and opponents are passing), just now the enemy is followed with ground searchlight. In theory the enemy should be blinded and seeing nothing until being attacked, while the the blue forces should have seen the enemy from miles away.

Is this possible?
Thanks for your constant work on the patch which keeps my interest in Sturmovik as high as on the first release day!

Sorry if it was answered, I not found. What about possibility to assign axis for breakes (separate left and right)? To have possibility fully use functionality of rudder pedals. Is it in your plans, DT? And thank you for great improvement of our oldie IL2 ;)

TD, I strongly request you to lock the game codes for multiplayer in the next patch. This will keep all kinds of FM/WM/DM mods away from the online play and eventually bring the whole community back into one piece.

However, you can keep the single player open to mods for those offline players.

By force? No thanks. Let people use what they want to use and fly in the appropriate servers.

If it's cheating you are concerned with, we have the CRT=2 check to ensure compliance with each server's list of allowed modifications. If people want to fly with arcade FMs let them do so, as long as each group is happy with their server settings it's all ok.
The problem is for example if i fly with the no-cockpit view in a closed pit server. Then that is indeed cheating and that's why the CRT=2 checks are in place, to prevent people using settings that are different from the server ones.
Sure, some people might even bypass that one too, but if someone goes to the trouble of doing it then we're dealing with a minority of last causes anyway. I'd rather see the development time and resources spent on what they are spent on, than the whole of TD forcing half the community to fly in a certain manner just to catch a miniscule percentage of hard-core cheaters.

I don't fly online much due to my ISP troubles, but if someone told me i would be suddenly unable to use all those new maps and flyable aircraft i'd totally shelve the game, or not install the latest TD update. I can live without the radio navigation because the online maps are usually small, but i can't live without some of the new maps. As you see, you can't reunite the community by force when a good chunk of it will prefer to stay with the unofficial add-ons if they are made incompatible with the official ones. I'd go as far as to say that there's nothing to reunite, people are happy flying with the kind of installation they want just as they do with their choice of realism settings. We don't go about telling people they should make our difficulty settings the default for the entire community, so i'm happy to let everyone decide on their choice of add-ons in a similar fashion.

Yes, I think Blackdog is right about this. It is far to late to try to enforce anything online beyond use of whichever 'standard' is required by the users. If TD were to make existing mod packs unuseable, even after revision, with the latest update, all it would achive would be further divisions.

I'm not happy with the somewhat cavalier attitude to FMs adopted by parts of the modding community, but I think such disputes are best solved by discussion rather than by coercion, particularly when this is unlikely to work anyway.

Well, Blackdog is not playing online. So it is understandable that he doesn't know what the situation has been on HyperLobby.

If you have chance to log into HL, please go there and see how many servers there are enforcing CRT checking, and how many of them are populated.

'Let people use what they want to use and fly in the appropriate servers.'

- Log into HL by yourself and see what most of the players there want to use.

Do you think a hacker will be stupid enough to play in servers with CRT=2?

The option to use CRT is there and as far as I can tell a lot of them use it (because I'm stuck with very few servers that allow my TrackIR to function properly, that allows such mods to be used). If I was forced to do without my TrackIR functioning properly I would stop flying online.

The servers are privately run. They choose whatever settings they like. And so do the users. They seem happy with this or they would not be prefer such servers and settings. Why try to take that away from them? For whatever preferences you have, all you need is a single server with your preferred settings to play on. If there's not enough people, get organizing through forums and teamspeak. Start your own with your own preferred settings and so on.

I have not been troubled by cheaters ever as far as I know, and the benefits I get from choosing what I want to fly with makes it quite satisfying and enjoyable. I am sure many feel the same way or the sitation would not be this way.

I doubt that TD would want to do that, and anyway it would be pointless.

If the 4.10 patch prevented mod use online, then mod users would not install the 4.10 patch, at least not in the form provided by TD.

All that would happen is the mod pack creators would either mod the 4.10 patch to undo the changes to net code or they would open the patch, take the new content, and add it to the existing mod packs, thus bypassing any changes to online coding.

Either way, all it would do is ruin the currently very healthy relationship between TD and the mod community.

Maybe you misunderstood. I said i'm not flying online because of internet problems. I didn't say that i've never flown online. When i did it, i was usually on warclouds and on the warbirds of prey (spits vs 109s and zekes vs wildcats) servers.
Maybe i'm not a hardcore online flyer, but in more than 100 hours of online flying during the last couple of years, i've seen maybe 2-3 cases suspicious of cheating, which were not definitely proven either. There once was a case (pre-CRT=2) on a server where someone was caught, the players submitted tracks to the admins and he received a permanent ban on his IP. Problem solved.

Bottom line is, you can't force people to fly the way you think is right, they'll keep flying the way the want to anyway.

And finally, i agree that's it's better to keep good relations between TD and the unofficial add-on makers. If you "ban" all of these guys do you think they'll work with TD in the future? Nope, they won't. I'd rather have them free to do their thing and contribute, i can choose what i want to install and sometime, someone's work will be of a high enough standard and be included in the official updates.

Take a look at the moving AI units on dogfight servers for example. Where do you think this started? Unofficial add-ons. If the TD patches disabled compatibility with these add-ons, do you think the creator of this new feature would work with TD and agree to have his work included in an official patch? I say let each one of them do their thing and come up with their own stuff, when appropriate their will combine forces and you'll get it all in one nicely rolled-up package, ready to install, while the impatient ones will scour forums to download and install manually.

These guys are not antagonists, they are a bunch of people that daily release and test new features for us. Heck, even one player that goes to the trouble of making a modded install work, provides feedback and technical data, is like a play-tester for you. Why should we stop them from what they are doing when it's obvious that we can all benefit from it?

What i mean to say is, don't underestimate the amount of synergy and the potential benefits for the community from these two groups (official and unofficial add-on makers) having a healthy relationshipt. In plain English, if it wasn't for mods you probably wouldn't be getting moving AI for DF mode in the following TD patches. ;)

Is there a way to fix the bug where some planes explode, when on fire, as soon as u bail, Bf109 beeing the obvious one.


If not a bug, whats the thinking behind such a "feature".


Lost count of how many times my pilot burns to death staying inside the pit or get blown to bits the second he bails.

when will be the release of the 4.10?
It is expected to create a mega-update? Now you have to install 4.08-4.09-(4.10)

In regards to 6DOF,no matter what game you in its never what you expect but it a matter of getting us to it, I have used the 6DOF and o it let do thing is look around the copit frame work and when targeting and aircraft i can zoom in on it to get a better visual id without having to us the switches to zoom in and out on it.I have use trackir in ARMA and there still glitches with it and don't alway work properly but it is still worth having still.
Of all the thing that is a must and if people have problems with it then they can disable the extra axis in the trackir program. It just give people the option that people would like to see in the patches.

I'm failing to see where the bug is here. At a certain point when a plane is on fire it will explode... pilot in the plane or not. The pilot cannot bail out if there are extreme G forces involved as well thus any delay in getting out can be attributed to that.

Coincidence is not a bug :) Well... you can take that one up with the universe if you want.

Its not like im asking to be able to fly arround all day long on fire. If u flew the BF alot u would know what im talking about ;)

If i didnt know better i would say that the explosion in the Bf was triggered by the fact that u press Ctrl+E and bail and i fail to see how thats a feature and not a bug.

Fact is, if Bf109`s caches on fire u are pretty much deat unless u bail within 2 sec flat, unlike many other ac`s, that, while they do explode, they do so mostly when they hit the ground.

Like i said, if it is a feature it would be intresting to know the thinking behind the fact that a few select ac`s, Bf109 in perticular, explodes just a few sec after caching fire (without exeption in my experiance) when most dont. I mean, fire is fire, right?

I mean, even the Ki84 can have fire in the wings that goes out on its own, enebeling the pilot to bail or even make it home again, thats just not the case with the Bf109 once on fire. If u are fast enough and lucky u will make it IF u press refly, again, fast enough, and thats just "gaming" the game in my book.

S!

I think the bashing of modders should be quitted and talks of "locking up" IL-2. Sit on a branch high up in a tree and saw it off would describe that best ;) I believe TD and modders talk a lot more "behind the curtain" than in the open as community turns to a zoo if words mod or similar are said out loud ;) :D Look at MDF..made by ZUTI. Now coming to an official patch! That is co-operation and improvement of the game. It is damned great to see how much TD does for IL-2.

Regarding the 6DOF..if they are worried by the issues, which I believe are mainly the holes etc. in 3D, those can be solved. Look at AHS on the Bf109, works perfectly with 6DOF. Again modders that have fixed these issues could help TD..win-win again :)

TD and community both do great work for one and SAME passion: IL-2 :) My 2 cents..

Have you flown the P-39 Airacobra much? Or the Spitfire, or the Hurricane? What I mean is, they all exhibit the behaviour you are talking about. That is, they catch fire and explode almost immediately, usually, especially in the Airacobra, at the point of bailing.
I have often wondered whether it's the act of jettisoning the canopy or opening the door, thus admitting a rush of air, that causes the fire to go out of control and detonate the fuel tank? I suppose it would depend on the location of the fuel tank that has ignited - which would account for why the Spit, with its tank in front of the pilot, is less prone to exploding as you bail (though the pilot is likely to become severely wounded or dead very quickly).

What I'm saying is that this modelling, right or wrong, is not confined to the Bf-109.

B

Ok, didn`t know that. Am a 99% blue flier, but its "nice" to know its not an oddity confined just to one ac.

If its correct or not is another issue.


would still be intresting to know why it is like that, if there is any kind of logic thinking behind it or if its just "like the way it is"



Edit: All i know is that the Spit especially, will blow up if one hit the tank directly.

In the P39 I don't like it, I don't feel it's at all realistic, and it's much too often that it lights up when hit in the fuselage, even if it barely begins to smoke then it's time to get out. I suspect it's because the P39 is otherwise too good, if you could get out of it by bailing then it would be unreasonably superior to the other aircraft.

OMG,new stuff!
Hs-129 and Reggia Aeronautica FTW!

Long time I don´t play IL2,since my DVD cracked inside my dvd reader...
I was outdated,didn´t knew more planes were added.

Здравствуйте.
Меня радует , что планируется обновление 4.10 , но почему оно не занято усовершенствованием игры ? вместо ненужного дополнения самолётов. ???

Собираетесь ли вы исправить проблемные FM?


Hello.
Me pleases, what updating 4.10 but why it is not occupied by game improvement is planned? Instead of unnecessary addition of planes.???

Whether you are going to correct problem FM?

I would say that we already showed plenty of game improvements that will be included in next patch.

And what exactly is the problem with FM?

FC

Dear DiO,

we for sure care for every aspect of the game.
I for myself am a modeler, who cannot do any FM changing. But I can do model. So guess, what I should do best? Changing FM's? No. I better model and thus you get more planes. Sorry for that.

We use every human capacity, that we have, each one on its/his/hers own working area. Including fixing, tweaking, inventing new stuff and also discussions/descisions about FMs cangings (which is still a hot theme and should not base on one or a few simple oppinions).

You should better wait untill you got 4.10 in your hands (on your PC) and jugde, what was done then.
Its like calling a girl to have a fat bumper, and you only have seen her naked shoulder yet.

hurrah.. today is Thursday :D

S!

Tomorrow friday with all the updates and all :) As of FM fixes, maybe TD could take a look in the planes that can fly with overheated engine until they run out of fuel and losing maybe 100km/h from top speed in broken engine situation. These include at least Spitfire Mk.IX 25lbs and FW190A-9..can be more of them.

Well done

Here's a gold star
http://odeskmommy.files.wordpress.co...gold-star3.jpg

Could someone list war time radio station names (historically correct). So far I only got these:

Radio Honolulu
Suomen Yleisradio
BBC
Radio Moscow

Probably not hard to guess what these are for...

Magyar Radio Budapest 1 (Hungarian radio broadcast from Budapest)

Here is a link that has an audio of the interval signal (jingle) towards the bottom of the page 1940 vintage.

http://www.intervalsignals.net/countries/hungary.htm

I approximately represent that (!) will be 4.10 in updating.... There there will be nothing interesting.
In FM it is a lot of errors. If you are interested in correction of errors let know.

You speak Russian? At me it is not so good with English...


There was a Soviet Information Bureau. Announcer Levitan.
Советское Информационное Бюро. (СовИнформБюро)

You can write everything in Russian, we have people who can translate it so if you think that something is wrong with FM just let us know what it is.

FC

I have a few questions (none have been answered ever in the past, but I am not cynical - yet :-P ):

1. Is it possible to do anything about the engine overheat aspect of IL-2?

As far as I know, cylinder head and water temperature are the one and same on radial engines, and that temperature is used to decide when 'overheat' starts. On water cooled inline engines, the oil-out temperature determines the overheat, nothing else. When overheat occurs, a set timer, specific for that plane, starts to count down, after which the engine dies. People exploit this, the timer in particular.

I don't believe a lot of changes are necessary. For example, randomizing the timer, and randomizing the overheat temperature would probably change things a lot. Also, the absolute temperature of the engine could be allowed to influence the timer (and adds another slight random chance of the engine suffering a failiure of various kinds the higher the temperature is).


2. With the arrival of Prop. pitch for individual engines: possible to also toggle prop pitch auto/manual for each engine?

This is something that of course multi-engine planes like the Bf 110 had. More realistic and useful for damage control.


3. Individual prop pitch and individual engine is coming. Also radiator. Is the radiator control individual, or just one axis controls all engines?

Just another thing that is present in engine management. And makes a difference on managing different engines, especially when one is not functioning 100% right (losing coolant/pressure etc).

The Bf 110 for example has separate oil cooler levers on the left side, in front of the throttle and fuel primer levers. They move up and down slowly when the radiator is changed on each engine (but because of IL-2 engine selection behaviour it is not possible/practical for users to have different radiator settings currently, just like with prop pitch not having been practical until patch 4.10). The 110 also has water coolant radiators which are seperate for the engines as well, but they are not used in Il-2. Not sure what radiators are being controlled actually.

Немного попозже или я или мой коллега(он лучше меня знает ситуацию с ошибками) напишет вам какие ошибки присутствуют в fm.

например у фокке вульфа а-9 , а-8 и f-8 уменьшается мощность двигателя при включении впрыска!!!

Or P47 that doesn't overheat at 7 k+ with max engine power... Or P38s engines able to burn forever without EVER setting the fuel tank on fire, which allows to travel for hundreds of kilometers with a burning engine but overall no consequences on the aircraft.

BRILLIANT ... can't wait. Thanks

(Although I can't read what it says at '6'!)

PPanPan

1. it is possible to do anything, but its very hard to do something useful, realistic and working correctly for all planes in game. Changes to stop exploiting the engines are in the pipeline (but nothing directly related to everheat time). BTW inline engines have water and oil temperature threshold too and both are used to determine overheat.
2. possible, not planned now. We can add them in the future if there will be demand for it. I believe that for example feather prop would have bigger priority :-).
3. one axis for all engines.

Use the Youtube link on top to get to the site... there you can increase movie quality. In-browser solution of youtube movies is not very good.

А когда выйдет обновление?

Ещё один вопрос косающийся игры: вы поменяете картинки опозновательных знаков? Старые картинки уже страшно выглядят. Они одноформенные и некачественные. И ещё одно- уделите внимание стандартным раскраскам самолётов(!). Например на Bf-109 E4 1940 стандартная раскраска очень маленького разрешения и очень плохо смотрится на самолёте.

Regarding the radiator: Is there any chance that we'll get a "radiator open" and "radiator closed" keyboard commands with the next patch?

The problem with the current setup is that only a few airplanes have an animated radiator lever or engine that is visible from the cockpit.

This poses a problem for people who want to fly with the HUD log off (in the conf.ini) and "no external views". The current command is a toggle and it is impossible to tell whether the radiator is open or closed prior to pressing it.

Having two separate keyboard commands would solve this problem.

Appreciate the answer. :)

1. I understand the reasoning. Too big of a task to accomplish to change the modeling with limited resources. But inline engines having water temperature involved?! Are you 100% certain about this? I performed several tests with the Bf-110 G-2 and every single time - overheat message at 125 degree oil-out temperature, and 'engine normal' at 124 degrees. It seemed only that water temperature affected how fast the oil can heat up or cool down - but not the overheat mechanic itself.

2. Oh yeah, feather prop. I forgot.. I have that stuff in that Multi-throttle program I made so I didn't even think about it. I agree that would be more important if one does not use third party apps like mine.

3. One radiator for all, understood. If it has a devicelink interface (maybe it will not) then I could possibly make it work with separate radiator for each engine. But while I want it, I don't have enough controllers to control all this stuff.. I would have to plan to get another quadrant :D Crap. SoW will almost force that :(

I have the same concerns you do in general - eliminating that crappy helmet mounted display (the so called 'hudlog') and still be able to know what my controls are set to. If they don't do that radiator thing, I think I can make it work with my multi-throttle program. I already have, in fact, but it is controlled by a controller axis, not buttons. We'll see what I can come up with if need be.

Update posted on first page.

incredible,how easy you can crash your airplane :o

This patch is going to stir the proverbial pott.

A very large number of pilots are going to have to rethink their combat manuvers and alter the way they handle their planes.

But, as in real life, team work and sticking to the strengths and weaknesses of your plane are going to get you the points

Cheers and thanks for the work that you are putting in to this sim.

Very impressive. There is so much new stuff coming. I like many of the new features highly. Individual stuff on axis and g-loadings is especially delicious. Fantastic work being performed which is well directed.

A concern: the new joystick profiles we can configure, I hope this means the inability to center (going offset) bug for joysticks could be eliminated so that all can make use of the profiles. It has been confirmed by several and reported in the 4.09 bugs section.

For me personally, the number one wish is 6DoF support. Then I could fly on all kinds of servers and not be stuck with the handful that facilitate it. I already read that the current 6DoF work could not be implemented in the patch because it was not polished to the standard required for a commercial gaming release.

TD,

Brilliant. Great work as always.

The G-limit change will have a significant and positive effect on the realism of this sim. Hats-off for the vision for this sim.

Also very much looking forward to the official inclusion of 'the Slot'.

Side note - I hope that the AI (esp. that of the heavy bombers) will be 'informed' of this change...

Thanks again,

Structural G-limits! Wahey!

Only thing is, it is going to give the whiners something new to whine about - 'the wings fall off too easily on the Fw-190 A4'. Then we'll have the battle between the chart-mongers and the anacdotal army over the structural strength of every known aircraft in WWII. ;)

The rest of us will have to content ourselves with learning to fly properly. Keep up the good work, TD.

Another fantastic update TD :)

Very happy about the structual G limits and am looking forward to learning to fly and learning to fly in combat again ;)

The Slot :o

The Slot...yeah :grin::grin:

Still need North Aust map :idea::idea: :-P:-P


But very nice update, keep up the great work

~S~

This works for fuselage mounted bomb racks, what about the bending relief that you get with wing-mounted bomb racks? You now have two masses attached to either wing which act to reduce the total bending moment at the wing root - i.e. the acceleration x mass forces act in the opposite direction to the applied aerodynamic load. Do you intend to increase the G-limit for those cases or just leave them the same? Just asking.

I'm going to ignore the CofG movement with the added mass - that's different for each plane and probably much more than you intended to consider.

W.

Thanks for the updates, TD. I have to say that I'm really impressed by the new feature of structural G limit. Your incoming patches will surely make IL2 a brand-new game! You guys are making history!

My question:

Is there any chance for you talented guys to incorporate jager Fw-190As in one of the incoming patches? All the Antons we have now are jabos, which are supposed to do ground pounding works and only have good performance below 1000 meters.

Where did you hear that?

Very nice DT! Keep up the good work and do not grow weary, I'm looking forward to this, as are many others. Your work is appreciated!

А планируется ли добавление ранних Bf-109 , Ju-87 ,Bf-110 в последующих обновлениях ???

@ DiO

Not at this moment. As you have seen in the current update there are fundamental issues to be sorted out, so that further sub-types of already existing planes aren't exactly high on the priority list.

S!

Interesting this G-factor. Are the G-limits differentiated in planes? For example Fw190 had stronger wings in later versions etc. And for me when looking at the video..the bombrack would break before the plane would. A 500kg bomb would rip itself from the hooks.

Another interesting thing is this g-limit lowering. Modern planes have strain gages measuring the level of strain on critical components of the plane. These planes pull over-G etc. but their G-limit does not drop because of this. It takes some time to build fractures and cracks etc. that would hamper the plane. The over-G causing critical failure would need to be very sharp.

But nevertheless, a very interesting feature. I really am interested in this and how it is implemented. Will there be documentation of this with patch release?

Flanker, as written in the description, each plane will have its specific G-limit defined.

There will be a very similar and detail guide in PDF as with the 4.09 patch.

S!

Thanks mkubani :) Must have missed it in all excitement ;) Why I am interested in this G-limit is because of my work with military jets. We do follow the G-limits, strain etc. so some grasp on it ;)

WOW Thanks very much for keeping updating.
 

I am a il-2 fan from China. So you don’t mind me translating this post into Chinese? If not I will post the translated version in inSky forum. www.insky.cn/bbs/, which is a non-commercial flight simulator forum.
Besides , a few personal comments:
1 I believe the G feature is critical for an ideal FS and I think the model in 4.10 is very good.
2 Do you have plan to include the F2G “super corsair”? I think this fighter will be very interesting to fly, with superb climb rate and bubble canopy.

This is purely from a laymans perspective, and I don't claim to have any engineering knowledge, but couldn't over-stessing an airframe lead to things like elongate bolt holes and deforming bolts, rivets and assorted fasteners at the various stress points? This sort of damage may not cause the wing to fail at that point but would lower the g-limit for the wing?

Like I said I don't claim to be an expert.


Cheers!

FVV190, feel free to translate it. No plans for the super corsair.

Thanks

S!

That is what happens. rivets loosen, bolts shear or their holes wear, structure like spars and so forth get "tired" of the stress and generate cracks in them. The cracks and damage are more likely if the airframe is stressed a lot already and older if comparing toa totally new one. for example Bf109 had structure life calculated to about 400 hours if flown within limits. This of course did shorten due damage and strain.

I read about Finns losing 2 Bf109's to structural failure in combat. One was in a speed exceeding 900km/h when the wooden tail broke off and plane crashed to ground. Pilot was KIA. The other was a Bf109 losing it's wing in a tight turn due the bolt keeping wing attached failed and broke. Pilot KIA. There are some text about the plane surface buckling or similar after hard turns and older airframes feel "mushier" than new ones. So strain has degrading effect on the plane.

As said, implementing G-factor to IL-2 is very interesting thing :) Waiting for it very much.

Just a few remarks about new G_Limits

1. Few RL data for USA planes, I think that nobody can argue that these were not well made and engineered. :grin:
F4U
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6849/f4u3.th.jpg http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8578/f4u2.th.jpg http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4484/f4u1.th.jpg http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5535/f4uload.th.jpg


P51D
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/7976/p51d2.th.jpg http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2950/p51d.th.jpg http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9759/p51d3.th.jpg

P-47N
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1285/p47k.jpg

As you can see RL limitations are tight, pilot have to use his head too during piloting, not a muscles only. This might explain you why some of the pilots in guncam videos don't do things you see from virtual pilots.

2. G_Limits are not fixed, if plane is in 8/12 category that doesn't mean that it will get damaged every time you exceed 8G or that it will broke when 12G's are exceeded. If you are lucky you can pull 13G's and get away with it but everything above 8G is lottery. If you are carrying bombs limits are much tighter and you should be very careful in maneuvers.

3. Don't expect this to be 100% accurate in every way, that's not possible to achieve in PC simulation with 200+ planes. Some generalizations are necessary but our opinion is that this feature is big step forward in making the sim more realistic.

4. Readout in yellow will not be part of the game, that's just for demo purpose, just in case if somebody expected to see this during playing.

FC

FC

This "fix" can have very strong effect on how people fly. No more high speed last moment pullouts, no more bombers acting like fighters and lots of complaints from people who are used to yank the stick all over the place.

---

Maybe dynamic CoG is planned in the future?

Absoulutely right, but for doing that you have to simulate the plastic behaviour of the airframe, and the airframe, and i don´t think that the sim can do that.
I think its a great addition to improve realism, its far from the best, but its better that we had, IMO.

As one mentioned, there will be A LOT of complains from people that are used to move the joy like crazy at any speed. :)

Looking forward to your next update, DT. It's like christmas every week!

Now I have a few questions conserning future updates. Sorry if they're asked already.

1. Are you planning to fix the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 powerplant cooling?
2. Do you have plans to fix unhistorical ammo beltings, like the Browning M2 APIT belting for the later USAAF planes?
3. Will you consider fixing/updating the ordinance behaviour for bombs and rockets? Fuselage bombs drop in pairs now instead of a single bomb at a time and some rockets could be fired one at a time, in pairs or all at once.
4. Could it be possible to add a feature to the N1K series to remove the automatic flaps? As I understand the pilot had an option to set the flaps manually or to leave it on automatic.

Thank you for your hard work daidalos team and everyone involved! You are breathing new life into a dying game.

Excellent news ! Many thanks , DT :grin:

I hope also no more trim-cheating or bat turns , neither from human nor AI planes !


Excellent news
You

I'd add...

1. not just R-2800, problem(opening rads increases drag but not cooling) is present in at least F4F, F6F, F4U, P47, probably in others as well.
2. dont forget MG151/20, il2 is west front sim now! :grin: Possibly Bredas too?
4. I think this was hardcoded... Either manual or auto... How about 2 N1Ks, one with manual and the other with auto flaps?

BTW GJ TD again! Publish the patch already! ;);)

Full nose up trim plus full elevator is better to avoid :grin: chances for damage are very big in that case.

People should have in mind that this is not too big change for pure fighters, you will not break plane that often but you will have to be more careful not to damage it. When airframe deforms your sortie is effectively over, you can get back to base even fight a little but you are seriously handicapped.

Biggest change is when you are carrying ordinance, you need to be very careful not to overstress the airframe.

FC

Thanks guys, you are doing a great job, very tired see bomber doing loop!!!!

Daidalos guys, would it be possible since you're in the joystick code, to fix the bug where only controllers that are ID#1 show up in the in-sim joystick configuration screen? Right now my primary flight controller is ID #2 and while it works perfectly in the sim, the configuration screen does not work with ID #2 only ID #1 which means I have to adjust my joystick with an external utility.

Thanks for the great work!

FC,
Any chance of having sound added for Me109 slats operation? When new 109 pilots heard the loud bang when they extended for the first time, some thought they were being shot at! Some pilots as a consequence flew the 109 so that they never opened them, apparently. With your new G limits, it would also be useful audio cue to ease up on the stick as well as making flying more immersive and historically accurate. 109 drivers would certainly be more aware of stall onset, particularly at higher speeds.
Thanks for all the good work!

S!

AS of the "trim cheat". Well, veterans used this little "cheat" to make the Bf109 turn better. This was explained by one of our veterans Kyösti Karhila, he called it the "ace trick". When entering a turn he quickly applied some trim up on the wheel and pulled on the stick making the Bf109 enter turn faster. Some aces flew with a plane trimmed nose up so they had to push the stick to keep level flight.

So I think the trim cheat is just a whine. Maybe the look should be taken to the speed of trimming, how fast you can apply it. This depends on the trim wheel and it's ratio how fast it can move the trim tab or the control surface. Some were slower, some faster. But IRL what I've seen the trim movement is subtle and not fast.

I have an issue with the Fokker DXXI

I know its a draggy plane with its irretractable gear, but its exaggerated in Il2.

I have read about the Fokker being able to do 700 km/h in a dive, because its a sturdy plane, but in IL2 it faces so much drag that its impossible to fly over 600 km/h!
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpo...d21-fokker.htm

Furthermore, the ki27 flies alot faster than the DXXI in Il2, although
according to wikipedia the Ki27 its top speed is 444 km/h while the Fokker its top speed is 460 km/h

TD, could you pls fix the drag on the DXXI? and continue with the great work you do :-P

The trim cheat and bat turns were an issue in the early releases of IL2-Forgotten Battles. Mostly, just a way for Onliners to whine and complain when they got shot down.

Even today many onliners cannot believe it when a very competent online pilot hands them their head, several times. They explain their lack of skill with excuses...

Thanks TD for the updates... The new maps = very excellent

With this G update... I will see a lot of spit pilots complain when their wings will fly away after a 90 - 180 degree turn on a 3 meter radius, when they were so used to do that. :)

Quick question to the TD:

With the new AI, will the patch for team killing AI gunners make it into 4.10? I recall seeing a video which shows work on the AI gunners.

Found the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ezXO0A_aMc

I love it. Love all these evolutions. The only thing that worries me that with the enormous amount of added features at the same time, the risk for a lot of bugs rises too, right?

But I'm no programmer.

Are we talking about the same simulator here? Please make sure that you don't mix TAS & IAS.

Le Fokker by Peter de Jong gives diving speed of 673km/h (TAS) for Dutch Fokker. I can reach this without any problems. Even faster is possible but then the engine will overrev and get damaged.

Lentäjän Näkökulma 2 by Jukka Raunio has about 6 pages of test pilots descriptions of Fokker behavior. It says that in 90 dec. dive, speed didn't increase over 480-485km/h (IAS no doubt). So what we have in game is faster than this, but the finnish test were done with ski plane so skis might slow down the plane more in dive.

Level speeds at sea level & hi-alt are pretty accurate in game too. We spent quite lot of time fine tuning them because fixed prop FMs are tricky to do.

Probably.

Thats a good point on Wing Bending relief. Its not a factor in the DT revised G module. Wing Bending relief is something very important in long term Fatigue management in large aeroplanes. Most current large transports for instance keep fuel in the outer wing tanks for as long as possible to take advantage of this relief. In military fighter circles its not such a big player. Even in modern flight control systems with active G limiters I don't believe any increase in G is available because a store is on the wing station. The Flight control computers are aware of whats where and that obviously affects some parameters (like rolling G limits AOA etc). In most cases any store means an increase in weight if that weight results in a value over the design (Nzw thingy) then a reduction in g limit applies. In the case of WWII fighters the documentation shows no bending relief credit for wing mounted stores, you put something on the aeroplane (anywhere) the G limit is reduced.

As to C of G shift with external stores. Thats already there in native IL2. Try the Yak9B with 128 Ptabs in the back. Its longitudinal stability is pretty average, drop the PTABS and you are back to a normal aeroplane. Why we dont see a lot of this in IL2 is that just about every aeroplane in Il2 has its stores close to the C of G.

Flanker35M ... you keep resetting those 811 codes the pilots will keep generating them for you :)

S!

IvanK, I am now in the higher level maintenance than flight line anymore ;) But yes, those codes were familiar and all that work that went into checking it all..Sometimes the pilot overstressing the plane was ordered to help us strip the plane etc. so he would appreciate the amount of work it takes to measure and check a plane after Over-G...

Any tips on how to perform wing-snapping maneuvers? :) Of course an above corner speed super tight turn, with flaps getting deployed, is one. But any other? Like rocking the plane up and down vertically with the elevators or going from a max inverted G turn to max positive G turn (kind of like a pendulum swing/scandinavian flick in rally racing - it brings more weight than usual come flying which is enough to break traction and stability, and oversteer one gets).

1) While many pilots may need to go through an adjustment period with the new G-limit, I believe that many would also agree that it is step towards the right direction for the sim. It would be interesting to know however which plane would be more affected than others with this limit.

2) Also, I trust that the G-limit be introduced as an realism option selectable in the menu?

3) Lastly I am wondering whether the AI-controlled plane would be subjected to the same limit as the player and whether their behavior would be re-coded to take into account G-limit.

Cheers,

Well, i certainly cant reach 673 km/h, full fuel tank or not, no matter what throttle/mixture, in a 90 dec. dive (assuming TAS is indicated with the red digit speed bar in the low left corner..)

That's IAS

IIRC

TAS is shown in cockpit off (wonder woman) view.

Planes that will be affected? Can try to guess. Anyone feel free to correct any bad guesses/assumptions here :-P

We already found out that non-fighters (like bombers) are getting the worst penalty, so not going to talk about those.

For the fighters & fighter-bombers, without knowing how their G-rating is like. Wo knows, some aircraft might have very high rating and not be affected at all.

Good turning ability at low speed: Turning hard means more G generated, but if traveling slowly enough, it does not necessarily amount to a very high amount possible.
Result: Minor Penalty

Good turning ability at medium speed:
The G's start to stack up if turning well. The aircraft that turn well in this range tend to turn REALLY well although the
Result: Large Penalty

Good turning ability at high speed:
Potential to really mess up the aircraft if being a bit reckless on the elevator controls. Good instantaneous turn rate in combination with high speed is maximum Gs possible.
Result: Large Penalty

Good roll rate:
Completely unaffected by the change.
Result: Large Improvement (relative to other traits getting worse)

Heavier MG's/Cannons options:
Strapping on heavier guns and ammo means does not mean more G's, but more strain on the wings at any G-loading.
Result: Large Penalty
(Bf-110's Bk 3.7 cannon, and Mk 108's come to mind as well as all kinds of gun-pods)

Using a fighter platform for bombing (fighter-bombing):
The greatest penalty of all, especially if it is a well turning model with high speed abilities.
Result: Very Large Penalty

High internal fuel capacity:
Had some benefit in being able to fly around a lot without suffering the drop tank speed penalty. The drop tanks can at least be dumped at any time to lighten up the plane.
Result: Minor penalty

Forgetting to jettison bombs and drop tanks before maneuvering wildly:
Result: WINGS OFF!

The traits are so dependant on the type of fighter, and who knows of how durable each model is. Are energy fighters going to be affected at all as long as they stick to 'energy fighting'? Are turn fighters going to be affected much, as they can already turn beyond blackout point and still probably be below the service loading? Will the FW-190 be affected much, as it's roll rate is more valuable but the quick short jink style turns are less available? Will the twin fighters get affected by their heavier armament/bombs and poor roll rate, as they usually go into battle with very low fuel (compared to what they are capable of carrying) and them probably being built to be very sturdy anyway? Will diving fast make much of a difference, as the elevators suffer compressability at high speed anyway?

I think the Fw 190 will be affected when on the defensive. And that single-engined fighters will be worse for bombing and fighter-bombing. I cannot tell about twin engined heavy fighters when carrying bombs out there... the lighter bombers (AC-20) is already known to be affected strongly, and how much different is the 110 really? If rockets are much lighter than bombs, then the P-38's should become an even more preferred method to kill things on the ground with.

Having a very heavy bomb-load will be worse, in any aircraft. Maybe there's more incentive to choose a bit less extreme bomb load.

Drop tanks to carry fuel in should be more valuable than putting it internally (done to avoid the speed penalty of drop tanks otherwise). The tank can be jettisoned any time anyway and the manuverability is unaffected then.

What stress model with multirole aircraft like the Mosquito and Beaufighter get? Fighter or Bomber?

And will dive bombers like SBD's and Stukas be stressed apropriately?

There is neither fighter nor bomber profiles (if I read it correctly). Each aircraft will get it's own unique profile. Though since it is not included in either 'average' fighter or bomber, the multi-role middle-ground is a big mystery.

The mosquito is really a slow turning airplane to begin with (and made of wood :eek:). Maybe affected perhaps similarly to any other aircraft when loaded up with tons of bombs.

Ju-87.. they can black out the pilot for sure, without damage to the wings (pulling out of dive). But can they repeat that with a ton of bombs underneath I wonder (not that one would ever need to try that).

I think we can expect some noticable differences between different aircraft, affecting some more than others. I think I read somewhere that fires of spit have extremely good tolerance to G's. But I could be wrong. Either way, the twin engined multi-role planes are probably the most mysterious to me.

I'm also wondering about wing-loading. Low wing loading means being able to pull more G's (typically) while high means less. The twin engined multi-role planes seem to have higher wing loading than others despite having larger wings. Having engines on the wings themselves, however, means a LOT of weight moved away from the center of the fuselage. Makes me curious how much a 110 fuselage weighs compares to single engined planes. And if it can have any bearing on it's ability to carry more. Longer wings could also exert more forces at the wing attachment point than shorter wings, if that sort of leverage physics works on wings.

Gents you are overcomplicating the whole thing, relax and take breath It all works exceptionally well. Each single aircraft has been considered in its own right and role. SBD and JU87 are strong enough to do what they need to ... 6G dive recoveries after release is not an issue. So yes all aircraft are stressed appropriately.

I don't have much concern for what planes changes how (I have confidence it will be fairly realistic, which is all I would want). Any apparent stressed concern is just keen passion to think about the topic (and combined with an excessive verbosity = long posts). :grin: Curious I am to learn more. Here I go thinking I had a decent understanding of how aircraft behaved in some aspects and things like these come along to stir the pot.

May have a look around for official figures for some of the aircraft.

Thats good to hear.

According to il2 compare (I've got V4.07 at the moment) the FBMkVI in the game out turns a Bf-110G-2 from about 285kph up (by a conciderable margin) so it's not too shabby.

Hey! Wood was the composite of time, and De Havilland had a long history of long distance wooden planes like the DH-88.

By all accounts they were a robust aircraft, much loved by their pilots. Early on they had some problems with wings de-laminating but that was traced down to faulty glue and exposure to the elements. But no more problems than other all-metal planes suffered from during their development.

Agreed, it's going to be a very interesting time once it is released. :)

Cheers

Good to hear! Cheers!

S!

Interesting read :) As of modern jets, their FCS software/computers limit the G you can pull with loadout attached. This is achieved by telling the FCS via armament computers what you have etc. This is simplified way of saying this, won't go to details for apparent reasons ;) So basically if a plane can carry say 1000kg of ordnance the G-limit would drop, but carrying the loadout itself won't stress the airframe that much as it is designed for it.

The problems arise if you go over the G limit with ordnance attached. With mild stress the attachment points, like bomb racks, pylons and their attachements, are stressed and the structure of tha aircraft. Yet this is not enough to cause deformation or broken places. The structure must be worn out already to even fail undr mild over G.

Now you pull moderate over G with ordance and this can cause slight damage to attachment points, bomb rack locks, even slight deformations or buckles. Yet structural failure is not imminent unless the structure/attachment point is stressed already and worn out. But this moderate over G will reduce the overall plane life expectancy regarding structural integrity.

Now with heavy over G there will be damage, deformation, loose or even broken rivets. Attachment points can be damaged or even broken thus losing the ordnance and/or structural parts. Usual place is the bomb rack locking mechanism to give away before the pylon or other structure. This is to protect the plane. Heavy over G greatly reduces the life of the airframe if continuous and will cause cracks, dents and deformation in the long run. Planes are afterall designed to tolerate a certain amount of stress before breaking or reduced integrity.

Severe over G can cause loss of structural parts and integrity. But this would require a very sharp high peak value of G. The risk is biger when the airframe is older. Again the structural loss can be due other parts than the structure itself breaking, like in Mustangs the main landing gear uplock mechanism failing in a high speed high G pull up causing it to extend and rip off thus causing a Class A mishap. So basically structure itself begins to break when secondary or tertiary structure/equipment fail exposing the structure to loads above design criteria. A single severe over G maight not break a plane, but it could be a write off due damage it will sustain.

I hope this clarified even a bit of this matter. This all based on my work and all that. Over G is not just simply an on/off situation to lose a part or similar, more like a cumulative event. Everything adds to strain and when the maximum has been reached failures begin and lead to catastrophic results.

Have a nice weekend!

I believe this ll be a major issue to spitfire with good elevator autority at high speeds. Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators before maximun g-loadings, its really hard to go beyond its limits. Second p-51 picture shows that.

Here is some interesting stuff. Training docs for the A-20G say:

• Acrobatics are forbidden
• Power-on stalls are forbidden, high-speed stalls at over 200 mph IAS (320 kph) will pull the plane apart.
• Turns of over 75 degrees of bank will damage the plane's wings, turns of 70 degrees stall the plane at 200 mph IAS
• The plane isn't designed to go into sharp angle dives or pull out from a steep angle dives

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=2122.0

Thanks for that information. Very enjoyable and interesting (my very first and longest keen interest was regarding mid-coldwar onwards jets, when I was a kid in the mid 1980's - and I never heard about this). Do you think the WW2 metallurgy, no titanium alloys, lack of carbon fiber composites, lack of engine power but with a rough vibrating powerplant, no robotic CNC precision manufacturing etc might make them behave differently from the modern jets in any way to being over-stressed?

I do not follow. "Most planes enter acellerated stall or not deflect the elevators" makes my mind run never ending barrell rolls especially. Could you rephrase/elaborate?

Comparing the 110 C-4 and G-2 to the Mosquito models, they come out pretty much exactly the same, but with 'in general' the 110 having slightly better average than the Mosquitos. The wing loadings are also similar, with the 110 having slightly lower in the C-4.

Indeed they were great aircraft. Been watching a documentary of the Mosquito since last night due to this (biased and Brit-promoting, leaving out almost any bad word of how the Mosquitos performed in various missions, but great modern footage of mosquitos flying, from outside as well as long in-cockpit views facing forward. Strange seating arrangement and entry hatch).

I have a request for Team Daidalos for a multiplayer server option: Accelerated fuel consumption. Just a multiplier equal for all planes.

For the sake of not spending an hour to fly to a target, multiplayer servers very, very often place airfields very close to the border between the teams. But this significantly benefits single engined fighters who can with no penalty grab a big bomb load (if they have the option), forgo drop tanks and still be able to loiter if they need to. Meanwhile, twin engined aircraft give almost no benefit at all (their fuel capacity being wasted). Grabbing 25% to 50% fuel in even short range single engined fighters is common, even when carrying big bombs.

This also leads to performance beyond what was achievable in reality in most circumstances, range being completely irellevant and a tendency to see single engined fighters doing the bombing.

I am sure some servers would see this as a big improvement and finally giving a more varied use of aircraft (and thus, tactics) to mix things up and make them more realistic.

Agreed, but when you think about it, it's fairly unrealistic to have the pilot choose his loadouts (or planes for that matter) at all. Maybe if you were a famous ace or squadron leader you could have made a request, but in general those sorts of decisions were made at a higher level and a pilot flew what he was given.

I'm fairly sure the server and mission designer can restrict aircraft and their loadout at the moment.

When BoB is released I'ld love to see a mission where all the planes are worn out and damaged from the start of the mission!

Some things you just can't average out. You have your aircrafts flight performance and your opponents. Part of being a good combat pilot (And I'm nowhere close to being one of those) is looking at your stengths and your opponents weaknesses and flying appropriately


Cheers