Could be implemented the selection of the fuel at 10%'s

There are many things unrealistic already, just having the airfields close like that to begin with. It is a simple optional solution to rectify a problem that appeared trying to solve another problem (the long flight times).

Limiting loadouts does not really stop the single engined fighters being able to access much better performance than they had in real life, because they will still be able to loiter and engage in fights with very low fuel amounts (with the performance that goes with it). The problem will become worse when airframes will be able to be damaged from excessive G-force for the given weight of the aircraft. Being able to fly at low fuel then = hugely beneficial, while at the same time bombers are penalized even more. Their fuel carrying/range ability being even more irellevant, while suffering from their weak airframes even with low fuel.

Agree with you 100% And add to that minimal fighter escort that leave at the first sign of e/a so they can shoulder shoot their team mates in a gound level furball. No wonder bombers have to resort to non-realistic tactics!

Cheers

Please do remember that none of the aircraft in the sim can appraoch their real world range/endurance numbers as it is, even at 100% fuel load. Do you want ot give the Bf 109s only 15 min of fuel even at 100% load?

The problem is not the aircraft, or the tiny maps, it's the fact that this is not WW2, nor is it real life. This is something we do for fun, because we enjoy it. NO one is really going to fly for 4 hours to do 30 seconds of combat. Who has the time for that?

Enforcing your distored reality on everyone only will lead to an empty server.

When aircraft in the sim are exposed as being poorly modeled, eveyone goes ballistic and demands a fix, yet now you propose a totally unrelistic solution, accelerated fuel burn, to a non-problem.

You cannot re-create WW2. You can't. Nor can you enforce your ideas of what is "proper". It doesn't work. It's been tried over and over again on countless now dead servers, and by guys like me that got all caught up in uber realism at the expense of enjoyable play.

If TD is still aiming for the release schedule on the first page patch 4.10 is less than a month away. Very much looking forward to this.

This patch will potentially bring very significant improvement to the sim, and will likely be in even higher demand than 4.09m when it was released.

Given the experience last time, is there any plan to coordinate the release with several sites to handle the download demand?

The real E-series without using additional fuel could fly over an hour. The rest of them similar, without using drop tanks. How different are the numbers in the game when flying with closed radiator and crusing speed/RPM?

15 minutes would suggest running a multiplier of 0.25 on fuel consumption - without using drop tanks (and assuming it does not significantly differ from the real version). A bit too short.

There was a problem - limited time/patience etc. It was solved by altering the maps. Not bad. But that messed up another aspect of the simulation - fuel and aircraft balance was vastly distorted. In general, a simulator tends to strive to be able to provide simulation of something. This can be tweaked back to suit people who don't want simulation if it is a simulation that can cater for numerous preferences.

First of all, servers are privately owned and administered. They force nothing on anyone. Participation is voluntary. They set their rules. Secondly, is the following reality, or is it distorted reality?

Helmet Mounted Display with following projection abilities:

1. Instant, 100% accurate damage assessment system
2. Precision range-finder
3. Friend-or-Foe identification system
4. Target box
5. Aircraft System status and Instrument readings
6. Fuselage mounted array of cameras, processed and projected over the cockpit, giving the ability to see through the cockpit.
7. External, invisible ultra-maneuverability capable remote controlled UAV with live image feed transmission.

Furthermore:

• Mind control/telepathy link between crew members in aircraft.
• Any percievable mishmash of aircraft, markings and load-outs in any percievable scenario.
• The front and its airfield being 30-90km apart.

The problem exists. It is described and well defined. You do not care about this problem, just like plenty of people do not care about the list of reality/unreality I supplied above, or a 13.5g airframe tolerance to G-forces and so on. If you do not care about the problem, I would not expect you to care about an optional solution for those who consider it a problem. Just like I don't care about supplying see-through cockpits as I don't see the lack of such as a problem to begin with. But regardless of what you and I think, we can both see that other people do care about problems. Or just want to customise their experience the way they enjoy it the most.

I very clearly said I requested it as an option, not a hard-coded alteration.

And this not being WW2? You cannot be serious. So it is not WW2, what does that suggest of any relevance to anything? These are not real planes either. The bullets, the cannon shells, the G-forces on the virtual pilot - it's not real. We are not pilots. Why would anyone want to fly planes that simulate the behaviour of those of WW2? Or be able to black out from the G-forces? Why have limited ammo as an option at all? I mean, come on, that is really a silly argument. I think "whatever floats your boat" applies here. Realistic simulation of aircraft and the scenarios they often found themselves in floats my boat. 4 hour flights to target and back does not float my boat, but dealing with that (in the way that we usually see) causes my boat to float less well as a consequence. And therefore, my request.

EDIT (And edited again!: The 'focused on uber realism at the lack of fun play' argument works exactly the same against your own beliefs as it does to mine. I am proposing making an aspect of aircraft engine modeling adjustable to be less realistic for the sake of fun (beacuse I feel it is more realistic/immersive in that way as a net result). Both of us already axed realistic flight times because it was very impractical and tedious. Imagine if someone told you that axing landings and take-offs is good because it's more fun and landings are boring and impractical, taking away from the dogfight action. I am guessing you don't agree with that statement, and neither do I. And then you would get accused of not knowing what fun is, yearning for realism at any cost and how that is nonsense.

I apologise if a sound i'm rushing you, its not my intention, but would like to know if you have already an aproximated list of the things you will add on the 4.10 patch?.

I remember the interview on SimHQ about you geting know to the public, and showing the bf-110 with radar, partial 6dof, and other things.

I ask you what features of that interview, and new, will be implemented on the new coming patch?

If you don't want to announce it yet, its fine for me. :)

Lancelot

Go to starter post on this thread. Also, look at the bottom of that post for link to additional items that will be included in 4.10

Hey! Some of my most successful sorties have been on big maps with the airfield far apart. I take off and get lost and fly around going "Where the hell are those (Bule/Red Delete own side) planes! I tend to get shot down less on those maps! ;)

I do agree that that it is a fine balancing act between realism and enjoyable game play. Which comes down to the skill of the mission designer.

As long as there is a level playing field, half the fun is knowing what you can and can't do with your plane and staying just this side of what you can do.

That's whats going to make the 4.10 patch so interesting. There's going to be a lot of re-learning going to happening one it's released.

Cheers!

S!

MikkOwl, the difference between modern airframes and WW2 is of course quite big. The planes of WW2 were designed for less than 1000h service, like Bf109 was for about 400h and it's engine for about 120h before complete overhaul. Now the modern planes are designed for 6000h and civilian planes can fly twice or even more that amount, as their airframes are not stressed like fighters.

Materials and manufacturing techniques have evolved of course too, but for their time for example F4U was very solid build, especially the midsection where the wing was. Like a tank. Bf109 was of lighter build, but it was designed for something else than F4U for example. FW190 was a sturdy plane, but had more roles than Bf109 and of curse design philosophy was different a bit.

Have to take in account the design specs in planes because that determines quite a bit of their structure etc. But there is one commong thing for them all: to save weight where possible. Even today this is an issue so we have new materials like composite etc.

As of the performances of planes in IL-2. The debate has gone on forever, since release ;) Bt a serious look could be taken in the fuel consumption and fuel quantities planes have, the overheating and engine damage exploits plugged and so on. One of the most accurate planes in fuel consumption is actually the Bf109. You can fly with internal fuel 407 litres roughly one hour if cruising, but the flying time reduces quite a bit in combat. But there are planes that fly longer with same fuel capacity. This makes fighting in Bf109 a challenge as you have almost always to take 100% fuel load and then you are fighting planes that fly with 25% or at most 50% fuel because they simply use less juice. Go figure the rest.

TD is making good fixes and additions for IL-2 and hopefully continue on that path. But I wish there would be a balance between bringing in a lot of new stuff and features when some of the old is still broken. Of course all can not be fixed or is not even feasible, but basic stuff like fuel quantities, fuel consumption etc. maybe are not that hard to check and fix.

Ugh, even more discouraging things regarding the fuel/engine issues there, Flanker. But all this info on aircraft engineering is very interesting.

So movable parts/accessories of the aircraft are the ones likely to give out first, if anything goes? It would be interesting to see bombs/drop tanks get torn off. And I wonder how that would affect aircraft with interior bomb bays.. If a bomb is torn, then it would smash open the bomb bay doors.

Watching Mosquito documentary. Seeing the assembly process made me shudder a bit. Wood.. wood all over the place. And then they made such a high performing aircraft out of it. The mosquito was heavier than the Bf 110 series (by far), but looks like it would be more aerodynamic. I'm getting sidetracked here:

1. Any idea at all how the engineering/materials of the Mosquito might set it apart from non-wood airplanes of the era?

2. It was discussed before regarding stores on the wings compared to center mounting. It was said it does not affect the load limit. But, what about having engines mounted out on the wings instead of the fuselage? 110 and Mikksquito (as well as all the bombers - who are weak as far as load resistance go) transfer a very large amount of weight from the fuselage out on the wings. I can't help to think this would assist them in causing much less stress on the wing-fuselage point during turns - both because of less weight in the middle, and maybe somehow the engines straighten the wings out a bit. Perhaps these aircraft snap their wings at the engine mounts rather than near the fuselage in some circumstances?

I was chatting with a pilot that flew mosquitos (in fact he was an Flying Tigers Pilot in the P40's, flew Mosquitos, and B25,s and more..) in WWII. He told me quite a bit about his experiences. He said that he got lots of splinters in the mosquitos. He also said his wife is still picking shrapnel out of him to this day! So, I would think that when a mosquito is being fired on and takes direct hits, the pilots will get splinters if the cockpit area is hit.. I am just saying what he said.. his metal shrapnel was from the bombers..

for the P-40 he also told me that the pilots would remove the sheild behind the (60 lbs.) pilot's seat to gain more climbing speed... and how much in inches of mercury boost it would gain..

Ramstein, there must have been a slight misunderstanding on your part while talking to that WWII veteran pilot. Taking weight off the plane would not gain anything in engine performance, only aircraft performance. The engine would not produce any additional boost (manifold pressure) as a result of removing 60 lbs of armor from behind the pilot's seat.

Wether the engines are in the wings fuselage or wherever the aircraft is designed and certifed to given structual load limit. Now if you get some bending relief from weight in the wings then the designer takes that into account to allow the structure to to be certified at the specified structural design G limit.

I think Ramstein was talking about two different things. The P-40 (and the P-47 as well) were well known for being run above their rated boost-pressures due to the confidence of pilots and ground-crews in the engines.

VASI function?
 

I think what U guys are doing is truly awesome I love this game and really thought that 409m was going to be the last patch I just have a small request. Would it be possible to make the"Visual Approach Slope Indicator" or VASI functional on the Japanese Carriers and maybe install one on the American Carriers?? It would sure open up some time Lines for my missions

Thanks I hope it isn’t to late for this request

Tuph

I am paraphrasing different parts of conversations..

he could dial in the boost depending on the weight..
I am pretty sure he was saying he could squeeze out 2 more inches of hg with a 60' lbs. weight reduction.

some numbers he remembers, other numbers he could not remember.. he forgot the convergence numbers for guns.. other numbers he remember clearly, he is in his mid 90's..

He also gave me tips on tuning B25 engines..which was funny because I used the same tips he knew on old engines that used points instead of electronic ignition pickups..
he used mathbook covers (he worked with the mechanics that kept his planes running.. and praised their skills..),, and so did I used matchbook covers also, on old car engines because they just happen to be .017 of an inch which is the point gap on ignition systems that used contact points.. also the B25 leaked oil all the time and threw it all over the plane.. I am amused because I was a gear head in my earlier life..


I speak to him every few weeks, for a few hours each time..

he voluteers a lot of info (very chatty and full of life..).. he was shocked and happy I knew what the 'P-26' Peashooter plane is,, he trained in one ..

actually I know two AVG Flying Tiger Vets..(not personally), we go to the same doctors at the VA hospital (clinics) ....
but they are 40 years older than me... and they will probably outlive me..

One of them also flew bomb missions from Tripoli to the Poliesti oil fields in Romania.

Ah, never mind then. Never heard of anything like that either. Lucky to be able to talk to a WWII veteran on such a regular basis, though, Ramstein!

Tuph, do you have details of VASI's equipping US and or Japanese carriers ?

Are you referring to the Mirror Landing system of modern times on carriers ?

The VASI on land airfields and the Mirror Landing system on carriers are post war developments.

Multi-Throttle
 

I would like to ask if the Multi-throttle/prop pitch/radiator
controls will be just for two engine bombers or will it include
three and four engine bombers?

Vasi
 

Only from the game
http://i670.photobucket.com/albums/v...apanesVASI.jpg
http://i670.photobucket.com/albums/v...mericanVSI.jpg

These I dont believe are VASIS but Nav/Running lights for following ships etc. As it is its below the flight deck !

The Japanese did use a light system inlieu of an LSO, but not sure if that is what is being shown in the first screen shot above. Not sure at all what is being shown in the following screen shot??

Second photo is a US Carrier
 

And it wasnt my intention to be annoying

Tuph

Yesterday's update?
 

Hello TD, in some parts of the world the Thursday is already over, where is the update? ;)

yup,we want update :3 :grin:

Still Thursday here. ;) Update posted on first page.

Nice!

Still no news on the Ju88 pilot kill issue... Will you look into this or not? I just would like to know if I can still write off one of the best medium bombers of the war or not.

Question: will there be ability to selectively allow access to multi crew plane? I don't want take off and find a clown shooting off my tail later on. I would prefer to choose which players are allowed to be my gunners.

This will be very interesting :)

+100000000

Very very nice feature. The old dream finally comes true.

Thank you for your great works, TD!

Very cool. Any chance of a two-seat training aircraft that we can use with this feature?

W.

Very nice TD well done.

Looking forward to the patch being released ;-)

This problem was discussed alot and we have a solution to prevent such behaviour.

Do you have details of this system Razor ?

You will have an option to either allow or not joining of other players as your gunners, but not which players join your team. Joining is only possible when you are on the ground, with your engines shut off. But for AI, there will most likely be an option, mission based, that will allow (or not) joining of AI planes either when they are airborne or on the ground only. We'll see.

This it?
http://www.mission4today.com/images/smiles/fighting.gif

Please F5 my memory. You mean the lack of pilot armor? Ju-88s has gone through some changes. New collision boxes is one of the changes.

JU88 is impossible to land on a belly into terrain - if you are are very skillfull you can do it on runway flat surface. You can ditch it into water but even then the speed must be <170km/h, otherwise you get killed. If there is something that can be done on this it would be nice.

I have heard rumours about missing pilot armor - if true pls fix it too.

Thanks !

"Impossible" is too strong word. Yes, it is more tricky than other bombers, but still it is pretty easy. The main thing is correct attitude of plane. If its nose is too low (or one of engines is too low), you will die on contact with ground. Basically, you need to make tail touch the ground first.

P.S: in anyway, Ju-88 seems too fragile for me too.

what do you mean with skillfull??
if you want a simulation it has to be hard to land... expecially if it is a belly landing!!

anyway is possible to land with the ju88 no flap without lg down...

Ok - it is possible but much more difficult compared to other bombers in game - why is it so?. And it doesn't help at all when you normally must do it without engine(s) and wing surface damaged.

Since you guys seem to know all about it can you tell me why it is the pilot who always dies ?

Bravo on fixing the bridges after so many years of sillyness!

My be you can little bit explain, if it's not a top secret :D. Does G-limit algorithm have a plane construction parameter.I meant , does G-limit algorithm, when calculated G number for each plane, used different algorithms for full wood, wood/metal, full metal planes construction? In reality it's must be different, but I doesn't know, how it realized in game.

..."used different algorithms for full wood, wood/metal, full metal planes construction? In reality it's must be different"

Why must it be different? The overall design specification is that the structure must be able to withstand XX G at YY Weight. The designer then ensures his structure using his choice of materiel's meets the spec. a 10G structure is a 10G structure whether it is made of wood or steel, its failure modes may be slightly different though.

In the G limit routine each aircraft has its own unique profile.

I do hope you guys are planing on including some kind of permission to who can join as my gunner. I am afraid that this might be used in the worst way possible. For example - shooing at your own plane or shooting at your wingman, thus exploiting the added option.

Yes Thor, we do.

I didn't doubt for a moment. Thanks for the reply! :)

Does not this post from (EDIT: Often when I post, it starts a new page) two pages before this one already answer your question in detail?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=438

It obviously does. And I missed it.

There was a time when I was able (had the time) to track all what is going on, but nowadays I am too busy to read the whole thread.

Hello,

about the board gunners, how will you be able to determine which plane from what player you are selecting ?

Thx.

Did you check the first post? They have a video showing it.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...66&postcount=1

Showcase missions?
 

Hi TD,

have you considered the idea of creating a sample mission or two for each of your patches demonstrating the content of the patch?

E.g.

4.09:
- static mission for Avia B/534 on a Slovakia map with some easy target (e.g. low-altitude bombing of car convoy in the mountain valley) to show the new plane and the best places on this wonderful map

4.10:
- mission for CW-21 on the Slot map showing / teaching the radio navigation
- mission for Ju-88 with the guided bombs

What concerns me is the fact that now, half a year after release of 4.09, I have not seen a single offline mission/campaign for the new maps (mod-free, of course).

You are right. Sorry my previous post not correct. I was agree, 10G structure is 10G structure and you are right about failure mode. I don't know how it working in game, but if we are looking in the "Resistance of materials" theory wood was quickly fatigue like aviation aluminum. And if in game was used that info, 10G wood construction must be broken faster like metal 10G structure. For example, 10G wood plane doing 4 over limit turns, but 10G full metal plane 5 or 6. That was took in game more realism.;) But of course game is game. I was watching on youtoobe.com WW2 documentary movie about B-17. One of them have a very heavy damaged tail, but crew return to base and successfully landing. In comments was written "thats gays is lucky", but this not a luck, This is, How to the "Resistance of materials" theory work in real life. If B-17 has a wood structure they doesn't be so lucky.

Is it possible?
 

Being new I guess what I am going to ask will be old hat but here goes. I really love this game and the mods but if we can release rockets in pairs why cant we release bombs the same way instead of a heap? Is it possible to have depth charges? Is it possible as we have shadows of the aircraft that converge in relation to their height, to have leigh lights fitted that act in the same way? Thanks guys and keep up the great work.:)

Can you support your claim?

To my knowledge, wood, being a natural composite, is, actually, less affected by fatigue, then crystalline material such as metal.

I'd really like to see a Wöhler diagram for both wooden composite and aluminum spar of equal terminal strength...

then why aviators adopted metalic structure and abandoned wooden one while wood is better?

Being better at a certain type of fatigue does not make it better at everything else. I am sure that metals are both much more durable all-round and have much better strength for any given size and mass. The Mosquito, for example, is very heavy.

Yes, the key here (regarding the "strength" query), is mass. Wood was MUCH heavier to achieve the same (or slightly greater) terminal strength thus it also negatively affected top speed and maneuverability. It was, however, very available and could be worked into a functional item in just about anyone's back yard.

S!

If you look in ANC-18, the standard for design of aerostructures in wood, there isn't much data. But they do say that for fully reversed loading (R=-1) in douglas fir, the fatigue limit is around 30% of the ultimate strength.

Modern aluminium alloys have a fatigue limit about the same, but the older aluminium alloys used on WWII fighter aircraft, although almost as good were very prone to stress corrosion cracking. I think the main argument against wooden aircraft is not so much strength or lightness, but that they are prone to moisture absorption and so require hangars to be stored.

W.

Not quite true. When you consider pure tensile stresses, yes that is the case. In bending however, with careful design, wooden structures can be much lighter than even aluminium.

W.

I think it is misleading to talk about 'wooden' structures without looking in more detail at the finer points of construction - a Mosquito fuselage for example is a 'composite' of thin plywood skins on a balsa core, and may well actually have been stronger than an aluminium structure of the same weight. I suspect the real objections to the use of wood in aircraft are more related in problems with consistancy, protection against moisture, and difficulties in bonding (less of a problem now than during WWII). In a sense, the move from metal aircraft construction to composites (carbon fibre etc) is going full circle - wood is a natural 'composite', and has the advantage of millions of years of natural selection to perfect the 'design'.

There is an old story that goes like this:

Two airplanes are, late one night, sitting in a hangar, one made of wood and the other of metal. The metal airplane, feeling very superior and modern, looks sideways at the wooden airplane and whispers, "Dry rot". The wooden airplane, knowing the true score, whispers back, "Metal fatigue".

The point being that a wooden structure, properly protected from moisture, has a virtually unlimited life, being free from fatigue issues. Many restorations of antique aircraft have reused spars that in some cases are over 60 years old. Metal fatigue can be mitigated with good design (DC-3, anyone?), but will always be an issue. Wood needs more particular and specialized care, which is a big selling point for metal structure.

Many purpose-built aerobatic monoplanes and biplanes use wood for their wing structure, where it's high strength and light weight are useful.

wouldn't it be good to have a player control each character in a bomber, you could have specialist pilots, navigators, bombardiers, and noob gunners! :)

There's not much demand for navigators in IL-2, but you can fly as a gunner in online co-ops already, He111. TD are also looking at doing this for dogfights, as they said earlier.

Wood was harder to work with in mass-production to close tolerances, as well, I think. You can't cast wood. ;)

Exactly. A similar part with similar terminal strength, made of wood is noticeably heavier, then metal one.
Besides, wooden structures decay much faster, then metal (it doesn't apply to wood only, but also to the glue, used to bond wooden parts). Not a big deal during the war, where planes don't live too long anyway. But important for the peace-time maintenance. For instance, the factory declared life span of a wooden Yak airframe was max 2 years. After which it should have been scrapped. Same for Mosquito, I guess.

Not quite. In the 1940s USSR, for instance, it was more difficult to build metal airframes, teach workers and produce raw materials for them, then for the wooden ones. I guess, nowadays, it may be opposite, it largely depends on current technological level in the country's industry as a whole.

I remember that I was told once that the He-162 had problems with the wooden construction (presumably overcome in the V-tailed variant)...

I wonder how G-loads will work for the FSW He-162? Anything over 1.1 Gs causes the wings to snap off above 200 kph?

Now this is a brilliant idea! The original Il-2 patches had short campaigns for new aircraft (I-16 and Bi-1 both had five-seven mission campaigns). More single missions would be excellent to see in 4.11

I doesn't tray to teaching you, but this is motive, why I was asking stupid questions about G and wood/metal plane differences :). The reason, why I was starting this discussion about G is here http://www.me.mtu.edu/~mavable/Book/Chap1.pdf , please look first 3 pages and Table 1.2 at page 3.This is a Mechanics of Materials section - Stress education materials.

This is not my quotation, its I was find in mechanics related forum where experts explaining how it work based on Mechanics of materials :
1. The tree along fibers behaves as a fragile material, across - as plastic
PS metal material is plastic in both directions.

2. Stability - loss the most artful kind of destruction. It occurs suddenly. The most simple example-ruler(wood) which it is compressed length ways. It resists to the last, then suddenly curved and breaks.
PS Metal ruler doesn't braking in this way.


I agree. The present time wood material (really its a composite) can be equal of metal or better like metal, but I was talking about materials what was used at WW II. Thats not identical like used at present time. The plane is a very complicated mechanics device and flaying is a very stressfully action. So many forces with different strength was work on plane in flight. And if our plane caring bombs and drop its in diving, stress forces increased.

When the designer sits down to build his aeroplane he does so to a specification. Part of that specification will include the structural strength (ultimate load), the design life and the planned Fatigue spectrum. In that Fatigue spectrum are things like the expected flight hours the expected number of take off and landings and the expected number of cycles of xx applications of various G. With all that defined he then makes his aeroplane to be able to meet that Fatigue spectrum. This then means the aeroplane will LAST that long provided the fatigue spectrum is accurate.

DT are not dealing with fatigue management and aircraft life. We are dealing with structural strength solely on a mission to mission basis. Pilots are given a recommended set of limits to fly to. Stay inside the limits no drama will occur. Exceed the limits and bending things may occur, grossly exceed the limits and structural failure may occur.

" ....And if our plane caring bombs and drop its in diving, stress forces increased" .... agreed and exactly that happens in the DT G Limit module.

I imagine wood composites have a higher range of elastic deformation (flexes but returns to original shape), but worse plastic (permanent) deformation and worse ultimate strength (the point where 'necking' starts to occur, leading quickly to a snapped off wing). Metals should probably survive being permanently deformed by stress better, due to crystalization of the material with deformation (hardened metals exploit this behaviour). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_hardening

Ultimately I don't think there will be much of a practical difference even if the two are treated the same in the upcoming patch, because I am sure the numbers/formula/ratios etc will just be set differently, based on the official numbers. Maybe wood structures will have a bigger or smaller difference between safe loading limit and max limit to take care of that :)

All in all, I hope that we are NOT told anything more than what the pilots back then would have access to - just 'don't exceed this G and absolutely not this G'. The exact values being hidden to us :grin:

"All in all, I hope that we are NOT told anything more than what the pilots back then would have access to - just 'don't exceed this G and absolutely not this G'. The exact values being hidden to us"

That is the intent. Given that in a PC environment you have no physical "G cueing" we do need to provide something that will give you some idea of where you are ... you wont get precise g knowledge however..... but you will know when you have bent the jet :)

I asked this question on 3/8/10 and still no reply or answer. Can someone take time and answer this question. Or is this just for the good old boys country club to get answers. Seems every one here is just advoiding answer questions excpet for their friends!!!!!!
Thank You

Maybe it's just a case that no one wan't to answer if they don't know the answer to the question. In a team situation you may not know what other people are working on.

Has TD released any 3 or 4 engined bombers? If not you many need to go to the mod sites that released them and ask the question.

I recall that this was already answered earlier. Up to four engines is supported, although I guess not many people have four throttles.

~S~
Sorry if I sounded off like that, give to old age and medical problems I have. I will not go into that because I am not sure how much longer I will be around.
Any way Thank You for your answer. I did read every post and replies here, but may have missed the answer.
So TD muti-throttle ect... will support up to four engines. I am glad because I am getting a new Flight Yoke and Throttle set up, since I only fly the USAAF Heavy Bombers. So in another word I can get the set up I want and use at least two throttle set up.

Again sorry for the I sounded off. Thank You TD for your work.

Kabayo

No, but let's not forget our old TB-3, which we have long time. It would be weird if only 2 throttles were working. ;)

Well if airspeed is anything to go by I assumed the extra 2 engines were constantly in reverse on the TB-3!

In fact I distinctly remember a mission on SOV where a person drove his TB-3 overland across the map and parked it on the enemy airfield and swapped to the gunner positions.

In the chat I think he said it was faster that way! Anyway I thought it was an excelent ploy and he got 100% for creativity!

Cheers and thanks, I'ld completely forgotten.

With current hardware prices that's rapidly changing I guess...

I only hope IL2 will handle that many USB devices, currently I have 2 saitek throttles (3 axis each), homebuilt pedals (USB), Sidewinder 2 and if properly supported I will buy additional saitek throttles.

Hello, greetings from the south hemisphere..

I have a question: the 4.10 patch (and subsecuents patch) can be installed over a 4.09b1m instalation???
I mencion that because i love the 4.09b1m for the b-17's, b-29's, and other planes and maps. And i actually have the UP 2.0 witch work almost perfect with 4.09b1m (some planes cannot appear and Zuti's mod not work propely)

And finally, my wishlist for 4.10, 4.11....

-Radars in nightfighters
-Some kind of light to use as beacon on runways
-Four-engine bombers (Hali, Lan, B-17, B-24, B-29, He-177)
-The Ju88 family (88's fighters, 188, 288, 388.)
-Blohm und Voss BV138, BV222, Arado Ar196, Dornier Do18/2 (yea, more seaplanes!)
-Dornier Do17/217
-Fw200 Kondor
-He219
-More trasports (C-47, C-46, Li2, Ju53, Me323...)
-P-61 Black Widow
-More types of Mosquitos, B-25, Bf109, He111...

and some others crazy ideas, but i now that my wishlist is really to much.

Thanks in advance

I'd imagine that 4.10 will only work over 4.09m. In any case, no patch will work over a modded install - not that we are supposed to help with mods on this forum anyway.

As for runway lights, there are static objects that will do for this. I doubt if you'll see much else from your wishlist from TD, though strange rumours circulate from time to time...

Thanks Andy for your aswer.

The UP2 mencion its only for reference, really i dont like it very much (but my friends did like it -for the "korean war fighters"- and its Me against the world...)

Well, I download the 4.10 and test over the 4.09b1m and hope its work, if no... 4.09m (bye bye bombers!).
And for the lights: i always use the light/s in the FMB, I "wanted" a light with a 3D model, like real one... but is only a wish.

Thanks again

Right...

I'm not responsible for this develoment, thus I don't know exactly, if 4x throttle supports also 3 engine planes. But I would expect this, as its the way we work.
EDIT: I just saw, that Viikate answered this already. So I did expect correctly.

... and yes!

We released SM.79 with 4.09. ;)

where i live already is thursday ... :D

I was thinking it might be ideal to move the 4.10 updates to early on Thursday or to Wednesday (or perhaps even post them later during the weekend).

Right now we get a double hit -thursday night 4.10 updates- and -friday morning SoW:BoB updates- which I'm sure isn't healthy for those of use easily excited ;)

\

...And to think that fighter/attack variants were proposed - including one prototype built with three 76mm cannons (forward firing).

Gee ...I hope you guys didn't take my advice ;) :D

regret

Going by the published schedule, the next patch is due in less than two weeks, so any 'updates' would be rather late, I'd have thought - they've told us what to expect by now.

At least, that's what I'm hoping. I could be wrong, and they are currently adding a Lancaster, a Whirlwind, another 57 versions of the Bf 109, a fully-animated dog for 'Dam Busters' missions (though they will have to rename it;) ), a 'Gremlin' option that recalibrates your altimeter while you aren't looking, and an option to go online with Silent Hunter 5 players so you can drop bombs on their U-boats while they run around trying to get the crew to do something useful (this last option will probably be scrapped as nobody can get SH5 to work anyway).

Hopefully still a Thursday somewhere in the Pacific. Today update posted on first page.

"We are entering the beta phase of the 4.10 patch, so we will reduce the quantity of development updates and focus on the testing of the patch."

We understand
but your updates are similar to a drug :D !!!

Ah yes, I was certain there would be delays (history is often an indicator of the future, after all :) ). The large amounts of great things to come in 4.10 is bitter sweet: the awesome parts are, well, awesome, but it makes the wait more of a tease than if it was a minor patch.

Only yesterday did I see the update about radio navigation and major upgrades to cockpit instruments regarding navigation. I found the 500mb version video showcasing those functions too. This is the most exciting thing to come, with the new chassi stress and individual propeller pitch on axis (aaand radiator on a single axis).

Navigation improvements will make it both easier yet more complicated to navigate on full realism settings. Since most flying, even online, is not being engaged in combat but just getting from A to B, this should make those journeys so much more interesting. Interesting to learn that the German heavy fighters actually get a radio compass with moving AF Antenna (not sure where that antenna is located on the aircraft) which the single engined fighters have to do without.

A delay .. who cares .. quality need it`s time.. and those pics are damn great.. never expectect
TD to appear and give il2 new life.. so do what you want and how long you want just keep it coming !

Thank you very much!!!!!
:grin:

Well the antenna movement isn't animated. Probably not worth the effort.

Bf-110 has a rotating D/F-loop at the bottom of fuselage behind the wings
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/...-me-110-08.jpg
http://download.softclub.ru/pub/il2p...-110C-4_09.jpg

In early variants, the loop antenna had to be manually rotated with this thing:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/ins...ss/Me110-3.gif
I recall that Ju-52 and other older twin engine planes had also manually rotated D/F-loops.

Later Bf-110 G-2 what we have already flyable has automatically rotating antenna and even later G-4 has this replaced by iron ferrite coil which is inside the fuselage like in Ju-88.

Many allied bombers have rotating D/F-loop inside a teardrop shaped cover. Check for example B-25s in game.

Some smaller planes have fixed small iron ferrite coils which work like loop antenna. Almost all LW late war single engined planes have either small fixed loop or ferrite coil. The idea of D/F-loop antenna is that when is facing directly towards (or away) from the radiating source like NDB, the induced current going through the antenna is zero.
http://files.homepagemodules.de/b208...6t50p137n1.png

So instead of rotating the antenna itself, plane must turn directly towards/away from beacon and then AFN gauge shows no deviation (needle centered). Getting a triangulated position from two beacons requires more effort with fixed antenna.

I think it's good that there's a delay, because between this and the Mount&Blade Warband addon, I would probably have had a heart-attack. :)

DT's,

Take your time guys, all your great work is a real gift to the community !

But don't forget the heavy MG issue (SAFAT 12.7 and others ...) :)

Insuber