Ummmmm Who is DT? I thought these guys were Team Daidalos

TD, DT, Diaboli, Beelzebub, ... who cares? :mrgreen:

Always thought Oleg Maddox Games was a funny acronym OMG :shock:

That's probably why it's just Maddox Games (minus the Oleg). :mrgreen:

Nope, it's Daidalos Team. We voted on the name.
Although I think the elections were rigged because Daidalos Team was never on the list.
And then Caspar made this logo, which I just realized is not The Correct one.
I better change it, ASAP.

EDIT: Now I have the correct logo.

Hi TD just wondering if you guys had planed to add the CA-13 Boomerang to future patches (if any) . The aircraft played an important part in the defence of my country.
It went from drawing bored to flying in 14 days when japan was on the attack down threw Asia. It would be really good if it can be part of IL-2.There will be a few Aussie out there that would think the same

Since this thread is a spam fest, I've "begun" a thread of Ki-61 issues on my forum that can be found here: http://78sentai.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=401

K2

Its a well done kind of requesting, documentated and all. Quite some few could take this examplary. Be aware, we recognised this thread and taking it into account. Thanks for the suggestions so far! :)

A little birdie told me to keep my ear to the ground and finger on the DL button because something will be released within the next 4 days.

I would like to see an option so external cam won't focus on men hanging in parachutes anymore. They look all the same, don't wink or wave at you or tell jokes. They don't even pick their noses. A bit boring, really.

But my guy is Chuck Norris.

LOL!!!! Epic! :grin::cool:

Can't be. Chuck Norris doesn't need parachutes. :shock:

ok...someone has to do it....here I go: DT when will be ready 5.0? :-P
I never can get enought !!!!:-P:-P

We are considering to update also the loadouts of some of the Spits

Any idea when a G55 cockpit will come.This plane is too beautiful to be AI only!

Completely quote! Btw i must ask for a "series 0" version with 4 MGs and a single 20mm. And less wing load for agility obviously ;)


EDIT:
i'd love to see a special effect. what do you think of engine "flames" in the exausts? too much hollywood ?

First of all Thanks a lot for this fantastic work !!

Now another suggestion for future patch 5.0.

We Spanish fans of IL-2 would like to recreate Spanish Civil War (SCW). In that time, I-16 variants present were mostly Type 5 and 6, with some Type 10 and the end of the war, which even were produced locallywith license.

In IL-2, so far, is possible to fly only Type 18 as the closer to the 5, 6 or 10.

But now we have flyables Types 5 and 6, but with skies. I wonder if for next patch 5.0 it would be easy to remove the skies and let them use normal wheels.

With the fabulous Savoia SM-79 (another plane who flew in the SCW) we are closer to produce a nice OnLine Campaing to recreate such sad period of our history.

Finally, I-15bis flyable would be another excellent add-on for this virtual Spanish Civil Air War, till the earlier I-15 could be available too.

Thanks in advance.

Types 5 & 6 are already in game without skies. :grin: I-15bis will be flyable in next patch.

Any chance of a drop down menu for joining servers on multiplayer? Several of my squad run servers and each time I have to put in a new addresss, even though I have used it before. Thanks for reading :)

Yes, they are !! what a surprise! :D . Reading the Aircraft Guide I thought there would be only these types with skies, but I've now finally finished downloading and I have realized the wheeled versions are included as well.

Thank you very much! And good news come from patch 5.0 !

How about unlocking the FMB so as to at least allow offline mission/campaign makers to place their own airfields?

Thanks for considering this in advance!

Sure, we simply forgot to do it in 409.

Are these the ONLY planes whose Flight Models have been changed in the official 4.09m?

I heard someone say that according to his trial of the new patch, the climb and turn performance of the P51 and F6F have become better in 4.09m. Is it purely that guy's illusion?

Many thanks for an answer from the patch makers.

Its a Total illusion. The only original FMs tweaked were TA152C,MC200 and P11.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked before, but how difficult would it be to add in the Allison Mustangs, at some point?

It just seems to me that they would fit better in Il-2 than the Merlin ones. I'm also given to understand the A-36 was fairly heavily used on the Italian front, but that one's probably the hardest of the three to do.

Harry Voyager

Hello D,

just wondering about two things : Will you put FMs and cockpits for 2 very important planes for the french air force and give a cockpit to the Morane Saulnier 406 and the Hawk 75 as well as give them a more complex and real FM ? It would be very appreciated.

Hey guys, I was just wondering if you could possibly tell us what things you definitely WON'T be changing? It would probably save you wading through a lot of unnecessary requests if we knew what you aren't allowed to or interested in changing for whatever reason.

Great job DT.. Keep it up..

Hi

I am new here (second post) & would like to congratulate Team Daidalus on an excellent job of 4.09. I have some questions.

What are your overall objectives for IL2? Do you plan to develop this sim to its fullest potential within the limits of the game engine?

Is the team working to a mission statment encompassing all of the teams set objectives?

or is there a thread that allready answers these questions?

if only there were an offical no touch list..

Another bunch of q's
1. Is it possible to adjust full mission builder to use the wide screen resolutions?
2. Is possible to release the vectorized maps of all terrains, including Slovakia?
3. Is it possible to make a community call to make a major update for the museum? To include everything in it? This may need setting up a Wiki for doing that (since all translations will be needed).
4. Is there any possibility to add a pulsating flame to V-1 exhaust?
5. Any chance to get RRAB's - rotating-dispersing bombs? German AB-???? models may be used for them. TB-3 with 8*RRAB-500 would be quite welcome in some situations.
6. Finding a proper squadron in a long list in the FMB editor is not too funny work. Is it possible to make selection easier by using other structure of drop-down lists -
first contains side and country, other ONLY the squadrons belonging to that country.
7. Is there any chance to get the official Spanish(both sides) and Chinese markings?
8. Is there any chance of getting the map of Spain?

Previous q's:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=350

Most important q:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=247 (second one, about new airstrip model)
If anyone doubts about the possibility of getting it working- he is more than welcome to put a stationary aircraft carrier in the middle of a grassy plain, or somewhare in a bald patch on the mountain top - and CHECK IT himself.

As far as chinese markings go I am afraid our hands are in binders. According to Oleg the game would be instantly banned in China if national-chinese markings were included. I don't think he'd allow this.

Umm... AFAIK there are already some planes in Chinese markings ("Flying Tigers") in the game, but I won't insist.
Maybe there is a chance to get comments on the other q's as well?
This one was really a minor one.

I'm not knowledgable in these areas so I can't say anything. :(

The Nationalist Chinese "markings" you see in game are on skins, they are not a selectable country.

We must appease our Red Chinese Overlords after all.

:rolleyes:

sahweet, thanks for the patch
 

make all AI planes flyable

I'd like to see some of the more realistic sounds put in for the planes and efx like machine guns.

Kyushu J7W1 Shinden

Ask Oleg if you guys can fix the FW 190 cockpit (the bar you know).

TBF avenger (heck its in there you could rename it TP Revenger)

panzerfaust or (I forgot the name) anti tank rockets the Germans used. I don't want to fly late war jets or TA152C for rockets.

More late war naval torpedo / dive bomber planes like the B6N Jill and B5N2 Kate


Kyushu J7W1 Shinden

F8F Bearcat

Fiat G55

P-51 with rockets

Give bomber guys the B-17, B-24, Lancaster, and the luftwaffe that 4 engine bomber

Me-410 / 210

Kyushu J7W1 Shinden



Be careful, looks like US is going in that direction. And Japan has began to repalce teaching English with Chinese . . .

I never thought America would "sellout" but the Chinese do wave alot of $$ and they do buy alot of bonds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/...building_china

No I don't have just have a bone to pick. I just know someone who was shot by red officials because of his religious affiliation.

There appears to be quite a bit of confusion over the naming conventions associated with the 4.09 ---

Maybe you should think about calling it the 4.09F, 4.09Final,4.095 or something that differentiates it from the previous beta releases of 4.09, 4.09m.

It the coming months new IL2 users and some that have been away for awhile are going to be confused over just what files to download.

The download sites for the most part don't remove old stuff. The just leave the old stuff up like people "want it". LOL

A simple 4.09F (for final) and 4.09F-DS (for final dogfight server) would probably do the trick for everyone.

-----------------

Its called 4.09m, the previous beta version was 4.09bm.

Is there the possibility to put the new planes in the current dynamic campaign?

Better idea: make those parts more or less transparent or translucent, selectable in options and server. like they did in Rise of Flight. Kills the whole 8-year old discussion, decreases the need for 6DOF and everyone can be happy. I like to dream, don't I?

Trim issues...
 

Hello Team Daidalos!

I would like to give propose my thoughts on a subject which is rarely talked about (and generally to say "you have to use it all the time") in an useful way: the issue of trimming in a PC sim...

To begin with, it must be remembered that the only function of any trim is to decrease as much as possible the efforts the pilot has to exert on his controls. The most important one is the pitch trim, just followed by the yaw trim and then the roll trim.
All flying machines by WWII and after had at least the pitch trim, many the yaw trim (notable exceptions being for instance the Bf 109 and the I16) and much more rarely a roll trim.

To fly properly (=efficiently), tirelessly and to be able to shoot precisely you must be in trim at all times, as it allows you to fly the aircraft with very little effort on the controls (around the control "trimmed" or "zero effort" point) hence with maximum precision.
It is easy to recognize when you are in trim: when letting the relevant control free (or more simply relaxing the effort on it), there is no change in the aircraft attitude; if the aircraft tends to adopt a different pitch or yaw, you were not in trim: you were maintaining the aircraft in its then-attitude by exerting an effort on the control(s).

The difficult thing with the trim is usually one is barely conscious not being in trim, for many reasons like very busy with the environment (someone is shooting at you, you are making a complex maneuver, or are preparing your machine for landing and whatnot...) or not feeling your own force!
It is not second-nature for would-be pilots to trim all the time and in real life their instructor will spend long amounts of time to explain and cram the necessity of trimming, and I can tell you it is sometimes still needed to give reminders even to career pilots since a very long time...

I am sorry for people who did not need these explanations as I know many of you are aware of trimming value!
You must be wondering by now what is my point?

It is very simple: the "controls" we have available as PC simmers make a terrible job of helping the virtual pilot trimming properly its plane...to the point of abomination in my eyes, and it has always been a killer of immersion for me! I see already the dust cloud made by the battalion of "people who have no issue with trim in Il2" running at me, so let me take cover first and don my armor...OK done!

In real life you meet two sorts of trim control:

- the manual one, usually a wheel the size of your hand (or sometimes a sliding lever like in many gliders which have only pitch control), for all trimmable axis’s

- the electrical one, usually a simple rocker switch.

The latter will be found in many light aircraft and transport aircraft: it is precise but slow (it controls an electrical motor itself adjusting the trim control) and not suited for rapid attitude changes;

The former one can be emulated by, well, only a wheel!

The problem here is the only possibility to emulate a wheel which has a range of 270° rotation (or sometimes much more) and which is moved by hand with extreme precision and quickness is only a pair of keys, a hat-switch or at best a minuscule rotary moved by a thumb on 45° range with disproportionate efforts...and we are supposed to fly properly that way?
There is no hope to have the requested precision and ease of use any real life aircraft would grant you...

So what can we done (be patient we are almost there)?
Ideally a trim control block would be ideal, but there are few in existence and they are, if you want something realistic, expensive...but I think there is a way to give the virtual pilot the desired effect, but it requires some programming by Team Daidalos:

I propose to create two "auto-trim functions", kind of...for yaw and pitch.

- My goal here is not to ask for an "always trimmed" button or config choice: this is not realistic at all; only modern fighters like F-16 or Rafale have this kind of feature (and I am not sure this can not be deactivated on request?),

- not it is to get an "insta-trim" (but that would be a lesser evil) where you get trimmed immediately when pushing a button,

- but a "delayed auto-trim" emulating the real life action of turning a wheel until you feel the aircraft is trimmed (in real life, by feeling the effort decreasing on the stick or rudder, in virtual life by letting the stick back to center without the aircraft changing attitude).

It would work this way: as long as the pilot pushes his "trim" button, the trim value goes at a certain "realistic" rate of change from the value it had when the button was pushed to the value it should have for the stick position to be centered to maintain the pitch or yaw angle value of the aircraft had, again when the button was pushed. When the button is released, the change stops at the value which was obtained at this time.

This will in essence replace the hand movement you cannot have on a trim wheel which does not exist by a push on a single button, with the same resulting trimming precision, obtained in the same time as with a real trim wheel...
For pitch trim, for instance, the pinkie button when present would be ideal (as a matter of fact the real life Glasflügel gliders have exactly this type of trim: a pinkie and instant trim at release...if the computation above is too complex to program this would be an acceptable solution also).

I think such a function will help virtual pilots a lot in landing easily (trim position is paramount here!) and also helping them shoot a lot better...this would also free the rocker-switches, keys or hat-switches for functions for which they are better suited.


Again sorry for having been so long...

Cordially,

JV

I have tried to add the Fokker as flyable plane to the Finnish Dgen campaign, but it didn't worked. It's disappointing that we can't use the new maps and aircraft in Dgen. :(
An update of the Dgen.exe file would be nice.

I dont think currently we will be able to use any of the new content for offline dynamic campaigns until DGEN is altered and from what I have read it doesnt sound promising.

Lowengrins DCG on the other hand may work but it will take some work with alot of trial & error.

Is the dynamic generator side of the sim being neglected because of lack of resources? Or is it considered unimportant in comparison to the online experience. There are some brilliant DGEN campaigns out there, I own BOE, Ostfront & the Last days as well as the free to the community dgen campaigns by Ian Boys, Boelcke, Veltrut, Jumo & Enjoy.( there are others but I cant remember the authors names) I have seen a definate improvement in the AI performance since the new patch & it seems really strange that 4.09 gives new planes, new maps & a better performing AI & yet currently these can only be used in static campaigns or online.

It seems strange, however you never know what is around the corner with IL2
Team Daidalus has proved that so heres hoping.

The problem of the DGen is that it's not a Maddox Games in-house development. It was made by Starshoy, who hasn't been seen for ages, and AFAIK there is noone around who really knows what the exe contains. And given the structure of development back then when FB was in the making I doubt anyone but him has the source code or has gotten a look at its innards (AFAIK, again).

As for the offline vs online argument. I am an offline only player. Online with its ever-present sportive dogfight-contest, fighter fixation and late-war addiction is just not my cup of tea. As such I am of course interested in giving offline players enough "meat on the bones" to enjoy that part. However, and this is my very personal opinion, I am not a fan of the so-called "dynamic campaigns" in spite of having been part of the development team of "Ostfront". I greatly prefer decent hand-made campaigns, which are IMO much better at creating immersion than the DGen/DCG products. The latter aren't dynamic in the sense I need a campaign to be dynamic - while playing a mission. They produce the same canned missions a FMB user can dish out, but regarding briefing, ground-object placement and coordination of air assets a human mission builder is just infinitely superior to either of the campaign generators.
As a result of this I have not concerned myself with dynamic campaigns for a long, long time and so I don't know about the latest developments or the state of DGen.exe (for example). I don't know if Daidalos' coders can do something about DGen, but given their workload on currently-running projects I doubt they can throw more than a cursory glance at it. If it's easy to do, I guess it's doable. But if it takes someone to really "reverse engineer" the thing I don't know if there's hope for the patient. :???:

I support JVM's trimming proposal. A whole battery of control modules in the room doesn't look very pretty and is expensive. A single button is a nice idea.

For some strange reason, I also support JVM's trimming proposal. In part, because he explained it so well. He made some very valid points.

Actually, I can see it as part of the Difficulty settings...or possibly a conf parameter. This way, the players who may disagree with this option would not be forced to use it. Heck, we already have settings such as External View and No Cockpit. I don't see Auto-Trim as being any more outrageous than those options.

Aviar

If I didn't miss anything in the last patches, there is a little online bug which haven't been fixed yet : when, in a coop, a multi-engined plane loses one engine, the other players see all the engines down, not only the destroyed one. It is just annoying, but a fix would be nice, though I don't know at all if it is easy to fix.

Thank you for the new patch !

No other game fascinates me over such a long time period as IL2 does.

Is it possible to make the new airplanes viewable in the "View Objects" ingame screen?
Maybe it's just my installation but I cannot find them :sad:
I don't need the text; only want to see them if it's too much work.

Thank you.

PS: Looking forward to further patches

I agree, actually. I do think JVM is overstating the difficulty of trimming with a decent rotary, though, I never have any problems trimming with the rotaries on my X45. The range of HOTAS rotaries is usually far more than 45° (on the X45 it's just a bit more than 270°), and therefore it's very easy to trim. Thing is, though, the majority of people don't have a stick with rotaries, so I don't see it as any more of an unfair advantage using auto-trim than for example allowing padlock vs. people using TrackIR. I'd just prefer if it wasn't perfectly accurate at trimming every time, like it is for the AI.

Remember I am not proposing really auto trim: I am proposing triggering the trim action at a speed of change equivalent to a real life trim wheel;
- if you stop pushing the button, the A/C will not be completely trimmed,
- if you change the attitude of the A/C during trimming, the A/C will not be correctly trimmed and you will have to do it again (= releasing the button and push it again)

This is quite close to RL equivalent of retrimming. You will have a perfect trim only if you let the time to the trim to reach its intended position, without having changed A/C attitude in the mean time: again this is close to RL behavior.

What you may not realize is that it is possible to obtain a far better trim with a proper control (or the system I propose) than with a rotary, even if you are trained to use the rotary.
In RL, you can obtain perfect trim...each time! With a rotary, it is approximate at best: to test it, relase the stick when you think you are in trim and look at what happens...

So the perfect trim the IA does can and should be yours...

As I said, the lesser evil would be insta-trim: you push the button, and voilà! you are trimmed...a bit easy but you still need to think about trimming action...and the full point is, more often than not, one does not think in time about trimming! You need to re-trim for each attitude change or RPM change: in manoeuvers this means all the time!

I can tell you that this is not a cheat at all, considering the limitations of our setups; you would just remark that your flying and A/C performances would be of better quality, exactly like in RL, that's all...

JV

RL flyer...

*shrug* Could you explain how? How is a trim wheel in the cockpit of an aircraft functionally any different from a small wheel on a HOTAS system with a similar range of travel, other than that the rotary is probably easier to turn than the trim wheel?
The only problem I have with achieving perfect hands-off trim is either a) the aircraft doesn't possess full 3-axis trim (the most usual problem), or b) the center detents on X45's rotaries effectively eliminate a small but significant area from being available on each axis because the rotary can't be moved to these positions without springing into the detent.
This is why I don't understand people complaining in reviews that the Logitech G940 has detent-less trim wheels.
I don't think that people realise that detents aren't an advantage for a trim since the hands-off position changes all the time.
Other than those two problems, one of which wouldn't be improved by your system, and the other of which is a hardware problem, I don't see how your system would actually make any noticeable difference other than meaning that I have less control over the trimming of my aircraft, and that it would take longer to achieve a trim change (which is perhaps more realistic).
I just don't really understand how it's an improvement, but I'm quite happy to find out why it might be. :)

Not sure if this has been asked before and I'm not about to read through 40+ pages :)

Is there any possibility of any of the higher quality of MOD aircraft that have been produced ever being "officially" added via one of the future DT patches?

The Spitfire MK.XII, MK.XIV and the A3 FW spring to mind and I'm sure many of you know about the high quality Whirlwind and Lancaster that are being worked on over at RAF662.

Just curious as I would love to see some of this work officially recognised.

I definitely agree. I almost suggested this myself, I'm not sure why I didn't. :confused: The Spit XII and XIV are the only ones I have personal experience of that I'd say were up to the right standard. The flightmodels I can't comment on (they definitely aren't uberplanes), but the models certainly are almost perfect. :)

Next q:
Dear DT,
could you please (if you have not done this yet) outline your aims and areas in which you would like to hear the suggestions, and describe areas in which you will not do anything, and thus do not accept any ideas?

Previous ~15 unanswered q's:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=433

"Remember I am not proposing really auto trim: I am proposing triggering the trim action at a speed of change equivalent to a real life trim wheel;
- if you stop pushing the button, the A/C will not be completely trimmed,
- if you change the attitude of the A/C during trimming, the A/C will not be correctly trimmed and you will have to do it again (= releasing the button and push it again) "

In my CH setup with elevator trim set to the Coolie hat (emulating typical real world setups) it already works exactly like that.
You can Blip trim (as is the typical pilot action in most electric setups irl) or if you feel the need just hold the coolie hat switch down for as long as you dare. Not forgetting that even in WWII some aircraft had electric switch activated elevator trim ... the Fw190 series for example.

Now if YOU choose to map your trim to a slider then IL2 behaves exactly as it should emulating a manual trim wheel.i.e the rate and degree of trim is directly proportional to your slider input. Stop the slider and trim input stops... thats how it works on manual trim wheels.

So the system existing in game right now is flexible. It gives the USER the option to emulate manual trim wheels (map trim to a slider) or electric activated switch trim (map trim to a switch). What it doesn't emulate is the spring trim button system employed in some some sailpanes ... and neither should it.

I also see little reason for change what we have works just fine.

I understand and agree with a part of what you say IvanK: it is indeed possible to map the trim a rotary or a slider, and in appearance an electrical trim controlled via rocker switch in a RL A/C will not behave differently in IL2 if controlled also by a rocker switch…

The problem is that this works…in a kind of approximate way, even if it is obvious that you do not realize it!

A trim is a device controlled in a very precise and sensitive way: for instance a manual trim pitch control like a wheel allows the pilot to adjust the attitude of his A/C with such precision that it can fly level for dozen of miles without re-trimming it (this will not work on a Mustang with the rear tank!).
This pilot can do that because the direct consequence of trimming is a change in the force the pilot has to exert on his stick to keep it at the position associated with the sought-after attitude.
This particular sensatory cue is totally absent from a joystick for obvious reasons (why do you think joystick controlled modern fighters and transport aircraft use an auto-trim?) so the only way to control your trimming state is to look at your display to check if with the trim value you have input via your rotary the attitude of the A/C does not change: if there is a change trim again, and check again…
Needless to say, this can work with a certain precision in a cruise phase of flight, but in maneuvers or in a landing pattern where the re-trimming need is permanent, you do not have this luxury, so you trim, yes, but not with too much precision!

This is probably why the AI aircraft are flying so well: they are by essence auto trimmed at all times on all axis’s so have always the best performance (this is specially true for yaw where being out of trim means drag increase, not so much for pitch trim).
Another missing element (always there in RL) is the fact we have no visual clue of the trim “neutral” position which is an absolute necessity if you want to pre-trim your A/C at take-off: on yaw trim equipped high-torque aircraft you need to position your trim in order to help you keep your trajectory otherwise it is a lot more difficult, like with A/C without yaw trim (cf Bf 109!). It is also useful in pitch when the fuel quantity/payload loading as a large influence on your aircraft balance.

The solution I propose (assuming it makes programming sense for the realistic “trim variation” time; for a simple “set proper trim instantly” request there should be no issue) allows you to fly in trim if you think about it (like in RL) including a certain amount of time to re-trim, depending of how far out-of-trim you are, and also depending on the fact you finish the operation; if you get distracted you may have improved your trim state, but not obtained perfection: all of that is also realistic...

JV

Ah, now I see what you mean. I wonder if the force-feedback support for this game will adjust the center point of the stick's control forces to give a pilot this kind of cue. I'm hoping to buy a G940 soon, I'll find out I guess. :) You're right as well, in that given the much smaller size of a stick rotary compared to a trim-wheel, it's hard to be as precise. Anyway, I never considered it to be a bad idea at all, I hope DT consider it.

Salsero, the best thing to send us suggestions is through our email. It is much easier to communicate on specific things 1:1. So please, collect your ideas and send them to daidalos.team /at/ gmail.com

Please, to the powers that be, Team D. is there an e-mail address or place where aircraft info and data can be sent to you? a place where you can be contacted to discuss data? The pilot/engingineer who is willing to give and discuss the information needs contact information..

I asked previously and got no repsonse..

You have the email right in front of your eyes above your last post.

Thank you,

Ok, I will translate, compile and send the list. But could you please briefly outline your preferences? To save me from translating a bunch of q's that will be replied "No, we can not / will not do that" :)

hi all i love to see the lancaster and the halifax in 4.10 or maybe 4.11 to play in some night missions.

The Halifax is a horrible frankenplane of very poor quality. It bears little resemblence to a real one. It is no where near Oleg's standard.

@Salsero, you are from a Russian community, correct? We are very interested to hear their opinion/suggestions as well and DT tries to communicate with them through SaQSoN on Russian boards.

As for the questions, please try to judge them realistically in terms of workload needed. Some things might be possible with a simple fix, some might not be possible at all due to engine limitations. Ideally, back up your question/request with some hard evidence (scanned references, screenshots, etc.). We will do our best to answer each of the questions.

The mod torpedo carrying version of the JU88 is very well done.Is there any chance of seeing this incorporated into an official version?
Also later models of the He111 with upgraded armament and engines?

4.09 is impressive !!!!

Any chance of an earlier open cockpit wooden propellor II or III series B534 variant at some stage ???


btw ... uploaded a Photoshop skin template based on the void for the B534 IV here ...

http://www.mission4today.com/index.p...etails&id=5273

Yup, I am a Russian expat in UK :). At present ~50 questions and suggestions are collected and translated on the sukhoi.ru forum; I guess in a week's time I will finalize and mail it.

Flyable Ki-21
 

Hello!

First, sorry for being ask this in the ongoing of another subject.

If I'm not wrong already read about there's already enough information avaliable by IL2 team to modelate the Ki-21 interior.

So I'd like to ask please, team Daidalos already considerate make it flyable?

Currently, eventlog contains lines like this:

[18:40:57] Player_name:Bf-109G-2 loaded weapons 'default' fuel 100%

Maybe you could change that to something like this:

[18:40:57] Player_name:Bf-109G-2:German loaded weapons 'default' fuel 100%

I think some servers would be very happy about such feature, as it would allow to enforce correct markings.

That would be very welcome indeed :)

Will the glider towing be fixed in forth coming updates, something got messed up with towing gliders after past patches but was never fixed.

Off-line they work ok but online gliders detach as soon as a coop starts with human pilots.

A detach button would be nice too if possible when towing.

I want sound like this
 

I want airshow sounds like in this guy's video

http://www.vimeo.com/user630665

choose the Ultimate Sound Mod V2 la suite and Ultimate Sound Mod V2 videos. They are pretty hefty so it may take awhile.

caveat: it says mod, but I'm just using these vidoes as an example of what can be done in IL-2 (and not including links or anything) but if its illegal, let me know . . .


I don't take credit for this discovery (it was floating around M4T and Ubi Zoo).

Other little things that come to mind in addition to others I have mentioned:

The I-16 type 24 in game is a type 27 (?) The type 24 should have 4 Shkas guns and no Shvak cannon if I'm not mistaken.

Arcade mode: an option in Gui? and with or without speech bubbles options? (such as PK =(, Headshot, I'm on fire, etc.) These bubbles, although funny, block the view of the plane. Also a possibility to see your hit-stats offline, and what parts of the enemy plane you hit? (arrows show bullet direction, but not if if it penetrates anything or not)

Again, thanks for the work, and I understand that not everything can be implemented.

We are considering this plane for future relaeses...

Fritz X

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X

We got the air to air missiles already so could use similar controls for this baby.

Sure would like to see a much smaller border around the onscreen map.

I don't have a problem with a border, but the one we have is toooooo big.

Daidalus Team - thank you very much for the great work on 4.09m. Looking forward to updates in the future.

Question for the team: Is there any plan to add P-40N to this sim? Over 5,000 built and it was supplied to and operated by most Allied air forces.

Thanks again.

Gigantic +1for the P40N.

The most produced varient, the highest performance, best visibility from the cockpit, and absolutely necessary for any China Burma India scenario.

8-)

RE. P-40N

Of course we understand that there are some 3D model and flight model changes involved. If Daidalus Team is seriously considering adding the plane, I trust that some in the community will be happy to help out in researching and providing data (though my impression is that DT is already a resourceful group).

Thanks,

On the P-40, would you guys consider fixing the insanely exaggerated dihedral that the 3D model currently has?

The thread below has been updated with more points as to the Ki-61 (with some overflow of similar things to Ki-43)......More coming.

http://78sentai.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=401

K2

Flyable aircraft I would like to see are......

Focke-Wulf 154
Focke-Wulf 187
Focke-Wulf 189
Focke-Wulf 200 'Condor'
Blohm & Voss 141
Dornier 17
Heinkel 177
Heinkel 115
Heinkel 219
Bachem 349 'Natter'
Arado 196
ME410
Lancaster
Halifax
Wellington
B17
B29

the later versions of the Heinkel and Junkers bombers would also be nice

"
Focke-Wulf 154
Focke-Wulf 187
Focke-Wulf 189
Focke-Wulf 200 'Condor'
Blohm & Voss 141
Dornier 17
Heinkel 177
Heinkel 115
Heinkel 219
Bachem 349 'Natter'
Arado 196
ME410
Lancaster
Halifax
Wellington
B17
B29"

You forgot the MiG-21, the B-2 Spirit, the 14-Bis, the Wright Flier (that could be called "Wright Slow-faller", as it didn't actually flew, it was something like a slow fall), the Spitfire 1st prototype and the Volkwaffe (link below, for those who haven't seen it yet)

Now, are you talking seriously, mate? Half of these did little if anything in the war, or did something but not enought to force a whole team to dedicate their times to make them. I think the major problem is: most of these aren't even modeled in-game. Other thing: most of them remained prototypes or came too late or in too little numbers to do anything...

Plus, Oleg already commented about making large aircraft flyable: too difficult to model. If it's too hard to model ONE, imagine modeling all these you suggested!

I'm sorry if I'm wrong and Daidalus is willing to do include such planes, but, honestly, I don't think it worth the workload that comes along.

Plus, some of the RAF bombers (and Luftwaffe night-fighters) you requested were mostly used at night, and it's a little bit hard (and boring) to do a long (read "never-ending") mission in the darkness, and with almost nothing to entertain you... C'mon, what do we have? Flak? Can only ruin your work. Night-fighters? I suppose you've read "Enemy Coast Ahead", right? So, by the book you can see how rare was to find one.

I would suggest you to leave all this stuff to Storm of War instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk52tDKELdQ (link for "Volkswaffe" video)

@Lucas from hell

you are exagerating!
There are just 4 prototypes from 17 planes.

Focke-Wulf 154; Prototype
Focke-Wulf 187; Prototype
Focke-Wulf 189; 864 build; in game
Focke-Wulf 200 'Condor'; 263 build; in game
Blohm & Voss 141; Prototype
Dornier 17; 2055 build; missed by many, many people
Heinkel 177; 1140 build; missed by many, many people
Heinkel 115; 223 build;
Heinkel 219; 279 build;
Bachem 349 'Natter'; Prototype;
Arado 196; 541 build; in game
ME410; 1189 build; almost in game (Me 210)
Lancaster; 7377 build; missed by the brits
Halifax; 6176 build; missed by the brits
Wellington; 11461 build; missed by many, many people
B17; 12731 build; in game
B29; 3970 build; in game

Quote:
[...Now, are you talking seriously, mate? Half of these did little if anything in the war, or did something but not enought to force a whole team to dedicate their times to make them. I think the major problem is: most of these aren't even modeled in-game. Other thing: most of them remained prototypes or came too late or in too little numbers to do anything...] end Quote

such sentences disqualify you as a serious discussion partner!

It's my personal opinion that heavy bombers in IL-2 would never be used in their historical role and flown the real "hardcore" way because it is very time consuming, difficult, not much rewarding and last but not least for most virtual players boring to fly long missions. I think this would be especially true online. And the workload needed to accurately model a heavy bomber interior is enormous. So the return on time/energy investment is very small. I think it's enough to have heavies as AI only for 99% of all players.

Martin
Daidalos Team

Flying the modded game I have done several multi hour missions in the H8K "Emily" flying boat on the 1 to 1 scale "Slot" map online. I can assure you that after all that time over open water, navigating with a stopwatch and compass headings only and delivering the bombs on target, it was very satisfying.

There is room in this sim for long range aircraft, and there are folks who are interested in flying them in a realistic manner.

Do we need a dozen different types of heavy bomber and recon aircraft? No. But to have some is a good thing. And more very large maps to use them on.

All I did was produce a list of aircraft I would like to see as flyable - whether they come out or not is another thing - I'm an optimist. If the odd one comes out then great, if not then I'll live without them.

There are quite a few luftwaffe aircraft in 1946 that were in development & did not make an impact on the war, but they are still included, like the varients to the HE162. Is my wish list wrong? - obviously by some people it is & yet others would agree with me - it's the way of the world.

100+

We need work done on the program core, ai performance and mission builder more than we need another bomber. We need to get this sim more fully featured for users to more effectively enjoy the sim online and offline.

My gosh what a mission builder tool like in the old MSFT CFS2 or Jane's WW2 fighters would do for this sim. Of course, we'd also need better tools to make mission building more efficient for humans to program it.

How many times have you flown a computer generated mission, spent an hour and then it put you into some world class uber stupid situation. How many times have you been following some stupid AI leader and couldn't advance in the campaign... because you couldn't succeed following the AI idiot.

I think the tool for applying keyboard commands could use a major overhaul...etc. I can think of a thousand things that would make this sim more interesting, immersive and exciting for users than more aircraft. Then of course... I have been doing this virtual air combat thing for over 10 years. I've used and currently own just about every air combat sim that is worthy of note.

Thanks to TD we'll have a sim worthy of a new retail release soon.

Hi guys, didn't look on this thread for some time (well, since 4.09 is out), today I've done the full read and found JVM's proposal on the trimming.
I want to say that we seem all crazy about IL2 on this forum... well, do yourself a favor and build a trimming box!!!
It took me 25 euro to build this (it's the black/gray box below the saitek throttle quadrant):

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/v...glie/trim1.jpg

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/v...glie/trim2.jpg

Recipe:
- take the cheapest 3-axis joystick you can find (~10 euro at the local shop)
- buy some quality trimmers and knobs, a few switches plus a metal box (~15 euro on the internet including shipping)
- open the joy, take the electronics out, replace the trimmers, replace the switches, drill the necessary number of holes in the box(!), fix the trimmers/switches through the holes and close the box
- enjoy a completely new realism!

Sorry for the offtopic, but having a trim wheel is orders of magnitude better than what you can currently do with a keyboard and you don't need an expensive joy for that... giving how much time we spend on our preferred sim I think it's really worth doing it.


More on topic: I do love long flying with compass and stopwatch on bombers too, sooo rewarding when you actually manage to get *there*!

Sorry if I was a little bit harsh or something. I didn't generalized or anything. Let's say, English is not my native language (I know, not a good excuse, but I'll stick to it), so sometime my posts might look too crazy, stupid, insane (and redundant, as you can see). But, regarding to my last post, as did Jack, The Ripper, let's go by parts (don't know how to translate this joke, but still :-P)

But, before I start, I just want you to pay attention that I didn't say ALL of these or anything that radical.

"Focke-Wulf 189; 864 build; in game" - Maybe this one could be made flyable. I don't think many would fly it, but it's for sure an interesting bird. Recce is a nice challange.

"Focke-Wulf 200 'Condor'; 263 build; in game" - I think it's the only 4-engine boiler I actually think I would fly. But only because of the plane itself. I can't imagine myself (or anyone) doing any sort of mission on it. Patrolling the sea for hours, usually to find nothing, or to drop some bombs and go back? It's not worth the effort.

"Dornier 17; 2055 build; missed by many, many people" including myself. But, as I stated at the end, I think this one should be left for Storm of War instead. It wouldn't be very wise to have 2 competent teams spending their times on the same aircraft, right?

"Heinkel 177; 1140 build;" I don't see that "many, many" people asking for it. Plus, it was a troubled aircraft since the begining. And, as I said, did little.

"Heinkel 115; 223 build;" Maybe would be nice to have this, but the role it was used for isn't really good when it comes to time - same thing as the Condor. And plus, as it did way more stuff agains early-war British aircraft, it should be left to Storm of War, probably.

"Arado 196; 541 build; in game" It would be interesting, althought boring in some ways, to fly this one too. But I'm not too sure if many would use it. I would. Not as often as my trusty Spit or so, but would.

"ME410; 1189 build; almost in game (Me 210)" Interesting one, nice A/C. Maybe could be included.

"Lancaster; 7377 build; missed by the brits
Halifax; 6176 build; missed by the brits
Wellington; 11461 build; missed by many, many people
B17; 12731 build; in game
B29; 3970 build; in game"

Well, Martin already pointed out what's up with these, right?

I'm not very in this legal problem between IL-2 developers and some American A/C factories, so some I'll suggest might be impossible to include.

Planes that, in my opinion, could be included and are missed by far more people: the Marauder, the Typhoon (Eurofighter? :-P) and the Ju-88 variants (specially the ground-attack ones).

These, I think, did way more for the campaigns they participated, and, honestly, deserve a better position on the priorities list.

I hope I didn't caused any misunderstanding here. I hate the discussions that go around here, and, personally, I don't think a clash of opinions is enought to start one. Plus, this was supposed to be a happy enviroment where the community could gather up and talk, not as enemies but friends, right :grin:?

EDIT: Nice solution for the trimming! But, I have to ask, I'm the only one that likes the trimming as a hat on the stick, so you can access it with your thumb and trim it quicker? (Maybe I'm spending too much time on Lock On...)

No doubt Daidalus Team would have their own target/priority list but these are some additional planes for considerations to be added as flyable. Note that some of these have already been added ‘unofficially’ but it would still be great to see them formally incorporated in a patch.

Regardless of what will actually be added in the future, it is still great to see the level of excitement about this sim rise again - a credit to the team’s work.

1) Daidalus Team has already indicated in the 4.09 announcement that cockpits for these are being worked on to make them flyable:
• CW21
• Fiat G.55 Series I
• I-15bis
• Letov S-328
• Re.2000

2) Currently AI only planes:
• Curtiss P-36 (Hawk 75)
• Henschel Hs-129B-2/3
• Messerschmitt Bf-110C-4/B
• Morane-Saulnier M.S.406
• Nakajima B5N2
• Nakajima B6N2
• TBF/TBM “Avenger”

3) New variants of existing planes:
• Bristol Beaufighter TF Mk X
• Curtiss P-40N
• Heinkel He-111H-16
• Junkers Ju-88A-17 (Torpedo Bomber)
• Junkers Ju-88C-6 (Zerstörer, also adapted as Nachtjäger)
• Messerschmitt Bf-110E
• Supermarine Spitfire Mk XIV

4) New planes:
• Bristol Beaufort
• Curtiss SB2C
• Fairey Swordfish
• Kawasaki Ki-45
• Hawker Typhoon
• Henschel Hs-123
• Nakajima Ki-44
• Yokosuka D4Y

Cheers,

Of course I have to "disagree" with everything :). I'm slow and would rather look at pretty clouds and ponder history than charge into my next certain death. If bombers take too long, fighters are WAY too short for me (I survive about 10 seconds). I started modeling about 5 years ago when I thought B17II, which I found absolutely immersive, had a future (to be fair, it had a warp system that was interesting, but never proved on-line).

But, after that many years working on a B24, I'm still only about 30% done with its interior.

They are not kidding when they say the effort is enormous.

Craters
 

Bomb craters sounds like a good idea, but remember the ground crews filled the holes as fast as they could. The airbases had to be operational as soon as possible.

If bomb craters lasted for several minutes that might not be a bad thing.

Weather changes defined within the mission files. This way you take off and it's raining, when you reach specific waypoint the sky clears up. I think it's the transistion from one weather to the other that may be difficult.

Thought I'd ask

I realize this has been planned for SOW.

The scale of a crater is lost in the sim....An average crater a bomber could be lost in. You don't fill them in especially during a raid in minutes.

K2

Too bad there wasn't a:
#) New planes:
• HellDiver

oh well, lots of goodies are coming regardless..
I am really jazzed that many planes are getting fixes..

if I let my mind wander,, I really would like ot know what the planes like some models of the Corsair with around 2,100 hp really flew like.. I mean, how close is it to what we have?