Thanks for the excellent information (even illustrated with pictures). So that's what the round coil below the fuselage is for - believe it or not but I have been trying to find that out through google for about two months (every week or two I'd go hunting). At first I thought maybe it was ordnance related, but later realized it could not be that.

I did not expect the model itself to be animated :) I meant that I never realized there were directional antennas & how radio compasses work, and was surprised to find out that the Bf 110 was 'getting it' (full radio compass) while all the other fighters don't. Would be nice to be able to have it shot off or damaged, it would make navigation a bit more challenging unexpectedly. But that is unlikely as well.

One thing is unclear to me - while I understand the reason, the usefulness of being able to have the antenna turn and the way that antennas transmit differently depending on angle to source - how does the 'auto' G-2 antenna work compared to the manually turned? Do we use buttons to electrically move it, and it then automatically turns itself when the aircraft turns, or does it home in on the strongest signal, or on a selected frequency-signal? Or does it actually keep spinning around at a set rate and some kind of electronics make the radio compass point to the strongest signal in the frqeuency?

Automatically motor driven loop will try to turn and stay at the direction which gives null signal or no signal. Operator would tune the receiver to the frequency of certain beacon, but we have simplified this and selection is based on beacon ID.

I'm pretty sure that all war time automatic D/F-equipment had a manual mode too because of meaconing. Meaconing will get the automatic mode confused. But we haven't planned any manual mode even simple meaconing is possible now.

Google is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_direction_finder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_finding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_navigation

And the most epic navigation document ever which makes you appreciate the Art of Navigation.
http://aafcollection.info/items/docu...0198-01-00.pdf

Understood. Thanks again for the additional links and information :) The last link is a forbidden hotlink, but I'll dig it up (and other things) from the website it resides on.

The AF Loop antenna would still have to deal with figuring out which 180 degree direction is the actual heading of the beacon, but I read on wiki just now that modern systems have an auxilliary "sense antenna" to solve that problem. Navigation in those auto AF planes must be a lot more convenient than flying the fighters for sure.. The 110 seems to be stuffed with various navigational aids, with redundant functions if any other fails. But there's never been any use of either of these things until TD and 4.10. :) Going to be fun exploring a whole new side (area) of the airplane (instrument panel).

There's a few more strange antennas sticking out from the 110 G-2, and I have been unable to identify any of them. Maybe the manuals I found today from WW2 will shed light on that. One of them is bound to be the sense antenna.

From my limited experience on a friend's FSX installation and payware WWII 3rd party add-on aircraft, the process goes something like this.

First, you tune the nav radio to the frequency of the beacon you want to use. The radio panel had various controls for com radios and nav radios. At the time, there were no VOR beacons like we have today to supply information of your course's track relative to the beacon, so all you had were the so called NDBs (Non Directional Beacons). These can tell you the beacon's bearing relative to your aircraft, but not on which track radial you are flying on.

That means they are fine for flying directly to and from a beacon, but they can't be used for more complex navigation. For example a modern VOR beacon can indicate to you when you intersect a certain radial (imagine a top-down map view with the VOR beacon and 360 lines extending away from it, one for every degree of the compass). This way, you can use VORs even if you are not flying directly to and from them.
For example, let's say you need to exit the airway you are flying on at a predetermined point and then make your approach to the airport. If there's a VOR with sufficient range nearby, the navigation documents published for air traffic control and navigation would clearly mark the exit point with the VOR frequency and intersecting radial.

To keep it simple, let's say that the exit point lies due east of the VOR beacon. So, instead of having to estimate/calculate your exact position and distance from the airport to begin your approach, you would simply keep flying on your course (usually with the aid of another VOR you fly directly to on a certain radial) and tune the 2nd nav radio to the other VOR. On the 2nd VOR instrument, you would choose radial 90 or radial 270 (it's the same, all it changes is the to/from setting on the instrument) and when the line was centered you would know you are intersecting the selected radial. That means you're due east of the beacon and it's time to exit the airway.

Of course, in WWII they didn't have such advanced beacons or the instruments to go along with them. These are all advancements that were made after the war, because of the increased civilian air traffic and the need to to be able to fly blind (at night or with bad weather), which is what gave rise to the IFR (instrument flying rules) specified by the international ICAO organization.

However, WWII-style NDBs are still used today because they are simple to work with and much of the aviation traffic in the 50s relied on them for navigation. You can still deduce radials and precise fixed with NDBs, it's just that it's more difficult and takes more time, that's why VORs took the lead.

So, in a WWII aircraft's radio panel you would have a 2-3 position switch to select the frequency band and then you would turn a smaller crank to fine-tune the exact frequency of the NDB. After that, you would turn another knob while watching the reception signal strength on an indicator in the panel. I think what that knob does is rotate that circular antenna you see in the belly of the 110. As you rotate it, the signal strength will rise, peak and then start falling, so you rotate it back and forth until you get the peak value.

Depending on the angle of the antenna, the electronics can deduce the bearing of the beacon relative to your aircraft. So, when the navigator is finished tuning it, the pilot looks at his instrument panel and watches what was then called a radio compass (now it's referred to as ADF-Automatic Direction Finder). That gauge has a compass rose (actually it's bearings and not compass headings) along the rim, with a needle in the middle that points directly to the beacon, so just by looking at it the pilot knows where to turn to fly to the beacon. I guess there is some sensing mechanism to deduce if you are flying towards or away from it, because the needle always points to the beacon without ever getting confused, no matter what heading you turn to.

So, in a hypothetical B17 mission the heavies would climb out to a certain rally point marked by a beacon, assemble the formation from the different bomb groups and head out towards the target.
Take off, tune the nav radio to the appropriate NDB (things like that go in the mission briefing) and the pilot flies the plane in a heading that results in the of the needle in the ADF showing a bearing of zero/360 (directly to the beacon).

They know from the briefing that they have to turn south-east to find the target (it's a short-range raid to occupied France today), let's say to a heading of 120 degrees. Here's the neat part now. When you are directly over the beacon, headings and bearings coincide. North of the beacon means north for you as well since you are directly over it. However, the moment you pass the beacon headings and bearings are reversed, because you are now flying away from it.

So, if you want to fly a track of 120 degrees TOWARDS the target, you can simply fly a track of 120 degrees FROM the beacon. That means the reciprocal track/radial if you want to convert it to read towards the beacon, which is: 120+180=300 degrees, however we can't fly precise tracks without a VOR.
What we do is, the moment we are over the NDB (the ADF needle will flip from zero to 180 degrees when you overfly it) we turn southeast until our compass shows 120. Our ADF will read 180 and not 300, because the ADF always displays bearings to the tuned beacon and not tracks in relation to them. Since the beacon is now behind us, it reads 180.

After the bomb run, the heavies are going back home. This time they need to fly the reverse course, so they are flying a heading to 300 directly to the beacon and the ADF should show a bearing of zero. Here comes the reason VORs are better than NDBs now...i could have explained it on the route to target leg, but it would be more confusing because of flying away from the NDB during that leg. It's easier to explain when we are flying towards it because we don't need to calculate reciprocal tracks and so on.

Let's say a wind is blowing from the west and it moves the bombers off course. How can they correct for it? If the beacon was a VOR, they would calibrate their instruments to fly on the 300 radial directly to the beacon. If the western wing is blowing you off course to the east, you would see the VOR needle moving left and be able to correct for it...the needle is the chose track in relation to your airplane, so it if moves left it means you are to the right of the correct course.

But how do we do it with a simple NDB beacon and an ADF gauge? Ideally, in a no wind situation we would be flying a heading of 300 back to friendly airspace and since that is the direct course to the beacon from our position over the target, the ADF needle (which shows the bearing to the beacon and not our compass heading) would read zero. Now that the wind is blowing from the west, we are drifting away from our chosen track to the east. Well, our compass still reads 300, but our ADF needle doesn't read zero anymore. Actually, it's a bit to the left, reading a bearing of 330 degrees. This way we realize that while we are pointing the right way, there is a wind that's blowing us off course.

To establish the correct track once again, we would need to turn left by a few degrees (as much as 30-45 for nimble fighters, but maybe no more than 15 for bombers in formation), then return to our original heading of 300. This results in a zig-zag pattern until we finally reach the coast and have some landmarks to navigate with.

Better yet, we could turn the aircraft into the wind and neutralize it if it's coming from our forward quarter. So, let's say the western wind has stopped and we now have a wind that's coming from a mere 10 degrees left of our heading (we are flying 300, the wind blows from 290).

It takes some experimentation to discover the correct offset, but it's simple. Turn into the wind in steps of 10 degrees and wait a bit, watching how the needles move. If the wind keeps blowing us off course to the right, the ADF needle will keep moving to the left. If however we manage to turn into the wind, the ADF needle will be stable. So, by making a small turn from 300 to 290, we can neutralize the wind component. Our aircraft flies a little sideways relative to the earth (it's NOT sideslip, that one is relative to the air while in this case we are talking relative to the ground) and our ground speed will be a bit reduced by flying into the wind, but we won't have to make constant corrections.

Behold my supreme MSPaint skills for a visual explanation :lol:

Also, screenshot of a WWII era radio panel included. The ADF gauges are similar to those found on the pilot's instrument panel.

Where it gets really weird though is how fighters did it. German fighters have a similar installation, but allied fighters usually navigated by listening to some kind of morse code. Not having a dedicated ADF gauge meant that the pilot would enable the voice output of the nav radio from time to time and listen in to the tones. For example, if he was to the left of his chosen course he would hear dots and if he was to the right he would hear dashes in morse code (or vice versa, don't exactly remember), or it could be any other kind of tone. For sure, not as accurate or easy as having an ADF gauge.

What a great site! This gives me many hours of fun! Especially the calendar with pin-ups XD

Structural Modelling
 

The addition of realistic structural damage & failure will be a real game-changer. Thx for all the good work Team Daidalos. You guys are awesome.

Wouldn't determine the radial of a NDB be fairly simple? NDB bearing -180° = radial. You want to catch a 120° radial, fly until your bearing to the NDB bearing shows 300°. Or not?

If you are interested in the history ofNavigation tecniques and equipment in general there are a few books i can recommend.

http://www.woodfieldpublishing.co.uk...n-uk/p177.html

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Quest-All-we.../dp/1840372591

I have both, and they have really helped me understand navigation in ww2. also from time to time on e-bay you can get RAF navigation manual 1941 or 1944, i have the 1944 version picked it up (original copy, hardback) for about £10.00, its very comprehensive, although does not go into radio navigation much.

regards

slipper

p.s almost forgot some free downloads here for radio nav systems in ww2

http://www.radarworld.org/books.html

Take a look at the first MSPaint picture and note the enroute leg to target (the green arrow).

Bearing to the NDB is 180 degrees. Doing as you suggest, NDB bearing-180=180-180=0, so we should be on the 0/180 radial. However the bomber in the example is flying on the 120/300 radial.

The thing with radials is that they are relative to the beacon's position. A 90/270 radial relative to one beacon is a totally different course than the same radial relative to another beacon.

There still is a way to fly radials without use of a VOR beacon and the required gauges.You can still follow the ADF on a direct course to the beacon, but the reason radials are useful is because you can fly along a narrow corridor. So, let's say we want to fly the 300 TO/120 FROM radial to a beacon.

In order to be on the 300 TO radial, the ADF should read zero bearing to beacon when the compass reads a heading of 300. That is, if when flying the radial's heading (300) the station is straight ahead (ADF shows zero bearing) we are on the correct radial. If the ADF drifts to one side then we know we are moving away from the radial and we can turn into it to intercept and track it again. It's just a bit harder to do with an NDB beacon than it is with a VOR, but it's certainly possible.

I've done it on a friend's PC in FSX. We flew from Greece to London in a 1950s airliner that didn't have modern instruments. When all you have is ADF gauges, even if you tune a VOR station the extra information can't be displayed, so it was like flying exclusively on NDBs. Now i'm not very experienced in civilian flying. I only fly FSX on my buddy's PC every now and then, we schedule a trip of a few hours on an evening, order some pizzas and beers and take turns flying the route while watching a movie. What i mean is that if i can do it via ADF alone, then i'm sure everyone can.

It will be real nice to be able to schedule missions online with some precision thanks to the NDBs. For example people will be able to fly indirect routes in their bombers and come in from unexpected directions, without having to rely on visual cues all the time. You could fly out over the sea for longer distances without fear of getting lost.

Isn't it possible to just do triangulation from a single beacon to know one's position? Taking two measurements from the same beacon at an interval instead of using the bearing from two different beacons.

1. Fly a steady heading
2. Measure bearing to beacon
3. Take that bearing minus 180 degrees, and draw a line on the map from the beacon outwards.
4. Fly for a determined while longer (maybe 3 minutes and 15 seconds - knowing exactly how far we have traveled in our straight line).
5. Repeat steps 2 and 3.
6. We now know three angles (all). First is our heading and the bearing to the beacon at the time of measurement one. Second is the same but at measurement two. Third is the two different bearings from the beacon to our positions of the two measurements. And we also know the length of one side of the triangle - our own distance traveled between measurement one and two.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/tr...triangles.html

We can use the law of sines to find out the lengths (distance) between our aircraft and the beacon at measurement one and two), which are the two missing sides of the triangle.

When those are revealed, we have our triangle drawn on the map, showing our distance from the beacon at the two measurements and the path our aircraft flew.

"Fly a steady heading" --- not so easy.

Depends on prevailing wind strength and direction, both of which may be variable.

The actual heading of the aircraft may not be the same as the resultant course flown.

What your suggesting is not "triangulation". You still don't know the distance you are from the beacon. Also even though you have your airspeed with dymamic weather modling you don't know your ground speed (or as AshesHouse has pointed out) any effects of drift. To determine that you'ld probably have to use visual reference to land marks (unless you have a Nordon bomb site of course) in which case your using good old map and compas and dead reconing to determine your location.

If you have visual references you'ld be quicker ploting your bearing from the NDB onto your map and looking for landmarks along that line.

Using dead reconing you should have some idea where abouts ont the map you are (unless you get caught up in a furball and get completely lost.

Of course you could always get your longitude using your aviation sextant and see where that intersects your bearing from the NDB. Though it depends how accurate you want to be.

Cheers

You guys are really trying to take all the fun out of this aren't you?

:rolleyes:



:grin:

That is correct. For decent accuracy, wind speed needs to be taken into account (and the pilot needs to compensate accordingly in his heading). No one said it was easy :-P

It is triangulation :) "triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by measuring angles to it from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly. The point can then be fixed as the third point of a triangle with one known side and two known angles."

The range from aircraft to beacon (at both points of measurement) becomes known by using the law of sines. We have all three angles known in the triangle and we know one side (the distance traveled between the measurements).

As I mentioned above in my reply to him, of course these things must be known to some degree. The accuracy of the method depends on getting those tricky variables right. There's no wind in IL-2 which is a shame. Maybe those wind and turbulence mods work, have to check it out.

I would agree with that :) Though if can't see landmarks for whatever reason, or just don't have visual references, maybe it's worth a shot.

The lower the wind and the higher the aircraft speed, the more accurate it should be, right? Because the ratio will determine how much movement was from aircraft and how much was wind affected. Assuming we don't have a grip on the wind.[/QUOTE]

Oh but this IS the fun! We're pouring fun INTO it :grin:


Question to all - is there any way of seeing how the wind is blowing relative to the aircraft? Both when seeing the ground (not having a map to compare to) and when flying without any visual on the ground. How did people figure this out in flight way up there?

If one sees the ground normally one can use landmarks to estimate position. No ground visibility = no landmarks and no way to determine the drift.
Over the sea at night, if visibility was good, bomber crews used to launch a flare with the rear gunner aiming at it from a distance.

Regards,
Insuber

MikkOwl wrote
Not true. If you select the rougher weather conditions on the FMB/QMB, there is definitely a wind - so much so that taking off crosswind can be impossible in some aircraft as they pivit into the wind before you even get moving. The wind seems to stop above a certain altitude, as can be shown by using 'wonder-woman' view to compare airspeed and groundspeed in different directions.

MikkOwl is on right track here, but I think that normal triangulation procedure with single NDB would be following:

1. turn so that your plane is perpendicular to NDB. (NDB is at 270 or 90).
2. start watch and fly at constant speed maintaining the current heading.
3. stop watch when NDB bearing has changed 5 dec.
3. calculate distance flown during this time.
4. calculate distance to beacon. (distance flown/sin 5)

For example if we fly at 300km/h TAS for 135 seconds.

((300/3.6)x135)/sin5) = 129km. So the beacon is 129 km away.

I'm not 100% sure about the formula. I just did a quick scribbling on pen & paper. And this is without any wing correction.

A lot of things are possible, but unless you're flying as a dedicated navigator you probably won't use most of it. It's not wrong, it's just not practical enough.

Whenever i dabble into stuff like that, i never do trigonometry. If i need to fly perpendicular to the beacon to obtain a distance fix, then it's clear i'm going off course to get a fix. Much better and faster to tune a second beacon and see where the lines intersect on the map, presto, you have a precise fix of your position.

Even if your plane doesn't have a second nav radio and a second ADF, you can tune the first beacon and draw the line, then tune the second one and do the same on your single radio. Unless you are very close to the beacon (where the bearing changes fast), it will be accurate enough.

There's lots of quick and dirty methods that give you enough accuracy without having to go all mathematical about it. For me, being able to obtain an accuracy equal to the visual range is good enough. For example, if the visibility at my current altitude and weather conditions is 10 miles, i won't mind at all if my radio navigation gives me a 5 mile error margin (it's actually lower than that most of the times, think 2-3 miles). And if flying at night, most aircraft that historically did it were better equipped to deal with it.

Tuning 2 beacons and getting the respective bearings can also help you determine wind drift. See where the bearing lines cross and that's your position, wait (the 3m 15sec rule from silent hunter is good here) and get a new fix. Connect them on the map and it you used a 3m15s interval, the amount of kms travelled times 10 will give you your ground speed in knots. For example, if you've travelled 10km then your ground speed is 100 knots. Compare the heading of the line connecting the two fixes on the map with your actuall compass readout and you can also see the amount of wind drift involved.

Some aircraft might also have specialized equipment. In B17 the mighty 8th, the navigator had a scope that looked down towards the ground. It had some continuous horizontal lines running across the scope view, as well as dotted lines that could be rotated. The idea was to rotate the dotted line lens until the view seemed to be moving without any drift (it's been a few years, don't remember it exactly), then you could read out the drift from the markings on the wheel that turned the dotted lines.

Equation is correct except that it needs a 3600 instead of 3.6 to have kilometers per second, 3.6 is to convert to meter per second. Reassuming:

d_NDB = (v_TAS * t_flight) / (3600 * sin( delta_angle ) )

where:

d_NDB = distance to the beacon;
v_TAS = true air speed (as Viikate said, not corrected for wind);
t_flight = time in second;
delta_angle = variation of heading;

This formula is valid also for non metric units;

This would have been a B-3 or B-5 drift meter. Pretty much any medium or heavy bomber would have had one. This was direct evolution of Harold Gatty's drift meter of the early 1930s.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/a...d=A19500075025

Here's one with all the bits:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Bendi...-/360240715244


Here's the B-5:

http://www.questmasters.us/sitebuild...er-423x366.jpg

I remember my instrument instructor teaching me how to do a DME arc without a DME using a similar procedure. By flying at a standard speed (e.g. 90 kts), one could easily calculate distance by flying at 90 degrees to the VOR and by seeing how long it took between 10 degree increments of radials. Not something I ever used again though.

New title:
"SOW:BOB the trigonometry simulator":grin:

The Norden Bomb sight also allowed you to measure your ground speed as well, which is aways useful.

It has been a long time since I used trig tables to do any calculations but as it was the technology of the day yould have to make sure you had a copy on board (as well as your slide rule - though you'ld definately have a dead reconing computer on hand). I wonder if they were standard equipment?

Of course this is better and faster. My point was just to show that it's also posible to get a rough position fix from single beacon (in case there isn't a 2nd beacon available).

BTW: the horizontal needle of AFN-1 & AFN-2 shows the signal strength, which roughly correlates with range to beacon. I suppose an experienced pilot could interpret the range from this info. Although the signal strength varies a lot because of radio horizon, land formations and time of day.

Hello all.
I would like to ask if the 109g6 FM and armour performances have been decreased in 4.09m, and if German FMs and armour will again be decreased in 4.10m.
Indeed it appears that 109 pilots get easily killed in their cockpit, much more frequently than with the previous versions.

Yours.
KWM_Rammbock

Placebo effect? the FM is the same of 4.08...

S!

Bf109 has always been the glass jawed fighter in IL-2 ;) It was far worse in the beginning whn a single ping from even the small caliber MG's from any angle from even 1km away would spill oil on your screen. It changed, but there are still a lot of things in DM that leave things to be desired.

As a real life comparison Finns removed the pilot armor from the Curtiss 75A Hawk as it was incapable of stopping even a 7.7mm bullet from close range. The reduced weight gave some extra, not much but anyway, climb to the plane. Again on the Bf109 there were many occasions the plane came back after being hit by a Yak or LA and the pilot armor had stopped the 20mm bullet from coming through.

But the root of the problem is that we can shoot and fly better VIRTUALLY than the real pilots. Our accuracy is better, we have this idiotic zoom feature etc. In real life kills were harder to get and in most of cases bounces. So this just shows the flaws in game engine more clearly, and it can be in any game really, not just IL-2. All we do is learn to game the game to survive a tad longer, sad but true.

Or effect of misfortune. :grin:

thank you for your swift replies!
Then it seems that even if the fms are the same, the damage models have changed, pilots are more vulnerable within their cockpits. Or is there a difference in armour between the "Bf-109G-6_Erla" and the "Bf-109G-6Erla"

Eventhough i am complaining about certain details, i think daidalos team is doing some great work. can not wait for the 4.10 new features.

Yours
KWM_Rammbock

No idea. They are mod aircraft (or at least not names from unmodded IL-2). Stock Bf 109 Gs:
http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/a...5-30-46-45.jpg
Since you are talking about mods, the DM, FM and who knows what else might be different. TD are upgrading stock IL-2, not modded versions.

S!

Andy, the FM's have been changed, to the better from stock hands down in most cases. Ironically Bf109G-2 got least modification as it actually is closest to RL data. Biggest changes were in FW190, there was a lot done as the Kommandogerät was basically non-existent in stock FM etc. It should be remembered that the modded planes are in new slots, stock ones are not touched. And in a server with modded planes they are pitted against modded ones to keep the balance. Look at 1940 BoB servers, damn fun fights with a Bf109E that actually can fight a Spitfire Mk.I and not just be the caly pigeon ;) It is about looking at the whole picture, not just at one plane ;)

DM's are stock, nothing done there. The 3D models have been fixed from the legoblocks to look like a Bf109 or the cowling and other things fixed in the FW190 and also allied planes have got lot of new stuff. Look at the P38F and G for example ;) Brilliant planes. And as of modders..look what is coming to 4.10..a mod called MDS ;) So the co-operation is already there to implement the best of them to official releases, which is like in the old days. Certified by Oleg so to say.

Concerning "...this idiotic zoom feature...". Oleg himself has stated that the zoomed-in view (in-game 'Gunsight View') is the most realistic perspective view compared to what a pilot would see in real life.

Aviar

I used to agree with Flanker (Moi moi) that the zoom was unreal. Buuut, have come to discover that it is dependant on the display size, view distance from display, and the resolution of display.

It is true that for most larger modern monitors (24" 16:10 1920x1200 viewed from 50cm distance) the scale is too large - objects appear larger than they would in reality to our actual eyes. But the resolution is lacking. As a consequence, when using the smallest available FOV (gunsight) in IL-2:

1. Objects are larger than reality.
2. Objects appear closer than reality.
3. Movement is easier to detect than reality (not significant as view field is tiny).
4. Objects are considerably less detailed than reality, appearing smudged (pixellated) - not only for the larger scale that the zoom in view shows, but even compared to real eyes, real cockpit, real FOV.

It is a compromise, trading distorted scale and peripheral vision for more object detail (and even then it is not enough compared to reality). This is no doubt what Oleg was trying to communicate.

If we used real FOV (number dependant on user display size, resolution and distance from view screen. Fov 55 at the example specs given above at 50cm from screen), scale and distance would be correct but objects would be 'blurred' with pixellation, severely impairing gunnery.

I do wish that Team Daidalos could include a FOV calculator with a patch :) but I don't think that will happen.

I use max FOV (WIDE) for general flying despite feeling the pain of distorted scale and pixellation. FOV 55 (surprise!) for looking at instruments, non-distant gunnery and looking around. And min FOV (Gunsight) for viewing objects at a distance, trying to ID objects and medium/long range gunnery. All three controlled by a single button.

Not one of the three are in any way as good as the constant real FOV of reality would have offered in the real aircraft. Better than reality will only occur with LARGE view screens together with HIIIIGH resolution. As hardware improves, minimum FOV in games will become cheaty in that it will be possible to gun more accurately and most of all, identify friend or foe from further out than reality. But apart from moving from crappier than reality to better than reality, the impact will be no different to the disparity already exists because of hardware differences between users.

Armed with this knowledge, IL-2 hardcore pilots with more flight time, more training, extreeemely much more air combat experience and possibly thousands of kills more than any WW2 pilot; having access to 70 years of collective recorded analysis and knowledge since the war began, being able to experiment in ways that no pilots have been able to in reality in putting their aircraft and lives in harms way... these guys posess unbelievable marksmanship and piloting skills and would become legendary aces had they gone back in time to fly in WW2 (not counting the other real strains of war). The superior in quality and quantity Allied pilots in Western Europe in the late war fighting few and poorly trained Axis pilots made the American aircraft used historically seem better than they were, and the Axis aircraft worse. Our hardened IL-2 virtual veterans have a similar effect on ahistorical outcomes of air combat.

Spot on. Can't wait to read the maddened reactions of the masses when Project Galba is released and every online Mig-15 driver is a honcho. Those F-86A jocks will be crying FM fouls to no end...

So true!

I think I'm going to find myself flying a Meteor (hopefully :)) and sidestep that argument :)

Very sorry to hear that the patch has been delayed and won't be out for Easter. I'd forgotten my usual scepticism about release dates this time. :(

I'll bet it's an Oleg two weeks....

http://www.mission4today.com/images/...wahaharoll.gif

If you were paying for it then you would have something to moan about................as your are getting it all for free..................... a long walk on a short pier might be in order :)

Sorry if I offended you Alpha, my post was meant to be a fun post, just my Aussie sense of humour.

I can assure that I am eagerly awaiting the release of the next patch.

Again I apologise if I offended you, or anyone else with my post, :(

Didn't offend me m8

I was poking some fun back at you and the other moaning git :)

PS: if yer gonna quote Oleg get it right it's "2 weeks......be sure"

Now get back to your Barbie ;)

Roger mate

~S~ http://www.mission4today.com/images/.../icon_jook.gif

One direction mods
 

thanks daidalos for such amount of improvements. Your team is #1

But... some of us got a question for you:

why all the gunnery and loads improvement goes to axis models? no body heard about the field mods of the russian p40, hurry, p39 and so?

You answered half of it yourself. If you start to compare a nations most build standard plane type with its missing standard loadouts to single field mod types, you can clearly see why there might be some priority. Plus - the Bf109 in fact is one of the oldest type in the game - underdeveloped since 7 years.

Beside that, noone said, that we won't care for equal gasps in allied fighter lines (i.e. Spit, Mustang, to name just the classics).

Some voices have come up, that we might be 'Blue' orientated, but there is completely no Blue/Red thinking in our development or intern dicussions. In most cases, someone in our team has an idea for a future patch (like to rework the Bf109 line) and if the team decides, that it is worth the effort, he and/or someone else starts this project. And believe me: We will never tell anyone in our team to quit a promising idea, just because it might let people think, we would support only axis or allied.

For us, its all a whole box of content, and each part that is worth to be added, will be, no matter if its a german plane or a russian.

If something is worth it, is judged by a few factors:

- historical relevance
- gameplay relevance
- work ammount
- connection to SoW:BoB content

Sometimes someone amongst us does something rather historical unimportant, but ignited from his own personel (fanatic) enjoyment. If its done well and not inflicting TD's workflow, noone will blame him.

But thats all... and I repeat... no Red/Blue thing here.
We know we cannot please everyone, but we try to please as much as we can.

Your thoughts and those of TD are much appreciated Caspar.

I really wonder if most people understand the monumental scope of just one little change? I did some small amount of beta testing for one of the mod packs, and let me tell you that just changing one thing often affects every other thing it comes in contact with.

I am also familiar with some of the Team Pacific crew, and I know what it takes to make just one high quality map.

That we get any improvements to the sim at all, and for free no less, is very much a miracle.

S!

Was patch release delayed? Last info i heard stated that it ll be in easter, and now? :confused:Any new date? I must admit that i am anxious for this new patch and how new gs loadings features ll affect piloting and the pilots!

I hope not to wait for a long time until this patch!
:evil::-x

From last dev update...

Take your time, your team is doing more than I could expect from il2!!! even the last 4.09m patch was the end for me and il2 but TD .. damn have no words thank you so much guys!!

Looking forward to when the patch is released. Your teams hard work I'm sure will be very much appreciated.

~S~ to TD

[TROLL MODE=ON]
The Spitfire is perfect! It needs no improvement. Now we just have to get rid of all the models after the MKII and kick some Blue Butt!
[TROLL MODE=OFF]

If a few of us mission builders were brought in with sufficient time we could definitely produce something pre-patch release. If not... I think I'd like to do a few single missions for the Hs-129. I even considered building the missions now and use the current AI Hs-129 as a stand in until the patch came out but that may be problematic so I'll wait.

People who are looking for campaigns that use the latest stuff should keep an eye on Mission4Today. It takes a lot of dedicated time to put together a good campaign based on historical research. It takes me months to do something, plus get the skins in place, plus all of the mission building, testing, and final release. You can pump stuff out but if you want it to be good and play well... it takes time. So us mission builders will always lag a bit... but I think I've already seen some campaigns make use of the latest materials available in 4.09.

You are right, but then you might regret it. Sometimes beta is really beta.
I've seen pages of fixed issues during beta testings. If you look at all the changes in the coming 4.1 release IMO as a mission builder it would make sense to wait.

Again thanks very much for the fabulous work you have already done and your effort to keep on updating il-2.
I would like to suggest the development team to include some new aircrafts proven to be popular in the MODs?

I recently became interested in F8F bearcat, and found that a mod team is probably doing that aircraft.
http://www.allaircraftarcade.com/for...ic.php?t=23793
I also found this from this forum, post number 777, which seems to me that the development team is not yet going to do that model.(my English reading is poor, so correct me if I am wrong…)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=127023


However, in my opinion, some models is very likely to be super popular in online godfighting servers(the ultimate prop fighters, F8F, sea Fury...) so i will be happy if these models are included in the official update, even no mission is included for that aircraft.
And as f8f is in actual service, finding data is probably easier, say,
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...rcat-8251.html

I believe a lot of fans are looking for their favorite plane being included in the official release, not only MODs, as the official releases hold very good reputation for honest and precise modeling.

This will also probably help the official version to gain a larger market share.


So I am suggesting that the DT including some of the popular models, especially F8F:

Being the successor of hellcat, Having the best of FW190, Excellent reputation for ease of handling, The favorite of Neil Armstrong,

THE ULTIMATE prop. fighting machine, you can’t miss it ^_^

by the way the chinese version. feel free to repost it given that you stating the origin and author.

http://www.insky.cn/bbs/thread-47209-1-1.html

The F8F is a Grumman crate so Daidalos won't touch it with a ten-meter force-pike. Sorry.

sorry my English is poor.

Daidalos team is not doing Grumman aircrafts? or is this related to Don Quixote?

There are legal issues associated with adding Grumman aircraft to the game, unfortunately. :(

Oh i am sorry to hear that. But thanks so much for your work and I will continue supporting your products:).

I read english very slow but i begin to know about it a bit....

i am not a legal profession but i think you are doing the right thing. "leave it alone".

1 if you want to win the case, hire good lawyers...cost a lot. N-G and MS are both obvirously extremely rich.

2 these money will help more if spent on development, marketing, etc. and now developing the BOB need plenty of resources.

3 there are still plenty aircrafts to work on, even high performance prop. ones. For example the sea fury, which is included in the "untrapack" MOD.

4 things will change when 1c dominant the whole FS bussiness.

In fact it is said, that we could do 'as if' like planes.... differing in details and carrying wrong names (like 'FAF8 Beartrap' or so), as a possible workaround, but 1st: Its not sure, Grumman will inflict anyway and 2nd: we just don't want to make mockups, but real stuff.

EDIT: This is not only affecting planes, but also alot additional american stuff, like battleships for instance. :(

since the addons are not official and are by a non-profit party, the legal bs doesn't count,, and no one cares, it's only when there are deep pockets.. then the slimy scumbags lawyers come crawling, so do as you wish..

Out of pure interest, how exactly does it affect battleships? It is my understanding that the battleships were designed by the Navy and then contracted to yards. With most BB actually being build in the Navys own yards. Or did I get that wrong?

This grummann story pi**ed off the entire community, also because it was not properly handled by UBI according to the available information. Frankly speaking there are so many non-grummann planes yet to model that I don't regret too much the lack of a Beartrap :D.

Bye,
Insuber

I'm not much into the liscence details and I'm no lawer, but AFAIK Grumman owns the rights on the ships designs and names too. Much properly they bought it later or ate another company who owned the rights before.

or BeerTrap ...
any way, Beartrap from DT will be much better than "FrankePlane" ... like Avenger with cockpit from SBD... or other mutation...

the avenger and tbf do have an abortion for an FM..

If lawyers will sue 90 year old grannies (or a scenario very similar) over copyright infringement of a couple of MP3s you can bet they will go after others over money they think is theirs.

Its still a stupid situation. I know.

At the very least there are other fun aircraft that we can still simulate that deserve some attention as well that aren't bound by such a stupid legal problem.

The B5N Kate for example! :grin:

Thanks to Team Daidalos for all you do!

So is the course of history
 

I salute thee again

A sad situation, yet be it Grumman's jingoism or mismanagement by Ubi, whatever the cause, lets look at what can be done an try to make the best out of it.

Luckily the "PTO problem" does not take Japanese planes nor ships into account (And there are quite a lot of them to choose from) yet I also understand that cockpit information on the later is rather scarce.

I also guess that your selection of indigenous British aircraft and ships are limited by their proximity to SOW,because it would be unproductive to start a "competition with" Maddox Games, or am I mistaken in my interpretation of that topic?.

Anyway keep up the good work

Kind Regards
Hunger

Alright... I said to myself I wasn't going to do a list again... but you made me do it :)

Typhoon Mark IB (perfect fit for Normandy BTW)
Spitfire XIV
Fairey Firefly
Fairey Barracuda
Lancaster
Halifax
B5N "Kate"
B6N "Jill"
D4Y "Judy"
Ki-44
Ki-45 "Nick"
Hs123
Me410

I could probably go on if I thought about it for long enough :)

Since the BOB SOW will be open for modifications it would seem that Grumman may have problems enforcing their limitations on "home" plane builders as they have with every other air combat or flight simulation game.

They might be able to prevent Oleg or MSFT, but just like youtube trying to keep all the media from broadcasters off the site. It is just too much work to try to enforce against the average "john doe".

It's a bit more complicated than that apparently... if my understanding is correct the legal issues are surrounding the Pacific Fighters game and all related materials. Storm of War apparently will have no such issues.

The Curtiss Helldiver is good to go.

As is the Curtuss SOC "Seagull" float plane.

Both were widely used.

This forum is getting more like the AAA 'requests' topic every day. You know - think of a plane you'd like to see, post it on the forum, and expect it to happen. It doesn't work like that. Adding a new plane will need (a) information, (b) incentive, and (c) hard work. To see why just asking for your favourite plane isn't much help, let's consider these points in turn.

(a) Information. TD have standards, they need to have sufficient detail available on a plane to make it look right, fly right etc. A blurry photo isn't sufficient.

(b) Incentive. I'd like to have a flyable Supermarine Walrus, but I doubt if this is a major priority for most IL-2 players, so TD meeting my wishes is unlikely.

(c) Hard work: the key issue. TD are doing this for free. It is a lot easier to ask for a Lancaster than it is to actually make one. It is probably easier to make three single-seater fighters than a Lancaster - and given the limitations of the game, a Lanc will always be compromised anyway. If someone from TD is really keen, or someone from outside is willing to meet their standards, we may see a Lanc one day, but it will be down to those making the effort. If the response to every new plane is 'why didn't you do an X', rather than appreciating what you are given (for free), I don't think it is reasonable to expect TD to take too much notice of requests.

On the other hand, if you 'must' have a particular plane, there is a solution. Learn how to do it yourself. As far as I'm aware, TD is not an exclusive club.

thank for the response mate:

I really dont want to start another nasty discussion about Blue/Red.

But if you say the word "historical or game relevance" I must say:

Historical relevance:
p39 "aircobra" never flew on Ostfron with the original gunnery (except cannons). The wing gunnery were removed (good idea to avoid a crack on a 109E on high G turns, as Historically was) All the machine guns where replaced by sovietic models before first engine start. I dont think that this "small" detail is out of the historical context. But I´m not a fanatic of that plane in any case, this is only an example.
In any case your answer confirm that the only historical relevance that counts is the "bf109 historical relevance".

Game play relevance: the 109 is the most used plane in Il2?, of course. Allies have more variety of models. If someone fly Red online regulary, is imposible to fly two planes form the same designer ;)
The western front come to Il2 a "little bit" late compare with the eastern front. In fact, in most of international competitions, the Eastfront (and its planesets) got specific weight.


Amount of work: is related to the amount of Fw/Bf mods?

conection with SoW:BoB : perhaps the only answer that is clear for me.

Funny. I was think along the same lines a few months back. :wink:

You should learn the subject better. Because your "only example" simply isn't true. It's just partially correct.

The original .50 cal machine guns on P-39 were never replaced. The wing mounted .30 cal guns were removed in some regiments to save weight. But again, it wasn't done mandatory on all aircraft. It was left to regiment command discretion.

Also, the first engine start was done in the USA, in case, you don't know. ;)

If you're referring to my list ... I did that for fun mostly.

Also although I have only extremely poor 3D modeling capabilities myself... I was a minor contributor on the old Netwings forum where some of the 3rd party modeling efforts came from that are in the official IL-2 today. I know all of the hard work and long hours involved in making many of these aircraft a reality. I even did some research when I could find resources.

I'm painfully aware how much effort is involved. Making a list doesn't mean I'm demanding of or even necessarily expecting anything to happen. It is fun to dream.

Yeah, IceFire, I wasn't trying to suggest you were being serious. I do get the impression that some 'requests' are though. Many of the suggestions have been made before, and I doubt that TD will suddenly decide to make a B-26 or whatever just because someone asks for it. They have all been involved with IL-2 for years, as far as I can tell, and have a pretty good idea what the community would like. They also understand the limitations and practicalities of adding new aircraft better than most.

THere is no harm in dreaming, but I think realistically we are unlikely to see more than say 8 or 10 new aircraft per year, at the outside, unless more people get involved. I'd like to help myself, but although I have some computing skills I'm in no position to commit to anything as long-term as these projects. Probably there aren't that many of us who can, so the rest of us will have to accept what we're given. So far, I have no complaints, far from it.

It will be interesting to see how involved adding new aircraft to SoW:BoB will be - I suspect this will be even more complex, if done properly.

I see where you're coming from for sure. Even 8 to 10 would be impressive and I hope that everyone takes a realistic view on this. We're lucky to get what we are and it is truly fantastic.

Many of the aircraft showing up now were being worked on years ago and they have resurfaced. Which is great! Lots of work was put in then but there just wasn't time to make them a reality at the time.

Storm of War aircraft appear to be much more labour intensive. That said at least being able to import them into the game using provided tools will give some added incentive to work on them. They will definitely be multi-year projects in many cases.

Dev. update posted at first page.

Thanks for the update!

Could you also update the schedule? I need to plan my vacations and I do not want to get stuck with 4.09 for the whole week :cool:

Great!!!

Bravo!!!

Wonderful aircraft!

S!

Indeed a great improvement over the original model :) Great work.

you say "in some regiments" but I must say again in "most" regiments. I never said that was an Stalin direct order. This Mod was the common proceed... most of the Field MOds works in that way (you know). Sometimes to fix factory malfunction (standard on CCCP first years production), MOST of them to put new technologies on old Planes but In our case is a Weight reduction(fighting capabilities) and a fix to the fighting proposal (gunnery). It was the sense of that Field mod.

By contract of on-loan planes they cant change any part of the given Planes so this Fields Moddification were made undercover, by the mechanics of the regiment (field mod... again).In fact the russian pilots love this plane, that was superb compare to factory models used by US pilots. That was the general opinion of P39 CCCP's pilots.

About the first engine start I would like to say "first engine start on soviet territory" or "first action before take the plane out from the container" or "before first flight on regiment", now is clear, isn't it? ;)

but definitly I was wrong about the nose guns of aircobra, they used to change the 37mm cannon by a 20mm not the cal.50. In any case the nose MOd was less important to russian pilots compare to weght reduccion an wing strenght gained with the wing armament removal. THX for the correction!!!

Impressed by the big gun droping. Could this be done to all the Wfgr 21 German fighters can carry ? This would help a lot !

Thx !

Thanks for the great update! I look forward to the Hs129 with great eagerness. I have one question concerning the Hs129B-3 gunsight. I have seen pictures of the B-3 with a combined reflector/telescopic gunsight (I can't remember the designation of it). Are there any plans to implement that with DT's Hs129B-3?

Thanks,

Fafnir_6

This have been discussed alot. References show following situation:

Half of the few B-3 version, that saw action (~40 total) were refit B-2's, carrying their old ReVi, for the other half real B-3 there is not one reliable photograph, that shows any periscope sight (ZFR-3A)... in fact we found no photograph of a B-3, just manual drawings.

So the knwoledge situation about the use of the periscope sight is very unsure (we welcome any further reference, if you have) and because we are not able to 100% correctly simulate the look of a zoomed reticle outside the canopy (the pilot probably wasn't able to press his eye on the lense), we decided to skip this for now and stick with the ReVi12C, simulating only converted B-2's.

Your work looks excelent! (all updates)

Thanks for the video! I really can't wait to do some mud moving with the Hs129! Looks really exciting!

Congratulations
 

An amazing show of virtual airpower!!!

Kudos to your comendable work.

Regards
Hunger

It will be even more exciting when the Yaks show up.


;)


:grin:

I might have a photo of one. Will check.

Haha absolutely :D That is part of the fun of mud moving :)

You gave me all your Hs129 collection long time ago, Luke (dunno if you remember). So that this cockpit could be realized, is also because of your efforts. Good to see you around. ;)

Ah yes, now I remember. It was always that one German plane I wanted to see flyable in the IL-2 series. Glad to see TD doing such a great job with making this plane flyable.

Anyways, I checked my resources. In Denes Bernad's book on the Hs 129 (one of the Military Aircraft in Detail series books) are the only two known pics of an Hs 129 B-3. The aircraft in question (W.Nr. 162052) was abandoned in the area south of Koenigsberg in the winter of 44-45. However, there is no sign that the aircraft was fitted with a telescopic gunsight.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I think there are some references to using the telescopic gunsight in Martin Pegg's book on the Hs 129. I'll look it up and see when I get the chance.

That Bk.75 is modeled beautifully! Full recoil animation too! ahh!

This video is just amazing. Thanks for Your work TD.