The only reference I can find to the use of the telescopic sight is this reference from page 294 in Martin Pegg's book on the Hs 129:

TD.... great vid guys. I'd hate to see a bad one from you guys :-P:-P:-P

Keep up the great guys ~S~

Why do we need Sow Bob? Not that I wont buy it, I will but I'll always come back to IL2. It is a real pleasure to see what you guys are doing.

Oh yes, PLEASE!

But without score penalty... :D

€dit: I love those AB23! Will they be available for other planes, too? :)

There are cool things that Storm of War will be able to do, things that Oleg has already showed us or talked about, that IL-2 simply can't. You probably know that but others may ask too :) That said Team Daidalos is doing a stunning job with keeping us busy and adding some great new content in the meantime.

Your 129 is really beautiful. Great job!:)

Indeed.

I know some of you will get all upset when I say it, but frankly, SOW is going to make IL2 look horribly dated (it is you know), and it will have all of (or most of ) the uber realism features that you all clamour for that cannot be added on to IL2's dated engine. It's been an amazing run, no game has ever been on my machines as long as IL2 has, but the end is near.

The King is dead, long live the King...

:cool:

It'd be nice to have some more of these options. Soviet service Tomahawks and Kittyhawks often had the wing guns removed.

If there were as widespread field-modifications of Mig-3s to use the AM-38 as some people think than it is quite likely there were some which had the full air-to-ground armament (unlike our version in Il-2).

I was thinking about the tube sights in general. I've always avoided using them because I've felt that it is unrealistic to be able to keep the eye lined up properly while pulling Gs.

Here is a suggestion for TD:
- Why not increase the sensitivity to blacking out for pilots using the telescopic sight? The blackout effect would simulate the eye moving out of alignment (as often happens with binoculars) and would be tied to manoeuvering. If the pilot wanted to pull tight turns they could switch out of gunsight view.

Ideally, there would be some dirt on the lense as well as distortion and vibrations. Unfortunately, there is limited time. However, there should also be at least some limitation on how these sights are used.

Ещё раз привет.;)
Очень порадовал Hs.
У меня назрел такой вопрос:
Расширите ли вы список подразделений в меню - Полк ?
Говорю про Люфтваффе. У них было огромное количество разных подразделений. В каждой группе три штаффеля. А в игре можно выбрать только группу. Можно ли сделать что бы при выборе группы взять и штаффель находившийся в данной группе?
Например взять I/JG52 и выбрать первый штаффель 1.JG52 ? Это не одно и тоже.
И пожелание - очень хотелось бы увидеть разнообразные опозновательные знаки. Различные стрелки : адьютанта, механика, и тому подобное.

Google translate:
Hello again.
Very pleased Hs.
I've matured a question:
Expand Have you a list of divisions in the menu - Polk?
Speaking of the Luftwaffe. They had a huge number of different units. In each group, three shtaffelya. And in a game you can only select group. Can I do that would be the choice of taking and shtaffel was in this group?
For example take I/JG52 and choose the first shtaffel 1.JG52? This is not the same thing.
And wishes - very much like to see a variety of opoznovatelnye signs. Different arrows: aide, mechanics, and so forth.


This is an English only forums. Please post English

DIO

Unfortunately Il-2 doesn't allow for proper simulation of individual Staffeln/Squadrons since the basic level is the Group/Regiment. And it doesn't know a Stab at all ... not in the correct way. Not to mention that markings and emblems changed often and sometimes drastically. That is just impossible to depict accurately.

One important note about the Hs 129 B-3's 75mm cannon: while the magazine was designed to hold 12 rounds, a 13th round was loaded directly into the breech by the armorers when the aircraft was being armed.

Source: Hs 129 Panzerjaeger, by Martin Pegg

Very good work! When will released this patch? :-D tanks again for the hard work

I have the Pegg's book too and BK7.5 already holds 13 rounds. The new Mk103 has 80 rounds, even Pegg & many other sources claims that it had 30 like Mk101. Manual of Mk103 says that the box could hold 100 rounds but we put there only 80 since this was normally used to prevent jammings.

Great Update! :grin:

That video has got me really pumped up for the hs 129.

Looking forward to doing a little bit of tank busting with this one :)

Just a quick question.
What kind of ammo did you model with Mk101?
As far as I've read, the AP round could penetrate something like 15cm RHAE.

i am building already missions for an online war that sometimes will have flyable Hs129.
my question is now will the new 3D modell of the Hs129 just replace the actual one or will it be a totaly new planeslot - i think about the Mc202 example in the past.

it would be nice to know if i can finish the missions and upload them on the server (VOW "R") or if i have to wait till 4.10 release.
thanks a lot in advance !!

Any info about new release dates? :confused:

New models for same slots.

Hs-129B-2
Hs-129B-3Wa

Not sure. I suspect it might be a fair while yet. If it were close, DT members would have probably addressed some of the inquiries about it between page 55 and here. I guess the beta testing is still in progress and release is very much unknown for those involved until a list of revisions can be made of the results. Best to sit tight a bit longer. Rest assured though, no one is looking forward to the Hs129 more than me ;)

In fact for most of us Real Life (TM) has struck. We do have a life of our own, you know. :mrgreen:

S!

Yep so true csThor. RL just owns you sometimes ;) Waiting for a patch like this sure is hard, but it is done when done..:cool:

I am a normal Il2 user
 

This is not acceptable, you MUST work all the time for us and for free and accept our bashings with a smile.
Our only reward should be a "thank you" but only if you reach perfection and if we are in a good mood, we may accept to think it (or even write it)

:) :)
:exit:

Good luck with RL. Hope you all get a high score. :-D

RL is overmodelled ! Tune down RL's FM !

Its the LM in fact...
:rolleyes:

I hear real life has a very sensitive damage model as well. :o

...and I'm still waiting for the patch!! :-(

:-)

Got figures ? :P

The performance is much worse, once you upgraded from Girlfriend 3.0 to Wife 1.0. Especially since Wife-Software tends to create subprocesses called K.I.D.S.! Boy, they eat up performance drastically.... :rolleyes:

Or in my case a 7 week old Border Collie x Smithfield pup :grin:

You can upgrade your system with DIVORCE.exe, but this require a reinstall and you may lose data, especially in the "happyness" directory

Allways use spam filter

Yeah, it never takes more than about 2 .303s before you need to refly. :(

This creates subprocesses too, called "alimony".

Update posted at first page. Video is still "fresh" so the quality is bad and it's not available yet as HD.

S!

Interesting stuff. Is there new view, like binoculars for the Ju88 with torpedos as seen at some point in the video? Would feel more "realistic" than the zoom :) Thanks for the update!

Luetaanpas niitä tekstejäkin välillä, ettei ihan turhaan tarvise kirjoitella. ;)

Translation: yes.

Nice video, shows great potential for future deveopments.

One thing though, with all these great effects mods for Il-2, do you ever plan on including them in the update? As since using them, I just cannot fly Il-2 without them and I think it would really be great if the work could be made official ;)

Circular running torpedoes! 8) They look like fun, though if they can take half an hour to run out of oomph I think some of us will be back at base before we hear the bang!

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the allies had developed air-launched accoustic homing torpedoes at some point during the war - for anti-submarine use I think. A nice loadout for a Beufighter or A-20? :twisted: Perhaps one for the next patch...

Anyway, glad to see things are progressing.

Loving the new Ju88 varients :)

Do you plan on adding any other varients, like the ones Jippo(?) made?

Fantastic, funtastic, whatever.
Can't wait for this patch!
Please don't torture us so long with waiting!

:shock: <----- The face of that lucky destroyer Captain after he clears all the torpedoes!

hahahaha

Incredible Bombs

INCREDIBLE WORK

Motobombas ftw!

Love your work guys, if you can do stuff like this - lot's of things are possible :)

O really nice! And it is also nice to be lucky... I hope testing is going smooth :)

It looks like some of the mods are already being incorporated into 4.10- such as the fantastic Slot maps and a couple of non-flyables such as the Swordfish and the Fulmar. Hopefully we'll see some more in due course if they are up to Daidalos's quality standards. Some of the effects may be up to a player's personal taste, though, so it may cause some argument if an effect is included that some people don't like?

-----

A question: That Ju-88 A4 torp looks like its packing a hefty gun in that gondola under the nose - what is it?

I think parachute falling is too slow btw awesome!

Extremely! Thanks you for it.
Bombing sight in the form of the field-glass it is excellent!

I have noticed on 1 minute to 34 second that glasses in a cabin as-as if vanish.... You eliminate it?

The 88 Torp has a 20mm MG-FF-M in the nose for ground attack.

Thanks, the Ju88 was one of the worst aircraft in IL2

S!

One mod that could be added as an official add-on is C6_Claymore's Fw190A-series cockpit repaints. They are a true piece of art and a lot of features added that are missing from the originals: ammo counters for MG FF, fuel low lamp corrected, pump lights, texts corrected etc. He has finished Fw190A-4, working on Fw190A-3 at the moment. Just a suggestion :)

Ships Counter Manoeuvres?
 

Really amazing work with the circular torps. I'd never heard of them before now. A pretty good idea!

BTW Is there any chance of having ships respond with some kind of manoeuvre, based on probability, to simulate the chance of seeing, tracking and responding to a torpedo (straight or circular)? For example, speed increase or reduction, evasive turn or a 360. Similiar for when under attack by dive-bombers. I'm sure it's been raised already but I've been out of the loop for a bit.

Anyway, all that you're doing for IL2 is tops. Many thanks!

Shortly: never!
I do not say, it isn't looking good or that he doesn't care for details. But he is using textures sizes way out of allowed IL-2 standard (which obviously make it easy to let it look good). And I bet, if that all will be reworked to standards, it doesn't look good anymore... at least not better, than what is in game already.
Unfortunately it is the way with almost all repaint efforts in the modding scene.
This is something for FSX or SoW, but not for IL-2.

S!

If Claymore can do a high res version like now I bet he can do a low res version fitting IL-2 "standard" as well ;) And for sure would look better than the original cockpit. So we will never see an updated Bf109 cockpit either? It looks like shinola compared to new planes.

Anyways, keep up the good work :) Mods will compliment your work to bring details in that stock lacks.

Caspar is right. I have to say that I like the looks of these pit repaints but the video memory consumed by the textures is really overkill. Specification limit is 8Mb (excluding damage & night tgas). For example Caspar's Hs-129 pit uses 7,5Mb and I wouldn't call that ugly.

Some of the pit repaints that I've checked use 100Mb or even 200Mb of textures and cause a serious FPS drop with older PCs. Backside of the DVD box says that minimum of 64Mb video memory is needed for this game.

Pit repaints could be optimized lot. There's lost of unused space (when the tgas & parts are taken from other pits and only small part is used), obsolete alpha channels, etc. Something like 16Mb-32Mb would be ok for me.

Like the stock effects?! :grin: LOL :cool:

S!

As I said Viikate, these guys can for sure work on it :) CirX did a lite version of DW's excellent Bf109 cockpits for example. And the Hs129 pit is a new one, like Bf110 is. So why can not Bf109 be updated to that standard at least? As it now plain sucks compared to Tempest, Bf110, Hs129 etc. And how about adding those details or correcting the bugs C6 Claymore for example has done? He has good material as reference so he is not making the pits out of his hat ;) As of the perfromance hit, I notice none. If someone uses a 64Mb gfx card today to play :shock:

We've had a similar discussion before, Flanker. It was, IIRC, on loadout polygon limits and the answer was the same: We stick to official Maddox Games standards 'cause they fit the environment of the game engine. Claymore is of course free to rework his textures to standards (Caspar and Viikate know the limits) and apply for cooperation via the usual way (email).

S!

That's the key, to KNOW the limits IL-2 has. Like secret club information ;) :D This info is not floating around anywhere, there is no guide or tutorial posted. But good thing is that TD is ready to work with these talented guys. Given them the standards, parameters or whatever, they will for sure make things within them :)

And had to check the minimum requirements of IL2, having the boxes on the shelf, I bet no-one has a setup like that anymore except the OS (WinXP) ;) Anyone with a computer like that can not play anything these days, merely a paperweight :D

But..not dissing or bitching TD's work here. Just threw in suggestions, got answers and happy with that :) Thanks.

You mean like Caspar and his ATI Radeon Mobility 9700 64MB? :-P

S!

He plays on a laptop? IMO laptop is not for gaming and e decent one suitable for it costs more than my desktop machine so..laptops are good for warming your legs or be shot with shotgun :D

Does the same account for any mod? eg, effects mods? ;)

If I may, I think he means that there ARE people who do play with that kind of equipment... the game works fine right now for them so why screw them over?

Sorry, but not true at all, Flanker. One of the main modding sites has a full tutorial posted on IL-2 modelling specs. This tutorial was originally made by 1C as well as 3rd party modelers and was available for a long time on Netwings.org forum. In addition, since the file encryption of IL-2 was broken and the files are accessible, there are plenty of "sample" models. It is only up to the modelers to follow them.

S!

IceFire, I know there might be some people around with very dated computers. But when SoW comes..what then? ;) There is no progress without some compromises or even sacrifices.

And again if the new additions, be it effects or cockpits or whatever, are done within the limits of the IL-2 specs/parameters/whatever they should not suffer that much. And IMO if someone with a computer barely meeting the minimum specs can NOT wait to get an experience seen in the screenies or videos nor demand it. It will be low resolution, minimum effects/eye candy to keep the frames at some playable level and even then a lot of AAA etc. will slow this minimum machine down.

This can be seen in many games, not only IL-2. Minimums are to please the crowd but in no way meaning the game is at it's best then nor one should expect that either.

TD..modding sites have a wealth of information yes, but is it all 100% accurate? What about an user that wants to approach MG/TD instead of going to these sites? Wouldn't it be a good sign if the official source had all the needed on their official pages for the aspiring new content maker? He comes to IL-2 forum with an idea/concept etc. and finds a FAQ or similar answering most of his questions, rest he could ask from the official forum and get the info from there. All would be good.

Now the situation is that there are modders of many kind, like web pages too. Better and less good ones. Even they have a lot of info, not all of it is from MG but gathered in other ways, by trials and testing etc. Modding sites can not claim, and do not claim, that their info is what is the IL-2 standard. Some mods surpass the IL-2 standard visually or otherwise, some not. The variety is big. So as stated above, info from the official source would give everyone wanting to create something for IL-2 a solid base to start from..released in official patch or not. Agree?

Now this derailed the whole thread I think. But as a bottom line the co-operation between the community and TD/MG is the key to get new content released in official patches when all had the EXACT and OFFICIAL information how to make it meet these requirements :)

Enough of this..now back to waiting for 4.10.

Oh SoW should definitely require a completely different set of hardware specifications. That is even expected. So those people if they want to upgrade to the new software will also need to upgrade their hardware. Many even have been saving up for that day :)

But IL-2 is already out. I don't think it'd be very fair for Daidalos to suddenly make the game inaccessible to them. I'm glad that they aren't.

Next time around (SoW) it will be a totally different ballgame :)

I'd like to second the idea of officially re-doing pits for the 109 series, but I completely take on board what is said above regarding the mods.

I've tried the modded 109 cockpits and while they look great they are the only mod out of the many that I've used that really overwhelms my computer (not bleeding edge, but a solid system nonetheless Core 2 E8200, 4GB ram, gtx260).

Astounded to read above that a great looking cockpit can be made using only 7.5MB!!!

I'm also expecting my current system to be adequate for my early experiences with SOW (albeit with lowered settings), so, in contrast to Flanker I really wouldn't want to consider upgrading in order to run a 'heavy' official il2.

Looking forward to 4.10. Thanks to daidalos team for the great work.

Well, about progression... Newer (SOW) isn't always better. Graphically SOW looks nice, for sure, just like my IL2 1946 install does. Although my specs are high enough for SOW, i will surely stick to IL2 1946, if playability isn't improved in SOW. By the way, as soon as SOW is released, we have so much more modded aircraft in IL2, we don't play SOW anyway! :-P

Team Daidalos, thanks for making this sim even better after all those years!

With regards to your last point I highly disagree. For one, the only decent BoB sim out at the moment is Wings of Vistory (Il-2 just can't capture the same feelings of battle as WoV does) and that is itself dated. SoW should be the numero-uno of flight sims, and if it does the BoB the justice it deserves, then it will be the best flight-sim for BoB fans like me.
However, modded Il-2 is timeless, and I think I will always be playing it until SoW has all the planes that Il-2 has ;)

i really hope that the change from il2 to SoW is the change from a simulation game to a simulation!

Sure, i see your point Philip. You are more focussed on the BOB era. I like the different aircraft and the many maps better. I hope for BOB fans, that SOW will be a great release. Time will tell, about playability.

What i didn't liked about BoB II - Wov, were the crash landings and the spinning screen. I liked the atmophere in Jane's WWII fighters very much, maybe you know that (early) game?

I haven't played Jane's game, but I am aware of the features that BoB2 lacks. Il-2 damage model is beautiful and if paired with BoB2 could make one great sim. I am looking at SoW as being the start of something great ;)

I have to thank TD for taking on the issue of the Ju88. It was in dire need and you guys delivered. Hats up to you.

I was in the same boat (Bf109 repaints)with my old computer. I found some repaints that used the redone structure of the high-detail repaints but substituted low detail textures for use on older computers. They ran just fine on my trusty old Athlon XP1800 w/ 3GB RAM and the after-burning Geforce6200 :P. I agree that 7.5MB for the Hs129B cockpit is impressive. If someone makes the Bf109s like that in an official patch it would rule.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Seconded. Great work, TD.

Well... I have a decent desktop system to play games, but in fact I could play IL-2 on my notebook, yes.
And currently I do have to, because by desktop PC is broken. However, I also use the notebook for working in 3DSmax and in 1C's maptools (which is the game engine indeed), so it just has to run it.

Well, thats the attitude, that hardware producers wish for. You would be surprised, what in fact would be possible, if games were well programmed like in 1990. Worst example today is FSX. Contrary, good examples are maybe GuildWars (slighly outdated yet) and the Medieval: Total War series. These can be played on a medium system with full settings, AF, AA, whatever.
I cannot speak about actual games (DirecX10 or higher) on most modern systems, but I think most people in the world just still have medium systems (as the actuality of a system just change every day).
I think, hardware developer as NVidia and game developer go hand in hand to get their profit as high as possible.

I remember a competition a few years ago, where people were asked to build games with only 16bit size in total. It was astonishing, what they were able to do. Now if I render this up to the today games size (3-5GB and more), I really wish, developer would care for good programming.

So back topic... we do not have anything against cockpit repaints, as long as they are well made. But Bf109s as example need more than just repainting, remapping, remodeling is needed as well. And others are the same (i.e. P-47). As its already said, the specs are available, still you can ask us for. Generally for cockpits, stick to 256x256pxl textures, fill them well and you will stay inside the limits.
For Hs129 I even used 2-3 textures with size of 512x512pxl, which are exceptions. I decided so, because due to the shape of the cockpit, the pilots eyes are very near to some parts of it (i.e. the armor glas frame and leather protection). Modelers can do such (streching the limits), if its logical and to prefer for a decent result.

Additionally any artist should not only care for the project itself, but also for the question, how well is it matching within the game - is it still a homogeneous part of the game, or does it look rather like an exception? As example... if a player uses a repainted Fw190 cockpit, and right after he landed, he uses... stock Ju88 cockpit.. he will feel some inhomogenity.
So overdone repaints would break the games unique appearience and atmosphere.

i hope for such an armament in a "normal" bomber Ju88 in some future gameversion.
if the ship damagemodel will not change drasticaly i see only small sense in thes weapon in both torpedo versions.

i know such a Ju88 bomber would loose its horizontal bombing ability, because the MG-FF/M replaces the LOTFE bombsight.

I for one can not wait till SOW comes out, because mods have killed the online community. Maybe 'killed' isn't the right word, but changed it dramatically from what it once was. With SOW we will once again have a single game version for all to fly on.


That is an excellent statement!



Overall, hats off to TD for bringing us the long overdue fixes. Now if only the AI team killing gunners fix gets included in the 4.10... :-P

This, many times over.

And I really believe that once we see SoW, that IL2/46 will look and feel like the old, outdated, game it really is now.

S!

Caspar, I understand the spirit of consistency in the cockpits. But even in the stock game there is so much difference between them. Take Tempest which is a true work of art and then for example Bf109 or Mig-3 or IL-2. They are old and it shows, in fact they have not changed since beginning. So a souping up would do fine don't you think..and of course done within the IL-2 parameters.

As of games being sloppily programmed and using more resources and all that is a trend. Why bother optimizing when people can buy relatively cheap new hardware? And it is not very cost effective for a company to invest too much time in this kind of stuff. Oleg might be one of the few doing so, but he is in the toughest of all genres IMO: flight sims.

Realistically thinking you can not cater for everyone. An average computer today is above the minimum specs of IL-2. The very small minority might be in the low end just at the edge of running it. Again the superduper computers some enthusiasts have do not make IL-2 any better than it is..so seeing your point in this ;)

Thanks for the replies TD, very much appreciated :)

Kudos to the great developments, I love everything I've seen especially navigation as I have turned to flying without map icons.

However I have one or two requests/questions and it's about the P40's, will they be updated?

Their cockpits are EXTREMELY low-detail as compared to alot of the other planes and well, I love flying the Allison but she's ugly as dirt from the pilots view in IL2.

Any chance these awesome planes can get a facelift?

Also the p40's fuel gauge (on the floor near the right rudder) doesn't work, so you never really know how much fuel you have unless you actually see the low fuel light turn on. Tho, I'm not even sure if its possible to get an entire view of the fuel gauge.

They're great planes if you know how to fly 'em, heck I could outdance 4 zeros while the aaa at my base shot them down for me, and with the right apporach, piss off 109 pilots.

I know these planes seem like trash at first glance, but they're powerful fighters and I can't help but find myself in one each time I load IL2.

Let me know.

Go Team Daidalos

Some droptanks can also be improved. Like the droptank of the P-40 E and the P-51.

The P-40 exterior model is also in need of an update (Incorrect fuselage dimensions, exaggerated dihedral in the wings and duck-toe main landing gear). Perhaps DT can address this in a later patch, when their busy schedule allows.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

I wish the E and M were as well done as the Hawk 81s are.

Also a P 40 N is desperately needed. It was the highest performing version, and the most produced, and was the mainstay of P40 strength in the Pacific and China.

S!

Look at ordnance Zorin made for IL-2, both axis and allied stuff. They are a vast improvement over IL-2 stock to put it mildly. The drop tanks, pylons etc.

I was a little confused about that too, why there is no p40n when it was the most produced of them all!

To make sure everyone knows -- I was talking about the p40e.

Werent, of the Warhawks, the L and F the ones that saw most action?

I see that in Tunisia F's and L's saw action, but from what I've been reading it seems the earliest versions were the most used (because they were the most available)

It really depends on which air force you are talking about.. Apparently, almost everybody had some version of a p40 in ww2. :)

Anyone notice the p40e m-105 field mod pulls so hard to the right that it is impossible to fight with? You can't _ever_ hit 30,000 rpms level, even in a dive it took awhile to get there. Take-off is also really scarey when it just shoots right -- like full rudder.

I thought it was the wind for a second, but i flipped direction and it still pulled hard right. I double-checked and triple-checked my rudder, dead-even.

I flew other p40s on the same map, different maps, then the modded on other maps, none of the other ones pulled so hard, yet the modded always pulled right.


EDIT: Found this: The P-40F/L was extensively used by U.S. fighter groups operating in the Mediterranian Theater.
Can anybody else confirm this?

(sorry for being off-topic)

The field mod torques to the right because it has Klimov M105 engine, same with Jak-1 and early LaGGs. ;)

I should have mentioned that with Warhawks I ment the P40E+.

Ahh yes, I understand torque here --- but the m105 is not more powerful than the allison, in-fact I believe it is slightly less powered by like 5 hp, or vice versa.

Besides, torque never pulls so hard the plane greatly loses performance! I'm talking so hard the little ball is all the way to the left the entire flight.

In the view objects section it explains the m105 was nearly identical to the replaced allison and was used not because of performance, but simply because of parts/maintanence.

The field mod has a definite hard pull to the right on takeoff, but this is common to most of the Russian planes in the game, and it doesn't seem any worse, more or less than the other planes (the Russian ones). The pull to the right is definitely much stronger in the field mod than the left pull of the Allison, and while I suspect it's entirely because of the game engine, I would not be surprised in an airframe that was designed and "tuned" around a right turning engine, a left turning engine might cause some handling anomalies.

As for level flight, she does pull to the right a bit, but no more than any other single engine plane, and it's easily countered with some trim. I wonder if you don't have some controller trouble that's being exasperated by the M105's "backward" pull?

The answer to the P-40E field mod torque issue is that both aircraft have identical trim settings in their flight models. So although the field mod version has a right turning M-105 engine it is still trimmed for the left turning Allison.

Nuff said

Possible to have FMB aircraft flying at 50 metres without crashing?
 

Just wondering if it is possible in Patch 4.10, to have AI aircraft be able to fly at low altitude without crashing into the deck?

Set up a mission in FMB and have the aircraft at 50m or 100m. Mission starts and various aircraft collide and crash, or just drop into the ground.

Wondering if this is possible to fix?

Cheers, MP.

@ BadAim: I'm beleiving more than normal something is messed up, but I don't think it is my joystick, or it would affect other planes/games/sims as well.

It looks like I need a fresh install of il2. Easy enough.

Thanks for the feedback!

Anyway @ Karaya, yes yes, moving on..

Only now I saw,Fritz-X and Hs-293!
OMG,you gonna kill me that way.

But,weren´t these lauched by FW-200?

Start them at 250m and then drop them down to 50m for the next waypoint. The AI takes a few seconds to get accustomed to the situation they are in (almost like a human pilot) and 50 meters is a bit too much. Also I think it sets off a near ground routine in the AI. Just play with the initial altitude settings and then drop them down after that.

Not that I'm saying that they shouldn't try to fix things where possible but AI can be tricky and there are ways to work around. Might have consequences elsewhere?

Thursday
 

It's Thursday! ...and last week we saw no news...

What about small status update along the lines: "all features are implemented, we are now quality testing the whole thing and if nothing happens, we will release next week. Moving dogfight server was too buggy, so we will postpone it until 4.11"?

I will die from the uncertainty.

We're all impatient for 4.10 to be released but TD are doing this all in their spare time and for no other reward than the satisfaction of our gratitude.
I'm certain it will be worth the wait

Yes, it's STILL Thursday and update posted on the first page. Enjoy.

There is no need to panic regarding patch release. Thank you.