Great ! Bravo and keep up the good work !

This post made me laugh... reminded me of O.J.

So basically it doesn't matter if something is not correct or someone made a typo what matters is how one got the info about it... and if he got the info by some "illegal" or "not so approved" means suddenly that error does not exist or ones point is invalidated. Ha Ha... are you a lawyer also Bulgarian :D?


Also about this... "TD knows better etc"... could prove to be like in that saying: the higher you climb... the higher the fall will be. Denying the knowledge of somebody about something based solely on your own a priori knowledge and without actually taking a look at what that one is knowing will byte you back later on.

I'm sorry I have to post this but, I see a lot of bad attitude in your posts and if this is TD point of view, I personally, will not expect anything from further patches... official patches... just so I will not be disappointed ;) .



S!

I was going to type something similar, but I got the impression it would be like prodding a beehive.

you're still there?!.....:mad:

How about a Hawker Hunter????? ? ?? ? ?






?

Seriously Owl, just buy one of these and shut up.

On that note, let's toss out a huge chunk of human knowledge in medicine - considering a significant portion of the knowledge was gained through less than ethical means throughout human history.

I could go back to the days where the docs says, "let's bleed him, it fixes everything." every time you get sick.

Yea, tossing the baby out with the bathwater is a perfect analogy here - I don't care where the information comes from if it's a FACT.

You guys have totally misconstrued what Bulgarian said in that post but ok. Yell at him so more, so we get better patches :grin:

But seriously, he said that because the game is hacked it could have negative unforeseen and hidden consequences to the other FMs that this guy is poking around in. Our game may be different from his game, depending on the hack, so what being said about porked FM should be taken with a grain of salt, that's all.

"This is one of the hundred risks that the end user is taking when he chooses to use the broken code,and if this error is present in the P-51 FM,then it might be coming from there. I talk from myself experience in this paragraph."

I'm sure TD will look into it, but they are going to be cautious of using this guy's numbers from a hacked game.

"Anyway,Daidalos Team knows very well what's right and what's not in this game and be sure that we're doing whatever we can to make this game better,and that this report will be checked."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't like TD is going to disregard everything, they are looking into it themselves. About right and wrong, maybe this is in regards to hacking only, but let the man enlighten us about what he means before we burn him at the stake.

So again, TD is not throwing anything out, but are going to be cautious about using numbers from a hacked game. Calm down folks.

""Anyway,Daidalos Team knows very well what's right and what's not in this game ...."

I think that im heard something like these before... here in Il2 world. These is really dangerous statment .

What do you think about these knowing better:

These is simple comparsion Bf 109 B-2 ( new one) and I-16 type 5 ( stock one)

http://i34.tinypic.com/bfn8gk.jpg

I didnt know that I-16 type 5 from 1937 was such good climber but people will learnning day by day.

S!

You are really pushing it this time.We have talked through PM and you should know better than this.

You have only demonstrated now that you don't have deeper understanding of how game works and that's exactly what Bulgarian was saying in not so nice way. So what did you accomplished except scoring an own goal?

Looking forward to see your NTRK with stock I-16Type5 climbing as good as your "Il2Compare" graph shows. ;)

BTW never crossed your mind to actually test the plane before making the post? Are you sure that you really know how to extract accurate performance data?

FC

Thank you for perfect illustration of Bulgarian's point.

You have used an unsupported function in game code without knowing what it does and what are its limitations to generate completely incorrect data for il2compare. Or maybe someone supplied you these data, then you are going to be blamed for posting them here without any verification. If someone needed an example of what can happen by careless handling of game code, well, here it is.



No one claims DT is perfect because we make mistakes too. But we spend a lot of time to make sure that output is bugfree, well-founded and as good as possible (and I have same attitude to forum posts and expect similar from other posters too. You post it, you are responsible.). Origin of bugreport has no effect on its verification/fixing effort, but I hope everyone understand we always have to make independent evaluation of everything simply because we are responsible for patch content. I hope this clears a bit of the confusion.

I dont want to start flame war here. These was adress for Bulgarian and his great ego.

But if you want i made climb test for I-16 type 5, Crimea Map, 100% fuel, start climbing from sea level at. 220km/h, radiator 6

1 km - 0:50
2 km - 1:36
3 km - 2:23

It is average climb rate ~ 21 m/s

RL climb time I-16 type 5 should be 3400 m in 4:00 minutes so it is average climb rate - 14 m/s. It make some difference.

In my game I-16Type5 have max. climb rate of 16,5 m/s. IIRC JtD tested it at UBI with similar results, now I'm really curious to know how you made your test.

FC

LesniHU,


From my standpoint you are 110% right. I trust better a quality controlled teamwork, as DT looks to do, than the goodwilling but uncontrolled acts of isolated individuals, especially when touching delicate areas as FM and DM.
So if a guy says "my new P51 now works better than the stock one, I simply corrected a wrong figure in the code", I start raising my hairy eyebrows. Who controlled it ? Where is the independent check ? Where are figures before and after ? My idea: if it is so simple, DT will quickly acknowledge it and fix it.

[\lawyer mode on]
In general, if someone has a point, the burden of proof lies with him: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
[\lawyer mode off]

It is a matter of simple logics and common sense, aka scientific method.

Regards,
Insuber

I kinda stayed away from this thread ... but I will just add.. Bulgarian I have the utmost respect for what you guys are doing and I look forward to whatever you guys come up with.. and I can't speak on German,Italian,Japanese or British AC much.. because I just don't fly them enough to speak with any kind of for lack of a better term authority.. but the Mustang I have been flying since day one... and I don't know code and I certainly can't do what you guys do.. and I don't know what the modders did exactly to the P-51.. I know what the said actions were but I don't know where to begin on the details.. all I know is that P-51s, at least the new NTs provided by the modders (from my understanding stock FMs haven't not been touched.. and from what I have seen flying them they haven't been) , fly much more stable than the stock ones.. and mind you.. I still cannot yank on the stick.. the elevator authority is still very pronounced, I'll still shed my wings if I try to pull out of a dive too hot and it is still very easy to go into a stall in a heartbeat... but the thing is more stable.. and that makes for more accuracy... You guys will do whatever Oleg wants.. and IMO that is a good thing.. and I will be on whatever you guys do like white on rice .. because IMO it is good stuff, but I really really really hope that one day there comes some kind of meeting of the minds on some of these issues.. FC99 is the same cat that brought us the QMB+.. He has the same integrity, the same work ethic and his love for this sim and his pride in his work has not diminished one bit from when he was doing mod work at that other place just because he is now doing "official" modding( which is all this really is... even when Oleg & 1C were doing it themselves they were modifying the original released code but we call them patches because they are official) ... and I am certain that regardless to whatever disagreements you & DT may have with anyone or any groups that come here from that other side who have NOT joined or been accepted into DT, or the work they may be doing, that your commitment to the sim is just as valid and just as true as FC's is .. I just look forward to all the good work that can come from all this, but I really hope that a lot of good is not tossed out with some of the bad.. because of "differences"..

You guys here are dong great work.... and IMO it will only get better.. but there are some issues... with the stock planes that go beyond mere opinion and I hope that they do get addressed adequately.. In the meantime I'll just keep on flying in what is still IMO regardless to mods, stock, patched , unpatched from IL2 1.0 all the way up to 19464.09m the best WWII Combat Flight Simulator on the retail market to date.. with not even a close second.. I look forward to SoW and all the sim goodness that it will bring.. in the mean time I will be hanging on to every tidbit from here... and the stock sim will always be my starting point .. regardless to what mods I happen to like or dislike.. For me it alwasy starts with the stock sim.. and then will go from there to wherever the goodness takes me.

Don't worry Bearcat, personal issues will not alter our commitment to fix proven bugs.
Things that can affect bug fixing are:
1. deadlines
2. orders from Moscow ;)
3. interference with other parts of the code and complexity of the fix (see 1.)

I did some testing recently and I found a bug in the J-8: Even though it has a wooden prop, it is possible in game to feather it.

I heard it mentioned that Ki-61 should have fire extinguishers in the fuel tanks.

As far as requests, I have some ideas, but I understand that not everything is possible, so I am not demanding, just asking:

Some AI aircraft like B-25 variants all have similar cockpit and FM. Maybe the stock cockpit could be implemented. This applies to aircraft like other Mosquito variants, Bf-110, He-111Z (for glider towing missions?) P-36, Betty, Gladiator, and others. Also, I have heard that our current I-16 type 24 is actually a 28, and that the 24 had 4 shkas like the 18. Is it a possibility to include one last Polikarpov variant? :-P

Some aircraft could be modified slightly externally, and with Fm. For instance, You are already working in a Bf-110 G-4 which is similar to the G-2. It would be nice to have earlier P-38 variants. There is also a P-38 which has a glass nose and Norden bombsight for high alt. bombing and path finding for B-17s.

It would be nice if cockpits and FM could be made for already included AI aircraft. Ar-169 floatplane comes to mind, as well as the IL-4, SB-2, Su-2, and others. Are you bound by the same restrictions as Oleg was regarding Grumman and their lawsuit about inclusion of their aircraft?

I noticed that the new I-16s can change the gun type in the loadout screen. Is it possible to consolidate the MiGs like this? Right now we have MiGx2 UBs, x2 Shvak, and with normal loadout of 1 ubs and 2 shkas (unless FM is affected of course). Would it also be possible to add loadouts to existing planes: Finnish Fiat G-50 had browning .50 cals rather than Bredas. The Finnish also added Brownings to many other planes that they bought, captured, borrowed.

For winter maps there is a change of skin on some planes from a summer camo to winter camo. Is it possible to do something similar for 109 and other aircraft which had tropical filters?

Some aircraft have fire extinguishers or are able to drop auxiliary gas tanks. The Pzl.11 historically could jettison its main gas tank in an emergency. Would it be possible to model this using fire extinguisher/drop tanks function?

My last request for now, until I think of more (:-P) Is it feasible to update existing 3d model, FM or DM of some of the original aircraft in the sim? The MiG is a new plane with the improved skins, but the interior is somewhat basic, as well as the Pzl.11 and some others. Most important is the FM and DM however. The G-50 seems unusually sturdy compared to its contemporaries, while the R-10 has wings that pop off with just a little light MG fire.

Hi Romanator,

many of the things you mentioned appear easy to implement but they are not. First, to build new cockpits you need references (and good ones), plus time and manwork to model them.

The policy of adapting franken cockpits from other planes seems a bit ugly to me, even if they appear similar. For example, there are definitely some differences between cockpits of Bf-110Cs and Bf-110Gs, or between B-25Cs and B-25Js. So we at DT prefer to stay away from implementing such "stop-gap" pits, due also to our limited resources in terms of time etc. However, if there are 3D modellers wich want to take in charge such tasks, they can contact us at DT mail.

Some fixes like adding loadouts options may be easier to implement, provided the references are not like: "I read it on the Wiki".

cheers

Bunkers
 

hi DAIDALUS team my request is this......THE ITALIAN BUNKER.
in much city of Itali Sirracusa - Gela - Cagliari -Bari -Napoli - Roma ecc. ec. in the border of city or in the campain exist one standard and type of bunker this is Photo.http://static.panoramio.com/photos/o...l/17283311.jpg in mission builder il-2 this bunker not exist please Daidalusi is possible create this bunker in il-2? tank you. bye.

"Hi Romanator,

many of the things you mentioned appear easy to implement but they are not. First, to build new cockpits you need references (and good ones), plus time and manwork to model them."

Fair enough. I understand a lot of work goes into this stuff that you guys do. I was just throwing some ideas out.

As for similar cockpits: I am not a fan of the frankenplane style either. I was wondering if the existing cockpits could be used as a general foundation or background for other changes. As far as I can tell, the P-39 cockpits are nearly identical with some minor differences, for instance.

I am just a layperson though, so I have no idea what really goes on in terms of code and 3d design. I imagine it is not easy though. Again, I don't want to make demands to you guys. :)

Nothing like a "LifeSized Bunker" to get our attention. ;)

Now that's really a nonsense OT .... :-D

Well, it IS the same guy who spends his time posting "Honour to Dux Mussolini" over and over in chat on HL. If he MUST pick a fascist dictator to revere, couldn't he at least pick one who wasn't both extremely vain and moronically incompetent? :confused:

Italian bunker
 

SORRY for size of photo DAIDALUS team but this bunker in italy exist over 4000 postation this buncker is fery famous and is a part of WW2 HISTORY most peoples accused me because i am FASCIST but the fascism is a part of ITALIAN history and i remember non CANCEL and BENITO MUSSOLINI is a ITALIAN MAN a part a ITALIAN HISTORY i respect NAPOLEON HISTORY i respect ENGLAND HYSTORy i respect U.S.A. HISTORY i not accused i RESPECT RUSSIA HISTORY e not accuse for exterme comunism i not acused you for EXTREME COLONIALISM.

Feel free to delete it and replace it by a linked thumbnail:

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/1739/17283311.th.jpg

That would all sound very reasonable, except that I don't go around spamming "Honour to the British Empire!" or "Take back the colonies!".

Anyway, nice bunker.

Lol
 

The bunker is funny, and lifesized. But that's a good pic though. About the previous posts leading in . . .

Don't need to argue the point if he's a Italian Dictator lover or Fascist supporter. This is a Team D thread.





The points by zaelu and kwiatek are invalid because the IL-2 data used to prove their points that something is wrong comes from a hacked and modded IL-2 . . . hence Bulgarian's reply.

And where that information comes from does affect if its a "fact or not".

Garbage in and garbage out? You can't use flawed data to point out a flaw, because the problem could be with the data you're using .





Team D is right in saying FM's modded / will create unknown consequences / cascade effects in the code.

And its good to nip it in the bud.

The debates with Modded FM's are many: Is it a cheat vs historically vs flies like I want it to (according to my interpretation of the books I've read etc).

Then you got book knowledge vs actual experience. Anyone who has tried to learn martial arts from a magazine and then from an actual master can tell you its different from learning from a video, pages, and from someone teaching you.

Proving something "historically" correct, how would they (mod FM guys) know unless they've flown an actual P-51, and fired its .50 cals?

You could get close if you took what was recorded in regarding the plane, plus the experience of pilots / pilot logs, stats and engineering tests, and test flights if possible. Even then collecting all the data needs a peer review and organization to translate that into the game . . . and you have to seperate this from "your favorite plane" syndrome.

At least with Team D or Oleg n Co, they can request information regarding this, and its good they are doing this (recent threads from Luthier). They can get the research in on it.

They can combine resources, work with the community, and have a team to debate, and organize things so it works with what's been done already in the game and not mess with the integrity of IL-2. After all 8+ years of official work on a game, theres bound to be many details that only the developer is intimate with.


Another issue, is say, pilot skill.

I'll use the P-51. There are other people that fly the P-51 on unmodded servers online and shoot just fine, they rack up kills. They fly the IL-2 P-51 just as well as it can be according to its FM.

Then you have others that say they find it hard to fly or shoot w/out the modded FM? Are they cheating because of lack of skill?

Maybe the oleg quote pilots win dogfights is applicable here?


With Team D and Oleg n Co, the have the final say. They can cut through the BS, the many facets of the issue, and create something workable.


I'm just glad Team D and Oleg n co are continuing to support IL-2. And we should be working with them, not laying down accusations or quoting obscure sources (like unsourced wikipedia articles), or points or using modded FM's to prove a point.

those obscure sources, you are crapping on, are from real pilots who flew the planes, the documents from the desgin, factory specs, etc.. but it seems you know more than those sources..

You would indeed be very likely to get only garbage out if you got something wrong. Anyone who knows what java code looks like could tell if the code was decrypted incorrectly. Have yourself a read all about encryption.
In any case, the best way to check would be for someone to dump all of the class files, unhash them all and then hash them all again without modification. I bet they'd pass CRT=2.
Taking the above into account, I think it's pretty unreasonable to believe that Kwiatek would point out the error if it wasn't in the original game's FM straight from being unhashed, or for that matter that he wouldn't have checked it several times before bringing it to the attention of TD.
I confess that I find myself surprised by the attitude with which Kwiatek's post was received, surely it wasn't necessary to cause such a fuss over the fact that his information comes from modding the game's files himself? Some TD members were previously modders themselves. Seems mighty hypocritical.

Update
 

sorry for the misconfusion, I updated my post.


actually that part was directed at what K was trying to do that FC99 was answering to . . . post #610 11-11-2009, 09:57 AM


I did state in earlier in my post that pilots and documents are valid and I did not mean any disrespect in regards to pilots or any other service members statements.


close = historically correct, I'm stating close b/c exact is being there as the events unfold.

ok, sorry, I am sensitive to some of what happened over the years.. I know there is more to worry about in life,, but there is lingering distrust in the community with some fm/dm..

which probably detors some of the people from working on the fm/dm... but since there are only a few select people who hold the golden keys and software to create planes and put in the fm/dm... the average joe has to try to get official documents and get real pilots to help get the correct fm/dm..

and if the people making it refuses to use/implement the data from the documents and does something wrong, it takes the power of a god to get the wrong righted..
that's where the frustration lays.. once the wrong becomes the gold standard it has been impossible to get it corrected..

so If I say something, it is triggered too easily.. I did not realize it was aimed at a speciific post or person.. sorry..

There is one thing I would like to say.. which has been bugging me..

If the P51 that was put into this game is really modelled correctly, then in real life it would not still be flown today in races,, with the IL-2 FM/DM, it would have been scrapped in 1942, and the Reno air races would be using BF109's and FW-190's. Which just goes to show it's all bass-ackwards...


And that was only one example..

YAKS are pretty awesome as well

http://www.teamsteadfast.com/

[youtube]Mme2bTZ0Gkg[/youtube]

[youtube]GUpy821P-w4&NR[/youtube]

A heck of a lot of posts here to sift through, so I don't know if this question has been asked yet.

Anyways, with the introduction of previously missing Italian planes such as SM.79, Re.2000, and G.55, we will also see other important ones?

For Bombers: Cant Z.1007 Alcione, Cant Z.1018 Leone, BR 20 (early and late versions)

For Fighters: Re.2000 series variants (2001, 2002), and one of my favorite Italian fighters, the Re.2005 Sagittario, considered the most advanced and finest of Italian air-craftsmanship (by far the sleekest and best-looking aircraft of WW2). To see it in this game would be a dream come true!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Sagittario.jpg

Task, agreed! We want more Italian planes, and French too!

Ins

Reggiane
 

FANTASTIC aiplane

REGGIANE series:http://www.baronerosso.net/forum/att...rio-re2005.jpg this is original skin.

http://www.baronerosso.net/forum/att...o-re2005-2.jpg

http://www.baronerosso.net/forum/att...o-re2005-3.jpg

this is ENJINE of REGGIANE 2007 http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com...gnadivalle.jpg

this is original REGGIANE tecnical DESINE http://digilander.libero.it/digitalr...%20tecnico.jpg
this is REGGIANE 2005R variant whit TURBOJET PROPULSOR.http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5593/re2005rf2.jpg

http://digilander.libero.it/torpedoclub/RA6.jpg

THIS IS PROTOTIPE OF REGGIANE 2007 the SABRE is FAC-SIMLE to ITALIAN DESINE reggiane 2007http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/12/45/46/57/dan_re11.jpg
REGGIANE 2007:http://www.luft46.com/rmart/rmfw3.jpg

http://www.samoloty.ow.pl/rys/rys039.jpg

http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/a...wanta2007b.jpg

THIS IS IMPORTANT REAL PHOTO OF COCKPIT REGGIANE 2005 loock this linkhttp://www.aldini.it/re2005/performances.htm

COCKPIT REGGIANE 2005 http://www.clubfreccetricolori.com/c...Re2005-7_1.jpg

ORIGINAL PHOTO http://www.clubfreccetricolori.com/c...e2005-38_1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rio_Veneto.jpg

reggiane catapult sistem to ship VITTORIO VENETO.
Reggiane was used both by aviation Italian and from Italian Italian navy's intentions were to use the fighters reggiane2001 on the italian CARRIER AQUILA

http://digilander.libero.it/shinano/...sonometria.JPG

Xilon this is a little bit pathetic and OT. Nice fantasy drawings and prototypes. Bah.

Ins

I wouldn't be surprised
 

If more Italian planes made it with Team D's next patch . . . They need to make the g.55 flyable though.

About the Italian carrier, if they came out with that, they'd get so much heat for not catering to the German Zeppelin carrier and navalized bf 109's.

Got to hand it to the Italians, they did make some really beautiful planes.


I found this on that Italian jet . . . no mention of the saber connection . . .
perhaps maybe great minds think alike situation like in German and British jet development?

http://cloud.prohosting.com/hud607/u...05/re2007.html

I would prefer to see some of the missing warships which actually saw action. Any of the Regia Marina battleships, cruisers or destroyers would be great. For warships fitted with catapults it would be great to be able to take off from the catapult to launch seaplanes, or in the case of Vittorio Veneto to launch a fighter. The same feature would enable CAM ships to be provided to launch Hurricane fighters.

Ashe

Italian navy-aviation
 

this is reggiane 2001 for the ITALIAN CARRIER :AQUILA - SPARVIERO - BOLZANO 3 carrier for controll mediterrain.
http://i32.tinypic.com/15zfms2.jpg
AVIATION NAVY ITALIAN HAVE much plane carrier plane and sea plane
loock this link photo this is FIAT G.50 whit arrestor hook and GERMAN STUKA whit arrestor hoock the italian pilots and german in this time ware training for take off and land to carrier.
http://www.aereimilitari.org/forum/l...hp?t11078.html

LOOCK THIS GOOD LINK WARSHIP CARRIER AND SEA PLANE http://navyfield.com/board/view.asp?...&Ctg_2=&Ctg_3=

THIS IS ORIGINAL DESINE REGGIANE 2005 http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/451...ianecutyv5.jpg
ENJINE REGGIANE 2005 http://www.lucapiancastelli.ing.unib...e%20Vitale.pdf
ITALIAN CARRIER
BOLZANO CARRIER http://www.modellismi.it/prodotti/big/1642.jpg

AQUILA CARRIER http://www.modellismi.it/prodotti/big/1634.jpg

SPARVIERO CARRIER http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._sparviero.jpg

EUROPA CARRIER http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/a...es/n0301ag.jpg

GIUSEPPE MIRAGLIA CARRIER http://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/a...es/n0302cg.jpghttp://www.marina.difesa.it/storia/a...es/n0302bg.jpg

Would you please do a bit of editing and reduce your image sizes.

Most of us see pretty well, we can pick out the little 4 pixel specks of aircraft online.

Thanks

i sincerely hope that TD is concenrtating more on fixing the known issues with the game and all that is included in it, and only introducing "new" planes or objects that are relatively easy to do without external/coxkpit model changes(eg: a +11lbs tempest) before giving any thought to MORe planes, ships, and other confetti

perhaps if they run out of things to correct they can spend more effort on the pie-in-the-sky stuff for 5.0...or perhaps wait for 5.1 for it


this thread seems to be increasingly a wish list of every plane not in the game , sheesh

P38J "sync'd" .50 cals
 

just remembered an issue, TD

back when 1C "de-sync'd" or "unsync'd" 50 cals in US type, they did a boo-boo

they forgot to do it for the P38J in default loadout config

currently, one must take bomb or droptank loadout to get the unsync'd 50 cals, default loadout on P38J gives "sync'd" 50 cals

please fix this sirs :)

We need changes in the core programming.

It has always amazed me at the number of requests for new aircraft, when we already have so many. There are many I have never virtually flown.

Never could understand why people are always clamouring for more aircraft.

They don't fly them online.(dogfight servers) They pick the uber aircraft and only fly them.

Sorry, but I don't think you could ever have enough aircraft models to satisfy some people.

All loadouts use same MG.

So does DT have any questions regarding the information posted below or the Ki-61 or even Ki-43 that I can help answer?

K2

Could you guys make it so that it's impossible to use smaller increments of flaps with them set on an axis in aircraft with two-position flaps like the Spitfire and Hurricane?

missing airplanes
 

i want to respond to nearmiss.I think peoples request much airplane because not satisfied.
Il-2 sturmovik 1946 have a long list and good list of WW2 airplane.initially when the first il-2 came out had all list RUSSIAN airplane BOMBERS-FIGHTERS-RECONNAISSANCES-SEAPLANE-GLIDERS-JET i loock in the bock all list RUSSIAN plane and compare whit IL-2 sturmovik list and i conclude that
Russian aircraft are almost all missing 2 or 3 RUSSIAN bombers and jet plane.
GERMAN have good list but not complete
ENGLAND not have the important BOMBERS and fighters.
FRANCE not have airplane only 1 but only AI
ITALY have good list but missing all bombers and some fighter and seaplane.
U.S.A. good list but missing some bombers and reconnaissances airplane.
JAPAN missing airplane ecc. ec. all nation
now the PRIORITY is the FRANCE because france not have 1 fighter flyiable.

i THINK now actualy il-2 have a good list i not remember but now list is 270 type of airplane of all nation.for complete list MISSING about 130 type of airplane and 20 type of prototype and luft46.
LUFT 46 list and secret airplane was a good idea in past time to insert in il-2 sturmovik.BUT i REMEMBER the name of programm is IL_2 sturmovik and not WW2 SIMULATOR.

Sorry, not buying your music. We finally have someone that actually has the programming ability and desire to fix alot of problems within the actual core of the IL2.

The IL2 code is open now and building aircraft,etc. is nothing like coding the core programming. It's like asking highly skilled person to wash cars for a living.

There are sites where you can request the kind of stuff you want. If we get new aircraft from TD I'm OK with it, otherwise no way I request them.

We've been reading new aircraft whine threads for 10 years and now we have someone really working to do major improvements and the whines persist.

ok ok nearmis i am agree not new airplane but fixing actual airplane and physics .

in mission builder if i put the gray runway ad after clik fly if i go to te border of runway airplane explode in fact, the airplane would just go down the step and damaged a bit 'to the laws of physics should not explode.

when the plane taxis on the ground it bounces a little too much dirt

these strong rebound on the ground give the impression that the airplane does not have a specific weight.
when the plane taxis on the runway is good.

if i put black runway and i go to the border of the runway the airplane jumping like a spring, and after falling explodes.should move a little bad but not jump.

not real physic.

Now you're talking...

We need to fix things that require code changes within the core programming.

Why do you want that?????

Because it's unrealistic to be able to use flaps in anything other than the up or down position in those aircraft.

with all respect FC, did you czech the 38J code for this?

i will go and double check today, as perhaps this was fixed in a patch or two ago

but certainly, at the time, 1C did not have the 50s unsync'd for 38J default loadout, ever since that time i have been taking drop tanks for 38J to get unsync'd 50s

+1


also, would it be possible to allow key mapping to different keys, instead of a single "toggle" key?

eg: "airbrakes" can only be mapped to one key open/close currently, would be nice to have option to map separate keys, one for open, one for close

Hello Grunch,
can you rephrase yourself,because it's hard to understand what you're exactly trying to say.

I believe Grunch means that at the moment, it is possible to set the Flaps to be controlled by a slider or analogue switch, like the throttle. This means you can set the flaps to be at any position from fully extended to fully retracted. On planes that don't have combat settings for their flaps like the Spitfire and Hurricane, this allows you to put the flaps down only part way, where they act like the combat setting for flaps, and this gives players using this technique an advantage these planes would not have historically.

I see.

Thank you,David.

We are still waiting confirmation from Oleg that we can change old planes. When we get his approval we will have some questions, that's for sure. As your case is well presented it will certainly be one of the first things that we will try to improve.

Yes,I checked the code, can't find anything different in P38J loadouts. Same MG is used.

Yes, that's exactly it, thanks David. Sorry, I typed that in a hurry. :oops:

Not going any further with this, but after Oleg doctored the trim-on-a-slider setting trim became unrealistic. I don't recall the time he scaled, but I think it was about 15 seconds full stop either way. That is probably about 10 seconds too long.

No one wants to go back to the bat-turns, but it would make sense to be at a more sensible time frame. IMO, of course.

Great work on 4.09 team Daidalus.

If i might ask, is there any chance of the TBD Devestator finally making an appearance in 4.10+ ???

Most likely yes (if approved by 1C/MG), but as AI only.

Shouldn't there be "Team Daidalos" instead of "Team Daidalus":-Pjust saying... since it is sticky and I see people copying it wrong.:rolleyes:

Very true, if the admin could correct this type, we would be appreciate it. :cool:

the Bearcat, if it's possible
 

Can you model the F8F Bearcat? Just asking. Here's a nice write-up about flying it:
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepBearcat.2.html
I'm asking because there of the "1946 scenario" planes that are already included, and maybe someone might think this one is worthy.
Flyby out
ps another link, be sure to page down to see the whole article: Bearcats in Action http://www.scribd.com/doc/20917596/F...RCAT-IN-ACTION

can TD please have a separate, sticky thread, for wet-dream wish-list new aircraft requests please, instead of polluting this one and filling up pages for TD to have to sift through?



post 666!:twisted:

I hope you don't mean to be insulting in that reply. I'm sure you took note of the third post on the first page of this thread as it asked for French fighters.
Flyby out

Done! :rolleyes:

Yet, I was reluctant. The logo used by TD says LOS not LUS

Nearmiss, too quick on the trigger? :cool: It is supposed to be as in the logo = Daidalos, not Daidalus. It used to be "lus" in this thread, then it was briefly corrected to "los" (by original author of the thread?) and then back to "lus" by you, thus the confusion. :cool:

A few humble requests for the fine men of Team Daedalos:

Could the AI routine be fixed for certain bombers that have a tendency to plough into the back of one another when set in grouped flights - examples are the Beaufighter, Mosquito, A-20, Stuka and Ju-88. Other planes such as the Il-2 seem to have an avoidance routine where the plane in front will climb slightly to allow the one behind to take its rightful place in the formation. I think the Ju-88 may also need its landing routine fixing, as they tend to collide in the run-in.

Also could the carrier take-off routine be fixed for the TBF/TBM and F4U? - these planes tend to swing into the island or off the side during rougher weather. This seems to be weight-related as it can be lessened (but not eradicated) by reducing fuel.

Finally, improving in-game markings, increasing smoke/fire visibility, improving textures for current maps and improving the models for the older vehicles, which are starting to look very dated now.

Thanks for your consideration gentlemen.

Oh yes - forgot the big one - the ground attack routines for various AI planes (mainly American for some reason) are currently suicidal when rocket-firing or strafing. Examples are the F4U, P-47, P-38 and TBF. I think this is due to their tendency to take on two targets in one dive and fire two or more rockets or strafe twice - it greatly increases their likelihood of ploughing into the ground.

Also the Fw-190F-8 seems to get itself into a strange low-level death-spin due to the tight turns it tries to make when strafing.

Questions
 

Questions to TD:

Rear seat for Beaufighter Mk 21 - are there any plans to model this?
Dogfights with moving objects - are there any plans to incorporate any such mechanic?

Hi TD,
First and foremost a big thanks for the great job.

I have a Q for you and that is if you plan on adjusting the FF settings? There is som egreat new hardware regarding hotas's that is out or coming along and the forces really need some attention.

all the best and keep the good work going :)

HaJa

EDIT: I don't want to type everything again but look at my post in the G940 thread and you'll have a possible fix :)

regards

Sorry have been away a few days. No dont belive its unrealistic. I think the pilot was able to do some ajust themself, not putting the flaps all down or up. Looking at old movie the are down, but not in landingpossions. So I belive the settings are all correct. You are just not able to do it, if you dont have the right controls. Buy them and you are allright. :-D

regarding flaps I think (don't have my books at hand right now) that for planes like Hurricane and Spit it's only possible IRL to use Up or Down and a limited number of times since they were operated by pneumatics via the lever in the left top side of cockpit panel.

Other plane I can't remember right now.

Thus I don't have my flaps on a slider but on a button :)

Ju-88 bug: pilot killed when crash landing
 

I think there is an old bug in the Ju-88. When landing, if you do it too fast or your vertical downspeed is too big and you crash on the ground, main undercarriage breaks (normal), cockpit hits the ground (normal) and pilot gets inmediatly "Pilot Killed" (not normal !) . You can see from an external view that the plane is intact, excepting the broken undercarriage, but pilot is dead.

Is it a bug, ? or is it supposed to be due to the glass-cage configuration of the Ju-88's cockpit? In WWII many wounded planes belly-landed in emergency, crashing their undercarriage, in a big dust cloud, but the crew was able to survive, if they could avoid the airplane caught fire in the event.

Of course if the bombardier were still in his nacelle, below the cockpit, it would be smashed, in case of this crash-landing, but, I think, in real life he would leave this position before ! :) , like belly-gunners in B-24 or B-17 would do. But, here in IL-2, it is the poor pilot who always dies ! :(

IL-2 has got now a big chance of solving this and other old bugs, thanks to your efforts. Many thanks to all Team, in advance.

Any news about the next patch?

Nope, sorry. The Spit only had two-position flaps, with setting of 0 and about 90 degrees. Why do you think the lever in the cockpit isn't more precise? It's only got two positions, down and up. They had to wedge blocks of wood in the Seafire flaps to get a ten or fifteen degree position for carrier takeoffs. I'm quite aware that it's possible to vary the flap position on an axis in the game, I've got an X45 with two rotaries on it so I could quite easily bind flaps to one of them, but I don't want to because I think it's unrealistic.

3dof trackir support
 

Sorry if this has been requested already, are there any plans to implement zoom for trackir?

Im aware there was only to posissions. But you dont have to take them all down or all up. And I dont think its unrealistic. Some have asked for a button for auto trim the aircraft. That deffently unrealistic and arcade. Not haveing 6dof is unrealistic. And a lot more cut be mention.

Its not that I personaly have problems if they remove it. I simply just disagree. Im not even fly the spit very often and when I do I never use the flaps. Only on landing.

~S~

That's exactly what two positions means! You can only place the flaps in two positions, fully up, or fully down. If you know how they worked, you can see this. You push the switch down, and a pneumatic ram pushes the flaps FULLY down, you have no choice about how far. You move it back up, and springs pull them back in with the assistance of the airflow around the aircraft.
Using the flaps in an intermediate position can give you a turning advantage in game that those aircraft should not have - THAT'S why it's unrealistic.
And I fly Spits usually, so I'm not just whining because I get out-turned by it all the time or something.

IIRC it was 8 degrees, but could indeed have been 10 or 15



it was not for Seafires, it was for Spitfires that were being flown off aircraft carriers to reinforce malta

they needed the flaps to cope with the take offs carrying the 90 gallon slipper tanks...that much tankage was required so the carrier and support vessels would not get too close to the danger around Malta :)

Even the Seafires only had two-position flaps up until very late on, IIRC. You're right, though, they did the same to fly them off HMS Eagle to Malta.

Salutes all!
I just would like to ask the team Daidalos if they feel any urgency in the work they are doing now.

Do you?

Things like the 6DoF and the "new ZUTI´s world" scenario possibilities among others are of a great importance.

From my point of view the community will evolve in three main species.
- MODs, just MOS, more MOD, MODs, MODS,... or Do you want me to pay for a Patch?
- No mods, what for MODS?, what is MODS?, MODS who... or How much?
- Double installation, the best of two worlds or please not too much?

My special interest is in this last group. Hopefully it would be dominant and more significant of all three.
But who is going to get first there?
Team Daidalos and its new official patch with the critical really big improvements or the “mega super uber hyper
unified MOD extra pack XUA24.0.5”?
Who is going to set up the new standard?
Who is going to get the big chunk?

And here is where I would like to introduce an economic term “the cost of quality” please do not mistake with
"the cost of poor quality".
As important as quality is, there is a point where to maintain or increase the inversion in quality is not economically
justified by the obtained results. Time is gold.

This of course would apply to many other things, some of them even within this forum.

Regards Majo.

Users set up the standards based on their personal characteristics and preferences. Some prefer more quantity and less accuracy, other need just the opposite. You are one to choose, not us. If the IL-2 community respected the official developer of the sim, there would only 1 standard today - the closed official version 4.08 or 4.09. IL-2 was never intended as an open-architecture sim, no matter how many pro or con arguments there might be. The reality is different now, but please do not put us into the position to compete with the mods. It was never our intention.

Time is always an issue in everything but not because of your reason who gets "there" first.

I wouldn't nessesarily call modding Il2 disrespectful to Oleg, because everyone creating mods acknowledges that their work is merely building on what Oleg has already done.

Even Oleg himself has acknowledged that some of the Mods do thing he would have liked to do but did not have the time to do before Maddox Games discontinued support for Il2.

David,it's hard to see the logic behind your words and their connection with the topic here.
Martin pointed out very well in pure English that DT's objective is not (and never have been) to compete with the mods.

I think here you are missing the boat by some inches... The moding community is competing with you... either by collective "free will" or not. A sign of it? Think how long it took to major mod packs to include 4.09final.

Ghandi had a saying...

First they ignore you... then they fight you... then you win.

Many simmers were against moding at first and passed through the same stages... now is your turn.
You are trying desperately to ignore them but, before you launch the new uber duper patch with triggers and the rest "announced but is not sure it will be included" (the old story) ZUTI's MDS will be far away. And guess what... when triggers do come into view by a royal patch... they will be cannibalized and modified and improved cause this is what "open source is" and this is how a distributed system work.

Then you will fight them... and eventually out of resources...

Like it or not... IL2 is almost open source... intended or not. You have your chance to collaborate and help IL-2 be better in this "brave new world" or... you can try to obstruct the new normal course and turn your back to what IL-2 fans had worked.

And this discussion is on topic as it is trying to establish your exact attitude in regard of moding community and they workings.

This makes me smile. :)

Everyone is free to discuss their work elsewhere.
As far as it goes to the topic,this thread is named "Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons" on purpose,I think. :)

PS:No hard feelings,since some people tend to think that I speak in offensive manner,my pardons to them.It's the way I speak.

Il 4
 

Hello DT:)

Here such question
One good person undertook creations of a cockpit for Il4

The help is necessary!!! In a type of information, drawings or photos...

Who can help?... A question not only to DT... to all....:)

look at http://forum.aviaskins.com/showthread.php?t=880

may be it will be Authorized Addons with your help

What is it, this 'moding community'? What kind of competition do you mean? What is the prize?

He also said 'Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress.' But what does it have to do with anything?

You're wrong, we're trying to get some good mods into the patch alongside our own work.

Zuti is in Daidalos Team FYI.

That depends... what if the authors decide to protect their work? What will these 'improvers' do about it? Can they do anything on their own? I guess they can. And the ones doing it well are helping us out already. Simple as that.

What do you think we're doing actually? (You see it all in black and white mate... read some more Gandhi please.)

Now this is the question. Unfortunately, majority of the 'MODs' won't meet the standarts set for official contents.

Hi, TD

Are you considering upgrading the LOD models in the game? The current LOD models are too coarse for modern computers. I've heard that the sim uses different models at different distances. The model become less detailed when distance increase and finally become a dot at about 3 km.

And there is an serious bug in such LOD system. The LOD models of some planes appear larger than it should be at the same distance (near 3km) where the models of some other planes are so tiny that it is extremely hard to see.

The most typical examples are Bf 109 and Spitfire. Although spit fire has a much larger wings that 109, it appears much samller at the same distance (even not so great) and is extremely hard to see when it blends into the background.

And it is harder to see dots in gunsight view than in wide view in the game, which is not logical for me. I sincerely hope that you can add more LOD models so that we don't need dots anymore.

BTW, please fix the tracer smoke delay bug in the next patch if possible.

I am not going to get dragged into this discussion any further, but to be honest I don't think we have the attitude here. BTW, do yourself a favour and search for the 4.09 interview on SimHQ to see what Oleg and I have written there regarding what DT intends to do and who is the target "audience". It includes an invitation to those who share the same idea. And as said by Robo there are 3 basic criteria we require from ourselves and others: 1. Historical accuracy, 2. following tech. and quality specs defined for this sim, 3. content that will not be vetoed by 1C/MG. If many mods don't comply with this, then sorry, it's not our fault.

@Sita: We can give our limited support to the modeller if he contacts us through our email: daidalos.team@gmail.com

@Jermin: We may try looking at LOD switching distances, we would remodel only the critical ones.

Now that's worth of a thousand words ;)

TY

Just watched the videos in the SimHQ interview again and I really can't wait for all those features. Thanks a lot for all your hard work TD!

If the IL-2 community respected the official developer of the sim, there would only 1 standard today - the closed official version 4.08 or 4.09. IL-2 was never intended as an open-architecture sim, no matter how many pro or con arguments there might be.

I was refering to this sentence within the post, not the issue of competing with the mod community. Maybe I should have made this clearer.

DT.... this may sound like a silly request.. but in your next upgrade.. can you drop the X.xxm designation from then on and simply go with X.xx. If my memory serves me correctly the only reason we got the m in the version info in the first place was because initially PF was capable of being run either merged with FB or as a stand alone. That is no longer a consideration ... and now many think that the m means modded.. and there is just a lot of confusion on it.. I know it is a small issue but it is also a very very simple one to adjust.


and .. zaelu.. with all due respect.. is there any benefit at all to be gained from the ongoing "discussion" you are having ie mods/DT? It all seems like a waste of time and totally counterproductive.. IMO solutions and possibilitiesp are far more appropriate for this thread than rehashing old gripes that have been beaten to a pulp already.. and actually rendered moot by the establishment of DT (especially considering some of it's members.. like FC & Zuti .. among them to name a few..) in the first place.. so lets just enjoy the sim we are all so passionate about and continue to contribute to it's ongoing success in whatever way we can.

This sounds great!
As looking at some of the stuff being made as mods, like for example a "new" Luftwaffen pilot, that stuff is just terrible! Who ever calls that progress, is dearly needing a set of glasses and a good look at some books!

I would just like to point out that what (we of the) the modding community is doing is illegal, and whether or not maddox games tacitly tollerates it doesn't give us the right to come here and hassle the team of VOLUNTEERS who have been given ACTUAL approval to work with the game.

I don't know where people like Zaelu get their ideas from, but they have no source in reality.

Bad Aim, spot on mate!