is there a date of release for 4.10 patch, or is still secret :-D

It's great to read the latest update and realise that we are close to having this long-awaited gift from Daidalos Team.

Thank you all for your hard work and dedication.

B.

Nice! Both the 217 and the Cant are big surprises, and welcomed ones. Attaboys.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
Great news!!!!

S!

Looks good! Thanks for the update.

Great update, guys! The Z.1007 is quite a welcome surprise. Which variants of this plane are you developing? Also, are there any plans for a Z.1007 cockpit down the road?

Fafnir_6

The Cant Z.1007 looks a real beauty. Great work with the Dornier too, I look forward to ruining their paintwork with .303s, though no doubt those darned AI gunners will have other ideas.

The Z.1007 fuselage cutaway sure looks to me like work on a cockpit, can we expect the Dornier to be flyable at some point? I know, patience, patience...

GREAT update!

That Do 217 is a very very nice suprise and has got me blowing wolf whistles:grin:

Nice Update.

Though I have to ask, why did you build the Do217K-1?

The K-2 was the version to carry the guided bombs, that is why it got extended wings for example. Additionally it had reward armament of a MG 81Z in the tail that was aimed via a telescopic gunsight like on the Ar234.

On another note, why is the MG in the A-Stand a single MG 81, while it actually was a MG 81Z on both K versions?

There will be 2 versions including K-2. That's why we have called it only "Do 217" in the update.

Fantastic news! Thanks TD. :)

Wow! Splendid! 217 is fantastic! I'll be patient for sure! Thanks for update

Great!It´s not the Do-17Z,but still a Do-17.
Cant 1007 looks gorgeous too.

Thank you for the update! Exactly what I was looking for!

My question was not raised due to the panic, but due to the uncertainty. Are we there yet? Three more months? Now I can see from the schedule that it will take at least month from now, therefore I do not need to nervously check the page every half an hour or so.

If you have a look at the schedule picture, it's quite clear: the delay time is about 1,5 months (means: it would be probably realeased in June). Regarding so many revolutionary contents in this patch, I wouldn't be surprised (and wouldn't mind too) when it takes so long.
A (nasty) joke: Do you think it's purely coincidence that so many MTO aircrafts are included in this patch. There's a rumor that 4.10 will be called "IL-2 Sturmovik: bloody sand of Sicilly" and will be realesed at the 67th anniversary of Operation Husky (10.7.2010)

We’re all looking forward for 4.10!! But give them time to make their job properly… I don’t think you would be happy if they would be missing planes or non working objects in 4.10?!?
Agree with rga, let’s go for 4.10 "IL-2 Sturmovik: bloody sand of Sicilly" ;-)

Whoa, the update's gonna be huge! You have to release it now or you'll have no ideas for 4.11 ;)

Great update with the Dornier and the Cant. I'm just wondering what other surprises we may get before the ultimate release of 4.10

Surprises!!!

What about the basics...?

6DoF
ZUTI's

;) just keeping the pressure.

I would not be anxious for any other patch, but this particullary is awaited a lot cause I would like to experience the new Gs loading and bust tanks in Hs. :twisted:

There are hard times coming for the tanks:evil:

At last Italy is standing a chance in a WWII game...
I hope they also add italian tanks,the Carros Armatos,some ships like Vittorio Veneto,Roma,Andrea Doria,,Aquila,the Maiales.

In which case, and repeating a question in another thread here, will there be a chance of seeing a B-17 or B-24 flyable in one of the future patches, as the addition of a flyable our engine bomber (proven online in some servers) would be a fantastic addition?

Loving the work you are doing for the community, cheers, MP.

In addition to that - proper 3D models of B-17s and B-24s, and the late G models with Cheyenne tail gunner's position?

Please forgive my ignorance, but I do not know what these two terms actually mean. Enlightenment as to what they are and how they can enhance my gaming experience would be appreciated

I think the ZUTI's is in. But we still need the 6 DOF and propper sounds. ;)


But what happent to the tricker effefkt? Is that still on, but in a later patch?


Cheers

6DOF = Six Degrees of Freedom. It's a mod avalable to enable six degrees of freedom in Track Ir

ZUTI = ZUTI's moving dogfight server

Thanks for the update Team Daidalos! No panicking here... just patient waiting and hoping for the best time for the team. The work is truly fantastic! I'll keep saying it because it's true. Really thankful for it!

That would be nice for a Call of Duty United Offensive like mission.
Also,with the multi-position system in multiplayer,flying B-17s against hordes of fighters would be simply awesome.

Thanks for the reply CKY 86. I sort of knew what 6DOF meant, but not that it related to TrackIr.

Disclaimer: Please ignore the Daidalos signature for this post for what I'm going to say is my very personal opinion.

Before anyone should waste a thought about a flyable B-17 or B-24 he should spend them either on a few other types which would be a lot more benfitial to gameplay as a whole (i.e. Blenheim Mk I and Mk IV, Ki-21 and/or Ki-48, B-25C, B-26 or Il-4) or on the right environmental factors that would make such strategic bomber types useful for any player and not just for the DF servers online (such as viewing distances, target categories the engine will understand, AI command and control and AI as a whole) for nothing of that is presently possible in the game. And if you look at what I posted you'll surely see that the latter option is a lot more work than the former, and that is without taking the workload for such a large plane as a B-17 or B-24 into the consideration.

Salute csThor.

Im both a fighter and a bomber pilot. Im aware that a lot of guys are only flying to get a fast and easy kill - like the missions you can get on M4T "2 min to target" But in the same time you are using time and effort to make slow It plane and biplane that have the same effekt. No one fly them. They are fun to try out and are very well done - no quistion there.
What Im asking, when you brought it up yourself is. Why not make those high altitude bombers we have been asking for year after year. Is it becarse you dont want to fly them yourself, or what are holdong you (speaking at the team) back?

We are some (actually a lot)who at least try to do it in a way, the bombers did it. I have been taken Joint Obs ABS3 (Advanced Bomber School) with some realy talent pilots and learned a lot. Good instruktors that have provide us a lot of very usefull knowledge. And Im greatfull for that. But this SIM need high altitude bombers. We have medium and low altitude bombers, but not realy any for high altitude.

Please take this in your thoughts. We actually like flying. Even if it is over a longer stretch.

Cheers

As I said: I do not speak for Daidalos when I say this and I have said this for far longer than Daidalos exists.
I see what is there in Il-2, I see what the engine can and what it can't and I am firmly of the opinion that strategic bombers are better off in the hands of the AI and not worth the considerable effort which could be directed into one or even two projects for tactical bombers. Simply for the fact that we have an engine that lives and breathes for low-altitude frontline air support, which has an issue with map size and viewing distances (both graphics-wise and AI-can-notice-things-wise) and doesn't know fixed structures as targets. There are a lot of things that would have to be redone before high-altitude bombing could be a viable thing in this engine - and I don't mean just online. Offline is as important as online and ignoring the issues an offline player couldn't evade isn't particularly smart in my book.

Please don't tease me with suggestions of the Blenheim... unless you know something we don't. :-P

No, I don't know more. Just my personal opinion.

I fly bombers more than I fly fighters these days... especially online... but csThor makes some extremely valid points that a lot of people like to wave off. The game engine wasn't designed for a great high altitude strategic bombing type of experience. If you wanted to simulate a proper strategic bombing raid from start to finish then there are problems with maps that are too small, fundamental engine issues that make identifying targets at high altitude impossible, and a simple MASSIVE amount of work required to build the internal guts of just one heavy bomber.

Compare a A-20C:
- Pilot position
- Bomb sight position in nose
- Top rear flexible .30cal
- Bomb rear flexible .30cal

So that is four positions that have to be modeled with accuracy.

With a B-17G:
- Pilot position
- Bomb sight position
- Forward turret
- Top turret
- Ball turret
- Rear turret
- Waste positions (2)

Pretty much double the work. Now... I would still LOVE to see a heavy bomber as it would be fun. But the simulation aspect would be somewhat limited by some limitations that cannot be overcome.

I would be perfectly content with some more usable and practical medium bombers. There are great aircraft like the B-25, A-20, G4M, He-111, Ju-88A-4, and Ar-234 which are all great bombers to use and more practical in an online tactical environment. I'm not saying that everyone is like this but I've had some conversations with people who are "demanding" a B-17 but in the meantime refuse to fly great medium bombers on level bombing runs... I don't really get it.

I suppose the solution is this. If someone wants to organize a third party team that would build a B-17 interior to IL-2 specifications I seriously doubt that Team Daidalos would reject such an effort. But in 10 years nobody has done that... not beyond the starting stages anyways. Everyone who has tried has found that the effort is significant.

No prob :)

There are also the basic issues with map size and the altitude cap - which make it hard to simulate late war bombing tactics.

I'd personally love an Il-4. I hadn't taken much notice of it until it was made flyable with a hack and then my opinion of it changed completely.
- It has adequate performance, good handling and the the dorsal and ventral gunners have very good fields of fire (making them among the most effective pre-1942 defensive positions).
- It was also mass produced and has a diverse bombload that is considerably larger than the Pe-2. This adds a lot of capability to the RKKA pilots (as the Pe-2 can't carry much more than an Il-2 in overload).

So, I hope that cockpit gets finished...

With the upcoming intoduction of "The Slot" map being made an official part of IL2/46 we will have a map of the proper proportions to support large bombers. I have been flying on this map for some time using a mod pack and it will change the way people see the sim. Or it should anyway. I have flown multi hour missions on this map in the mod B-17 and H8K "Emily" flying boat. It is a different, and rewarding way to fly.

CS_Thor, overall I agree with you, the smaller and medium bombers should take priority, but the Japanese in particular are very short on bombers of any kind. Making the H8K a flyable would be a good thing for the sim, as it was uesd in every operational area of the Pacifc war, and would help "flesh out" a rather week Imperial Japanese plane set.

The Slot map is a work of art, those of you that have yet to see it will be gob struck.

Well, for as long as I can remember I've been stating how heavy bombers have little place in the sim. IL2, ground attack.....Yet more so in that quite frankly most don't want to fly them as a heavy in that they get flown as strafers or stuka's, and for every 1 person who likes to take the time to get to altitude, fly to the target and saturation bomb, 10 people will take that same aircraft and try to fly it like an IL2.

There comes a point where though every aircraft would be welcome, you need to say "what do we have time for, what fits, and what will mess up the works"......Though heavies would be great, fact of the matter is most simply will not fly them as intended. So it becomes a wasted effort, in fact even harmful to grant the very few what they would make "good" use of.

K2

p.s.....No more fighters.....ground attack is what is needed so the sim can get back to its intentions.

The slot will be a welcome addition to IL2. The way the maps are broken down by time periods during the war is a very excellent idea.

The Navy Seabees were building airbases at a very fast pace. The bases weren't there one day and 40 days later there were huge airbases in place.

I always felt it was so unrealistic flying over airbases that you knew historically did not exist during the time period of your missions.

It's going to be a fun couple months flying the slot and using the nav tools in 4.10.

Although I am a HC bomber pilot and having flyable B-17 in this game would be a blessing, there are several problems with IL2 engine as you say. Having those bombers you mentioned as flyable would be a smart idea to start from if one is to add new planes to the game.

-edited-

Yeah! With some Italian ships and a decent MTO map we could recreate the raid on Tarranto

Fortunately/Unfortunately releasing proper MTO maps is reserved for the first sequel to SoW:BoB.

Dear Team Daidalos,
Will the Slot map included in 4.10 be a series of maps or a single representative map? The first post in this thread has an image showing what I believe to be the Jan '44 version. In my opinion that is the most logical and most versatile of the set if one is to be chosen. I had assumed there would be one Slot map but Nearmiss got me wondering if there is one Slot map or a set broken down by time period?

All maps versions will be included.

Most likely there will be six different versions from Aug '42 to Jan '44.

That was a fast reply. Thank you.

But the game focus isn´t only on Battle of Britain?

No and this has been known for at least a couple of years. After Storm of War (which is focused on the Battle of Britain) is finished they will be working on a content package for North Africa and presumably beyond that. It can't stay at the Battle of Britain for too long or people will probably start to get bored... introduce something that has never been properly done like North Africa into the mix and things get interesting.

I'm also looking forward to more high fidelity East and West fronts later on.

I would like to ask a question about new g loading limits in 4.10: All fighters with no bombs, no rockets and no fuel tank ll have the same structural g loading in service limits, i mean 8G? Or this structural limit ll vary from aircraft to aircraft based on its project? For example, russian and japanese fighters wooden builded ll have minor structural in service limits?

There ll be some kind of reference where i ll known about my aircraft limits? Thank you!

Were many WWII Japanese aircraft of wooden construction?

In any case, aircraft are designed to known G limits, and I know of no evidence that these G limits were typically different for wooden aircraft than for metal ones of a similar type. Ideally, TD should probably work with the known G limits for a type, but this may not always be available. Where they aren't, suggesting that 'it's wooden, so it must be weaker' is based on a dubious premise at best.

For SaQSoN
 

So, now I was can support more correctly my claim about wood and metal construction difference. I was find in the Internet the reference book by plane calculation on strength. This book is in Russian ( I was hope you can translate it ;)) printed at 1954 the state publishing house of the defensive industry, Moscow and called "Plane calculation on strength". Here is a link to this book http://www.vokb-la.spb.ru/contents/46/index.html . Book included tons of formulas for plane metal and wood constructions calculation and have a strength tables of different materials used in aviation industry. Of course all this formulas isn't real using in game, but may be you can find here some interesting features, what can be included in future patches. And thank DT for yours fantastic work.

Well,except from the maps,can we still have a taste of Italy in IL2?

Some Metal plates, like an aluminium plate has more ductility than wood. Ductility is a mechanical property used to describe the extent to which materials can be deformed plastically without fracture. Ductility is especially important in metalworking, as materials that crack or break under stress cannot be manipulated using metal forming processes

If aluminium plates deforms due to excessive forms it returns to its natural position in most times or smashes. Wood not, it brokes.

If aluminium is not better, what was the advantage to use expensive aluminium plates instead wood? Was better to build wooden aircraft if aluminium was not expensive?

They used wood cause aluminium was expensive or not available in quantity in some countries.

Simply referring to 'wood' or 'metal' is almost meaningless. Aircraft are bulit out of specified materials, not vague descriptions. Which would work better, a longbow built out of yew, or one made out of cast iron?

If you deform a material beyond its elastic limit, it deforms. Aircraft designers know this, and design accordingly.

I suggest you do a little research into structual engineering in general, and aircraft design in particular, before you make any more sweeping statements of the relative benefits of wood vs metal construction.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ito_600pix.jpg

Ok mr. knowns all, may it is better to build in wood. Aluminium has no advantage and is expesinve...:rolleyes: and mosquisto was not made for hard manouvering or high gs, but for speed.

It is certain that wooden construction is lighter, and allows more acelleration. But linear acellaration or level speed has nothing with structural resistance.

Post this photo is the same to say, in actual context, that mosquito wooden construction allowed it hard manouvering. May you ll post a Zero photo. Yes Zero wooden construction allowed it good manouvering, but only at lower speeds, this mean less gs. All question is about gs.

Yes i ll study more about structural resistance, and you? There is a great chance that both are wrong. Hehe...

And i asked to TEAM Daidalos guys not you, they are studying to model the planes. If they say that i am completely wrong i accept.

I'm not saying that 'metal' or 'wood' are better, I'm saying that you need to be specific about the materials you are talking about before you can make comparisons. You also need to undertand that aircraft are designed to withstand known loads, not thrown together with whatever material is available. I'm sure TD know this, and don't need vague generalisations to decide on structural strength modelling and G limits.

Do you have any evidence that the DH Mosquito was designed to lower G-loading standards than similar metal-construction aircraft? If you do, I'd like to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cb6SmK_c2g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIbcU8CNY90


If you double click on the 2nd video it will take you to the videos. I only posted a link to the 1 of 5

Nice vids.

An airccraft built to an 8 G structural limit is built to take that amount of stress, no matter if it is wood, aluminum or paper.

A wooden aircraft can be built to take the same G loading as a metal one, but typically the metal (aluminum) one will be of lighter weight, and have better protection from environmentl degredation.

But like I said, an 8 G airplane is an 8 G airplane, regardless of construction material.

And no, the Japanese did not build many wooden combat aircraft at all.

None of the major types were.

One must, it appears, use caution in disparaging wooden aircraft when there are Brits around. :)

I must point out also that the Zero did have a wooden radio mast.

Nice Vids Nearmiss. There is little doubt that the Mossie is one of the most beautiful and versatile aircraft to come out of WWII, unless of course your a WWII German intent an a nice quiet unmolested occupation of Europe. It might not be so impressive then.

If you want to see an excellent fighter made of wood...note the sentence where it says "The two wing spars were redesigned to withstand a higher safety factor of 10 versus 8."
Or from the fantastic Hornet & Sea Hornet construction website:
"The difficulty was increased by the fact that a safety factor of 10 was needed, a requirement that could not be met by the construction used in the Mosquito (which had a factor of 8 ) owing to the bulk of the additional material that would be needed to give the greater strength. At the same time, in order to avoid a complete changeover of production technique with consequent reorganization and inevitable delays in the shops, it was desired to make use of the Mosquito type of construction to as great an extent as possible.
The outcome of these conflicting requirements is a wing structure based upon the general principle of using metal to carry tensile loads and wood for compression and shear stresses."
Aircraft are designed to meet a particular safety factor, it's not that one material is better or worse, it's just a matter of finding the right materials for the right areas. Wood is better at compressive and aluminium better at tensile loads. Note how the lower wing and aileron skins are made of Alclad and how the tail section is all-metal, yet the remainder of the aircraft is largely of balsa-plywood sandwich construction.

You are right. 8G plane is 8G plane and not important is it a wood or metal, if you flying with recommended limitation. But situation was changed, if you for example, drop bombs in diving or have a bullet damages. In this case your plane material of strengths is very important, because earlier collapsed wood construction. Wood is fragile material and under overpressure it breaking. Metal is a viscous material and it was deformed, but not breaking. For example, Ju-88 has a full metal construction, but in real life doesn't used like a diving bomber, because its construction deformed after short time. If Ju-88 has a wood construction, he was be a single time diving bomber :D.

Ok. Reformulating question! Will it all fighter aircraft with standard loadouts have the same g loading limits or will it differ based in its "overall" structure and construction in new 4.10?

I not sayed nothing about materials anymore.

This simply isn't true, Adwark. Or at least, it isn't true in the context of aircraft construction. If you overstress an airframe it may deform, or it may break up, depending on the particular circumstances, but there is nothing inherent in the properties of a properly-designed wooden structure that makes break-up more likely. In fact a properly-bonded wooden structure may do better than a rivited metal airframe in this context.

Modern aircraft construction is making increasing use of composites, which have more in common with wood in terms of structural properties than they do with metals - wood is a 'natural composite', the result of millions of years of natural selection.

As for wood being 'a fragile material', have you ever seen what happens if you drive a car into a tree?

It seems to me, from all the posts on this subject that I have seen, that each aircraft will have it's own unique G limit, based upon it's real life value, and that this limit will vary according to wether the aircraft is loaded with various amounts of ordnance or is unloaded

Can you show me please source where this is written?

You was right about present time composite materials. But I was speaking about WW2 aircrafts and materials. Please read my post #774. I was only doesn't know is exist equal book in English.

Aircrafts wasn't a trees. They are flying. :)

It is you that is making a claim about the relative structural properties of materials, Adwark, so the burden of proof is really on you. I realise you have given us a link to a Russian source, but without being able to read it, I can't really comment on what it says - in any case, a debate like this is unlikely to be settled by reference to a single source.

Aircraft design is a complex process, and involves amongst other things a good understanding of the properties of the particular materials involved. Simply comparing 'wood' to 'metal' and making statements about how 'fragile' they are is pointless in this context - you need to refer to particular materials, in the situation they are being used. Generalisations tell us little.

Yes this is Russian aviation engineers handbook printed at 1954. I was written about it. I agree, if you can't read it, our debate about this book is pointless and we are return to our old positions. Sorry, but I hasn't equal source in English. If I was find something like this in English, I was be glad continue or debate.

I've had a quick look at what Google Translate makes of the book, and it may at least give me an idea of what it is saying. I'm sure there must be other sources for information like this, written in English - I'll see what I can find.

EDIT-------
Unfortunately, on downloading the book I find that it is a scanned image, rather than text, so Google Translate is no help. The file also seems to be corrupted, rendering many pages unreadable. :(

Ok... But, where are the DT guys to anwser my last question about in game g loadings? :evil:

Please, call them to answer!

Hopefully busy testing :)

I think they have probably answered your question already, at the beginning of this thread:
"Each aircraft has been given a unique Structural G profile for Ultimate load, In service limit, and dynamic Weight based limits "

Is Daidalos Team only working on planes,physics and maps are you planning to add ground objects and vehicles?

wow ... do the threads here get off topic or what :D Maybe start a new topic to avoid the thread getting hijacked guys.

Aside from anything else their may be other people with knowledge on specialized topics that would contribute if it was a separate thread :D


Not to matter ... one question i have ... when/where can we get a hold of the voids or skin templates for the new aircraft ?

Here is two links http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Im...oFB6Manual.pdf see chapter 52.

Second http://books.google.lv/books?id=Sfwq...ations&f=false .

Both in English.

Team Daidalos, will the trigger functionality be available in patch 4.10 or in future patches?

Thanks for your hard work.

Hi, will the multi crew option also make it possible for players to join an other player in a single seat aircraft?
(with the joining player only being able to view)

Yes, but you are comparing the P-51 to the Mosquito. I Asked for "evidence that the DH Mosquito was designed to lower G-loading standards than similar metal-construction aircraft". I don't see how a single seater fighter can be 'similar" to a twin engined bomber/night fighter in this context.

I can't see any stated G-load limitations in the Mosquito document anyway, so this doesn't really help.

May you have to post a P-38 or ME-110 manual to solve the match. I think P-38 "twin tailed devil" it is a superb twin engine fighter, and i guess it is mainly metal construction. I guess that it would not fly as it flied if it was mainly wood construction.

Take a P-38 Manual and post here guys. I did not read it before, take a look friends:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/oth...ges-20445.html

What makes you think using wood results in lower performance? Why do you think its worse? FW190, late Bf109s as well as most Russian aircraft, including IL-2s, had wood in them. So did the Mosquito. Ta-154, He-162, La-7, anyone?

If an aircraft can tolerate 8G then it can tolerate the 8G no matter what its constructed of.

Also if a wooden construction is slightly overstressed it bends and gets back to its original form.
A metal structure, connected by rivets, starts to bend and by that the rivets become a bit more loose.
That weakens the construction quite a bit! A metal construction doesn't forget stresses!

more knowledge than the aircraft engineers that made these things?

Ernst, I can see no point in even attempting to correct your misunderstanding of what is under discussion here. If you want to contribute anything useful, I suggest you study a little about the subject first, rather than making ridiculous claims based on balsa-wood and the carbon content of aluminium alloys.

As far as I'm concerned, unless somone can come up with meaningful comparative G-load figures, the topic is closed.

I really, really like the personal plane lists idea! I really only fly a small subset of planes, and most of them are far down the list (i.e. Hurricane Mk.I). This is going to make my life a lot simpler!

http://faa-engineers.com/~mjgundry/b...alculation.pdf
"V Speed Determination for RW-11" The RW-11 seems to be an "Easy to build replica of the [Piper] Vagabond." What has this got to do with anything? No mention of G limits anyway.

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/dat...t_23-appA.html
Modern FAA regulations for a particular class of light aircraft - no mention of materials used - irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

Posting random off-topic articles is no way to settle anything. I'm going to ignore any further comments/links from you, unless someone else thinks they are worth considering.

doubtful. i know near bugger all about that kind of stuff, and his posts read like nonsense.

AndyJWest you was misunderstand me. I wasn't compared P-51 and DH Mosquito. You was right, it isn't similar. I was only illustrated a metal and a wood constructions limitations. G limit is a "IL-2 Sturmovik" game feature, who simplify simulated a forces has affected flying aircraft. The game wood construction strengthen can be stronger like metal. Flaying limitations in P-51 and Mosquito pilot manuals is a G limit. Sorry, but I hasn't real aircrafts G limit comparison tables. We can compared only flaying limitations in pilots manuals or calculate and compared aircraft strength in different flying modes, but this is a hard work.:) So, let's look in pilot manual, Mosquito hasn't a diving limitation. P-51 has and can diving beyond 75% of the speed of sound.
Question: Is it meaning, Mosquito is stronger like P-51? Why DH Mosquito hasn't diving limitation, but P-51 has? Is it meaning, fully loaded real DH Mosquito can diving without limits?
The game Mosquito can. Is it right?

Huh. You know some builders in my town thinking like you. You know what happened with them? They are in jail now. They took off ceiling general support pylons and wood covering little bit overstressed and broken down. 3 peoples was killed. Is ceiling has a metal rails covering 3 peoples doesn't die. Its only sagging, but not breaking. That is wood and metal constructions difference. Wood is wood, metal is metal. Thats not important where are you used it.

In the context where i posted this its meant a SLIGHT overstress, say 5 to 10 %, for a short period of time, say 5 to 10 seconds,
as one might expect in a break turn or a pull-out.
That is a unintentional overstressing.
I believe what you wanted to say is that someone was building a roof not acoording to the expected loads,
well, thats intentional and really doesn't reflect the situation that i pictured.
Anyway, that a metal construction only sags if overstressed to the same degree as a wooden construction is very hypothetical and hard to prove.

Stress and strength
 

To stop this pointless discussion about wood vs metal:

For any mechanical engineer it is absolutely obvious, that if an object is properly designed to withstand a certain load, it will withstand it, no matter which material it was designed and built from - wood, steel, aluminum or even $hit. Offcourse, each material has it's limits and for certain tasks some of them aren't applicable at all. Like, you can build a plane from wood or metal, but you can not build it from a $hit, though you can build, say, a house from any of the listed materials.

So, the final point is, if, for instance, we have two wing spars, one of them was designed and built from wood and the other one - from a metal and both are supposed to withstand 8G, they both will do it absolutely equally. Period, nothing to talk about any longer.

About fatigue. Again, no reason to even take it into account, because material fatigue is a rather continuous process, it is generally impossible to reach a dangerous level of it during one mission, unless the airframe does not experience flatter (damage from which is modeled in the game). And, as we all know, the every next mission we fly in a factory-new airplane, which does not have any fatigue or other damage accumulated yet - that's the game limitation. It does not have any mean to transfer your plane state from mission to mission. Hence, no reason to model fatigue. And discuss it in relation to the IL-2 either.

That's all, folks.

Well said. I would have posted something like that myself but I just didn't bother. People posting incorrect stuff about that lack technical education IMO.

Maybe SoW will have such a feature, to simulate fatigue over continuous period of missions...

I have a question regarding the G limit, too. Nothing technical in nature though, rather something to ease tensions with this new feature.

Will there be a HUD message that will display current Gs? I think this would help people a great deal to adjust their flying accordingly. If I'm not mistaken something like that could be seen in the video that came with the dev. update for the G limitations.

Good point and good idea!!
HUD G meter will be needed

You already have two G meters on either side of the cockpit.

Just ask any P51 pilot.

Offline, you can get 'G' via DeviceLink with external software (the documentation calls it 'overload', but it definitely correlates with G).

Other than that, you'll have to rely on experience, like real pilots of the time did - though they probably only got it wrong once...

Agreed with you but it's just to familiarize with this new feature and to understand the new aircraft's limits