Didn't they say there would be sound effects to give you an audio clue that your plane was experiencing airframe stress?

LOL. Good point. If the guys who ACTUALLY did this stuff were able to fly 134,316 hours and survive 34,945 deaths, then they would have 47,892 kills too.

yup!

Just a question, can you actually hear stuff when your blacking out or does the lack of blood to the brain deaden the auditory sense too?

cheers!

As far as I can remember first you lose sight, then hearing. Hearing even works after loss of consciousness.

My own experience has been that I tend to lose vision first (grey out), then hearing. I've never blacked out (unconscious), but if hearing worked after loss of consciousness, how on earth would you know?

It would be nice if DT could get rid of the red hue when flying at -1 or -2G, not realistic at all for a pilot accustomed to flying inverted.

If you heard anything, I suspect that it would be at the very last moment as the spar cap buckled, i.e: too late.

W.

I guess you can hear things,but can´t remember of that?

They are right with black out, first vision, don`t compare it with a knock out.. all at the same time... bye bye ;)

Mine was to lose color first (see the world in grey and white), then peripheral sight. Didn't go further. +1 for the -1G/2G red.

I have only one question
which will be released first
SOW or patch 4.10 ??

Patch 4.10 will be released first:grin:

two weeks:grin:

Be sure!!!!

:)

Guess we deserved that one... :)

How is the beta testing doing at least? :)

We are going to explain the current status of patch development most likely within the next week.

Can the Bv 246 "Hagelkorn" gliding bomb be added to 4.10, or is it too late for 4.10?
I would appreciate that very much if it could be added to 4.10.
A few pictures:
http://users.atw.hu/priskos/Alakulat...elkorn_350.jpg

http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=h...26tbs%3Disch:1

@Daniel

it seems to me that there will be NO additions to something thats already in the beta-testing phase!!!

sometimes wishes have to regard reality.

this last post was in January....?

is 4.10 going to happen before SoW - and are there any updates / screenshots ?

will there be new Pacific content in 4.10 - carriers, Avengers etc...

Have you read what TD say is going to be in the next patch? Are you expecting them to include stuff they haven't already told us about? Do you actually expect after the endless discussion of the 'Grumman issue' and TD saying they can't risk getting involved, that they are going to give us a flyable Avenger?

Just what exactly about TD is it that people don't understand? It is quite simple: (a) they are doing this in their spare time, with limited resources, (b) they hoped to have the next patch released by now, but are still beta-testing, and (c) YOU CAN'T ADD NEW THINGS TO A BETA TEST - if you do, it isn't beta testing at all. First, you design and test components seperately, and when they are ready, you beta-test to ensure they all work together. If you add something new you have to restart beta-testing from scratch.

To summarise: (A) Is 'x' included? - No, unless either they have already said it is, or they are planning to surprise us (in which case they won't let on now), and (B) 'Can you include 'y'? - No, not unless they already have.

See page one for the latest update and a list of announced upgrades in the 4.10 patch.

SoW is rumored to be out in Oct?? and 4.10 was expected by easter prior to the delay in beta testing. If you look on the last page, you'll see that DT is planning to issue an announcement concerning the delay. Patience :)

No carriers or flyable Avengers have been announced (you never know) for 4.10. You could go here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=8815&page=122 and request those things..respectfully...and perhaps you will be rewarded.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

how many updates is team daidalos going to do for IL2? and when are they going to stop? when will it all end.

The planning goes to patch 4.13 (june 2011). See 4.10 patch overview first picture at the beginning of this topic.

Again (for the umpteenth time):

There won't be a flyable Avenger from Daidalos for we are subject to the same limitations as Maddox Games WRT to "the Grumman incident". We can modify what is there - texture, FM, probably weapons package etc - but we will not make a type flyable that is touched by "the Grumman incident".

Thank you for your patience, Thor.:-)

I think that we have enough flyable planes to make any conceivable campaign or mission, save for the heavy bomber, that are ill suited for the game engine. I feel that we actually need some more AI types. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but AI types are much less complicated to do than flyable ones. If – just an educated guess – four AI types require as much work as a single flyable, I would surely choose the four AIs. An example: instead of the G**m**n A**n**r, I would prefer the complete series of Navy types on carrier deck: Devastator and Vindicator for early war years (needed to recreate Midway) and Helldiver for late war years (needed to recreate the Leyte Gulf battle). I repeat: AI only!

But, of course, to ask is easy, and we must be grateful to DT for anything they had done and will do in future!

Leaving the NG planes outside, there is still enough room for pacific content.
There will be nothing in 4.10 though, but DT is aware and has the oppinion, that the PTO is underdeveloped, compared to other theatres in game. We already are working on such content, there is no defined content list yet.

I think this will get interesting after 4.10 release.

Damn,chill out.
You don´t need to harass new members because they don´t know what´s happening here.

@bf-110

Nobody has to feel harassed, but any new member should be so polite and read the thread before asking questions already answered or self-explanatory.

Thank you Caspar for mentioning the Pacific.

There is a wealth of things that could be done in this theater that won't touch the Grumman problem.

Mostly maps. I know the wonderful Slot map is coming. A good start as it is a beautiful map. I'm sure you are aware of the NGNB map that is in process. Another beautiful piece of work. Hopefully it too will make some future official release.

Another suggestion is a map of operations in China. An almost totally forgotten battle. It would fill a huge gap in combat simulation.

I will only suggest two aircraft for the Allies and the Imperial Japanese. All of which present no corporate issues.

Curtiss P40 N Warhawk. The highest performing, most produced version of the Hawk 87 series. It was widely used throughout the Pacific/CBI areas of operation.

Curtiss Helldiver. Though much maligned early on, it became a workhorse of the USN.

Nakajima Ki44 Shoki. Seen thoughout the Western areas and in China. A bit of variety for the middle war period.

Mitsubishi Ki51 "Sonia". A very widely used single engne, fixed gear, Army two seat attack aircraft. Seen anywhere the Imperial Army operated. Would give the IJA a much needed attack type.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for all your hard work.

I'd love to see that happen. CBI theater has so little representation anywhere and it would be fairly "easy" to set something up there and expand the gameplay area significantly.

Agree,along Ki-67,D4Y,G3M and Ki-45.For China,P-43 would come in handy.

Hello TD. I have eagerly watched the news re. patch 4.10. I saw that there was to be an update to QMB which is great news.

Can I ask, will it be possible to choose any map that is available in FMB, as a map to use in QMB?

So, in the drop-down which currently has about 5 maps (ish) Crimea, Moscow, Okinawa, etc,etc, will it be possible to choose any map?

Secondly, are there any new maps being added in patch 4.10 that are currently not available in 4.09m (official).

Cheers, MP

to add a map available in the FMB to the QMB templates for the quickmissions have to be made...........................................its not only copy and paste.

as already mentioned in the updates, in 4.10 a "Slot" map(from Guadalcanal up to Bougainville)will be included.

a flyable D4Y2 would be my favorite , that the japanese Navy would get a little bit more punch (AFAIK able to carry a 500kg bomb....) in the 1944 marianes campaign launched from carriers :D

the Heldiver would be a locigal AdOn, so both Navies would have the early war Divebomber and the late war divebomber as flyable - but actually not soo much needed as the USN has their heavy loaded fighterbombers available ;)

as the Avenger will never be flyable :( , the japanese B5N&B6N also should stay AI - unfortunatly

my late war favorite would be a flyable Ki-67 bomber, usefull for Okinawa, Kyushu and Manchirua maps :)

Looks like we can sum up all request easily to DT: would you please add all aircraft flown operationally in WWII? All flyable, of course...:rolleyes:

In my opinion, the problem is on carrier deck. As you fly missions from any land base, it’s not an historical issue if some type is missing. I like the B26, but if I’m operating from an MTO airfield and I’m escorting (or attacking) B25 only, well, it can be. But on the confined space of any US carrier the situation is different. In the early war years, you should always see Devastators, and Vindicators in many cases. In late war years you’ll always see Helldivers. Of course, the same can be said for IJN carriers. Here you should see B6N, D4Y and late type Vals.

Daidalus Team is doing a tremendous amount of work, but we should be realistic in our requests. In my opinion, an effort in updating Pacific Theatre should concentrate on carriers. Six new aircraft types are a lot of work, and I believe that accepting these as AI only could reduce the workload to a manageable level and deliver a complete package for very interesting mission building based on historical battles.

So, this is my question for DT: generally speaking, how an AI aircraft compares to a flyable one in time to completion? I understand that there are many variables, but a good cockpit is a complex thing, perhaps more than a whole new aircraft, to say nothing of the necessary research in performances and handling.

you need for a cockpit 2-3 times the time as for the external 3D/texture modell.....in general.

and making the external is much more fun i guess ;)


any wish for a flyable multicrew bomber, like my dream of a Ki-67 , is a pure dream and will most propably stay one - i know that.


a "carrier concentrated" update in 4.11 or even 4.12 ( :D ) would be realy nice , not only for the USN and IJN, also for the RN - having the AIs Swordfish and Fulamr of 4.10 in my mind.


and not to forgett , TD is thinking about to overwork the midwar channel fighters series - the Spit V, IX, 109 and 190.
IF they dont stop the work for IL2 and wont change to SoW too fast they are SURE not out of ideas for the il2 future.
anyway, its true, this topic is about 4.10 - so any further speculation should stop. they already claimed a lot of changes comming in 4.10 :)

I never made an complete external model yet, I just made cockpits. I could easily do a cockpit in 4 weeks. But in the current status of my life I need ~3 months for one for DT.

From what I saw about externals I indeed think, that both is quite equal in work ammount, but different in kind of work. And I also think, that most of the external work (namely everything else than LoD00) is quite boring and sometimes annoying to do, while a cockpit stays intersting as you get it to know with each part you add. :)

Of course I would be interested in doing an external too, but for now I started with a ship external. ;D

true, i forgott the LODs - indeed , THAT most be a annoying work......................

Thank you, Caspar and Frankyboy for your reply. And you’re right: this is now off topic. My mistake. Next post will be in the proper thread (funny: it was started by me six months ago...). Since I have more curiosity on the flyable-AI matter, I’ll go on there.

A p.s. for moderators: perhaps these last posts may be moved in the other thread...

May 10, will you need more " Olegian two weeks" for release?;) No problem, our friends here are patient. Are not, folks? Hehehe... :twisted:

well, Oleg and team got money for their work, TD not...........................................

There must be some way to bypass this rule. Maybe alter the code to accept just one specific "unofficial" add-on? Can we have Grumman Avengers if they are not called by that name, but rather something similar like "Gorman Attackers"? If I'm not mistaken, the Brits called it "Tarpon" and were modified by the Blackburn company, which may be an adequate change. (ie "Blackburn Tarpon"). What about examples produced by GM (General Motors)? They are currently used as fire-fighting aircraft in Canada, which may provide some loophole? Is a written petition asking for permission to add pits still out of the question?

I'm just throwing some ideas up here, don't take it the wrong way :-P

That's a terrible idea! :eek: The aircraft are totally different anyway! The Japanese currently don't have anything comparable to the Beaufighter for instance. I'm glad that didn't have to stay AI.

As I understand it, there is no 'rule'. It seems quite likely that if it ever came to court, Grumman would lose. That isn't the problem though. Grumman threatened to sue, and Ubi/1C:Maddox couldn't afford to take the risk, so they apparently came to an agreement with Grumman. Since this agreement presumably still stands, trying to find a way around it risks ending up back in the original situation, and it makes no business sense at all to take the risk now if it wasn't worth taking to start with.

Without knowing exactly what was agreed, speculating about ways around it is fairly pointless. Both 1C:Maddox and TD have made their positions clear though - no new Grumman products in the sim.

Hum,perharps,a naval update (what if Graf Zeppelin and Bf-109T would be added?),a night fighters update (planes with radar,P-61,british medium and heavy bombers,like Wellinton,Lancaster) and an early war update (France and Poland),and maybe a ground objets update (ships,tanks,arty,maps).

No P61 is possible, it's part of Northrop Grumman you know.

Sh...you right...
Is there any other similar fighter for USAF?

YES i like much the P61 is multirole airplane bomber-recognition-fighter anti sommerigible FANTASTICK the p61.
P61 BLACK WIDOW is good NIGHT FIGHTER.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtom7c1rkn8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny-fr...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhxfu...eature=related

You guys should get paid for this sh**!! It takes a lot of dedication to come up with all of this.

Fearfactor

Speculating and ranting about money for addons and stuff is just so much more of what we have all read 1,000s of times in previoius postings.

Remember, Ubisoft is still in the loop for IL2 distribution and there might not be a workaround for add-ons without Ubisoft participation.

Afterall, paid for add-ons were retail shelf items for IL2 as it progressed over the years.

Patches were free download items

P-70 :

"In October 1940, the USAAC felt a need for long-range fighters more than attack bombers, so some of the production run of A-20s were converted to P-70 and P-70A night-fighters. They were equipped with SCR-540 radar (a copy of British AI Mk IV), the glazed nose often painted black to reduce glare and hide the details of the radar set, and had four 20 mm (.79 in) forward-firing cannon in a ventral bomb bay tray. Further P-70 variants were produced from A-20C, G and J variants. The singular airframe P-70B-1 (converted from an A-20G) and subsequent P-70B-2s (converted from A-20Gs and Js) had American centimetric radar (SCR-720 or SCR-729) fitted. The P-70s and P-70As saw combat ONLY in the Pacific during World War II and only with the USAAF. The P-70B-1 and P-70B-2 aircraft never saw combat but served as night fighter aircrew trainers in the US in Florida and later in California. All P-70s were retired from service by 1945."

Hi all!!!
in reference to G structural limits modded in 4.10m, I understand that each plane got his own... or is a generic value for bombers/heavy fighters/fighters?.

In my opinion, will be great if we can see in advance one list with all the planes and its structural G limits, becouse this factor will change the way of fight of all IL2 pilots

thanks Daidalos for such ammount of work :)

TD, do find a way to lock the stock FM, if not the entire game. That's my only request for 4.10 now.

Which part of: "Each aircraft has been given a unique Structural G profile for Ultimate load, In service limit, and dynamic Weight based limits." you do not understand?

plz read my post to the end before reply. Im asking for a list of Il2 planes with the structural limits

In my part of the world questions usually end with a question mark.
1. You have asked whether the limits are individual or not - this I have answered.
2. Then you have expressed a wish about having the list - this is something for TD to answer.

perhaps wait for the 4.10 readme ...............

update for the lazy
 

I just registered on this site today and found this site from MT4,
Without having to read the some 86 pages of threads, does anyone on this forum have any clue as to what month 4.10 will be ready for download?

Looking the patch release schedule calendar I found on M4T 4.10 patch update thread - the team working on the update patches should be half way into the 4.11 by now.

I see threads about "money for add-ons" Is team daidalos short of funds?

If that's the case something could be arranged.

thanks very much

<-

Well,I don´t understand either the common rants like contributions for TD,G limits,wood planes...

:rolleyes:

I hope you've heard of something called "difficulty option". It lets the player choose certain features to be on or off to change the difficulty and tailor the playing experience to his own wishes.

DEDICATED TO DAIDALOS TEAM, AND 1C COMPANY.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSItvCvQQ2Y

NOTE: in this list missing ITALIAN HEAVY BOMBER PIAGGIO P 108.

The list is both interesting and funny.

The Avro Manchester is listed as a medium bomber (it was dimensionally identical to the Lancaster and employed in the strategic bomber role, as the Wellington and Whitley). The FW200 is listed as a strategic bomber (it was a reconnaissance and patrol bomber).

Many types were never used operationally (like the He100) or were used only as second line types (like the He51). The American list includes the YP59 (never operational) but lacks the P35 and P43 (briefly operational).

Twin-engined Whirlwind is correctly listed as “fighter”, but Me262 and Meteor are oddly in the “heavy fighters” list, which includes a pure bomber like the Breguet 693 (695 actually portrayed)... The American torpedo bombers list includes the SBC (second line only) and lacks the Devastator...

A Latecoere floatplane is included in the attack-light bomber list, while the Blenheim, Pe2 and Wellesley are listed as medium bombers, alongside the Albemarle glider tug.

The Focke Wulf FW58 trainer is listed as a transport, while the Norseman transport is listed as a reconnaissance type...:)
The Andrews sister are great, of course!

I don’t want to appear rude with Xilon, and apologize for any involuntary sarcasm. His list has surely a merit: it helps visualize easily the raw number of aircraft operated by the combatants in WWII. Now, there’s nothing wrong in asking for a Meteor, and even less if a member of Daidalos Team has his own favourite plane and makes it a flyable addition even if it’s a minor or irrelevant type. But when we talk of the whole Il2 as a WWII sim, we should consider the whole picture.

American bombers in the Pacific offer a classic example: two types were used operationally against Japan, the B29 and the B32, but 99,999% of sorties were flown by B29, the B32 contribution to war effort being absolutely irrelevant. Now, look at the list of planes presently available, both AI and flyable. I don’t have precise numbers (probably nobody can have them), but my feeling is that our available planes cover more than 70% of total combat missions flown, and most of the remaining were probably flown by British night bombers. So, if we look at the relevant combat planes only, the list of types needed is really short (in my opinion).
American types: B26 Marauder and SB2C Helldiver.
British types: Lancaster and Wellington, possibly Halifax.
German types: He177.

As you can see, all are bombers, and some big ones. It would be wise to ask for them in AI only version.

Just wondering in a future patch if it may be possible to tweak the take-off positions of the aircraft so that we could at-least have aircraft taking off in pairs side-by-side?

I managed to do this the other evening by setting up two aircraft on the runway in FMB. I was Aircraft position two. I then started the engine, pulled alongside the first aircraft and matched it as it took off. Was long winded, and sometimes it appeared as though the breaks were permanently on as I couldn't exceed 50 k/mh, but eventually I made a synchronised take-off with another aircraft.

Is there any possibility of this in IL2 so that two aircraft can be placed side-by-side so they take-off under manual or AI flight?

Cheers, MP

we all should use this topic for 4.10 related stuff again.

for "wishes" after 4.10 use this topic
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=8815

otherwise this 4.10 topic is fading away, actually it is almost already.

Boulton Paul Defiant was considered a fighter?

But of course!
The turret was meant as an offensive Weapon!!
Just fly along side by side with an enemy aircraft and blast away.

:confused:
It was a fighter. Used as day fighter before and during BoB, afterwards used as a night fighter and target tug.

With the multi throller/radiator/prop pitch the radiator would be another axis or it keep to key stroke?? the same goes for the mixture, i supposed that it would be keep as key stroke but maybe it goes to axis ten it would be a lot more axis than ever :D
Thanks
PD---> Sorry if this it's been asked before but the search don't find it and already are 88 pages...

Dear Santa... I mean, Daidalos Team... I just bought a brand new Saitek x65f. Double throttle... waiting for you.:-P

So Defiant would be a good plane to "fly" in IL2.
4 MGs in back...poor germans.

Not one mg in front. Poor aircrew once the Germans figured that out. With a couple of forward firing 0.50s or so, it might have been very good, though it would have been even slower than it was, and it wasn't as fast as the Hurricane.

Do you know something Franky????:eek:

today is thursday? or some mistake in my calendar...

With Respect to DT :)

It's 12:30. DT doesn't usually post until the afternoon or evening, in my time zone. Patience ;)

Sorry guys, busy with RL. No update today. We are busy with programming.

Martin

ok ...
we understand ...
good luck ... :)

with Respect to DT :)

Update? I expect no update but release. :evil: One month and a half delay, more two weeks?

Ernst,

Please be more respectful towards people doing 4.10 for free on their spare time, and bear in mind the complexity of testing and debugging so many new features.

Cheers,
Insuber

Cool down :) let work to itself in pleasure :)

or you made a PreOrder this patch? :)

Ok. I am just anxious for this patch. And this unpredictable release date "kills" me. Its frustrating... Always ll be people complaining, its part of the challenge.

I offer myself as beta-tester, give me a pay pal account and i ll make a contribution, but do not last much longer. Please!!! :rolleyes:

You must understand all previous frustrating experiences, waiting news for long years.

be patient people

Real life must come first :)

Also the longer the wait, the more rewarding the patch will be.

What kind of update they mean?New content or a note of how the work is going?

Quick notes always work for me. Something along the lines of ... "hey folks we're still doing some work on the patch."

Remember... we aren't paying... they are doing this for the good of everyone. Be patient... not the end of the world here :)

I'm sure all of your respective wives/girlfriends would love to have some of your time right about now because when 4.10 comes out they will have less :D

Everyone needs to chill. These guys are putting their sweat into their work, and all you can say is "faster" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

BRAVO!!!!!!!!! someone expressing the dissapointment to a non historical implementation of new models

But is like being father.The woman is doing the hard part while you wait,but you can´t hold yourself,you want to see your son.

What makes you think you are the father, Bf-110? ;)

It appears that possibly either TD misjudged the time necessary for beta testing, or they have discovered significant problems in the process. Either way, I'd give them due credit for the work they've put in, and accept that we will have to wait - I think that their attitude, that it needs sorting out before release, rather than rushing to meet a deadline, is one that commercial developers should take heed of. The very fact that they aren't subject to commercial pressures may result in a better patch. If you'd rather have it now than have it fixed, have a look at what happened with Silent Hunter 5 - a promised patch delivered late, that doesn't fix half the issues. :(

Update
 

TD: We all understand the amount of work you need to do and respect your work. But could you respect us as users and give us at least just information, no pictures no video, just the state of the 4.10 patch. WHat is already done what is in progress and what is left to do. Just a few rows of text.
Thank you.

I figure that there were some bugs which lead to further delays (or some compatibility issue among the features) and the decision was taken to unfreeze the version. So my guess is that we'd be getting 4.105

I am quite curious about how things are progressing though...

I would speculate the Zuti MDS is taking most of TD's time to get right.

I was astonished by the big list of new functions and modifications, it feels larger than any previous patch. Maybe a smaller patch is easier to complete? I'm not telling anyone how to work though.

It's just a lot of work with the new patch, that's it. We're seeing new functions that effect all planes, for instance the new g limit, the MDS, several new planes...I wouldn't be the one to notice that a certain plane accidentally can only take 01 instead of 10 g's or to get a return-to-desktop-immediately ticket when I spawn at an airfield that's just been changing sides on the MDS. All that needs to be tested, if possible by several people several times to make sure all bugs are found. I don't think it is a problem eliminating bugs, the problem is to find them all in order to deliver a good product. And then, of course, there is the work where you have to put all the developments, fixes, adjustments together into one single patch. And these guys are not all sitting in the same office 8-10 hours a day. So that's going to take a while, too.

From a short message on the German ubi board I know that there is progress. That's what we have to be happy with, at the moment.

This. Times one hundred.

Zuti is great when it works, but when it doesn't it's a nightmare.

That's not surprising considering how ambitious the new system is. I can say I was truly surprised on several occasions by the extent of what is planned.

I'd only expect something like the updated bridges, two cockpits and one AI... needless to say I'm grateful for whatever is produced.

Likewise. Any addition or improvement is a fantastic thing and I'd rather them spend some serious time and get it right. Patience :)

Take Your Time TD!
 

4.10 will move Sturmi a long way from a 'serious game' towards a true 'sim'. If it takes another month or two then so be it. I hope they provide a PayPal address for donations though because I really don't want to take it for free. TD will deserve more than a pat on the back for what they're bringing us, IMHO.

Kudos and take your time fellas. :-)

The TD is probably not permitted to accept any monies or donatons as a condition of working with the IL2 source code. Usually, accepting money on a product created by someone else can lead to liability issues for the original developer and distributor, especially if any money changes hands.

I'd almost be willing to bet that UbiSoft has distribution rights with very tight contract terms associated with any money transactions on anything pertaining to IL2.

I suiggest thinking about letting this one go, and just be glad TD is interested to do a great service to the community.

If you are just compelled beyond reason to pay for something you might get the name of one of the members of TD with his Paypal account infromation and send some money on the "keep your mouth shut basis".

I can appreciate nearmiss's point (should that be nearmissus? How does one represent the possessive noun here? English can be so complicated)

Anyways, back on track: what about a nice stuffed badger? In my limited research I have yet to discover the Meles Meles being used as a formal currency anywhere in the world and each and every person to whom I have gifted one of these noble beasts has expressed nothing but the most gracious thanks.

Prince Philip keeps his on the bedside table, and I an given to understand that Sarkozy cannot perform without his badger keeping a watchful eye upon proceedings.

Just a suggestion - we may not pay them, but surely we can bestow wondrous gifts upon the good folk of TD.