beyond 4.13
 

Well, the patch is great. Thank you DT. The question is about the future of DT, and with it, the future of il2. Are you working in a new patch? What is the status of the team? Can we hope a 4.14? Thank you ! We really apreciate the hard restless and free work you give us.

yep we are working on new content ... but when and how it will be for now it's a question ...

Team is still working ... is still alive ...
Team the almost the same... you must understand that "Team" is living organism...
someone came out some one came in ...

recently we almost lost our Base ... but now our base forum is online ... so we in contact and working ....


we belive in it too)

Dear TD! Now that 4.13 features new Ju-88 variants from yt2, can we hope to expect something similar done to He-111 too? A later variant, like a H11 or 16 would be definitely needed, but at least correcting the H2 or H6, which have quite serious problems (especially the H6)

it's a really good question) ... i hope that Yt2 will want to rework it )

He made a really beautiful mod, which already contains the required modifications to H2 and H6, and even added more variants including H11 and H16. This is why I asked.

Hi TD. Now that 4.13 has been released and that you are beginning to work on new content I've got a few ideas for future patches :

- Rework the FW190's FM so it won't get stuck in the"mud"when we are taxing and it won't fly like a jet, especialy when I gain speed while climbing at 10m/s.

- Change the COG of the yak7s, TBFs/TBMs and Pe8 because it looks really wierd when using the external camera and the yak7s have an annoying tendency to pitch down constantly.

- As Gaunt1 said, to correct He111s cokpits because, to be honest, I can't see **** when flying it, let alone in formation.

- Would it be possible to remodel the P47s cockpit please ? :cry:

- I'm no expert about the spitfire FM but would it be possible to correct it's quite brutal tendency to pitch up even at low speeds ?

- The B25J is always losing altitude when using the course autopilot or the level stabiliser and the only way I've found to prevent that is to set power to 80 or 85% and to trim all the way up to maintain altitude which doesn't seem quite realistic as all my gauges are in the red limit at all time. Furthermore, when setting the prop pitch to 90 or even 85% to decrease my RPM to 2300 (below dangerous RPM for the engines), my plane loses power and speed contrary to the new B24 where decreasing my RPM to 2300 helps me to gain speed. So, if possible, it would be great to fix this problem because it poses a big problem, such as fuel consumption, when flying the B25, especialy on long range missions. This problem also occurs when flying the SM79.

- Another thing I'd like to see in the next patches would be new default skins for the A6ms as some of them look a bit ugly tbh. Disabling national markings on the A6ms and the D3A would be welcome as it looks like stickers that have been put on on these planes.

- A repaint of bf109s' and ju87s' cockpits would be really appreciated.

- I don't know how hard it would be to code this into the game but would it be possible to ease the ground handling of twin or multi engined planes for players who don't have multiple throtles by combining engine power with the rudder input ?

No, no; no, no.

While the Spitfairy has a distinct "pitch up", I don't feel it's at particularly low speeds. The plane does have an elevator trim, so I'd leave the FM as it is.

How about not changing the FM of the Fw190. I find it pretty convincing.
I have no trouble keeping the Yaks trimmed and do not observe said tendency to nose down. Though they may have a tendency to nose down when getting fast, IIRC.
IIRC the Spit needs a lot of trim down to stay level even at low speeds and also is a bit tedious to keep in trim (as it has a tendency to be out of trim when flying a mere 10 to 20 kph faster) - but there are other planes that do have a tendency to pitch up in neutral trim, e. g. the 109
If this is done, then please make it a feature that can be disabled.

That is the smallest problem with He111s. H2 is Ok apart from some cockpit modeling glitches, but H6 is terrible: 1; it has only external loads, while it should have optional internal loads too. 2; missing gun in forward ventral tub! (this was standard even in mid production H2!) 3; ventral tub has also incorrect MG mount 4; top gunner's glass "hood" is missing (also from H2) 5; it has somewhat incorrect instruments in cockpit
Additionally, H12 version has totally wrong insrtument panel, it was split and moved to both sides of cockpit, resulting in excellent forward visibility. Its top gunner also lacking proper revi gunsights.
Check yt2's mod: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...,31076.60.html

Good to read you Sita! Thanks!
When you could, please show something WIP.
I guess rework a cockpit it s a lot of work for a small team. FMs I think that are out of discusion and only would be touched if anyone give true data about a wrong FM in game.
I ask for a FM that allow Ju 52 to tow gliders without having troubles in FMB. Yes I know that now we can but it s triky.

WIP .... hmmmm ... we always show only that in what we are confident ... but on aviaskins for example you could find alot's of WIP from me or Yt2 ...

Thanks sita, you re very kind as always.
I understand all the effort that russian comunity put in latest patches, and I am very grateful. Maybe it s better to have a WIP topic in here, we don t understand cirilic and alwals lost something in translation. Just a humble request.
BTW you did a excelente job in Li2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Congrats!!

interesting thought ... will discuss about it ...


Thanks for the kind word)

+1

Flyable me-210 and early me-110 variants?:grin:

SBD loadout
 

While researching and reading about several pacific battles, I have come across the fact that the SBD-3 at least max load was a 1000 lb bomb. Another common load its seems was a 500lb pound bomb centerline, with a 100 lb bomb on each wing. Any way this can be added?

Reading Russian
 

In 2013 I taught myself to read Cyrillic and then had a holiday in Russia in December. Udmurtia, my heaven! (Finally, a white Christmas)

Thanks be to Utube.

Holiday .... Holiday in Russia ... Holiday in Russia in DECEMBER ....

you are a brave man :D

how do you like bears drinking vodka sitting on nuclear reactor in each house? :D

I m the bravest....Moscow in January. below 20 ºC. I was there, and I m from a place where winters are 0ºC as worst. Red square covered in snow and Ice, there wasn t enought vodka to keep me warm. Lovely city indeed!
Btw Sita, please post something nice....errrrr...errrrrrr.....could be the Beau? :-P:-P:-P:-P

Not bad ... but not at full power )))



beautiful from what area?

Beaufigther Sita ;)

Things I would love to see
Rockets updated for fm2 thru p51/47 etc.

Early model beau fighters with mixed bomb/rocket/torpedo load outs.

Fairly barracuda and firefly ai/fly able

Tweak fw 190 ground handling so it doesn't act stuck in mud while taxiing

Naval ordnance updates for depth charge/mines etc

Stationary vehicles and stationary armor etc fmb menus are now intermixed by country,can they be redone to keep items by country not sprinkled thru the menu.

Maps, anything English Channel etc,or incorporate most of hsfx map set into game.
Implement the hud mods from sas into game/ radar bombsight assist/tas etc.
And include old p40 in stationary aircraft menu to enable mission rebuilding etc.
And of course a hearty thanks to TD for their awesome continuations!

Most of the gameplay is spent doing something other than taxiing, so it wouldn't be much of an issue; the 190s actually handle quite nicely on the ground. Just be sure not to attempt steering at rpms (much) higher than 1500, and that the landing gear is lowered.

Making a Midway mission, so it would be nice to have 800kg bombs for the Kates. Not sure if it is possible but also the Japanese used different bombs for land or sea targets, so adding the different types in the game maybe. (I believe the so called land bombs where general purpose and bombs for ships where armor piercing)
Also after reading some of the after action reports, the only TBF-1 to return did so using his elevator trim tab because his controls where shot out. I don't know if it can be done but maybe have your trim tabs still work sometimes if controls are lost.
B-26 or perhaps an SB2U-3?

Cold Kangaroo
 

Not brave, maybe stupid: lol: I nearly froze at Kazansomu Voksalsomu waiting for train to Izhevsk. Spasiba to friendly Russians who made me warm with vodka and nice picnic on train.
Thanks also to DT for your hard work!

Sita, will the beloved He112 be in the future 4.14. Pleaseeeeee :-P

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,15940.0.html

http://patrulla-azul.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4649

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/906...2collision.jpg

if i remember correctly that model was in good state ... but not finished by author ...

So, that means that Team Daidalos cannot finish it?
Will it be an unfinished project forever and never be born? :(
Is there any possibility of resuming the work and get it done?

Thanks for your fast answer :D

we have alot projects which already finished but waiting for import in game ... it's first number in list ... after it we will look ...

Thanks for your quick answers. I´ll let my fingers crossed and wait for the best. This bird has been forgotten for too long and it deserves to be reborn again. ;)

We know there were a lot of WIP to be eventually included in an oficial patch...il-2 1946 comunity smaller but still going, there s no need to keep it so secret :-P Could you say which ones will do someday in a patch ?
Dewoitine is ready AFAIK.
MB 210 still WIP?
Lancaster is WIP?
Beau NF WIP?
Uhu WIP?
Ju86 still WIP?
Me 110 NF WIP?
Potez WIP?
He 115 was WIP??
B-17 FLyable WIP?
Hiryu WIP?
Li-2 ? :grin:
MBR ? :grin:
R-5 ?
WM-21?
DFS-230 was WIP?
Freya Wurzburg?
Northern Europe map?
thanks in advance

Maybe Ju-88C6? Or He-111 variants by Yt2? ;)

currently in work ...

i mean in process of import ...

Dewoitine -- in import process

Lancaster is WIP - yep

Uhu WIP - early wip

Li-2 - 3d model is finished ... pit's i mean...

ju88c6 ai was finished for 4.13 but we could't get him to shoot properly by book ... i mean nose canon mounted with small angle ... some about 5-6 degrees ... so bot's can't use it right ... so it was deleted from 4.13 ...

we can set canon dirrectly forward .. without any angles ... but it's not right .....

I think if you put that in the readme as a concession to the limitations of the game... and make it CLEAR in the read me...

We'll be okay with it.

Let's face it.

You can fly through trees on every map in the game.
AI can see us even when we fly into clouds and change direction.

It's not right. But there ya go.

See what I mean?

in that moment our older friend said that is not good! we must delete it ...

IIRC

The first Bf110 with Bk3.7 was tilted down at an angle then a patch revised this and corrected it to level position.

It worked ok tilted down back then for ground attack.

It was changed to make it a bomber killer with HE rounds instead of tungsten tank openers.

Was the AI the cause for change back then with the Bf110 ?

:confused:

Greats news Sita, and thank you for the info, as usual you re the channel betwen us and DT. It seems that there will be much nigth figthers action someday. Pity the hungarian pack will not make it...

I think they can not anymore. At least when fully obscured by clouds I can usually change direction and get rid of them that way. With partial overcast it is near impossible to do so, they almost immediatley and superhumanly spot you leaving the cloud you hid in.

But Ju-88C2 also has similarly aligned guns, and it can shoot down other aircraft without problems... Or may it be a hint for a flyable C6? That would be a dream come true... ;)

Really good news Sita, lot of new planes, I guess other goodies too, like trains, ground objects, maybe a new function. Thank you. You re the channel between DT and us. Pity that Hungarian pack didn´t make it. Waiting for news! thanks again.

R/r/r
 

Some years ago a MOD had the ability to perform (R/R/R) Repair/Rearm/Refuel. And it was an excellent characteristic. It is possible to add the same characteristic for the next patch? that way you can continue on the same mission. Some people have a negative idea about this, but I know many of us will be happy to have it. For those negative persons the solution is simple, don't use it because they say is not realistic; but think neither is the way that we start the engine and nobody argue about this.

What about random and variable weather in the middle of a mission?

Thank you

Depending on the situation and the plane, limited rearming and refueling wouldn't be unrealistic. For example, refueling and rearming a small plane like the Fi-156, U-2 or R-5 could be accomplished in a matter of minutes.

Rearming or refueling a larger plane might take hours.

Repairing any plane realistically takes hours or days.

I'd love to see the R/R/R option in IL2, at least for multiplayer. For multiplayer, it should be controlled by the server admin. It could be included as an option for QMB, and could be added by the mission designer in the FMB.

BUT, I wouldn't just want a simple "land, taxi to a certain spot and you're back to 100%" option. Instead, there should be further controls in place for the sake of realism.

Rearm - Y/N/Limited. Rearming limits: All, guns only, flexible guns only, ordinance only, bombs only, rockets only, torpedoes only. Restrict to plane types: x, y, z, etc. Transfer rate: Instant, x kg/sec.

Refuel - Y/N/Limited. Restrict to plane types: x, y, z, etc. Transfer rate: Instant, x l/sec.

Repair - Y/N/Limited. Repair limits: All, Restrict to systems (check all that apply): airframe, controls, crew, engine, fuel tanks, guns, instruments/ gunsights, oil tanks. Restrict to plane types: x, y, z, etc.

For each system: Full repair?: Yes, Limit to x% of full. Can't repair damage beyond = y% threshold. Repair rate = Instant, x% per second.

At the simplest and most unrealistic level, you could just check Y for all three options and choose "instant" for the rate. That gives you the magic respawn point.

At the highest level of realism, you could put restrictions on which planes can perform RRR, and then limit them to just certain types of RRR. For example:

Realistic RRR for a D3A "VAL" diver bomber on a carrier deck:

Rearming = All. transfer rate = 1 kg/10 sec. If you just want to reload the rear guns, you're just giving the gunner some loaded ammo drums and waiting for him to get them stowed. That's fast. Getting the front-firing guns loaded will take more time. Getting "bombed up" with a 500 kg. bomb will take a while!

Refueling = Yes. Transfer rate = 1 l/5 sec. Getting all the fuel tanks filled up from empty is going to take a bit of time.

Repair - Restrict to systems, crew = 100% repair, fuel tanks = 10% repair, can't repair above 10% damage. Oil tanks = 10% repair, can't repair above 10% damage. The logic here is that replacing crew is easy - just swap out the wounded or dead. Minor damage to fuel and oil tanks can be quickly patched by sticking a plug into any holes. But, it isn't possible to repair airframe, engine, guns, etc. without doing a serious overhaul which would take hours or days.

Dynamic weather is an often requested addition. I'm not sure that it's possible given the way that IL2 handles clouds. That's sad, because contemporary flight sims (MS FSX, CFS3) could do dynamic weather.

What might work is "placeable" clouds of different sizes and colors which drift with the wind (or not), or placeable areas of haze. I have no idea how such objects would affect framerates, however. Its probably not doable.

What would be a welcome change would be the option for mission builders or server admins to specify specific percentage of cloud cover with cloud peak and base altitude. Currently, we've just got the options of "good, fair, etc." and base altitude. Real METAR and After Action Reports specify cloud cover in 1/10 increments, with altitude of cloud base and cloud peaks.

It might also be possible to set cloud types, base altitude, etc. over a particular section of the map.

Just hit refly

Valid for some servers, but even instant RRR would require you to land and taxi to the "respawn" point. Certain limited RRR options would be valid for "full real" servers.

Or at least possibility to add more cloud layers at different heights. I.e. few at 1000m, broken 3000m.

I assure you they can.
Or let me tell you this.
If you and I are flying with no icons/padlock, and you follow me in a cloud.
I can pick any direction and fly away. You won't see me.

The AI always manages to stay with me. ALWAYS. EVERYTIME. It's like the cloud isn't there.

Well, this feature needs testing probably. When I resumed my IL2 flights earlier this year (after about 6 years suspension), I noticed that clouds did cover me from AI - sometimes. Probably it depends on distance or angle or else?

Good post, Pursuivant. Nice example of systematic approach.

AI pilot can't see you in clouds

Can you expound on this a little?
I'm not being difficult, I promise; but how is it accomplished?

Clouds are static objects in the map; and is this based upon weather?

Is occlusion modeled in the AI now?

I've entered a VERY thick mass of clouds and each time pick a random direction, or I split-S or a lazy-eight, etc. They never fail to "stay on me."

Do they simply stay on you and not SHOOT?

That's not really the same thing as literally "loosing sight of me."

There is a simple way of finding out that AI can see you or not in clouds: Use the game's best turning plane, the I-153, and fly circles inside a cloud, (easily done) and see how AI reacts. :)

I'd be interested to know more about this, too. Again, not to be difficult, but to know exactly how the game works.

Three "Yes/No" questions for Sita or some other member of TD:

1) Is "invisibility" within clouds affected by lighting conditions? (That is, is it easier to hide in a cloud in dim light or darkness?)

2) Is "invisibility" within a cloud a binary state ("detectable" or "not detectable" if you have a certain amount of cloud cover around you) or is there an algorithm which makes the plane more or less detectable based on how much cloud cover there is between it and the AI observer?

3) Does AI instantly regain situational awareness of your position once you leave the cloud?

Same way you can sneak up on there 6 low. I noticed the AI break off when I
enter a cloud and then they search. Try 1 vs 1 perhaps ;)

wip
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN15fv2tzgE

Are you 100% positive that not even the tiniest speck of your plane was visible to the AI - they still got bird of prey eyes when they have acquired you as a target? And are you outside of their ca. 5 km sight radius when you leave the clouds again? I am not sure, but I think AI is able to immediatley reacquire you as a target when you only temporarily disappear from sight.

Thanks for sharing.

for that case if not everybody seen it

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=25

cool thanks for keeping this wonderful game going.

Is a new / another variant of BF - 110 planned? That would be so great.

As we get more player-flyable planes, it's sometimes hard to remember what's flyable and what's not!

So, in the FMB, it would be convenient to have a separate listing for player-flyable aircraft - like the list in the QMB - or at least have the player-flyable aircraft marked as such.

Dont know if it is too much to ask...

But is it possible to correct the Ki-61 Hei model? It should have longer (19cm) fuselage, which is quite noticeable.

Also, its FM should be updated a little. While the Hei is quite correct, the earlier two versions are about 20km/h slower than they should be.

Was thinking last night while flying on line, it would be nice if the Server rated the landings, either a of10 system, or more sarcastic like, Music broke his prop, again, or Music forgot to drop his gear, and if it's good, with a broken plane, Music pulled off a three point landing with no rudder/ellies.

I was also thinking it would be nice if I could see my tracers. :c)

I think the Playstations and Xbox games are what you're looking for.
This is a SIM, and I hope its integrity stays a little more serious.

How is a message like: "Music crash landed" any different than an existing shoot-down message like, "Tolwyn saws off Music's wing"?

The original request isn't unreasonable, could easily be incorporated into server messages, and just extends information about pilot status that the game currently provides. It certainly wouldn't turn IL-2 into World of Warplanes!

Music's request also brings up the issue that IL2 doesn't do a very good job of training new players. The learning curve to fly certain planes is more of a cliff than a curve and can be very discouraging for newbies.

Obviously, the best way to learn is to get into a squad and learn from the experts, but that's not an option for many players.

IL2 needs a primary training plane (I'm hoping the U-2 becomes flyable soon, since it would be ideal), and it needs a better system of missions for teaching the basics of flying, like coordinated turns, engine management, basic maneuvers, and smooth landings.

I'm not sure it would be possible, but it would be nice if V-1 operations could be improved.

* The steam cloud that accompanies a V-1 ground launch should be bigger.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgpnKARvd24

* The jet flame effect should be bigger (see beginning of the video), and should be yellow (as described by observers) rather than blue. This is important for night interception missions. The smoke trail from the engine shouldn't be so obvious.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCdlBc__3kg

* The mission builder should have the option of setting the V-1's cruise altitude and speed. (Originally, V-1 cruise altitude was to have been 2750 m, but to improve reliability, operational V-1 were initially set to cruise at about 1,200 m. Later V-1 were set to cruise at between 600-900 m to better avoid radar and fighters. Maximum speed was 645 km/h, but this could be reduced to extend range. Typical cruising speed was 550 km/h. I haven't yet been able to find a stall speed.)

* If anyone feels inspired to model the He-111H-22, air-launched V-1 should be a potential loadout! In 1944-45, these aircraft were used operationally by KG3 to launch V-1 at England from the North Sea. Typically, the bombers would fly at "wave top" heights (below 300 m) at night to evade radar, then briefly "pop up" to 3,000 m to launch missiles, then dive back down to the deck and fly home. They caused tremendous problems for the Mosquito night fighters sent against them, until a Wellington bomber was modified as the first ever AWACS plane.

The server already gives three (3) different messages for when you land good, Music has Landed, ..is on the ground safe and sound, and.. Music is RTB.
And several for when you don't make it. It would not turn the SIM part of the Game into any thing, It would just make landing more of a accomplishment, and on the IRSS DogFight server, landing is a accomplishment. I take this Program as seriously as any one. ~S~

While I'm here, some thing I also keep thinking of, but forget, How about Gun stats for how bad you've been hit, how many cannon, and machine gun bullets hit your plane. maybe even a little silhouette plane you can bring up on screen to see where the hits were while in flight. I know, sounds like Jet era stuff, and completely unnecessary, but it would be interesting.

I always thought it would be nice to have a generic cockpit, one where all your dials are in the same place for every plane. (as a option of course);)

Exactly. That means that it wouldn't be too hard to add messages like, "[X] has crash landed," [X] has been forced down," "[X] has pranged his kite," or "[X] lands in a smoking heap."

That's actually useful information for other players since it tells you if a damaged plane got home safely, or if there's a wreck on the runway.

I'm not sure if IL2 can do this, although the idea is a very old one - games like MS CFS2 and CFS3 would give you very detailed information about what system got hit and how badly.

It's also, arguably, realistic, since aircrew would often be able to tell exactly which part of the aircraft was hit. Currently, IL2 uses generic damage textures which don't provide this information.

The idea of counting how many bullets or shells have hit your plane seems like it would be very easy to do, although possibly time consuming. Currently, Arcade mode tracks exactly where a particular bullet or shell hits. All you'd need to do is use that functionality to create a counter that records the number of light machine gun, heavy machine gun and cannon shell hits.

Actually, realistic and useful, since any feature which records damage severity and location provides the same sort of information that aircrew would provide to the pilot. As always, though, there should be the option of turning this feature off, or only enabling it for certain types of aircraft

This seems to be contrary to IL2's design philosophy, if only because that's exactly how most modded flyable planes work.

The very simple way to make all planes flyable is to allow any plane to be flown using the "No Cockpit" view, but with the option of restricting those planes from missions or online servers which ban "No cockpit."

All that would be needed to create a complete "virtual cockpit" in No Cockpit view would be a proper bank & turn indicator (ideally incorporated into the existing artificial horizon gauge), fuel & oil pressure, oil temperature, and tachometer gauges. These gauges could be combined, so that one gauge could simultaneously keep track of multiple systems.

Also, no reason to have fancy pseudo-analog gauges for most systems. Instead, just use digital text readouts.

For example:

Fuel: Main Tank: 100% L wing: 50%, R wing: 50% Aux: 100%.
Oil: Main tank: 100%, Aux: 100%
Engine 1: 2500 rpm (40%), Fuel pressure: 25 psi (50%), Oil pressure: 25 psi (50%)
Engine 2: 2500 rpm (40%), Fuel pressure: 25 psi (50%), Oil pressure: 25 psi (50%)
Engine 3: 2500 rpm (40%), Fuel pressure: 25 psi (50%), Oil pressure: 25 psi (50%)

Yt2 already did it: http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...c,31076.0.html

But a normal H-11 or H-16 would be far more important than this exotic, limited production run aircraft.

Good point. I stand corrected.

To give credit
 

Hello TD
First of all thank you for your great job about updating the best flight simulator of all times.

I have a little request: the name of this flight simulator is IL-2 Sturmovik. It is based on a beautiful airplane named Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik; so why not to improve the shape on the airplane, add open canopy and add animation to the pilot when see it from out side (when moving the stick) and perhaps a moving trims, just to give a big thank you to the airplane.

Now I have a question: the IL-2, 1941 field mod. airplane has pilot and gunner, but this is the only version of the airplane that doesn't have the option to jump to the gunner position, I wonder why.

http://ist3-1.filesor.com/pimpandhos...ield%20mod.jpg

because at that time no one don't know how it looks that improvised gunner cockpit ...

just from the side look i can assume that gunner have coupled turret with DA MG ...
looks like Tur-6 turret ... but i'm not sure in that ..

And, probably, not two field mods were exactly alike.

UV illumination
 

Reasonable suggestion from the old thread. To introduce more realistic night illumination of the cockpit. For example, UV light where it is historically applicable.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=16658

yes we know about that ... and working in that dirrection ... but its quite difficult ...

because in il2 we have just one lighting system ... but in reality its three or in some cases more variant of lighting ...

for example - if we will do in pit UV light plus standart lamps .... it well be look strange ...

https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/1784...d5875_XXXL.jpg

it's pit of old plane in which used standart lamp lights ...

i mean if you by pressing cockpit light key will get UV and lamp light at same time ...

One of my long-standing complaints is the way DT has "made things darker" is too dark.

Everytime I see a "night mission" it's an instant no thank you.

Dark is TOO dark. Doesn't address the human eye conditioning to night (cones and rods).

It's like you've taken a black sheet and simply modified its opacity.

The original IL2 night time is more realistic given the science of human sight at night that what DT has currently done.

For many missions, I think you're right.

On the other hand, us folks living in areas of significant light pollution forget just how dark the night can be.

Realistically, if you're flying at midnight, in January, under a thick overcast, on a moonless night, over the blacked out skies of London, Berlin, Moscow or Helsinki, the sky is going to be pitch black.

In the summer, the night will look a bit more like the current IL2 default.

Under a full moon on a clear night during the summer, there should be a bit more light than IL2 currently allows.

IL2's night sky graphic could also be more realistic - with far more stars in the sky (even if they're not realistically modeled). Under really dark, moonless skies, clouds above you should appear as black silhouettes, and there should be enough visible stars that you should be able to detect nearby aircraft above you because they're silhouetted against the stars.

As to human vision, IL2 doesn't model the effects of dazzling and loss of night vision which occur when someone is exposed to very bright lights at night. Furthermore, it doesn't realistically model the loss of color vision that humans experience at night (we lose more of our ability to see colors at bottom of the color scale - red, yellow and orange), and our loss of ability to track moving objects in dim light.

IL2 also doesn't model the effects of high altitude and injury on night vision acuity. The eye is an oxygen-hungry organ, and when oxygen is in short supply, it's one of the first organs to be shut down. Even mild hypoxia can play hell with your night vision.

The simplest method of modeling the night sky might be to give mission builders or players some control over how dark the world is, and how much sunlight appears over the horizon.

This!
In fact, I can´t guess if it´s the simpliest, but the best method.
Anyway, night enviroment, 100% dark could be usefull only in a "Night combat enviroment" So DT....:grin:

A few moths ago there was a thread on lighting conditions at night. Here's the link for anyone interested: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...705#post708705

About light
 

The landing light from an airplanes illuminates the ground, trees, house and objects (that is why we use light).

At night, if you put light objects in a city, they don't illuminate anything... why? For example: You put an open hangar and put a white light object inside the hangar, it doesn't illuminate the surrounding area.

All the cities at night seems abandoned.

It is possible to add the same behavior of a landing light in light objects?

More options, beter performance
 

Some people say that comparisons are odious. But if we do not compare, we do not learn.

This magnificent flight simulator should have more options. I list some of them.

1. Aircraft as the Li-2 and Ju-52 should be flyable. This has a very important reason. Not just for the fact of having more planes available to the user.

2. The flight simulator should have the option to get off a plane (like a normal person) and walk / run to other aircraft available, stationed on the ground. This is the case of a damaged aircraft landed without possibility of reuse. With this option, the pilot can continue the mission. Then at the airport should be placed more planes available.

3. The flight simulator Prepar3D version 3, you have the option of walking / running and giving you more choices. No one has criticized the new option; on the contrary, it gives more options in game performance. If someone does not like this option, then, do not use it.

4. Returning to the theme of point 1, the Il-2 and Ju-52 aircraft they could carry as passengers for the other players (while in the air, enjoy the flight as passengers). The plane lands, the passengers get off, head for its warplanes and mission continues. My colleagues in the office dream of this option to be passengers while one of us is flying the plane (we are 10). Imagine the view from the windows. Maybe if in flight, the plane is damaged by the enemy, passengers (fighter pilots) could skydive, once they land, head towards the base (walking or...).

5. An important issue is the choice of refueling on land or aircraft carriers. Likewise, the reloading of ammunition plane or change the type of weapons such as bombs, torpedoes, rockets, etc. For this, the pilot should take the plane to an area intended for this and ask this service. You could get off the plane while you wait.

6. What about the option of driving a vehicle (like a Jeep) to get from one point to another? Also able to handle artillery?

I know many people disagree with what I have shown here. But if this flight simulator focuses only on having more flyable aircraft and nothing else, users begin to lose interest in the game. Maybe this is not my case, because I love this flight simulator.

Thank you very much

Li-2 will be flyable. But I hope Ju-52 never will be! Its not important at all. Because we dont have any proper mid-war german bomber! Or other far more important planes are missing: flyable Tu-2, Helldiver, Ki-44, Spitfire XIV just to name a few... There arent too much people working on this sim anymore, and in my opinion, making a flyable Ju-52 instead of the planes above, would be just a waste of time and effort.

Ju52 is really interesting plane ... and for counterbalance to Li2 it would be really nice to have it ...

also in SCW it was used like a bomber plane ...

I disagree.
The sim currently has plenty of fighter, ground-attack and bomber aircraft. Sure it is missing some but we can work with what we have.
What the sim is missing is the flyable reconnaissance and transport aircraft. These also played a vital roll. And while perhaps less exciting would still be fun to fly.
Any news on the 4.13 bug fixes?

It probably is possible, but remember that realistic light and shadow effects require CPU cycles which can slow the game down. Multiple realistic light sources could turn the game into a slide show.

Modern games seem to handle light and darkness effects more efficiently, but I don't know the details about how they do it.

The option of having a pilot figure you can control on the ground was created as a mod, but never released. Probably because it never looked that good and didn't add that much to the game.

Without the ability to interact with the world, a controllable pilot figure would only be of use to explore maps, to avoid being strafed or bombed on the ground, or to try to escape from behind enemy lines.

But, if the pilot figure can actually board aircraft, I can see many uses for it. You could create scenarios where pilots must run to their planes before scrambling, or where the player must land his plane behind enemy lines to rescue a downed comrade.

It could also serve as a substitute for RRR, where you might be able to jump out of your current plane and run to one which is undamaged/fully armed/refueled.

Another very simple option would be to allow the player to retain first person view while parachuting after bailing out, with the mission only ending when the player reaches the ground, not his airplane. All this requires is a shift in the camera location and some tweaking as to the conditions when end the mission.

This also opens up the option where different players could swap crew positions on the same plane. For example, they could take turns piloting a plane while other players observe from other crew positions. This would be an incredibly handy teaching tool.

And, if he have flyable cargo planes like the Li-2, then it makes sense to have the option of player as passenger or paratrooper aboard the plane.

The option of allowing rearming, refueling and repairing has been requested before. Within limits, it's even realistic. Of course, in real life it might take hours to fully "bomb up" or refuel a large aircraft, or days to repair battle damage. How long do you want to wait?

IL2 was never intended as a ground combat simulator; at very close range all the ground vehicles and much of the scenery look bad. Any player-controlled vehicle would need to have a makeover. Other than that, it's not a bad idea. There have been mods that allow you to "fly" ground vehicles, however.

Manning an AAA gun would also be a new way to play the game, and would be an interesting area of the air war to explore. It would fit right in with things like ground controlled intercept or radar operations.

Because the Ju-52 was just a boring cargo aircraft that never saw action over Denmark, Norway, the Hague, Eban Emeal, Crete, Cap Bon, Stalingrad, or Berlin. :rolleyes:

I'd love to see all these planes in the game, too, but beggars can't be choosers. Any new flyable planes, even "boring" transport aircraft, are welcome.

All has been said.
The problem is that we need a bigger daidalos dev team.

For the Ju-52, you really have two options:

1, fly without enemies, just for "fun". However, this kind of flight belongs to MS Flight sim, not to IL-2

2, fly with enemies around, and pray not to be shot down. (= being a sitting duck) Its not fun at all.

This is why it would be a waste of time and effort, both are very limited now. It should be spent on planes that are sorely missing, like the Helldiver.

Under HSFX mods, Transporters are flyable and used in SEOW online campaigns to run supplies to airfields and combat areas.

Flying these missions with a few squad mates is a lot of fun and tests your nerve navigation skills and team work ability.

The same can be said for recon missions in Fw189's

Necessary for stock game probably not but very welcome,
as a modded addon for online campaigns, certainly.

:mrgreen:

Not everything it s shoot kill and destroy. If you take an online game as a shooter, of course could be boring fly a transport or a recce. But, if you take it as a role playing game, the online interaction it s not only shoot, kill and destroy. In mature MORPG, like wwiiol, or coops online wars in Il.2 as Condor war, ADW, SEOW; transport, recon, rescue, has/had a very important role. And, lot of people enjoy these roles.

yep ... i really love that transport/support missions on ADW .... just fly little above grass and try to identify where are you and where that Field to which you must deliver ammo or fuel or repair kits)...

Isn't this similar to the same situation you'd encounter with a slow and undergunned bomber?

Mostly, transports will be useful in multi-player where there are "capture the airfield" options. In that situation, they'll need support or local air superiority.

For single player, if you're dropping paratroops or cargo, you have to fly lower and slower than you would with a bomber and hold your "bombing run" for longer. That means, unless it's a suicide mission, you have to scale your challenges accordingly. You provide darkness, clouds and good intel to protect you from fighters and flak.

[My impression is that TD is mostly "filling in the gaps" by making existing planes flyable. New planes are done by outside developers. It would be great to have new flyable planes - especially highly desired planes like the SB2C or Spitfire MkXIV, but fans are limited by who's building planes up to TD's standards.

About the summer:
high lattitudes - similar to IL2 default, very high latitude summer - brighter then the default, tropical/equatorial zone - pitch dark in the summer and in any other season.

Agree with other points.

You're right on both points.

I knew about pitch dark equatorial nights, but I didn't bother to mention it.

Another issue that IL2 might not model correctly is sunrise and sunset length. Both are longer the closer you get to the poles. Near the equator, however, sunset and sunrise occur fairly quickly.

While it's probably beyond IL2's limitations, it would be fun if the position of the sun, moon, planets, and stars actually match your latitude, longitude, date and time.

Hypothetically, that would allow you to do accurate celestial navigation. More practically, it means that, once you've got the sun's position worked out, you can figure out how much light there should be from the moon, and from light scatter over the horizon.

At the very least, the night sky maps should have the actual constellations, with Ursa Major/Polaris in the correct location if you're in the northern hemisphere, and the Southern Cross and the "Coal Scuttle" nebula if you're in the Southern Hemisphere.

The stars don't need to move, they just need to be bright enough in pitch darkness that you might be able to see the silhouettes of aircraft above you, and that you can do basic direction finding by the starts.

P_38 said "All the cities at night seems abandoned".

During WW2, all cities were blacked out, so that would be what pilots would see unless some one was violating the lights out policy. Or the city was already burning from a prior attack.

Cheers!

Additionally, if there are enemy planes nearby, traffic will have (mostly) stopped and anyone not manning an AAA gun will be in an air raid shelter - or at least off the streets.

And that's not counting towns which are near the actual battlefield, where the civilians and livestock are long gone - dead or fled.