Suggestion for a future patch
 

It would be nice to have anti-submarine warfare added to Il-2. Currently we have no depth charges or mines. These could be added to the weaponry of aircraft and ships. Also submarines aren't very visible under water. The only thing we see now is the periscope. It would be nice to be able to spot subs by seeing their cigar shaped silhouette in the water when they're not too deep.

Anti-submarine warfare could be an interesting scenario for Il-2 in the Pacific and North Sea. What do you guys think?

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

we got something about it) ... but for USSR ...

I second that.
I can imagine nice scenarios for Med and Black Seas as well. And for Atlantic convoy/sub wars - on Pacific maps of IL2.

And MBR-2 became flyable? ;)

more than likely)

Woo!! Exciting. Thanks for the information Sita, I can't wait to bomb some subs ;)

Big deal!
Variability on the kind of missions you can develope bring more to the game than any new flyable.

Being an actual dolphin wearer I have mixed feelings on this. Could be fun though. And defiantly would add new scenarios.
But how would you go about getting depth on the submarines you are trying to depth charge? And perhaps would require some Japanese and other navy submarine types currently not in game. (Like Royal Navy, Regia Marina, maybe Finland as well.)
Still think a flyable allied torpedo bomber would be a good addition (TBD Devastator). Would allow all the early aircraft carrier matchups to be complete.
For now I shall continue to enjoy sitting in my bombardiers seat and bombing ground targets. Its quite fun.

i dream about Ar-196 and Swordfish... but i have no free time and more coulpe hands for it(

I think Do-217s were also used for delivering depth charges and mines. Dont know if they were E or later K/M models though...

We already have some aircraft for anti-submarine warfare, although many are AI: B-24, B-17, Vickers Wellington, FW-200, Catalina and probably some others as well. While we're at it, why not introduce CAM ships with Sea Hurricanes too ;)

Include the night-fighting stuff showcased in the that video released last year.

Catapult operations already exist as a mod, so it would probably be doable officially, although you'd need to include catapult-capable ships as "carriers."

Pick-up of catapult-launched float planes would take much more work, though.

1. I wonder whether the statistics screen (as we have now in the QMB) could be enabled for FMB missions too.

2. Updating existing DGEN or DCG campaigns with new planes and units is much of a try and error work now. (Fire up FMB, select all new planes with all new payloads, save the file, Alt-Tab out, open the mission file, copy the references, and all this one by one.) It's much easier in modded versions where you have direct access to these far not confidential data (air.ini, techics.properties, weapon.properties, plane.properties). Although one can extract them from Files.sfs using some modding tools, it would be great if TD would provide these files for our ease and information.

Would be nice to have.
Would be extremely nice to have.

Flyable me-210 and early me-110s and more flyable two seater planes.

Me-110 night fighter with jazz music 20mm cannons and ju-88. Night fighters.

Maybe some AI change. Since the days of earlist IL-2, when loading screen is leather helmet and textbook, the AI could land in a manner human players could never hope to keep formation with. Formation flying with AIs en route seems to be possible, though hard as AI tend to fly juggy and sometimes acclerate/deccelerate too quickly.

But for landing particularly, the AIs seems to fly with an very abstract FM, they turn around an invisible axle through trailing edge of their rudder, and could approach at unrelastically speed with perfect control. It`s like they have a certain "landing FM" turned on, and for a formation enthurist in FSX it kills a whole lot of fun and realism.

It is frustrating not being able to formation takeoff/land with AIs, as is often done in WWII and still, today. Could team Daidalos kindly help out?

Grass. Nice grass moving in the breeze, like in Rise of Flight. With the option
to turn on/off if possible to avoid the ' but I'm only running 2kb video chipset
in my 13 year old computer crowd'. Seriously, that would be the crown jewel.
Perhaps make it backwards compatible standalone. so the 4.08/09/10/11/12
guys can enjoy it too. Thanks. :)

Remember, IL2 is using graphics programming that is nearly 20 years old. Improving the graphics to the standards of Rise of Flight would require massive amounts of coding. Basically, it would be a new simulation, like IL2:CloD or IL2: BoS.

Ummm other games made in the same era & simular programming has grass.
Nice grass.
Cheers.

Let's fly at 500 meters.

NO! Let's sit in our plane and look at the grass. Mmmm. Grass.

??? really?

Yah, really.

I would like to see Selecting a bomber on online dogfight servers, that the player can have the same formation of four (4) bombers that he can in QMB, and FMB. Is it possible. Two guys would be 8 bombers, and taking the time to get alt, invincible.

Gun Camera Tracers. 50cal are better now, but, at least on my computer, almost invisible, especially when the sun is anywhere in front of your plane.

I would like to be able to have icons on, with the ability to chose what distance when planes are close they disappear. It's the opposite* for online enemy planes now, I'd like to know who they are at the current allied distance, and not have the icon when they are close enough for a visual.

And a "map size" lock, So you can set up a server so that the players in game map will only show so much area. This would be another way of being able to see what side a plane is on, with no need for icons, and keeping the map limit to 10km, it would probably be historical-ish.

*Speaking of opposite, can you change all the default setting for NTRK playback to the opposite of what the currently are. it seems I have too every time I watch a track.:grin:

And of course, the ability to rewind NTRK's, even if it's just to skip it back a few seconds, or multiples of that.



I have really been enjoying 4.13, and no problems, still no p-40 tail wheel lock, (but the fine men at IRSS have still not added it to their dogfight server's available planes, nudge nudge wink wink, {can't navigate your site to make request IRSS}, and Skies of Valor, last I checked was still not updated), so it really does not matter. The P-40 handles well on the ground. I notice that it seems to pull to the right now when first spawning (air) and getting up to speed and leveled off, where as before it was to the left.
Great Job! Oleg, Great Job DT Many hours of captivating semi-historical frustrating, and euphoric diversion.

Happy Hunting

But were they combat flight sims? Any sim designer needs to make decisions about where computer processing power goes. In IL2's case, the focus is on flight models first, graphics second.

And, the fact remains that upgrading IL2's graphics engine would be a huge task which would basically make it a new sim. I don't think that TD wants to do that work, so serious graphics upgrades are a dead issue.

That's not to say that it's impossible. Gaijin Software's "Wings of Prey" game was basically IL2 with improved graphics, but simplified flight models.

For a ground attack sim, realistic looking grass isn't an unreasonable request.

Ideally, you should be able to tell which way the wind is blowing, and how strong that wind is, by looking at the way the grass moves. Very handy for crosswind landings on improvised airfields where there is no wind sock.

You should also be able to see where grass has been disturbed by the passage of vehicles - especially tanks. Very handy for spotting ground targets, even if they're camouflaged or hiding just inside a tree line.

So, you're asking for the option to let players spawn a formation of aircraft in Co-op games, with the player flying the lead plane?

That's a potentially fun idea, since it allows for a "flight leader" or "squadron leader" perspective for human players. Not only do you have to fly and fight your own plane, but you also have to command the AI planes.

If you were penalize players for losing AI aircraft under their command, that would give players an incentive to treat their AI allies as something other than expendable pawns.

The way that tracers look in real life vs. how they look on camera is a bit different. IL2 models the way that tracers really look.

Two simple options, which would be potentially unrealistic but fun, would be to give the player (or server admin, or mission builder) control of color and brightness of tracer bullets. In co-op play, each side could have its own tracer color. For historical missions, it allows the mission builder to make the decision as to whether a particular nation used red, green, or yellow tracers.

The player, or the server admin, could also have the option of choosing between realistic and cinematic tracer bullets.

So, player or server controlled settings for a minimum and maximum distance where icons get turned on? That also seems simple and makes a nice compromise between "No icons" and "Icons on"

If I understand it right, this option would prevent the player from scrolling or zooming out in the map view, set by the mission builder in the FMB, or by the server admin.

This idea makes sense for pilots who are flying without maps, since the "map view" represents the pilot's understanding of the terrain he can actually see.

Another "realism" option would be to block map view entirely, to realistically simulate flying without a map.

Yep, seems what I said made sense, I will add for the bombers in a flight, if the player could abandon a plane that is too damaged, that would be a good feature, keep him alive longer, (there is a mod that allows players to switch planes out now, so it is possible), and fighters would not know which plane player is in. (this would really be helpful, because believe it or not, players will ignore a whole formation of A.I. to go after a bomber with a player, seen it many times online

For the Icons, yes, and maybe have it so it's a ring, i.e. you can see icons between 200m and 1000m, (or what ever the server decides), that way those distant pixels are just as mysterious, and potentially dangerous.

Happy Hunting

Badly damaged AI planes to immediately head for home, or in the case of japanese..
perhaps a 50/50 chance of a suicide attack, whether ground objects or ramming other
planes. Also, AI aircraft with very low fuel or damage receive priority when landing
would be nice.

AI has gotten much better, but its still got a ways to go.

One of the areas where its weak is how damaged planes react. In addition to the issues you mentioned (badly damaged planes still dogfighting, damaged planes not getting priority in the landing pattern), AI can still be stupid about decisions as to whether to bail out, or where to make emergency landings.

The decision tree needed to get damaged aircraft to behave realistically is pretty easy to figure out, but it would be time-consuming to implement.

Even so, given the huge improvement in AI behavior vs. bombers in the 4.13 patch, I'm hopeful that things will get even better in the next patch.

As for chance of suicide attacks, there should be a tiny chance that a pilot of any nation will make a suicide dive or ramming attack if he's badly wounded enough and his plane is badly damaged enough - especially for single-engined planes. Soviets and Japanese might be more prone to do so than pilots of other nations, but only Kamikazes should have a high chance of making a suicide attack.

In the meantime, it could be helpful to give more authority to player, regardless to his current rank.
Authority to: 1) order to any comrade of any rank to “Return to Base Immediately”. 2) To over ride control tower, giving priority to damaged planes.

I can’t see any collateral and undesirable effect on current gameplay, but I don’t know how much easy or difficult it would be.

+1.

This would be much simpler to implement than new AI programming.

The player should also be able to automatically give landing priority to any plane - not just damaged ones. This allows planes that are low on fuel or which have wounded crew aboard to land first.

Further useful commands for players:

1) Go to next waypoint - makes friendly planes stop flying towards their current waypoint and go to the next one. If used repeatedly, this command will eventually send the flight back to base.

This allows the player to skip stupidly placed or irrelevant waypoints. For example, no reason to follow a pre-programmed fighter sweep pattern if you've already met the enemy and shot him down.

2) Go to previous waypoint - makes friendly planes stop flying towards their current waypoint and go to the previous one. If used repeatedly, this command will eventually send the flight back to base.

This allows the player to prevent his flight from getting massacred by flying through flak or fighters when they don't have to. It also allows the player to establish "rally points" where planes in his flight can regroup after combat.

3) Divert to different airfield - Makes any plane in player's flight land at the nearest non-hostile airfield. Useful for making sure that damaged planes don't crash on the runway preventing other planes in the flight from landing.

4) Land here - Makes all planes in player's flight land at the nearest airfield. Basically, the group version of "Divert".

5) Don't land - makes any planes in player's flight break out of their landing pattern. If the enemy is nearby they engage in combat. Otherwise, they join formation.

Further tactical options that would be helpful are:

1) Climb + number = makes aircraft climb by n x 100 meters.

2) Descend + number = makes aircraft descend by n x 100 meters, down to a minimum of 100 m above ground level.

3) Loiter - makes planes circle over location set by player. Canceled by Rejoin Formation or Next Waypoint commands.

4) Fly this direction - makes planes fly in a particular direction unless attacked - 0 = N, 1 = NNE, etc. Countered by Loiter, Rejoin Formation, or Next Waypoint commands.

Good for avoiding obstacles or setting up ambushes.

Set different altitudes for different flights in QMB. EG: Have flight 2 flying top
cover for flight 1 and such.

+1

This option is needed even if there is the option to command a flight to separate and gain altitude, since on many QMB maps there isn't time to gain sufficient altitude before combat starts.

Option to have mixed flights of planes in FMB (not sure it's possible in the QMB).

For example, this option would allow the historical Finnish tactic of sending up a flight of 2 Bf-109s & 2 B-239, since the Bf-109 was the better "Boom and Zoom" plane, and the B-239 was the better "turn fighter."

Congrats on the 1000th post Pursuivant.

I think something like this would be great: Certificate's Ai Mod

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.ph...g43.html#msg43

What does this do?

It changes the enemy pilot AI so that they perform defensive maneuvers besides the 360 degree roll.

- The AI should now scissor vertically and horizontally, zig zag from side to side, attempt negative G redouts to foul up your shot, perform an angled split S instead of constantly doing that 360 degree roll thing and all sorts of other stuff

- Made changes to the pilot settings to simulate overheat and reduce their unrealistic advantage of always being perfectly trimmed.

- AI Gunners are now toned down for AI aircraft only. AI Gunners on player controlled aircraft remain with default accuracy, even if co-op host is running AI mod. There's nothing that can currently be done about this.

- Changed landing light behavior. Will only use nav and landing lights at night, and should now use Nav lights in landing pattern, switch to landing lights on final.

- Random chance of enemy aircraft not reacting if you approach from behind with a large energy advantage. This is to simulate the AI getting "bounced". Chance decreases as skill level of enemy pilot increases, almost no chance of this happening vs. an Ace.

AI BEHAVIOR CHANGES ARE MOSTLY DONE TO VETERAN AND ACE LEVELS. TO FULLY UTIILIZE THIS MOD, TRY TO PLAY ON VETERAN OR ABOVE.

More detailed changes and notes available in the readme.txt in the AI_MOD install directory

You like sugar pills too? Certs AI does nothing other the substitute one
maneuver for another. There is no critical thinking by AI. Its all a placebo.
Just look at the buggy buggy sas engine mod which uses CERTS AI. The AI
flew right past full retard and went straight to potato. When your player BF-109
can shoot down the AI controlled F4 or F-18.. somethings wrong son.

4.12/13 AI is the best to date. Albeit with some flaws, but so goes life.


That said, why the AI STILL eventually climbs to the verticle while in a dogfight
with enemy on its 6 is beyond me.. easy kill.

My interpretation: A misjudged attempt to use their E advantage(or climbing ability) and turn the tables, when done right pursuing plane stalls first and pursued plane drops on pursuer from above. If well executed. If poorly executed (not enough separation, E advantage or climbing ability not great enough) pursued is usually toast. Which is almost always the case when AI does that maneuvre.

I would like to see plane parts for populating airfields, detached wings, and planes with their engines off, ect.
maybe more varied damage models for stationary planes destroyed on the ground

More smaller ships, stationary and moving, to make harbours and fleets look more realistic.

And the ability to adjust the speed of land vehicles. Maybe a option for building your own convoys, so you can assemble a group of individual vehicles, call it a group, and then move that group as a group by setting one way point.

(Same option would be nice for ships).

QMB, the ability to set individual flight heights,

Picking a plane in flight one, makes all the planes in other flights the same model, so you don't have to scroll to find the spit 8x. Same would apply to all flights below, if flight three (3) is changed to a bomber, all the flights below are the same model.

There are a lot of good sugestions in here. Mixed formations in example, biggest formations, etc..<br>
But <b><i>I guess</i></b> all of these are only dreams. I think (no oficially of course) that LesniHu and FC99, the men behind&nbsp; programing IA, Radar proyect etc&nbsp; aren´t in touch with DT . Maybe a new member take care of these. <br>Anyway we could dream the perfect sim, still making sugestions, maybe someday...who knows. I always dreamed about a Lancaster in game, and maybe someday I ll have it.<br><br>