Beyond 414 wish list
 

Russian:
1. Return the ptabs so they can be used in straight winged IL-2, make it available by a date around june-july1943. Many of the straight winged IL-2 were still around.

2. R-5 is still a gutless wonder, wont climb out and overheats even at radiator 4 in a climb with 60%fuel and 6 fab 50. Also R-5 rear gunner dosnt have to change drums.

3. RS 132 rockets need to be installed on I-16 and others if historically correct, this entry is in the games planes folders.

German:
1. We have AB 250 for Bf110C, why not for E and F models?

2. Need strafing pods with bomb loads for Ju88 a4 and they need to be added to Ju87B and D.

3. Bf110G nite fighter and Ju88 C-6.

British:
1. Tropical filters for Hurricanes on desert maps
2. 40mm tank busters MK IVD etc.
3. Hawker Typhoon

Unfortunately, the R-5's FM can't be much improved because it has become quite close to the real one. I have discovered, during beta testing, that the major flaw of the pre4.14 R-5's FM was that its lift capacity wasn't enough for it to fly to its service ceiling of 6200 m, being only able to fly up to 5200 m. Following tests had shown that it could finally fly properly without overheating too much. I've also found that the optimal power setting is 75-85% throttle to keep RPM above 1300 and prevent overheating. Best cruise IAS is between 145km/h and 160 km/h depending on your bombload.

If you want to compare the current R-5's performance to the real one you can download the original manual here :

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/thread...5-manual.5243/

The manual states that the R-5 should be able to climb to 300 m after takeoff at full throttle in 25s without bombs. I've done some tests with the corrected FM during the beta, and I've managed to get to that altitude with 100% fuel.
Furthermore, the maximum water temperature is 75°C as indicated in the manual, so it is normal that the R-5 overheats rapidly.

I hope this helps you.

Those are about the same i use in fmb. if air started its kinde decent but from ground sttart it climbs slowly, i usually drop off to 82% just after take off and try to make a shallow gradual climb, and apply radiator 2 right away. Interesting plane, seems kinda sluggish with max loads etc.

Yeah, it is really sluggish. I remember reading somewhere that R-5 pilots complained a lot about its airspeed. I can't find the interview I've read but the pilot said something like "The R-5's airspeed? Oh it was awful!". In the same interview he also said that they couldn't load a lot of bombs without draining the fuel tanks to be able to takeoff.

Wishlist so soon after 4.14 release?

Why not then...

1, Flyable Ju-88C6, pleaseeeee!!!
2, Hurricane I, later british version with 12lb boost (basically only FM change)
3, Flyable B-25C. Needs only instrument panel change for pilot cockpit, sources easily available. Bombardier and turret cockpits can be ported straight from J version, ventral gunner would work just like rear turret on He-177.

Please...

1. Consider "official" adaptation of the Graphics Extender mod by slibenli. (Available and extensively discussed at SAS forum).

2. Delete un-historical objects from the maps. At least those which were mentioned hundreds times by users since the first release, as breakwaters in the Sevastopol bay.

3. Add second crew member view to Il-2 field mod and to Beaufighter (there might be other aircraft with the same issue?)
It's a shame that such good aircraft as Beau remains blind for so many years (introduced in 2004, I guess?). If cockpit model is too complex, just add the view without the cockpit, it will be of great help.

4. Consider to add mirror to Do 335. It was installed as early as on V2 prototype and I assume it was not removed later from pre-production/production models. Hopefully I'm not mistaken.



5. The last but not the least... Sign Peace Agreement with SAS and other modders and go ahead together. Not as one team (which is impossible and counter-productive) but as diverse, creative and friendly community.

if author of Graphics Extender will be so kind to give a permission to use his work ...

in fact yes ... with Slibenli Old GrandPa Il2 looks even more nice and impressive than some Nextgen Aviasims... i look on his work and is really Beautifull work ...

Can you please tell in which maps are these unhistorical objects?

As I mentioned, breakwaters in Sevastopol bay - at the entrance. Crimea and Black Sea map. This is the main sore in my eye as I grew there and I watched how those breakwaters were constructed in 1970s.

But there are other unhistorical objects and features. Users discussed them extensively when the community was alive in 2000s. I remember that Stalingrad and Kuban maps were mentioned, may be others.

P.S. Crimea was mapped wrong in many other respects but I understand it is complicated to correct the coastline, etc. This is something independent map makers were doing. Toobone and Nowekat works (posted on SAS forum) come to mind.

Support for 1536x1536 textures

I really fell to be obliged to remind about additional variants for some planes, that are urgently needed and absolutely crucial for an early war scenarios:

Bf 109 E-1
Bf 109 E-3
Bf 110 C-1
Bf 110 C-3
He 111 H-1, or H-2 early (3x MG 15 instead of 5x)
He 111 P

They seems to be easy to implement. Because one or two updates before a whole Bf 110 family was created, it seems to be even more important to complete that family.

As iMattheush said, more plane variants would be really nice. There are a lot of timeperiods and scenarios, however. Should early Bf-109's be prioritized or late war Mosquitoes and Spitfires? Should Meteors and V-2's of the Western Front be prioritized or Yak-9DD's, from the Eastern Front?


Now, what I would really like, and I find criminal that there hasn't been included, because it should have been part of the first release of Il-2 is roads, dirt roads and railway objects and all their bridges, for FMB. I say it's criminal, because those objects already exist in maps. Why wouldn't they be available as placeable objects?

I still think the biggest issues with IL-2, especially for players who recently discovered it or are buying it for nostalgia sake, the current (post 4.11) AI are really terrible compared to previous versions.

If you are being chased by the AI (Assuming they didnt snipe you with a 500m deflection shot) you just have to fly low. The AI wont go low enough to hit you and will just roll around until they "give up" or crash. This is unacceptable and makes campaigns really boring compared to before.

Another thing which is unacceptable and should be fixed before adding ANY new content: Campaigns and careers. why on earth hasnt the official DGen been replaced even by Starshoy's (the man who originally developed DGen) later versions? Why havent campaigns been updated to support new Aircraft, ground units and maps? If the theaters, units and planes are present, why not improve at least the careers? The resources are all there, and new players as well as old should not have to rely purely on community expansions to bring these aspects up to par with the rest of the game.

A lot of people don't enjoy the AI's routines.
But they never specify the AI's skill level neither their skill level!

unacceptable, criminal, installed on a mod'ed version and it deleted files........wOw

Thanks for the patch TD, You have done some great work, this version is definitely a step up, and modernizes the game.

I was looking at that graphics extender, https://youtu.be/hWLjYJ4BzvI, only 10mb download, will it work with one of the alternate exe's. Don't really need it, most of the things I am shooting at are squirming 50-100m in front of my guns. But for NTRK's it would be nice.

Cheers, Have a great Summer All
ура! Всем хорошего лета
Prost! Ich wünsche euch allen einen schönen Sommer
à votre santé! passe un bel été tout
tepuk tangan! selamat menikmati musim panas semua
Kanpai subarashī natsu o sugosu
Twoje zdrowie! mieć wspaniałe lato
¡aclamaciones! ten un buen verano todo

I would consider myself pretty skilled (been playing for around a decade and used to be really good online cant really prove that i know) and AI seem to have the same fundamental issues on all difficulty levels. Again, they are actually programmed to start shooting at nearly 1km (~700m) they get very accurate deflection shots out to about half a km and they cant get you if your'e low. Other then that, in my opinion, their basic routines and maneuvers are pretty good and less predictable than in the past.

Regarding AI.
When 4 engine bombers under attack show aerobatic tricks as barrel rolls... It looks impressive. :-P

Which AI skill level? I know for sure rookie AI do not do it.

There is also something that direly needs to be fixed btw. AI gunner accuracy. Even on average, they begin firing at around 7-800m with deadly precision. I exclusively use rookie AI for this reason, but I feel that the gunners, while they open fire less regularly, are still too accurate, and begin firing at very long ranges.

No idea about skill level. My favourite pastime on online servers is bomber interception. So I see aerobatics done by B-17s or Pe-8s from time to time, for example, on Letka Orel server, Samara server. B-25s do some tricks as well.
As for the gunners...well, I blame just myself when I killed from 800 m while attacking from six... But when they shoot me during head on attack in Me 262, this can be really frustrating. :(

I agree it's all wrong, but I'm not sure the problem is one of accuracy. I think what's happening is more that there are a limited number of hit points on the planes. The pilot's head is a very small part of the overall area of the aircraft, and it ought to be more or less impossible to hit it, or rather a hit there ought to be a certainty, but only very, very rarely.

What I think is happening is that there a set (and much too small) number of hit points, one for the engine (probably a dozen for different parts of it), one for the pilots head, one for the elevators, maybe a hundred or so for you hit nothing, but once you hit a particular nothing, it's gone and can't be hit again, and it's like a game of "battleships", "oops I hit the pilot's head".

Hmm.. Lets see.

The following planes get these loadouts added

B5N2
- (1) 800 kg bomb
- (2) 250 kg bombs
-(1) 250 kg bomb and (6) 60 kg bombs

D3A1
- (2) 60 kg bombs, one under each wing

SBD-3/SBD-5
- (1) 500 pound bomb, centerline, and (2) 100 pound bombs, wings

P-400
- (1) 500 pound bomb


And...… Just cause I'm feeling lucky
make Blenheim and TBD-1 flyable. (hey, one can wish. lol)

I have quite a few black and white close up pictures of the TBD cockpit showing the various crew stations and equipment. There is also some useful comments on how things functioned, such as how gun mount swivels/rings worked and their range of movement, which levers did what, bomb aimer's equipment functions etc. If someone from the Team wants them just message me.

Hello everybody and thank you for your work on this lovely game.

i like to see these in the new patch(es). here goes:

1- rocket loadouts for p-51s.

2- default british skin for spitfires and hurricanes in desert maps. (like what we already have for bf-109s.)

3- spitfire mk1 and mk2 (or at least 8 matchine gun loadout for spitfire vb early. i know its not realistic but at least we can use it as an alternative untill a proper mk1/2 added.) plus battle of britain hurricane mk1 and the english channel map.

4- p-51a/a-36 apache with air brakes.

5- flyable fiat g-55.

6- gunners to shoot ground targets.
for example passing a german car column in your il2, and your rear gunner starts firing at cars as you pass on. or imagine flying a b-24 over japanese ships or somthing. i think it is really cool and exciting. and of course the ability to turn this feature on and off for saving ammo purpose via tabs for example.

How about adding 1º Gruppo caccia and 3º Gruppo caccia squadriglias of the ANR to the Italian available squadrons? 2º Gruppo caccia is already there, so why not?

N1K1 Kyofu flyable

The last update was awesome! Thank you TD for that!
For the future I'm looking forward to the English Channel maps and with it a Battle of Britain appropriate Hurricane aswell as Spits.

Flyable Blenheims, Wellington and off course the Dewoitine D.520.

A flyable Sea Hurricane version would be nice aswell along with a flyable Swordfish and Douglas TBD Devastator.

Whatever happened to the German nightfighters from the 410 videos??
 

several years ago there was a video thats still on TD youtube page, has working radar and Ju88C6 and Bf110G4 in several variants. These would be awesome indeed even if the radar hasnt been tweaked yet. They were mentioned on vwings as well.

If only that C6 would be flyable, even without the radar!

yes we have original build of NJ 110 and one of our members is adapt it to 4.13.4 ... in fact it's very interesting theme ... and we want add it into some of next patch ... but it's very complex dirrection of work ...alot staff need to do to complete that task ...
NJ and Radars is very complex and voluminous case ... that is why it is still stay unfinished for now ... but i hope see that plane with fully operational radars in sky.

Il2:1946 has grown so many new theatres of combat its impossible to cover them all. Night fighters, or rather nacht-jagers :) are incredibly interesting but if we had them then its why no Lancaster!

If I understand it there is a ~150 plane limit in the game? Given we have about 100 variants just for Yak, Pe, LaGG, MiG, I-16 and Spitfire (LOL) we would need to loose some to fit some "needed" planes in.

4.14 seems East Front development, but as a Pacific guy I'm happy with what its received already :) But my wishes.....even if only AI now.

Ki-48 (needed for JAAF, all fronts all war)
P-38G (widely used pacific, east asia and mediterranean)

Spitfire Ia (iconic plane, and many more produced than II)
B-26 (important West Front tactical).

For player plane TBF Avenger :-P

Ki48 we have as AI .. Model was made by Legendary SaQSoN ... and our good friend Hayate make few magnificent Skins for that Bird.

and i have wish or plans for Spit MkI ... can't say when but i want it.

AI
 

AI in my opinion still needs to be worked on. The AI fighters have issues being close to the ground (they start to loop if they get close), the gunnery is very accurate for shots they shouldnt even be able to see over the nose for.

most other things seem fine, though mods like DBW had really good AI that behaved more realistically and according to its role more (for example BF-109s used energy more conservatively).

The best part was if you flew low, they would still chase you and hit you. Now, like I said, just fly low enough and enemies cant kill you.

I read this very often but I can not agree completely. Yes, sometimes you can escape flying low. But another time, you will not.
My experience with AI today is mostly online. So I wonder is there any difference between AI behaviour in multiplay and in offline?
Just in past month I recall at least two incidents online (I like to study interesting tracks):
1) I was chased persistently by a pair of Pe-3bis from about 1500 m to the ground for several minutes and could not run away until I brought them under friendly AAA fire.
2) My Kate bomber was literally gang banged by two pairs of P-40s. Attacks began when I was at about 200 m and continued when I tried to escape at roofs and trees tops level. Was fired upon from different angles and finally got "pilot killed" and engine fire in one burst from about 1 o'clock. That smart AI was flying at probably just 10-20 m.
On the other hand I remember how I survived attacks of AI Mosquitos in my He 129. My engines kicking the dust from the ground, I'm pushing the rudder left and right, Mossies overtaking me and sometimes stupidly flying straight in my gunsight... And Mk103 is nice cannon. :cool:

A larger version of the generic Western Europe map that's already present in the game would be nice to.

How about a real version of North West Germany?

Weels sound.
 

I wish that the sound of the weels squeak touching the ground could be also heard from inside the cockpit instead of only on external view.

Thank you for Daidalos team and all who make this awesome game get better and better.

That would be cool! However it would be a massive task to make it. It would take an enormous amount of research and access to period maps to get it built accuratley.

So I would be perfectly happy with just an enlarged generic version of the Western Europe map already in game. It wouldn't need as much research to make hence reducing the time and effort needed to build it. And as a generic map without any geographical names on it, it can be used as a stand-in for more than one geographical area for making single missions, QMB missions or campaigns.

My opinion is always highly subjective due to my personal preferences.
I'm absolutely indifferent to another dozen of Spitfire modifications (blasphemy?:rolleyes:) or another variant of Bf 109 armament (ja, ja...).
I love aircraft which are not so "mainstream", for example, Ki 45.
There was good thread here 3 years ago with excellent contribution of major.kudo who made nice "infographics" for the subject.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=229846
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...8&d=1479029560

So, my wish beyond 4.14 would be to bring Ki 45 modifications and their armament and specifications closer to real history.

the ki-45's in the game are historical correct. I hope to see the campaign of the Hero of the Sov. Union, Avdeev Mikhail Vasilyevich in a future patch

Ki-45 - I would not post my message if I have no doubts about "historical correctness" here. But let me look again into 4.14.1, who knows, may be I miss something. :confused:

M.Avdeev campaign could be interesting... And it could be created by any player who has time for that and access to Avdeev's biography (plenty info online). No need to wait for the patch. :-P

Ki-45 armament.
Yes, there are some discrepancies, yet not many and probably not critical for most players.

Details:
Ko and Otsu in the game have 2xHo-103 slanted as one of variants. This is not "canonical", but could be attributed to field modifications which are mentioned frequently.
Hei - no Ho-5 (in the nose) variant in the game. But if it was in little numbers, not so important.
Tei - same as above. Also no variant without rear gunner in the game... but this is not what I really want in my interception action, so forget I mentioned it ! :-P

Bombs in the game are limited to 250kg only. Only Ko and Otsu have them. But hard points were installed on Hei and Tei as well in real life, or am I wrong?

No drop tanks on any model in the game.

I wish we have IL2 Compare beyond 4.11 to see the differences between the Ki-45 versions in flight characteristics and to check them vs real life.
We have all 4 versions in IL2 Compare for BAT but this is "non stock" and I wonder why all of them are identical in graphs, was it really historical.

Sometimes the AI planes can pick extra armament options that are not historical, for example Hungarian or Finnish Me109G in 1944 at least will appear sometimes with 210mm WfGr rockets if you don't edit them out. (such as the use of USSR RS-132 rockets is date limited in code). I expect the 2x20mm slant guns on the Ki-45 are also date limited to late 44-45?

I'm not sure but il2 compare data must be generated from game code not in game testing, as it would take too long to get all the curves and so smoothly :) I don't think il2Compare is made by TD though.

So, I confess I'm still trapped on 4.12, for better or worse, but I ask this question:

Has the Me-262A-2 been given the ability to carry cluster bombs? This is a historical loadout, and if it's not been implemented in the versions since 4.12, it really ought to be on the roadmap. The Stormbird really is fun to fly, even if the AI is not very intelligent about how to operate it. Also, I'm not sure it couldn't be fitted out with all four cannon if necessary - having the options to carry four guns for defense missions would be nice if historically viable.

Also considering the '262A-2, a U1 would be really cool to have. It's been a while since I've done any research into this matter, but I believe it would have a similar weapons sight as used in the Ju-87 and 88, with a release cue being displayed for the pilot on the gunsight, sort of like a proto-CCIP display.

Hope you fine chaps consider this - regardless, you're still great. :D

My pet peeve is damage models/damage textures, especially for the planes which have been around ever since the original IL-2. I find it strange that people have been squabbling over FM for the last 15+ years, but nobody seems to give a damn about realistic DM.

There might still a few outright DM errors after all these years, although I haven't had a chance to check out them out in the new 4.14.1 release.

Some of the D2 damage textures are still ugly and unrealistic (Bf-109 series in particular).

On some planes, breaking parts break in the wrong places, especially on the wings. This creates the annoying effect of planes being destroyed by wing damage which appears to be historically survivable.

In particular, tough, high-powered aircraft like the F4U, F6F, TBF, and P-47 should still be able to fly with the outer third of one wing blown away. For the UK, the Wellington airframe should be tough to break, and for the Germans, the Ju-88 series.

Effects of internal and flak explosions need to be modeled a bit better. Currently, they're modeled as blasts that emit a star-shaped pattern of fragments, rather than having concussive power which disperses uniformly as a function of distance with the power to bend or crush vital systems.

Effects of bullets, explosions, and shrapnel vs. humans don't appear to be well modeled. For example, a pilot can take a .50 cal bullet to the arm and keep flying, and a gunner can survive the explosion of a 20mm cannon shell within an enclosed tail turret and keep on shooting. (Realistically, the pilot's arm would be blown off. Assuming the shock didn't kill him, he'd rapidly bleed out and die due to massive blood loss. As for the gunner, even with some of the plexiglass in the turret removed, there'd still be enough energy and shrapnel from the explosion that he'd be stunned if he was very lucky, or shredded if he wasn't.)

Finally, while it would be a massive undertaking, IL-2's damage models ideally need to be improved to modern standards. That means taking into account things like different types of armor, aircraft construction, and self-sealing oil and fuel tanks, as well as allowing for damage to any aircraft system, with realistic malfunction options.

I like your position!

However, I'd like to also state that Il-2 does not have that bad a damage model when compared to many other options available on the market (paid, free, old, or new). It's not that it should not be improved, but I'm not convinced it's as bad as you make it sound.

For instance, I remember playing WarBirds where losing anything other than an aileron was potentially a disaster. I can generally at least get back to friendly lines without an elevator in Il-2. I also generally don't feel like the sim has "hit points" when I fly. Other oldies-but-goodies, Like Falcon 4.0, have absolutely piss-poor damage models which can't be anything else other than HP models.

In contrast, I do wonder (and rage) about some damage effects - like how a seemingly random shot can knock out the flight controls on an FW 190, or how I could EMPTY a 20mm magazine into a Yak and see that dumpsterfire still flying around. Those issues probably are genuine bugs, however, and if legitimate bugs can be found and squashed, that's really what I think should be done first before decrying the DM as poor. My gaming experience is likely older and lamer than yours, but Il-2 has never left me thinking that it was lacking in general. The only other flight sim that has left me with a feeling like that was Parsoft's old A-10 Attack! simulator series, where indeed parts could be blown off the plane and it would handle accordingly.

So yes, I like your position, but mine would be that the bugs ought to be crunched first before the existing DM is.

Speaking of bugs... was the Horten IX / Ho 229 / Go 229 AI landing bug ever fixed? You know, when the AI attempts to land the plane, but rather than touching down, does a suicide loop into the runway instead?

I'm not sure that IL-2's DM is something to get so troubled about.

It's very easy to be critical about inordinately specific points, then make obvious suggestions about what could/should/needs to be done about it, without having the know-how and resources required to actually do the job as suggested. Not to mention understanding the risks associated with fiddling for negligible gains.

Considering that it is now a 20 year-old product, IL-2 DM is excellent as a whole. It holds up well even by today's standards. Sure, they aren't perfect, and I agree there is favoritism applied - accidental or otherwise - to some Russian equipment, but still...

Probably best not to get all huffed up just because the effects of some AI turret gunner's pinky finger being blown off isn't modeled. There are far bigger, more important fish to fry.

Il-2 damage model is fine for its age, but there are some serious concerns. Yaks or Lavochkins built from stalinium is the least of the problems. Heavy (and some medium, He-111, Ju-88, both were quite tough in RL) bombers like B-17, B-24 or B-29 are way too easy to shoot down. Sometimes just a single burning engine is enough for the crew to bail. In this regard, old European Air War was far more realistic. It wasnt really possible to shoot down more than 3 B-17s in a mission in the Fw-190A8, even if you survived the bomber's defensive fire. They were just that tough. And they were able to return to base with just a single working engine (barely, but still)

One of the only issues I have with the DM is that there is no way to isolate a fuel leak in multi-engined aircraft with multiple fuel tanks. For example, if just one of the fuel tanks in your SB-2 gets holed, fuel stored in the remaining undamaged tanks will also "drain" from the leak in the damaged tank.

This is especially critical in aircraft with non self-sealing fuel tanks. At least in aircraft with self sealing tanks the hole(s) will eventually seal shut as long as the damage isn't too bad, but the underlying issue still remains.

it's interesting and complicated moment ... i tottaly agree that is not right and will be good to make true fuel system ... but it's very hard to do ... even on il2 level .... i mean ... just imagine ... most of planes have more than two fuel tanks ... not every tank on external model have collision - hit box .. plus in that case need make working tank selector plus gauges in pit must indicate right fuel level .. and at that moment multiply it on all flyable planes ..

i must say that i with pleasure will fly on that kind plane with working fuel system .. but its a huge work ..

and in addition ... hitbox for fuel tanks o externa lmodel must be set in right areas ... not for every plane can find fuel tank scheme ..

Fair point. Most of my complaints are about cosmetic issues - things that don't LOOK right, but which actually are right on a technical level.

There were actually very few actual remaining damage model problems under 4.13 when I did my damage model tests. The posts and database results are still somewhere around on this forum if people care to hunt for them.

I also agree that it would be a massive undertaking to bring IL2's damage models up to 2020 standards, just like it would be a massive undertaking to improve the graphics or to further refine the flight models. Not a realistic request.

That said, this IS a wishlist thread! :D

My tests indicated that there wasn't that much actual favoritism so much as some crude damage modeling in some of the early planes. If there's favoritism towards Soviet aircraft it's because they really were that tough (e.g., IL2 series) and/or because they were some of the first aircraft modeled.

Likewise, there are a few very minor potential errors in the DM for some of the German aircraft.

For example, in the Bf-109 series, there's a very small gap between the firewall behind the engine and the armor glass on the front of the canopy. If a bullet just happens to go through that gap, which can happen when you're diving on an enemy bomber and the tail gunner is shooting up at you, then it's very easy to get a PK result. That might be realistic, or it might not be depending on whether the control panel was made of metal that had protective value.

The actual damage model problems are mostly quick fixes, like making sure that hits to the left wing fuel tank actually affect that tank, or recalculating some numbers to make big but lightly-built aircraft (e.g., Me-323) less vulnerable to airframe damage.

Agreed. Given the choice between someone making new aircraft to fill in the remaining gaps in the roster, or turning AI aircraft into flyables (ahem . . . Blenheim) vs. spending time upgrading damage textures, then I'll go with the first option.

Getting truly realistic coolant, fuel, hydraulic, or oil system damage modeling would be a huge hassle. You'd essentially have to figure out tank volume and geometry for every compartment within every tank, then create real-time liquid flow models based on factors like viscosity, pressure, temperature, flow rates, gravity, and acceleration/deceleration. Then, you'd have to model things like fuel, oil, and hydraulic lines, pumps, and joints, figure out what each bit of the system does and what goes wrong if it breaks, and create suitable damage results.

I'd settle for:

(a) A system where there is the possibility of just losing part of your fuel rather than all of it. Possibly "roll the dice again" if you take another hit to the same tank or if you do something radical which might cause you to lose more fuel, like a maneuver which seriously stresses the airframe.

(b) A quasi-random system where fuel leaks only start if you change your angle of flight by some large amount from the direction you were traveling in when you were hit. For example, if you've hit in level flight, the fuel tank might only begin to leak if you go into a steep climb or dive.

(c) A button you can push to (maybe) slow or stop the fuel leak, which represents things like pumping fuel to different tanks or shutting off fuel flow to a particular tank. Just like fire extinguishers for engines don't actually model fire suppressant extinguishing the fire, you can "hand wave" this sort of damage control.

(d) Modeling hydraulic systems for aircraft that had them and where hydraulic failure had a serious effect on flight performance (hydraulic-powered or hydraulic-boosted flight controls or control surfaces) rather than just less important systems like making the landing gears go up or down. Not so much modeling pumping hydraulic fluid through pipes, just a system to model the fact that you can lose it to damage, and its loss can cause problems.

(e) Likewise, some aircraft had notably flammable hydraulic fluid. In such cases, hydraulic reservoirs should be modeled as well.

Female voices for 586th, 587th, and 588th Aviation Regiments

How about modeling complete electrical and hydraulic systems for each flyable while you're at it! :mrgreen:

I keed.

Figured that fixing the fuel tanks would probably be a whole lot more involved than what might normally be, since fuel burn on external tanks has already been addressed (thx for that, btw).

I'm guessing then that all aircraft in the sim currently have just one fuel tank modeled, either sealed or non-sealed? Like you said, fixing that would mean modelling multiple tanks and placing them at their correct datum for each aircraft, gauging each tank, modeling connections and pumps, cockpit valves. Re-writing the .exe to support all the changes, etc...

Yeah, that is a lot.

in case of il2 i'm not sure that conections between tanks and pump can be done, and i'm not sure that it have sense in il2 case ...
make corect numbers of tanks and right placing for huge numbers of plane it's already very difficult task ..

We could have a revision of the device link allowing all get command in multiplayer?
At least the true information that will allow to have proper instrumentation and lights on DIY devices.

Have a look on mission4today and else where. There are a few good female voicepacks out there you can download and put them in the appropriate Speech folder. However, I don't think you can currently put it for specific squadrons.

Yes, I've heard of those. What I've gathered is that you would need to add another nationality (say, NH, for Nachthexen) and provide that nationality with their own voice. It would be the same as the Polish-Soviet PLM's, PLZ's and PLS's. They are part of the Soviet Air Force but as they are assigned Polish nationality, they speak Polish (I wouldn't be mad if TD also changed the nationalities of the Foreign Squadrons from RAF and French Air Force)

Thanks, BTW!

In my opinion, perhaps it would be best to work on the theaters of war that haven't received an updated game. For the Eastern Front and Western Front in Europe there are now all the Battle of _____ games now with much updated aircraft and gameplay. However, IL2 1946 remains the latest game version for us interested in the Mediterranean/North African and Pacific theaters! (With the small exception of the Macchi in Battle of Stalingrad?

So I'm not saying I would ignore the European side of things in IL2:1946, but maybe put a little more emphasis on the other theaters for the guys who have no other options.

That being said, my wishlist:
Italian and Royal Navy ships
Italian and British ground objects
Flyable Swordfish and Blenheim
Ba. 65
Vichy France Army option, and the Dewotine 520

Japanese cruisers
Flyable TBD-1 Devastator
D3A2 Val
A6M2-22 Zero
F1M2 Pete

Will I ever see all of these? Probably not. But... One can wish!!

Future efforts should go in all directions! Il2 1946 is still the best.

A few questions and suggestions:

Why do so few planes have full trim, they almost all have ele and rudder trim, I-16 has no ele, but thats the only one I can think of. But so many don't have aileron trim. Is that historically correct, to keep the pilots from setting it up and falling asleep in a 3 hour flight?

Is it my bad flying, or is the F6F a concrete pig, it does not climb, and for the Best the Navy had, a Zero Killer, it does not have the maneuverability or acceleration one would expect.

Did the P-39 really flat spin so easily? And was there no way to get it out of one, dropping the flaps and gear does nothing, and no matter how close you can get to stabilizing it, it never breaks out of that flat spin. I can't even see how you could bail from it when it's doing that, the door instead of a top opening would make it almost impossible to get away from the plane before it swung around and broke your back.

Were the Russian planes really that bad, The only one that can compete with a German fighter is the La, and it has no chance against a Spitfire. At least when I am flying one. And so few bullets, 400. And to back that up a bit, there are a few maps on th AleXserver that only have Russian for Red planes, and most guys take the p-39. And when there are a whole lot of Allied planes from all nations on a map, almost no one takes the Russian fighters. the il-2 is popular because it has a tail gunner and is tough. You are more likely to see some one flying the I-153 than the later planes, even if the models go up to 1945.

Suggestions for features:

Losing F6 when a enemy plane enters a cloud: when you pad lock in side the pit, if the plane stays behind the cockpit cage long enough you lose the lock, can the same be done for the F6 and clouds.

I like using the clouds as a defense when playing on line, and F6'ing the guy chasing you makes that a even better tactic because it's not to hard to find them when leaving the cloud, But when chasing some one into a cloud, you can tell which way they are going if you can see the outline of your plane. and of course, you know exactly where they are as soon as you break out of the clouds. This suggestion is more for realism.

this one is going to get a lot of flack: Can you make it so that you can't fire your guns unless in the Pit. Seems to be a lot of guys have learned to fly from out side ala third person video game, they can see where their tracers are going from that vantage when turning tight and just hose the sky until they get the angle right. At least it seems that way, I can't prove that's what is happening, (and it does not matter, we all have that ability so it's not a advantage per say) but it is the only explanation for some of the times I have been shot down, (and thats a lot), when definitely invisible to some one sitting inside a cockpit. And it allows them to fly unrealistically because they don't know they are going to black out or that the plane is having tremors from G forces. You kind of know someone is flying like that when you pass head on at 300Kmph and they seem to turn on a dime, and some how catch up to you even if you just flew straight at top speed.

I'd also like to see servers kick people for turning on wingtip smoke, it (the server) announces it, but no one seems to care. Oleg trying to get the 13 year old girl crowd.

Of course, all would be selectable options in difficulty or Server setting, the game as is does not need to change unless the player/server wants these options.

Zero problems with 4.14.1 in the functions I use regularly. ** only thing I can think of is if you move artillery in FMB, they stay at the height th they were originally set, so if you move a position down a slope a bit, you need to drop all the artillery as a separate move.

(I see the Hs129 can jettison their cannon, don't know if that's new, never noticed until i had them (A.I.) attacking a base in my soon to be Famous "Almost All Maps OnLine Mission Pack" http://www.mediafire.com/file/p0omf7...gfight.7z/file 704kb, and one did it when it was all flacked up from aaa. I added a few new maps, the Battle of Moscow and BoDonbass, and the Arctic circle one).

Cheers! Ypa!

As a matter of fact a lot of planes only had elevator trim because thier aileron and rudder trim were set for specific cruising speed and engine settings on the ground, or maybe because it could weight down the plane or create unneccessary complexity for the pilot. The Bf-109 and IL-2 didn't any trim except for elevator for example.
However, I still agree with you about some planes being annoying to fly. I've rummaged through the buttons file and fixed trim setting for some planes already for myself. If you want to alter trim settings for you could DL a decompiler available on modding sites and fiddle with the trim setting in the FMs.

Oh yes they did. For example, emptying the 37mm cannon's magazine made the p-39's CoG move so far aft that aerobatics were out of question unless you had a death wish, and transfert flight meant that lead weights had to be put in the nose to compensate for CoG shift. IIRC, some Bell engineers had to fly to USSR to see with the Russians how this problem could be resolved.

What about I-16 Type 10? A major version used in Spain, China, Soviet-Japanese border conflict (1938-1939), Soviet invasion of Poland and Winter War, before newer types 18 and 24 were available. Also, it is the only one major I-16 version not included in the game.

Trim / F6F/ P-39 - I'd suggest to play with your joystick/rudder settings to see what is the best for you in each aircraft. Multiple profiles might not be easy to handle, but they can help.
Spin in P-39 - yes, there are ways to stop it. With significant loss of altitude, of course. I did not fly this bird for years so not able to advise now, but if you search old forums you will find a lot of information. Spin was very hot topic in the community when P-39 was just introduced.

Soviet (not Russian, of course) planes good or bad?
Again, another popular topic of the old days. IMHO, they are not bad or good, just suited for the roles they were designed for. Some of them as La-7 are considered "unrealistically" good according to many "blue" virtual pilots.
If you can beat any La-5FN/7 in your Spit - great for you! Now it's time to turn tables and try La-7 vs Spit - why not? ;)
I have not been on Alex for ages and surprised to learn about deficit of La pilots. In good old days (ah, yes, again...) La-5FN/7 were the most popular a/c of red pilots, especially of novices. And I-185, if available.

Clouds as a defence... I don't use padlock (this is F6, right?) so can not evaluate your suggestion. Just to note that online clouds can be deceptive. What I mean - exact position of the cloud on your PC and your adversary's PC can be slightly different. You might think you are safe but still to be exposed to him.
Otherwise I love "cloud defence". What can be better for the lonely SB-2 jumped by a pair of trigger happy 109F? :cool:

Not according to "blue" pilots. Unrealistically good according to NII VVS tests. Ingame La-7 FM is based on the prototype. La-5F performance is also boosted by around 10%, base La-5 boosted even more. Only the FN is more or less correct, at some altitudes it is actually underperforming. Yaks on the other hand, almost perfect in terms of FM.

Thank you. I hope our remarks will not instigate another round of Holy War so common on forums in "golden days" of this game...:-P
After so many years, I'm content and pacified with what we have. It is what it is and it's up to us to make the best use of what is available...
And my Do 335 is still faster than La-7 ! :grin:

Indeed, I remember the "Russian planes are over modeled" days. It's not shooting them down that is the true test, (that is hard to do no matter what plane when you have F6 (external padlock)), it's being able to get in a position to do that, or get out of a situation where your opponent is able to do that.

As far as online dog fighting goes, the only planes that are competitive are the Spit 109 and Zero (and a few of the other Japanese planes). The American planes are made to fly straight and fast with a wing man to pick off a plane turning too tight for the lead pilot to follow. Over whelming numerical superiority is needed, and more importantly cooperation.

And the 50cals don't tear things apart like we see in Guncamera footage. I got 18 hits on a NiK2 recently in that F6F late, and all it did was leak fuel. It also took me 10 minutes to get to 3500m, From the east end of Hawaii map to the west end mountain range, and the entire climb was at 260-270km/ph, a sitting duck all the way up. The F4F is a better competitor with planes from it's era than the F6F is with it's class.

The Do335 is becoming popular on the one map it is available, great view from pit, massive guns, and a 1000lb bomb if you want to do a little mission. It may be faster that anything else, but it's can't turn with anything (except maybe a 262).

Cheers!

Happy New Year!
 

As we begin the new year I’ll be thankful again for anything received in the next patch for this great game, as we know it is still a work-in-progress! :)

But I think it's still important for us to share our wishlists for the future of IL-2:1946 here in the official 1C: Daidalos Team forum, so I dug up this old thread and I'm re-posting a copy of my Daidalos Team wishlist that I posted in the Mission4Today forums last November.

My latest wishes are:

• For the flight model of Hellcats to be reviewed. According to Baball, their lift coefficient was screwed in patch 4.11 causing excess drag and performance loss, and they certainly seem to be under-performing to me and others.

• More Western European and Pacific Theatre aircraft and maps (and more talented FMB users to volunteer to help populate the maps; contact me or _1SMV_Gitano if you want to help).

• A flyable Spitfire Mk.XIV.

• To fix the Destruction Brush bug in FMB where the amount of destruction is randomly increased when saved.

I agree, more maps please. Particularly Philippines and Poland.

I concur with the need to address the Hellcat. It sucks to not be able to fly it satisfactorily.

New flyable planes are always welcome. I really would live to see the B-26 in particular, as well as the PZL 23 Karas and the PZL 37 Los. I also noticed that the KI 44 iand Mavis flying boat are not represented in the game which surprised me.

I would definitely love to have a Greece nation with speechpack and maps.

I could name other planes but those are my most desired. I am just so grateful for this simulator that encompasses just about every theater of the war. I have devoured all things WWII aviation since I was a kid. This game is my dream come true!

I truly appreciate the continued patches produced by the Diadalos team. Bless you and all your hard work!

Japan needs some more bomber types for late war scenarios as the Ki-21-II and G4M1 can only go so far.

Here are some that would be very easy to add in the meantime as the Ki-67, Ki-49, D4Y, etc. will probably take a bit:

G4M1 - The initial version of the Betty had many modifications; there could easily be 1941, 1942, and 1943 "summarized" versions of the aircraft.

G4M2 and 2a (maybe 3?) - Once later G4M1 models are added these are pretty easy to make (especially with the 2e already being in game). The 2a even easier after the 2. The 3 wasn't used or built nearly as much as the other types, but it might be nice to have.

Ki-21-IIb - Really easy to implement as it requires a new turret and some changes to the canopy.

D3A2 - This is really needed for later 1942 and 1943 Solomons missions. It also had some small carrier usage in 1944.

B6N1 - This isn't as high priority as the others, but this would be nice for some 1943 missions, like Bougainville.

In 4.13.4 the F6F-5 tested speed and climb is correct to common data, both on ADIwep and off. It has a large bonus maneoverability fudge in its flight data already! The 4.13.4 F6F-3 has same engine coding without ADI so I didn't test fly it.

There are lots of cool planes already made for il-2 that mod makers have not ported over to official il2 as mod makers prefer 4.12.2

Its infuriating that even all the super MEGA-mods are missing 1-2 diffferent planes that I would really like for a complete theatre :mrgreen:

Thanks very much for the feedback and info taly001. :) I guess it is possible that my expectations for the F6F-5 performance are too high. I haven't tested it against official performance figures myself. In 4.14.1 I do remember having more difficulty chasing SU-2s at sea level than I expected, without resorting to WEP, and I was also influenced by comments made by baball and others in the M4T forums last year, where it seems to be a common complaint.

baball said "The main problem with the current Hellcat FM is that its lift coefficient at 0° AoA has been doubled, going from 0.17 to 0.36. What this means is that you have to pitch down way more in the post 4.11 patch as you gain speed, which in turn increases the drag of the aircraft more than it should."

Patch 4.14.1 was already out when baball made this statement, so I'm not sure how that fits with your 4.13.4 testing.

Here's a link to the full M4T discussion if you want to read the rest of the criticisms and mod solutions:

https://www.mission4today.com/index....wtopic&t=25460

Wow. We still communicate in the IL2 Universe despite all the challenges of the real world.
I might dust off my Thrustmaster gear and try again someday, somewhere in the safe place.
Just give me mirrors on the Do-335 and gunner view in Beaufighter. Yes, both are historical :-P

+1 for the Beaufighter "gunner" view!

And I hope you do stay safe in the challenges of the real world dimlee. :)

Thank you. Doing my best.
It's not even the end of the beginning, just to paraphrase one famous Englishman...
But everything will be all right, some day, when they sound the last All Clear.
:cool:

I checked my notes I only tested with WEP/water on F6F-5 (4.13.4)
377mph(328kt)@18602ft(5670m)
3:18 to 10,000ft(3048m)
So its no dog, but the secret may be WEP. I might test S.L. one day, but waiting for 4.15 really :grin: