Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY on IL2 Authorized Addons

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

""Anyway,Daidalos Team knows very well what's right and what's not in this game ...."

I think that im heard something like these before... here in Il2 world. These is really dangerous statment .

What do you think about these knowing better:

These is simple comparsion Bf 109 B-2 ( new one) and I-16 type 5 ( stock one)

http://i34.tinypic.com/bfn8gk.jpg

I didnt know that I-16 type 5 from 1937 was such good climber but people will learnning day by day.

S!

Thank you for perfect illustration of Bulgarian's point.

You have used an unsupported function in game code without knowing what it does and what are its limitations to generate completely incorrect data for il2compare. Or maybe someone supplied you these data, then you are going to be blamed for posting them here without any verification. If someone needed an example of what can happen by careless handling of game code, well, here it is.



No one claims DT is perfect because we make mistakes too. But we spend a lot of time to make sure that output is bugfree, well-founded and as good as possible (and I have same attitude to forum posts and expect similar from other posters too. You post it, you are responsible.). Origin of bugreport has no effect on its verification/fixing effort, but I hope everyone understand we always have to make independent evaluation of everything simply because we are responsible for patch content. I hope this clears a bit of the confusion.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by FC99

You are really pushing it this time.We have talked through PM and you should know better than this.

You have only demonstrated now that you don't have deeper understanding of how game works and that's exactly what Bulgarian was saying in not so nice way. So what did you accomplished except scoring an own goal?

Looking forward to see your NTRK with stock I-16Type5 climbing as good as your "Il2Compare" graph shows.

BTW never crossed your mind to actually test the plane before making the post? Are you sure that you really know how to extract accurate performance data?

FC

I dont want to start flame war here. These was adress for Bulgarian and his great ego.

But if you want i made climb test for I-16 type 5, Crimea Map, 100% fuel, start climbing from sea level at. 220km/h, radiator 6

1 km - 0:50
2 km - 1:36
3 km - 2:23

It is average climb rate ~ 21 m/s

RL climb time I-16 type 5 should be 3400 m in 4:00 minutes so it is average climb rate - 14 m/s. It make some difference.

[FC99]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

I dont want to start flame war here. These was adress for Bulgarian and his great ego.

But if you want i made climb test for I-16 type 5, Crimea Map, 100% fuel, start climbing from sea level at. 220km/h, radiator 6

1 km - 0:50
2 km - 1:36
3 km - 2:23

It is average climb rate ~ 21 m/s

RL climb time I-16 type 5 should be 3400 m in 4:00 minutes so it is average climb rate - 14 m/s. It make some difference.

In my game I-16Type5 have max. climb rate of 16,5 m/s. IIRC JtD tested it at UBI with similar results, now I'm really curious to know how you made your test.

FC

[Insuber]

LesniHU,


From my standpoint you are 110% right. I trust better a quality controlled teamwork, as DT looks to do, than the goodwilling but uncontrolled acts of isolated individuals, especially when touching delicate areas as FM and DM.
So if a guy says "my new P51 now works better than the stock one, I simply corrected a wrong figure in the code", I start raising my hairy eyebrows. Who controlled it ? Where is the independent check ? Where are figures before and after ? My idea: if it is so simple, DT will quickly acknowledge it and fix it.

[\lawyer mode on]
In general, if someone has a point, the burden of proof lies with him: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
[\lawyer mode off]

It is a matter of simple logics and common sense, aka scientific method.

Regards,
Insuber

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Thank you for perfect illustration of Bulgarian's point.

No one claims DT is perfect because we make mistakes too. But we spend a lot of time to make sure that output is bugfree, well-founded and as good as possible (and I have same attitude to forum posts and expect similar from other posters too. You post it, you are responsible.). Origin of bugreport has no effect on its verification/fixing effort, but I hope everyone understand we always have to make independent evaluation of everything simply because we are responsible for patch content. I hope this clears a bit of the confusion.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Bulgarian

Well,if he's taking unauthorised actions over the FM/DM files of this game,then he should know that it is not very appropriate to come over the official boards of the game developer with this type of information.
Also as such,he should know very well that the P-47 and P-51 are not the only planes who are experiencing flaws in their flight and damage models.
There are German,British,Japanese,Italian,etc planes who have such problems aswell,so this post of his does sound a bit one sided.
Also I'm very sure that Kwiatek knows,that the "hacked" version of the game is coming with unofficially reworked FM/DM's,who differ from the original ones.This is one of the hundred risks that the end user is taking when he chooses to use the broken code,and if this error is present in the P-51 FM,then it might be coming from there./I talk from myself/experience in this paragraph/

Anyway,Daidalos Team knows very well what's right and what's not in this game and be sure that we're doing whatever we can to make this game better,and that this report will be checked.

EDIT:About the "Czech error" thing,I think that it's not good idea to use something that most people will not understand and also which cannot be well translated exactly to the language you're talking.Please take in account that the bigger part of DT are Czech.

I kinda stayed away from this thread ... but I will just add.. Bulgarian I have the utmost respect for what you guys are doing and I look forward to whatever you guys come up with.. and I can't speak on German,Italian,Japanese or British AC much.. because I just don't fly them enough to speak with any kind of for lack of a better term authority.. but the Mustang I have been flying since day one... and I don't know code and I certainly can't do what you guys do.. and I don't know what the modders did exactly to the P-51.. I know what the said actions were but I don't know where to begin on the details.. all I know is that P-51s, at least the new NTs provided by the modders (from my understanding stock FMs haven't not been touched.. and from what I have seen flying them they haven't been) , fly much more stable than the stock ones.. and mind you.. I still cannot yank on the stick.. the elevator authority is still very pronounced, I'll still shed my wings if I try to pull out of a dive too hot and it is still very easy to go into a stall in a heartbeat... but the thing is more stable.. and that makes for more accuracy... You guys will do whatever Oleg wants.. and IMO that is a good thing.. and I will be on whatever you guys do like white on rice .. because IMO it is good stuff, but I really really really hope that one day there comes some kind of meeting of the minds on some of these issues.. FC99 is the same cat that brought us the QMB+.. He has the same integrity, the same work ethic and his love for this sim and his pride in his work has not diminished one bit from when he was doing mod work at that other place just because he is now doing "official" modding( which is all this really is... even when Oleg & 1C were doing it themselves they were modifying the original released code but we call them patches because they are official) ... and I am certain that regardless to whatever disagreements you & DT may have with anyone or any groups that come here from that other side who have NOT joined or been accepted into DT, or the work they may be doing, that your commitment to the sim is just as valid and just as true as FC's is .. I just look forward to all the good work that can come from all this, but I really hope that a lot of good is not tossed out with some of the bad.. because of "differences"..

You guys here are dong great work.... and IMO it will only get better.. but there are some issues... with the stock planes that go beyond mere opinion and I hope that they do get addressed adequately.. In the meantime I'll just keep on flying in what is still IMO regardless to mods, stock, patched , unpatched from IL2 1.0 all the way up to 19464.09m the best WWII Combat Flight Simulator on the retail market to date.. with not even a close second.. I look forward to SoW and all the sim goodness that it will bring.. in the mean time I will be hanging on to every tidbit from here... and the stock sim will always be my starting point .. regardless to what mods I happen to like or dislike.. For me it alwasy starts with the stock sim.. and then will go from there to wherever the goodness takes me.

[MicroWave]

Don't worry Bearcat, personal issues will not alter our commitment to fix proven bugs.
Things that can affect bug fixing are:
1. deadlines
2. orders from Moscow
3. interference with other parts of the code and complexity of the fix (see 1.)

[Romanator21]

I did some testing recently and I found a bug in the J-8: Even though it has a wooden prop, it is possible in game to feather it.

I heard it mentioned that Ki-61 should have fire extinguishers in the fuel tanks.

As far as requests, I have some ideas, but I understand that not everything is possible, so I am not demanding, just asking:

Some AI aircraft like B-25 variants all have similar cockpit and FM. Maybe the stock cockpit could be implemented. This applies to aircraft like other Mosquito variants, Bf-110, He-111Z (for glider towing missions?) P-36, Betty, Gladiator, and others. Also, I have heard that our current I-16 type 24 is actually a 28, and that the 24 had 4 shkas like the 18. Is it a possibility to include one last Polikarpov variant?

Some aircraft could be modified slightly externally, and with Fm. For instance, You are already working in a Bf-110 G-4 which is similar to the G-2. It would be nice to have earlier P-38 variants. There is also a P-38 which has a glass nose and Norden bombsight for high alt. bombing and path finding for B-17s.

It would be nice if cockpits and FM could be made for already included AI aircraft. Ar-169 floatplane comes to mind, as well as the IL-4, SB-2, Su-2, and others. Are you bound by the same restrictions as Oleg was regarding Grumman and their lawsuit about inclusion of their aircraft?

I noticed that the new I-16s can change the gun type in the loadout screen. Is it possible to consolidate the MiGs like this? Right now we have MiGx2 UBs, x2 Shvak, and with normal loadout of 1 ubs and 2 shkas (unless FM is affected of course). Would it also be possible to add loadouts to existing planes: Finnish Fiat G-50 had browning .50 cals rather than Bredas. The Finnish also added Brownings to many other planes that they bought, captured, borrowed.

For winter maps there is a change of skin on some planes from a summer camo to winter camo. Is it possible to do something similar for 109 and other aircraft which had tropical filters?

Some aircraft have fire extinguishers or are able to drop auxiliary gas tanks. The Pzl.11 historically could jettison its main gas tank in an emergency. Would it be possible to model this using fire extinguisher/drop tanks function?

My last request for now, until I think of more () Is it feasible to update existing 3d model, FM or DM of some of the original aircraft in the sim? The MiG is a new plane with the improved skins, but the interior is somewhat basic, as well as the Pzl.11 and some others. Most important is the FM and DM however. The G-50 seems unusually sturdy compared to its contemporaries, while the R-10 has wings that pop off with just a little light MG fire.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Hi Romanator,

many of the things you mentioned appear easy to implement but they are not. First, to build new cockpits you need references (and good ones), plus time and manwork to model them.

The policy of adapting franken cockpits from other planes seems a bit ugly to me, even if they appear similar. For example, there are definitely some differences between cockpits of Bf-110Cs and Bf-110Gs, or between B-25Cs and B-25Js. So we at DT prefer to stay away from implementing such "stop-gap" pits, due also to our limited resources in terms of time etc. However, if there are 3D modellers wich want to take in charge such tasks, they can contact us at DT mail.

Some fixes like adding loadouts options may be easier to implement, provided the references are not like: "I read it on the Wiki".

cheers

[Xilon_x]

hi DAIDALUS team my request is this......THE ITALIAN BUNKER.
in much city of Itali Sirracusa - Gela - Cagliari -Bari -Napoli - Roma ecc. ec. in the border of city or in the campain exist one standard and type of bunker this is Photo. in mission builder il-2 this bunker not exist please Daidalusi is possible create this bunker in il-2? tank you. bye.

[Romanator21]

"Hi Romanator,

many of the things you mentioned appear easy to implement but they are not. First, to build new cockpits you need references (and good ones), plus time and manwork to model them."

Fair enough. I understand a lot of work goes into this stuff that you guys do. I was just throwing some ideas out.

As for similar cockpits: I am not a fan of the frankenplane style either. I was wondering if the existing cockpits could be used as a general foundation or background for other changes. As far as I can tell, the P-39 cockpits are nearly identical with some minor differences, for instance.

I am just a layperson though, so I have no idea what really goes on in terms of code and 3d design. I imagine it is not easy though. Again, I don't want to make demands to you guys.