Patch 4.10 - Development Updates by Daidalos Team

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Since the BOB SOW will be open for modifications it would seem that Grumman may have problems enforcing their limitations on "home" plane builders as they have with every other air combat or flight simulation game.

They might be able to prevent Oleg or MSFT, but just like youtube trying to keep all the media from broadcasters off the site. It is just too much work to try to enforce against the average "john doe".

It's a bit more complicated than that apparently... if my understanding is correct the legal issues are surrounding the Pacific Fighters game and all related materials. Storm of War apparently will have no such issues.

[ElAurens]

The Curtiss Helldiver is good to go.

As is the Curtuss SOC "Seagull" float plane.

Both were widely used.

[AndyJWest]

This forum is getting more like the AAA 'requests' topic every day. You know - think of a plane you'd like to see, post it on the forum, and expect it to happen. It doesn't work like that. Adding a new plane will need (a) information, (b) incentive, and (c) hard work. To see why just asking for your favourite plane isn't much help, let's consider these points in turn.

(a) Information. TD have standards, they need to have sufficient detail available on a plane to make it look right, fly right etc. A blurry photo isn't sufficient.

(b) Incentive. I'd like to have a flyable Supermarine Walrus, but I doubt if this is a major priority for most IL-2 players, so TD meeting my wishes is unlikely.

(c) Hard work: the key issue. TD are doing this for free. It is a lot easier to ask for a Lancaster than it is to actually make one. It is probably easier to make three single-seater fighters than a Lancaster - and given the limitations of the game, a Lanc will always be compromised anyway. If someone from TD is really keen, or someone from outside is willing to meet their standards, we may see a Lanc one day, but it will be down to those making the effort. If the response to every new plane is 'why didn't you do an X', rather than appreciating what you are given (for free), I don't think it is reasonable to expect TD to take too much notice of requests.

On the other hand, if you 'must' have a particular plane, there is a solution. Learn how to do it yourself. As far as I'm aware, TD is not an exclusive club.

[kancerosik]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

You answered half of it yourself. If you start to compare a nations most build standard plane type with its missing standard loadouts to single field mod types, you can clearly see why there might be some priority. Plus - the Bf109 in fact is one of the oldest type in the game - underdeveloped since 7 years.

Beside that, noone said, that we won't care for equal gasps in allied fighter lines (i.e. Spit, Mustang, to name just the classics).

Some voices have come up, that we might be 'Blue' orientated, but there is completely no Blue/Red thinking in our development or intern dicussions. In most cases, someone in our team has an idea for a future patch (like to rework the Bf109 line) and if the team decides, that it is worth the effort, he and/or someone else starts this project. And believe me: We will never tell anyone in our team to quit a promising idea, just because it might let people think, we would support only axis or allied.

For us, its all a whole box of content, and each part that is worth to be added, will be, no matter if its a german plane or a russian.

If something is worth it, is judged by a few factors:

- historical relevance
- gameplay relevance
- work ammount
- connection to SoW:BoB content

Sometimes someone amongst us does something rather historical unimportant, but ignited from his own personel (fanatic) enjoyment. If its done well and not inflicting TD's workflow, noone will blame him.

But thats all... and I repeat... no Red/Blue thing here.
We know we cannot please everyone, but we try to please as much as we can.

thank for the response mate:

I really dont want to start another nasty discussion about Blue/Red.

But if you say the word "historical or game relevance" I must say:

Historical relevance:
p39 "aircobra" never flew on Ostfron with the original gunnery (except cannons). The wing gunnery were removed (good idea to avoid a crack on a 109E on high G turns, as Historically was) All the machine guns where replaced by sovietic models before first engine start. I dont think that this "small" detail is out of the historical context. But I´m not a fanatic of that plane in any case, this is only an example.
In any case your answer confirm that the only historical relevance that counts is the "bf109 historical relevance".

Game play relevance: the 109 is the most used plane in Il2?, of course. Allies have more variety of models. If someone fly Red online regulary, is imposible to fly two planes form the same designer
The western front come to Il2 a "little bit" late compare with the eastern front. In fact, in most of international competitions, the Eastfront (and its planesets) got specific weight.


Amount of work: is related to the amount of Fw/Bf mods?

conection with SoW:BoB : perhaps the only answer that is clear for me.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

(b) Incentive. I'd like to have a flyable Supermarine Walrus, but I doubt if this is a major priority for most IL-2 players, so TD meeting my wishes is unlikely.

Funny. I was think along the same lines a few months back.

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by kancerosik

Historical relevance:
p39 "aircobra" never flew on Ostfron with the original gunnery (except cannons). The wing gunnery were removed (good idea to avoid a crack on a 109E on high G turns, as Historically was) All the machine guns where replaced by sovietic models before first engine start. I dont think that this "small" detail is out of the historical context. But I´m not a fanatic of that plane in any case, this is only an example.

You should learn the subject better. Because your "only example" simply isn't true. It's just partially correct.

The original .50 cal machine guns on P-39 were never replaced. The wing mounted .30 cal guns were removed in some regiments to save weight. But again, it wasn't done mandatory on all aircraft. It was left to regiment command discretion.

Also, the first engine start was done in the USA, in case, you don't know.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

This forum is getting more like the AAA 'requests' topic every day. You know - think of a plane you'd like to see, post it on the forum, and expect it to happen. It doesn't work like that. Adding a new plane will need (a) information, (b) incentive, and (c) hard work. To see why just asking for your favourite plane isn't much help, let's consider these points in turn.

(a) Information. TD have standards, they need to have sufficient detail available on a plane to make it look right, fly right etc. A blurry photo isn't sufficient.

(b) Incentive. I'd like to have a flyable Supermarine Walrus, but I doubt if this is a major priority for most IL-2 players, so TD meeting my wishes is unlikely.

(c) Hard work: the key issue. TD are doing this for free. It is a lot easier to ask for a Lancaster than it is to actually make one. It is probably easier to make three single-seater fighters than a Lancaster - and given the limitations of the game, a Lanc will always be compromised anyway. If someone from TD is really keen, or someone from outside is willing to meet their standards, we may see a Lanc one day, but it will be down to those making the effort. If the response to every new plane is 'why didn't you do an X', rather than appreciating what you are given (for free), I don't think it is reasonable to expect TD to take too much notice of requests.

On the other hand, if you 'must' have a particular plane, there is a solution. Learn how to do it yourself. As far as I'm aware, TD is not an exclusive club.

If you're referring to my list ... I did that for fun mostly.

Also although I have only extremely poor 3D modeling capabilities myself... I was a minor contributor on the old Netwings forum where some of the 3rd party modeling efforts came from that are in the official IL-2 today. I know all of the hard work and long hours involved in making many of these aircraft a reality. I even did some research when I could find resources.

I'm painfully aware how much effort is involved. Making a list doesn't mean I'm demanding of or even necessarily expecting anything to happen. It is fun to dream.

[AndyJWest]

Yeah, IceFire, I wasn't trying to suggest you were being serious. I do get the impression that some 'requests' are though. Many of the suggestions have been made before, and I doubt that TD will suddenly decide to make a B-26 or whatever just because someone asks for it. They have all been involved with IL-2 for years, as far as I can tell, and have a pretty good idea what the community would like. They also understand the limitations and practicalities of adding new aircraft better than most.

THere is no harm in dreaming, but I think realistically we are unlikely to see more than say 8 or 10 new aircraft per year, at the outside, unless more people get involved. I'd like to help myself, but although I have some computing skills I'm in no position to commit to anything as long-term as these projects. Probably there aren't that many of us who can, so the rest of us will have to accept what we're given. So far, I have no complaints, far from it.

It will be interesting to see how involved adding new aircraft to SoW:BoB will be - I suspect this will be even more complex, if done properly.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Yeah, IceFire, I wasn't trying to suggest you were being serious. I do get the impression that some 'requests' are though. Many of the suggestions have been made before, and I doubt that TD will suddenly decide to make a B-26 or whatever just because someone asks for it. They have all been involved with IL-2 for years, as far as I can tell, and have a pretty good idea what the community would like. They also understand the limitations and practicalities of adding new aircraft better than most.

THere is no harm in dreaming, but I think realistically we are unlikely to see more than say 8 or 10 new aircraft per year, at the outside, unless more people get involved. I'd like to help myself, but although I have some computing skills I'm in no position to commit to anything as long-term as these projects. Probably there aren't that many of us who can, so the rest of us will have to accept what we're given. So far, I have no complaints, far from it.

It will be interesting to see how involved adding new aircraft to SoW:BoB will be - I suspect this will be even more complex, if done properly.

I see where you're coming from for sure. Even 8 to 10 would be impressive and I hope that everyone takes a realistic view on this. We're lucky to get what we are and it is truly fantastic.

Many of the aircraft showing up now were being worked on years ago and they have resurfaced. Which is great! Lots of work was put in then but there just wasn't time to make them a reality at the time.

Storm of War aircraft appear to be much more labour intensive. That said at least being able to import them into the game using provided tools will give some added incentive to work on them. They will definitely be multi-year projects in many cases.

[daidalos.team]

Dev. update posted at first page.