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

[DK-nme]

Hi all from Daidalos dev. team.
Firstly, I want to thank You all for the outstanding results You've achieved so far, but I must admit, that I sorely miss the Do-17 and b-26 Marauder - these planes would almost complete this sim and were in fact used in greater numbers through out the entire campaigns...

This is simply a humble request, from a great fan of Team Daidalos work and only meant as further inspiration, but i know, You've got a major workload already and have heard requests like this a thousand times (just wanted to bump this a bit)...


DK-nme

[Fenrir]

Hi guys -

As a static campaign builder, i'm endlessly frustrated by the odd way in which ranks are assigned to the flight positions:

Rank 1 (Flight Sergeant/Flight Officer/Oberfeldwebel) : Plane 16 (last guy in the squadron)
Rank 2 (Pilot Officer/Second Lieutenant/Leutnant) : Plane 4 (last guy in squadron commander's flight)
Rank 3 (Flying Officer/First Lieutenant/Oberleutnant) : Plane 14 (wingman to flight 4 leader)
Rank 4 (Flight Lieutenant/Captain/Hauptmann) : Plane 2 (squadron commander's wingman)
Rank 5 (Squadron Leader/Major/Major) lane 13 (flight leader of flight 4)
Rank 6 (Wing Commander/Lieutenant Colonel/Oberstleutnant) lane 5 (flight leader of flight 2)
Rank 7 *highest* (Group Captain/Colonel/Oberst) Plane 1 (squadron commander)

In the RAF a Flight Lieutenant should be leading the sections, i.e planes 5 and 9 if a Sqn/Ldr is leading a full squadron (12 a/c). However getting to Flt/Lt (rank 4) rank you are still only ever a wingman when you should be leading 3 other a/c! Even on a 16 plane formation - as in the USAAF - flights of four should be led by a Cpt. Also Rank 3 (Flying Officer) should in those four ships be leading the 2nd element or planes 3, 7, 11 & 15 (which in the current setup are completely inaccessible to the player) with the wingman position being made up with Ranks 1 & 2.

Is there anyway you could correct this odd positioning, or if not, provide a tick box in FMB whereby the mission builder could override the campaign positioning of a player and force the campaign to put the player in an aircraft that the mission builder selects? It would make for far more realistic campaigns and a more flexible system - a Flt/Lt (rank 4) could be leading a 4 ship mission one day, then be leading the 2nd or 3rd Section behind the Sqn/Ldr (rank 5) doing as his name implies, leading the squadron, the next mission.

As an aside, the 3d model of the default P-40E/M is quite ill proportioned - too much dihedral on the wings, too large nose and too short a tail; is there any chance of having it re-done?

Many thanks for your consideration and the fantastic work you have already given us! I'm very much anticipating the delights of 4.10.

Regards,

Tom

[MBot]

Since the DM of ships is limited in complexity, it would be nice if a damage randomisation factor could be introduced for ships. For example the fleet carriers currently take exactly 8 250kg/500lb class weapons in the same hull segment to sink, or the CVE take 3 250kg/500lb bombs. This often makes attacking ships a game of numbers, because you can determine exactly how much explosive you need to sink which ships. In my oppinion this predictability is quite unrealistic and takes away from the fun. I would suggest to add a 50% variation to DM strenght for each ship, so each individual ship has a random hull strenght between 50-150% at the start of each mission. That way you never know exactly what it takes to sink a target.

Of course a complex ship DM would be preferable, featuring things like compartments, fires, fuel and magazine explosions, fuel vapors, damage control parties etc. But I think we can agree that this is out of scope, so the suggestion above would be a neat low cost solution.

[nearmiss]

Mbot

Do you have any idea how many compartments are in an A/C carrier?

You could actually bomb the smack out of a carrier for days and it might not go down, unless you hit right spots.

The Hornet at battle of Santa Cruz took so many hits and was still afloat. It was ordered to scuttle her, and she was still afloat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...a_Cruz_Islands

I'm just saying it wouldn't be much fun, if you never sunk the ships.

Afterall, it was pretty important warships stayed afloat. There were alot of men on those ships depending upon the ship to take them back to home port. So, ships definitely were designed to take a great deal of punishment.

[MBot]

I don't think you got my point. The USS Franklin, a very though Essex class carrier, almost went down by two 250 kg bombs. The Hornet took a myriad of bombs, air and ship launched torpedoes to finally sink. How much damage a ship will take is a very complex question, but from a pilots point of view it is ultimately pretty random. That is the reason for my suggestion.

[Viikate]

There are many things that would be nice to randomize, but this is problematic online. If each client calculates some thing, the random factor would need to be synchronized over the net.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Viikate

There are many things that would be nice to randomize, but this is problematic online. If each client calculates some thing, the random factor would need to be synchronized over the net.

A packet that includes the seed for randomization, thereby syncing it for all, perhaps? Or let server handle ship bomb/torpedo damage? The delay involved when hitting a ship would not too unrealistic.