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

[Gryphon_]

In order get good data as inputs to future work, I think you need your own forum, moderated by you. I don't think you'll get much value out of one thread on this forum anymore.

With your own forum you could have public and private sections for different groups, and folks would be happier about providing data and engaging in a meaningful discussion

[ECV56_Guevara]

Originally Posted by gryphon_

in order get good data as inputs to future work, i think you need your own forum, moderated by you. I don't think you'll get much value out of one thread on this forum anymore.

With your own forum you could have public and private sections for different groups, and folks would be happier about providing data and engaging in a meaningful discussion

+100

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by lep1981

Something that REALLY bothers me from IL2 is the score system. It doesn't really encourage teamplay when playing in multiplayer. Is there a way to fix that?. By this I mean allowing, for example, to get the kill points to all the players that hit a shot down plane during the last minute before crashing or something like that... just to keep it fair. It's so annoying to be hitting a bomber having it almost done, and watch another guy come put the last 2 bullets on him and you end up screwed, after you did all the work, and of course, the kill stealers... who just put the 1 single bullet on a plane that's already falling down in flames.
Hopefully there is a solution to all this.

This is an excellent suggestion and something this sim has needed for some time. I think a simpler way to do something like this would be to allow server side settings for two types of points systems.. Team points or individual points. If I recall correctly MSCFS1 used to have a similar feature.. If set for individual points then each individual would receive points according to what the individual has done. If set for team points the points would be totaled for Blue & Red.I also think that the points system of numbers should just be scrapped.. and the symbols used.. Like in QMs.

I hope a moderator comes by and cleans up this thread.. it is really sad to see the direction some have taken it in.

Originally Posted by Gryphon_

In order get good data as inputs to future work, I think you need your own forum, moderated by you. I don't think you'll get much value out of one thread on this forum anymore.
With your own forum you could have public and private sections for different groups, and folks would be happier about providing data and engaging in a meaningful discussion

The problem is not the forum it is the people posting and what they choose to post. This will happen anywhere it is allowed to proliferate as long as the same people are in the threads.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

In reference the P51's CoG. Since it is established that CoG does not change with fuel use, is it possible that the P51's CoG is simply placed incorrectly in the model to begin with? Perhaps in some attempt to replicate some of the P51's instability when rear tank is full? And what we feel in game when only 25% or less of fuel is on board is simply the lower weight of the aircraft with the CoG still in same (incorrect?) place?

If an earlier P51B or a P51A were modeled without the rear tank, where would the CoG be placed vs. the ingame P51s we currently have?

And why not do an early P51B without the rear tank? Or even better a P51A (Mustang I). It would be the fastest aircraft in the ETO below 15,000 ft. in 1943.

If they do the Allison Mustang, we definitely want the [url=http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p51_2.html]Mustang Mk IA[/i], now with cannon!

After IvanK's post about the CoG being where it would be with the empty tank, I went back and did some flying and maneuvering in the P-51D-20 with 100% fuel, and found that while it was still snappy and spin-happy, it doesn't get into the tail down spins that it used to, and correction is generally quick if you cut the throttle, so it looks like the CoG issue has been fixed; I'm just behind the times. It looks like it's the natural snap stall being exacerbated by torque that's driving the spin behaviour now. Seems a bit much, given the low power to weight ratio of the plane, but then again, it had a smaller tail than was perhaps needed. I do know that starting with the XP-51F, the tail surfaces got much taller, so I'd have to dig into it a lot more than I'm really interested in to say anything meaningful on that.

Harry Voyager

[nearmiss]

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

This is now a question/request and answer thread only.

If you get an answer from DT that you don't agree with do not start an argument.

If DT doesn't answer to suit you, then make a posting and corroborate your facts with reference data. If DT doesn't agree the second time forget it, and remember the DT is working for free to accomodate our community. They don't have to put up with flak.

[Billfish]

For some time I made the request (in Oleg's Ready Room) that the windscreen oiling of the Ki-61 be relooked at in that on many levels it is not an upright V like the allies used, yet more so in the regard that how the oiling system is laid out it is also very different then the BF-109.

In a nutshell, it would be very difficult to impossible to oil the windscreen in a Ki-61, all other aircraft except twin engine aircraft would be worse.......

I'd like to see if DT would be willing to look at the data and documentation.....If so, I'd be glad to post it again.........This should be a rather simple fix to a glaring error with the Ki-61 that would help make it more realistic........In kind removal of the venturi above the air intake would be appreciated (only 3-5 Ki-61 EVER had them).

Please let me know if DT would be willing to look at this information.....Thanks for the work.

K2

[zaelu]

A scoring system like BF2's Reality Mod would be more than OK.

Team mates nearby get points for support. Suppressing an enemy gets you points. Downing an enemy does not give you best points. Etc. A lot of good ideas there but, I don't know if IL-2 can do it.

[IvanK]

My only comment on the 50Call debate.

In static tests just done using P51 against target 1000feet away directly along the Mean Fixed Boreline with convergence set to 305metres. 100% of impacts fell in 6mill group.

USAF Harmonisation requirements as laid out in USAF Air Force Manual 335-25 Fighter Gunnery Section 3-4 Paragraph requires 100% CEP at 8Mills with 75%CEP at 4mills for 50Cal.

So dispersion is within USAF spec.

Fini

[cmirko]

Originally Posted by Billfish

Please let me know if DT would be willing to look at this information.....Thanks for the work.

K2

sure, every piece of info, backed up by tests and/or hard data will be looked at , if you are more comfortable use the DT email...

cheers

[=FPS=Salsero]

Next 3 questions:

1. There is some mod which allows moving trains/ships etc in dogfight mode, are there any plans for the the official implementation of it?
2. Very popular request is to limit the information given on the plane types that are flown by the adversaries in dogfight, any plans to implement it?
3. Are there any plans for tight integration with a free server commander (FBD)?

Previous batch of questions:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=266