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

[XB-49]

Originally Posted by mkubani

Look here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=8815&page=67

Thank you Mkubani. Its too bad that the TBD will be and AI only craft. Ah well, its looks like we will have to wait for Ranwers (over at AAA) to make us one.

XB-49

[Eldur]

Just one more thing came to my mind concerning CEM: The turbo supercharger lever. I anxiously awaited the not so easy to control turbo supercharger control right before FB came out with the CEM and P-47 announced and was kind of disappointed that this had not been modelled back then. The P-38 would have the same control. I've seen that in a real P-47 training film (no. 107-c - how to fly the P-47, high altitude flight and aerobatics) that I found on the net around that time (p47highfly.avi, can't find a link anymore). Basically it's needed to control the exhaust waste gates (and therefore the amount of exhaust that drives the supercharger) while climbing and then reducing the manifold pressure to keep the supercharger impeller below 18250rpm.

Originally Posted by lep1981

Something that REALLY bothers me from IL2 is the score system. ...

Oh yes... that one needs a complete overhaul. I just would say it is a real issue because many people are "score driven". Getting a proper scoring for my efforts gives me a good motivation. And the worst killers are things like "only 10% score because you have no fuel left or your engine ran dead" while I still managed to bring the plane back in one piece with a nice landing. You can get the most score now by just bailing out. It would be cool to get score for returning a badly damaged plane back to the base alone.
I had proposed quite some stuff ages ago in the ORR. Too bad the Ubi forum staff deleted it so I can't dig it out anymore. One thing was that the weapon usage should be taken into account for scoring as well as effective hits with these. WarBirds had this and even the good old Dynamix series (Aces and Red Baron) had a score system based not just on kills, but also on gunnery and bombing skill. And some kind of "kill sharing" across those who shot at the target, split up considering how critical the damage they did each. So if pilot A shoots up B's controls and then C comes and severs B's wing off, A should still get some score for doing that critical damage instead of giving C all the score. That would also get us rid of those "that kill stealer just sprayed some ShKAS at the burning wingless wreck just to get the kill"-situations. I think everybody hates getting his kill stealed. Should also be considered while revamping the AI. They like to steal kills, too.

[mkubani]

@Zorin, here are the specs:

LOD_0 polycount:

1. Smaller bombs/rockets (below 200kg) - up to 200 triangles.
2. Medium bombs/rockets (between 200 and 1000kg) - up to 300 triangles
3. Larger bombs (1000kg and larger), torpedoes, guided bombs, etc. - up to 500 triangles.
4. Racks/pylons – as simple as possible – 50 triangles

Other LODs polycount:

Each subsequent LOD should have less, or equal to 50% of the previous LOD polycount.

4 distance LODs (LOD_0,1,2,3), 3 shadow LODs, each shadow LOD based on normal LOD with previous number (i.e. shadow LOD_0 is based on normal LOD_1, shadow LOD_1 is based on normal LOD_2 and so on).

Use alpha-channels to save polygons by cutting openings and complex shaped parts (like windmills, propellers, etc.) out of simple flat 3D objects.

It is enough to use 12-sided cylinder for virtually any bomb, or torpedo model. Keep polygon count as smaller, as possible, making small parts with either alpha, or texture. Keep smoothing groups set correctly.

Texture sizes for LOD_0: 128x256, 256x256, or 256x512. It is preferable to use same texture for several different bombs. Texture reduction by 50% for other LODS -> e.g. 256x256 -> 128x128 -> 64x64 -> 32x32. Tip: Use a bit of sharpening effect after you resize the textures for smoother texture transition (no sharp to blurry effect).

Use 1-sided material for most parts and 2-sided material for any part with alpha-channel. No alpha-channel textures after LOD_1

[Eldur]

Here's another thing that could need some rework. Those screens are pretty old, I think they're even from the good old Il-2 w/o FB. But still, this has never been changed so even now it's an issue after all.

Screen 1
Screen 2
Screen 3
Screen 4
Screen 5
Screen 6

The planes don't differ much my size, but the farther one gets away (which makes the engine show the less-poly LOD levels), the bigger some planes grow while others don't. I think both the 109s and Stukas as well as the Las suffer the most from this problem, but there are others, too - mainly the oldest planes we have.
I'd say this is lots more important than reworked cockpits.

Originally Posted by Daiichidoku

about the fuel leak bug:

i do remember that 190s (and P47s), after one patch, would catch fire VERY easily

I remember some other problems, but this definately would need some testing again to proove. Especially the P-47 is well known for having the "one 7.x shot - engine dead" syndrom, but a lot of other planes have similar issues.
Another thing that comes to my mind are just completely wrong things like the A6M5b's lack of 2nd cowling MG (7.7mm) and generally the 5s and later models' lack of sealing fuel tanks. But it could be that the late Zero fuel tank issue has been fixed already.

Originally Posted by Red Dragon-DK

Have DT any plane, to correct the the sound in the game? ... I have add 2 videos that I fell are woth listen to.
...

Wow those are 1000 times better than the ones that are in the mod packs. But still I think this shall be still a mod then so anybody could just install it if he wants. I've seen the files of the sound mods and this looks 100% to me like the MSFS sound system, with just like 4 different samples for different rpms. I remember Oleg saying that he does not use such techniques, but rather a very complex system that mixes lots of mini-samples to generate engine sound. After all I like the sound of the original 1946 a lot more than the sound of all those mod packs, even if there are less different ones. Just because the quality is better by ages. I still wonder why some individual sounds have been removed ever since. Does anybody remember the good old I-16 sound when it became flyable in Il-2? Or the P-39 sound? Those and some more (Il-2!!) where great, but got dumped in FB without a reason. I also liked the Il-2 Me-262 sound a lot more than the one we have now. I was so deep and cool, not that high pitched sound which always reminds me of the MSFS Learjet (and the modded jet sounds are even more awful than that).

€dit: Just found another bug... I tried a single F4U-1C vs 2 A6M5, 2 Jills and 2 Vals... I got the fighters while the others tried to land... in the water! Where are the carriers? I've uploaded the quick mission as well.
I noticed that my waypoints were not synchronized with the allied carriers. I think this issue did not exist prior to 4.09m.

click to see
QMB mission

Originally Posted by Voyager

On the fuel drain debate, I believe the argument is that planes with multiple discrete fuel tanks a catastrophic hit in one tank would most likely drain just that tank, rather than the entire fuel system, but with the basic limitations of the Il-2 engine, a catastrophic hit in one tank would behave as a catastrophic hit in all fuel tanks. This is true for all aircraft in the game; it shows up most often on the US aircraft, because the USAAF and USN fighters have 3-4 times the max fuel of other comparable aircraft.

Correct. But I doubt that we will see a change here in Il-2. But I would be more happy that it it actually will happen sometime. As far as I remember the FW-190 had a special issue that no other plane had - and I don't know if it got fixed. This was the instant emptiness after 20mm AP hits. One of these could mean that 400+ litres of fuel were gone in a matter of like 5 seconds. That was definately wrong. But I think that had been changed though I'm not sure.

The "burning planes" was the same sort of thing. When someone sprung a leak, you could light it off by firing tracers through the leak cloud, and it would burn until the plane exploded, or the fuel ran out. People just noticed more often on the 190 and P-47, because those two took a whole lot more damage to bring down than other planes, but I found you could do the same thing to 109's, and pretty much anything else that took more than two burps of 0.50 cal. Was great fun until they fixed it.

Oh yes. I loved that. I don't like that "95% of airkills due to wings shot off" thingy we have right now. Those burning shot down planes had a more realistic touch somehow. I also barely remember a really hard to master FM and especially ground handling (which was superb when getting used to) in one of the first FB patch betas that had been leaked. That was an experience that clearly showed that it's possible to have more sophisticated FM physics than we actually have now. In fact, it was a bit like what Rise of Flight is now in FM terms, just by the feeling.

Originally Posted by ECV56_Guevara

+100

+10000. TD deserves their own Ready Room subforum. Not just a single thread.

Originally Posted by csThor

Why should the G-4 be heavier than the G-2 (except a tiny bit from different radio, sturdier landing gear and larger tyres)? According to the info I have the take-off weight of a G-2 is around 3100kg, the same applies (to the little information I found in a quick search) to the G-4. I mean even the G-6 is only 50kg heavier than a G-2 ...

Too bad the differenct between G-2 and G-6 seems to be a lot more in 46. The performance of these 2 planes differ more than the one of the I-16 compared to the Me-262, just to exaggerate it a bit . I think you know what I mean. Oleg officially stated once that the gun bulges lower the top speed by 6km/h and the fixed tail wheel does so by 13km/h (or was it the other way round?). Apart from that, the 50kg more shouldn't drop the climb rate by 25-30%. After all the G-6 just feels a lot heavier in all respects. Interestingly it's pretty much dead on when compared with the G-2 + gunpods. In that case they perform almost the same, with very little difference. And that makes me think that the G-6 have the performance that a G-6/R6 should have. For me this is one of the very few major FM flaws.
And I agree with the G-4. It doesn not make sense to have it, unless we had to play around with the radio (and it would actually make a difference somehow). And I doubt that any plane in 46 has individual gear strength, most probably they're all the same.

Originally Posted by =FPS=Salsero

Well, the "blue" pilots say that in the game difference between G2 (helicopter with a tiny gun) and G6 (steam roller with a BIG gun) is quite big thus G4 may well fit in between.

I've seen "red" pilots, too, saying the same. And the gun makes not much difference, because there's a lot less ammunition which compensates for the bit heavier gun.

MG 151/20 = 42,5kg
One shell = 220g (projectile is 115g)
Gun + 200rd = 86,5kg

MK 108 = 58kg
One shell = 480g (projectile is 330g)
Gun + 65rd = 116,2kg

So it's ~20kg difference. Data source: http://www.adlertag.de/waffen/waffen.htm

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Weapon correction concerning muzzle velocity, frequency, belting sequence.

2 things that should be looked at are the UB muzzle velocity (you can see it's something like twice the ShKAS value in MiG-3, and UBs have an extremely high range) and the MG 17 Rate of Fire (it's still with 2x packages AFAIK, some others had been changed when FB came out).

Originally Posted by Daiichidoku

i will have to get the actual info on it, but apparently it has been proven with plenty of documentation that the P47 bomb loadout is incorrect

in game is 2x500lbs on wings + 1x1000lbs on centreline rack

IRL loadout is 2x1000lbs on wings + 1x500lbs on centreline rack

+1

Generally, the loadouts should be overhauled. There's lots of work to do, but it's worth it as it will "renew" some of the planes completely. I've got a nice list for German planes somewhere... I'll dig it out and post it here when I find it

€dit: My post grows bigger and bigger, but I don't want to multi-post

Originally Posted by Daiichidoku

also, as someone a few pages pointed out, having a P80 with tip tanks and dive brakes would be wonderful

while speaking of jets, id like to ask for consideration given to the Go-229

That P-80 would be a P-80A and not the YP-80 we have. It should also feature up t 2x 1000lb, TT rockets and 8 HVARs.
I'd also like an upgraded Go-229. Basically it should have the option to have 4x MK108 with 90rpg and a bombload of 1000kg carried on 2 ETCs on the engine housing next to the big front wheel. After all the project required it to carry 1000kg of bombs, have a 1000km range and 1000km/h speed. This shouldn't even be a new plane. Just change it.

Originally Posted by csThor

As far as chinese markings go I am afraid our hands are in binders. According to Oleg the game would be instantly banned in China if national-chinese markings were included. I don't think he'd allow this.

It would have been banned in Germany with Swastikas so there should be a way to get around this, too.

[ramstein]

DD team,
is it possible to program the AI planes not to Kamikazee you in a dogfight... it's not realistic!
they will head-in you in a dogfight much of the time,,,

thanx,

[Zorin]

This comparison shows the result of following TD rules set for ordnance meshes regarding texture size and triangle count. As you can see, the details had to be deleted, along with the refined transition of shell body and rear assembly. Additionally, due to the fact that the tail assembly should be created via Alpha Cut, the skin had to be resized to 256x256, yet including an alpha channel keeps it equal with the 512x512 skin that doesn't need a Alpha channel.

Further more, the next smaller bomb needs to be build with less than 200 triangles, which can only be achieved by reducing the 12 sided cylinder base mesh, which in turn leads us back to the eight sided cylinder the old mesh was represented by.

Let us not forget that all bombs should at best share the same skin file. This leads us to having the same tail assembly on all bombs (historically incorrect), the same lettering (historically incorrect) and a further reduction in skin quality, to keep the resolution on different sized bomb bodies equal.

I don't see the point in spending month on research and building to end up with something that looks like build in the year 2000. That is no my idea of improvement.

My models have been in game with all mod packs and as separate downloads and therefor are in use by, most likely, every MOD user out there and not ONE has had a complaint so far. They were used on simulated mass bombing raids and had no negative effect, so why should I not build them the way I did?

Just give me ONE GOOD reason.



Let me add as a final note: I highly appreciate your work, the insight you want to give us and I usually am the last person not to follow given rules, but I need to see at least a tiny bit of good reason in it. This is sadly, and I'm being honest, not the case here.

[jermin]

Originally Posted by Eldur

I've seen "red" pilots, too, saying the same. And the gun makes not much difference, because there's a lot less ammunition which compensates for the bit heavier gun.

MG 151/20 = 42,5kg
One shell = 220g (projectile is 115g)
Gun + 200rd = 86,5kg

MK 108 = 58kg
One shell = 480g (projectile is 330g)
Gun + 65rd = 116,2kg

So it's ~20kg difference. Data source: http://www.adlertag.de/waffen/waffen.htm



2 things that should be looked at are the UB muzzle velocity (you can see it's something like twice the ShKAS value in MiG-3, and UBs have an extremely high range) and the MG 17 Rate of Fire (it's still with 2x packages AFAIK, some others had been changed when FB came out).

+1 about the weight of MG151 and MK108. The weight for German planes equipped with MK 108 should all be fixed.

And G2 and G6 should only have 376kg difference in weight:

a, New radio set
b, Larger, non-retractable tailwheel*
c, 13mm HMGs and their belt covers, or 'bulges'

* In fact, late G-2s had the same arger, non-retractable tailwheel as well, so in practice the only difference between was a quite insignificant 50 kg weight increase, and -9 km/h loss of top speed due to the cowling bulges. But in the game the difference between G2 and G6 in handling is unreasonably large.

And about the muzzle velocity of MG151, it is considerably slow compared to Hispano V in the game. While in real life the difference is only arround 20 m/s. Within a range less than 300 meter, there should be virtually no diference in the lead for the same shooting scenario. But in the game the Hispano on Tempest requires much less lead than MG151 when firing. It also seems to me that the MV of MK 108 is too low. Please fix these problem in the incoming patch.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by jermin

It also seems to me that the MV of MK 108 is too low.

How something "seems" to you or to me is of no importance.

It either matches the correct numbers or it doesn't. So if you cannot post actual numbers, both for the real weapon, and it's velocity in game, you have no leg to stand on here.

Hence even though it "seems" to me that the MK 108 is grossly over modeled in the game, you won't here me begging for a change based on my feelings.

[jermin]

So you are a member from TD or are you a moderator of this forum? If not, I won't provide any real data for you. And, please remove the offensive tone in you post.

P.S. I think TD should have a hell lot more data that what I got from Internet.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Let me add as a final note: I highly appreciate your work, the insight you want to give us and I usually am the last person not to follow given rules, but I need to see at least a tiny bit of good reason in it. This is sadly, and I'm being honest, not the case here.

Zorin, thank you for investing your time and trying it out and the comparsion shown is also very much appreciated.

The reason you're asking for is very simple: it makes no sense to waste such a huge amount of polygons (and therefore PC's resources) on details like bombs etc.

The bomb is just a bomb that hangs and then it flies down as you drop it, there is not much time to examine how beautiful the fuse is nor to read the stuff written in army stencil font around it. This is not the improvement we need, mate.

The technical specifications were not set by DT, they exist from the day 1 and the've been raised according to modern PC's specs since. These are very reasonable. Unfortunately, your work is a still massive overkill and it's not acceptable at all - especially for a low priority models.

Thanks very much for trying anyway, I am sorry that you're not willing to revise your otherwise great work in order to be (perhaps) included in an official release. But I completely understand that modelling within specs is very demanding task and requires a really skilled modeller.