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

[ElAurens]

You can find "underperforming" or "wrongly modeled", or "porked" aircraft everywhere in the sim. Especially if you look at them out of the context of the overall plane set. Every aircraft's fan boy base has their favorite complaint. I know, because I champion my favorites as much as anyone does. However, and this is the important bit, taken as a whole the sim does a very good job of putting the aircraft in their proper place vis-avis their adversaries.

Just my thoughts after 8+ years of playing.

And really the FW 190A series are far from being the most problematic.

The worst IMHO, in no particular order:

P38 rate of climb. (underperforming)

P38 compressability (too pronounced at low altitude)

A6M series speeds. (too slow)

A6M roll stiffness at speeds. (too early an onset)

Wildcat top speed. (too high)

Hellcat top speed of late version. (too low)

Ki 61 turn/maneuverability. (underperforming)

P40 series turn/maneuverability (underperforming, P40 should out turn Spitfire I and II below 15,000 ft. Hawk 75 was even better.)

Ki-100. Underperforming in general, especially maneuverability.

All bombers. Too robust. (The in game version of the death star)

[P-38L]

Hello

When you are playing on a LAN configuration, your companion doesn't see the surface movement of your plane. Example: If you move your ailerons the other person doesn't see the movement.

It is possible to fix this?

I will list what the other person can see on a LAN game.

Ailerons NO
Rudder NO
Elevator NO
Folding Wing YES
Open canopy YES
Tail hook YES
Flaps YES
Lights YES
Radiator NO
Landing gear YES
Spinning wheels YES
Spinning propeller YES
Guns (all) YES
Bomb bay door YES

Thank you

[JG53Frankyboy]

Originally Posted by P-38L

Hello

When you are playing on a LAN configuration, your companion doesn't see the surface movement of your plane. Example: If you move your ailerons the other person doesn't see the movement.

It is possible to fix this?

I will list what the other person can see on a LAN game.

Ailerons NO
Rudder NO
Elevator NO
Folding Wing YES
Open canopy YES
Tail hook YES
Flaps YES
Lights YES
Radiator NO
Landing gear YES
Spinning wheels YES
Spinning propeller YES
Guns (all) YES
Bomb bay door YES

Thank you

there was a time when
Ailerons
Rudder
Elevator
were visible in multiplayer - it was deleted to save traffic.

[He111]

Bomber gunner AI, shoots in opposite direction to enemy or doesn't allow for convergence.

Stuka AI don't evade attackers, just flies straight and level to oblivion.

.

[AndyJWest]

This has possibly been requested before, but in case it hasn't, can something be done about AI planes flying on indefinitely after the pilot has bailed? It doesn't always happen, but when it does it deprives you of a legitimate kill, unless you want to go chasing after it rather than engaging sensible targets. I doubt that many WWII aircraft would have behaved like that in real life.

[Azimech]

Why not? If a pilot made a decision to bail while no crucial flight systems were damaged... for example instruments and oxygen, then correctly trimmed the aircraft would have no problems flying on until the fuel tanks were empty or another mechanical failure occured.

There's a fairly recent story of an aircraft that flew with their dead passengers and pilot due to hypoxia, for hundreds of miles before running out of fuel and crashing.

Maybe the moment of bail out should be considered a kill. or PK.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Azimech

Why not? If a pilot made a decision to bail while no crucial flight systems were damaged... for example instruments and oxygen, then correctly trimmed the aircraft would have no problems flying on until the fuel tanks were empty or another mechanical failure occured.

There's a fairly recent story of an aircraft that flew with their dead passengers and pilot due to hypoxia, for hundreds of miles before running out of fuel and crashing.

Maybe the moment of bail out should be considered a kill. or PK.

Autopilot on or off?

Even if perfectly trimmed, I doubt there are many WWII aircraft that would remain that stable after the pilot had bailed - this will alter the balance. Unless someone can produce evidence for unmanned, non-autopilot WWII combat aircraft flying on for any length of time, I'll assume it is a bug. I certainly can't trim most aircraft to show the stability needed in IL-2, even without allowing for the destabilising factors a bailout would cause.

Another factor to consider is that the safest way to bail from most single-engined fighters was to roll inverted first. In any case, why the heck would anyone bail from an aircraft with only instrument or oxygen system damage? If the plane is sufficiently undamaged to remain flying unmanned, why not stick with it? (actually, the oxygen failure case is probably one where bailing would be a dubious decision - if you open the chute high you risk hypoxia, and if you don't you may pass out on the way down...)

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

All bombers. Too robust. (The in game version of the death star)

I agree with all your points except this one. A big plane can take a lot of damage, especially from small caliber bullets, unless some of that damage hits a vital point. I don't find the bombers themselves to be difficult to shoot down - as long as I use historical tactics and aim for the cockpit, fuel tanks or engines.

If I'm going against a big (or tough) bomber using a plane armed with pellet guns, like a Ki-43 or Hurricane I vs. a TB-3 or B-24, I just have to get close and try to start a fire or kill the pilots.

What I do find unrealistic are the uncannily accurate gunners who have perfect situational awareness and seemingly limitless ammo, who can ignore G-forces and sometimes defy even death itself.

[Pursuivant]

While I know that ships and vehicles don't have AI and that it would be difficult/impossible for them to have it, would it be possible to incorporate the following options into a future patch:

1) The ability to automatically make a ground vehicle/ship make zig-zagging deviations as it travels along a set course instead of traveling in a straight line. That is, on the FMB map, the vehicle's waypoints go in a straight line, but in the game, it zig-zags/swerves as it travels. This was standard procedure for ships during the war, and was sometimes practiced by ground vehicles, either to avoid attack from the air or to present a slightly angled armored surface to potential enemies directly to the front.

In the FMB, the option to zig-zag could be set up as a checkbox. If left unchecked, movement would be straight by default.

2) The ability to make ground vehicles/ships move in formation, centered around a central point, without having to define individual waypoints for each individual vehicle. This would allow mission builders to quickly set up historical formations such as convoys of merchant ships traveling in a "box" flanked by destroyers or a squadron of tanks advancing in a line abreast or an echelon. With proper spacing between vehicles, formations could zig-zag/swerve in a realistic fashion.

3) The ability for a ground vehicle/ship to swerve if it gets within a set distance of a certain object rather than colliding and doing the "bumper car" routine. Currently, ground vehicles back up one vehicle length, turn 30-45 degrees and then try to go forwards. It would be more realistic and more elegant to have the vehicle turn immediately when it gets within a set distance from another vehicle (less than 1 vehicle length?), make travel along a < or > or ( or ) course (an arc or two opposing 30-45 degree turns) and then continue along its previous heading.

[Pursuivant]

Three ideas for some patch in the future:

1) Multiple cloud layers, which can be defined in the QMB/FMB. Ideally, you should be able to set base height for each layer, as well as maximum top and bottom level, degree of opaqueness, percentage of cover and rain/snow effects. For example, you could, say, set 90% cloud cover from 300 meters to 2,000 meters with light rain, with clear skies above that to 10,000 meters where you encounter wispy clouds 20% coverage, with peaks up to 12,000 meters. Fog is modeled by creating low level full cover semi-opaque clouds.

2) Placeable clouds/dust/smoke/etc. In the FMB, you could place areas of cloud/whatever on the map, as defined above. By changing the color of the clouds you could get dust clouds (like sandstorms or those generated by big desert battles) or massive areas of smoke (caused by massive fires on the ground, or the pollution which hung over all big cities in the days when most heat and power was generated using coal).

3) The degree of dust kicked up by aircraft/vehicles varies depending on weather, map and surface. For example, a plane taking off from a concrete runway in moist temperate conditions isn't likely to kick up much dust, while a plane taking off from a sandy landing strip is likely to produce huge clouds of the stuff.