Suggestion for a future patch

[Ice_Eagle]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Remember, IL2 is using graphics programming that is nearly 20 years old. Improving the graphics to the standards of Rise of Flight would require massive amounts of coding. Basically, it would be a new simulation, like IL2:CloD or IL2: BoS.

Ummm other games made in the same era & simular programming has grass.
Nice grass.
Cheers.

[Tolwyn]

Originally Posted by Ice_Eagle

Ummm other games made in the same era & simular programming has grass.
Nice grass.
Cheers.

Let's fly at 500 meters.

NO! Let's sit in our plane and look at the grass. Mmmm. Grass.

??? really?

[Ice_Eagle]

Yah, really.

[Music]

I would like to see Selecting a bomber on online dogfight servers, that the player can have the same formation of four (4) bombers that he can in QMB, and FMB. Is it possible. Two guys would be 8 bombers, and taking the time to get alt, invincible.

Gun Camera Tracers. 50cal are better now, but, at least on my computer, almost invisible, especially when the sun is anywhere in front of your plane.

I would like to be able to have icons on, with the ability to chose what distance when planes are close they disappear. It's the opposite* for online enemy planes now, I'd like to know who they are at the current allied distance, and not have the icon when they are close enough for a visual.

And a "map size" lock, So you can set up a server so that the players in game map will only show so much area. This would be another way of being able to see what side a plane is on, with no need for icons, and keeping the map limit to 10km, it would probably be historical-ish.

*Speaking of opposite, can you change all the default setting for NTRK playback to the opposite of what the currently are. it seems I have too every time I watch a track.

And of course, the ability to rewind NTRK's, even if it's just to skip it back a few seconds, or multiples of that.



I have really been enjoying 4.13, and no problems, still no p-40 tail wheel lock, (but the fine men at IRSS have still not added it to their dogfight server's available planes, nudge nudge wink wink, {can't navigate your site to make request IRSS}, and Skies of Valor, last I checked was still not updated), so it really does not matter. The P-40 handles well on the ground. I notice that it seems to pull to the right now when first spawning (air) and getting up to speed and leveled off, where as before it was to the left.
Great Job! Oleg, Great Job DT Many hours of captivating semi-historical frustrating, and euphoric diversion.

Happy Hunting

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Ice_Eagle

Ummm other games made in the same era & simular programming has grass.

But were they combat flight sims? Any sim designer needs to make decisions about where computer processing power goes. In IL2's case, the focus is on flight models first, graphics second.

And, the fact remains that upgrading IL2's graphics engine would be a huge task which would basically make it a new sim. I don't think that TD wants to do that work, so serious graphics upgrades are a dead issue.

That's not to say that it's impossible. Gaijin Software's "Wings of Prey" game was basically IL2 with improved graphics, but simplified flight models.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Tolwyn

Let's fly at 500 meters.

NO! Let's sit in our plane and look at the grass. Mmmm. Grass.

For a ground attack sim, realistic looking grass isn't an unreasonable request.

Ideally, you should be able to tell which way the wind is blowing, and how strong that wind is, by looking at the way the grass moves. Very handy for crosswind landings on improvised airfields where there is no wind sock.

You should also be able to see where grass has been disturbed by the passage of vehicles - especially tanks. Very handy for spotting ground targets, even if they're camouflaged or hiding just inside a tree line.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Music

I would like to see Selecting a bomber on online dogfight servers, that the player can have the same formation of four (4) bombers that he can in QMB, and FMB. Is it possible. Two guys would be 8 bombers, and taking the time to get alt, invincible.

So, you're asking for the option to let players spawn a formation of aircraft in Co-op games, with the player flying the lead plane?

That's a potentially fun idea, since it allows for a "flight leader" or "squadron leader" perspective for human players. Not only do you have to fly and fight your own plane, but you also have to command the AI planes.

If you were penalize players for losing AI aircraft under their command, that would give players an incentive to treat their AI allies as something other than expendable pawns.

Originally Posted by Music

Gun Camera Tracers. 50cal are better now, but, at least on my computer, almost invisible, especially when the sun is anywhere in front of your plane.

The way that tracers look in real life vs. how they look on camera is a bit different. IL2 models the way that tracers really look.

Two simple options, which would be potentially unrealistic but fun, would be to give the player (or server admin, or mission builder) control of color and brightness of tracer bullets. In co-op play, each side could have its own tracer color. For historical missions, it allows the mission builder to make the decision as to whether a particular nation used red, green, or yellow tracers.

The player, or the server admin, could also have the option of choosing between realistic and cinematic tracer bullets.

Originally Posted by Music

I would like to be able to have icons on, with the ability to chose what distance when planes are close they disappear. It's the opposite* for online enemy planes now, I'd like to know who they are at the current allied distance, and not have the icon when they are close enough for a visual.

So, player or server controlled settings for a minimum and maximum distance where icons get turned on? That also seems simple and makes a nice compromise between "No icons" and "Icons on"

Originally Posted by Music

And a "map size" lock, So you can set up a server so that the players in game map will only show so much area. This would be another way of being able to see what side a plane is on, with no need for icons, and keeping the map limit to 10km, it would probably be historical-ish.

If I understand it right, this option would prevent the player from scrolling or zooming out in the map view, set by the mission builder in the FMB, or by the server admin.

This idea makes sense for pilots who are flying without maps, since the "map view" represents the pilot's understanding of the terrain he can actually see.

Another "realism" option would be to block map view entirely, to realistically simulate flying without a map.

[Music]

Yep, seems what I said made sense, I will add for the bombers in a flight, if the player could abandon a plane that is too damaged, that would be a good feature, keep him alive longer, (there is a mod that allows players to switch planes out now, so it is possible), and fighters would not know which plane player is in. (this would really be helpful, because believe it or not, players will ignore a whole formation of A.I. to go after a bomber with a player, seen it many times online

For the Icons, yes, and maybe have it so it's a ring, i.e. you can see icons between 200m and 1000m, (or what ever the server decides), that way those distant pixels are just as mysterious, and potentially dangerous.

Happy Hunting

[Ice_Eagle]

Badly damaged AI planes to immediately head for home, or in the case of japanese..
perhaps a 50/50 chance of a suicide attack, whether ground objects or ramming other
planes. Also, AI aircraft with very low fuel or damage receive priority when landing
would be nice.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Ice_Eagle

Badly damaged AI planes to immediately head for home, or in the case of japanese perhaps a 50/50 chance of a suicide attack, whether ground objects or ramming other planes. Also, AI aircraft with very low fuel or damage receive priority when landing would be nice.

AI has gotten much better, but its still got a ways to go.

One of the areas where its weak is how damaged planes react. In addition to the issues you mentioned (badly damaged planes still dogfighting, damaged planes not getting priority in the landing pattern), AI can still be stupid about decisions as to whether to bail out, or where to make emergency landings.

The decision tree needed to get damaged aircraft to behave realistically is pretty easy to figure out, but it would be time-consuming to implement.

Even so, given the huge improvement in AI behavior vs. bombers in the 4.13 patch, I'm hopeful that things will get even better in the next patch.

As for chance of suicide attacks, there should be a tiny chance that a pilot of any nation will make a suicide dive or ramming attack if he's badly wounded enough and his plane is badly damaged enough - especially for single-engined planes. Soviets and Japanese might be more prone to do so than pilots of other nations, but only Kamikazes should have a high chance of making a suicide attack.