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

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by MBot

What a great idea, the Catalina would be perfect to go along the new SAR mechanics that have been shown.

Amphibious aircraft cannot be accomodated by the game engine. An aircraft must be either a land plane, or a seaplane, it cannot be both. Hence if you took a PBY and made it a seaplane in the game engine and lowered the gear and tried to land at an airfield the engine would register it as a crash and you would in all likelyhood explode. The reverse is true if you made the PBY appear as a land plane to the game engine and had the gear up and landed on water the game would see it as ditching and the plane would sink.

[MBot]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

After 10 years of IL2, regardless of how many aircraft we have someone always wants more aircraft.

I realize converting a non-flyable isn't as big a job to build as a plane from scratch. It is just that for all the requesting I've often wondered just how interested those users are and remain interested if they do get what they request.

Was it really worth it for some developer to spend a huge amount of time trying to supply those requests? Seriously, I've often wondered why don't developers make a response to those requesting such things and spell it out.
The Il2 is certainly no exception of course. Every air combat and flight sim is plagued with requests for new and flyable aircraft, EAW, BOBII WOV, WW2 Fighters, FA-18, FS2004, CFS2,CFS3,FSX and on and on.

There are so many additional very valuable things that could be added to a sim like IL2, i.e, AI performance, additional programming in FMB, etc. All things that make the game/sim more exciting and interesting.

TD is pumping out so much stuff, this posting probably won't change anything. I'm basically trying to say, that it takes alot of time to address many requests, and users should reluctantly make requests.... unless they are very determined to use what they request more than a couple time.

I am not speaking for TD. I am speaking for myself in this thread.

Don't worry, I am perfectly aware how much time new flyable require to create, especially multicrew aircraft. I have not demanded that a Catalina is supplied, but merely commented that I think this would be a fine choice. Especially considering this it would be a fairly unique, yet quite significant, aircraft. As I understand it, DT is going to add some more aircraft. As resources are limited, so is the number of potential new aircraft. With my comment I wanted to express that I prefer those last few aircraft be somehow unique, yet significant WWII aircraft, rather than more of the already very numerous fighters.

I do not seriously expect to ever see a PBY in Il-2 and I will not lose sleep over it.

[BM-03]

Question about multi-crew.
Will be accessible bombardir(navigator) sight for player-gunner? Or it is planned?
Thanks.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by MBot

Don't worry, I am perfectly aware how much time new flyable require to create, especially multicrew aircraft. I have not demanded that a Catalina is supplied, but merely commented that I think this would be a fine choice. Especially considering this it would be a fairly unique, yet quite significant, aircraft. As I understand it, DT is going to add some more aircraft. As resources are limited, so is the number of potential new aircraft. With my comment I wanted to express that I prefer those last few aircraft be somehow unique, yet significant WWII aircraft, rather than more of the already very numerous fighters.

I do not seriously expect to ever see a PBY in Il-2 and I will not lose sleep over it.

I used your posting to focus on an ongoing discussion topic we have all read thousands of times before.

Posters are just expressing themselves.

No harm done, no dev takes on a project he/she doesn't want to do anyway.

The purpose of my posting was just to infer there are many more substantial things that could be done with IL2. Things that would make the IL2 dramatically more exciting and interesting than new aircraft or objects.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Rumanian fighters

as we have now the marvelous looking Odessa map
how it is about to have a "second" look behind the rumanian fighterseries IAR 80/81

it would be nice to get a IAR 80A for the 1941 operations.
these variant was more often build as the IAR 80 AFAIK.
the difference would be to have 6x .303 MGs instead 4 and to have a normal REVI , like already in the two 81 fighterbombers.
3D work would not be needed, the third gunbarrel would not look out of the wing , "just" a new skin would be needed , and as said, the cockpit could be used from the IAR 81s

ammoload seems to high for the .303 MGs, now it is 1000rounds per gun !!
500rounds should be more correct..........................

and if this small fighter could carry 250rounds per gun for its MG151/20 in the IAR 81C ?!?!?


its not important, just if someone in TD has the interest and the time as this lovely small fighter has now with the map found its "huntingground"


EDIT:
found this site aboutt he IAR 80
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazin..._eng_iar80.htm

looks like i was wrong in thinking the 6gun variant was more often build than the 4gun one............ anyway, would be a nice to have
it says 600rpg in the IAR 80
and 400rpg in the IAR 81 for the light MGs.

the actual 350rpg in the IAR81A for its heavy MGs seems correct , even in game it is modelled as the MG131 not a "13,2mm" Browning.

and the ammoload for a the ICARIA 20mm canons of the first IAR81C is announced with 120 rpg , so i guess a MG151/20 armed should also have 120rpg.

and btw:
" In a dive it is outclassed by the Bf 109E, because it lacks an automated propeller pitch regulator." <- OUTCH

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by Burdokva

Dear Team Daidalos,

I've been following the progress of your work ever since patch 4.09 was announced - in fact, I had send some requests via email quite a while back. In any case, I say this just to let you know I appreciate all the work that's being done and I've checked what you've said on the issue I'm about to point out -

AI (nearly) unlimited ammo, no overheat, no blackouts is the single greatest issue of Il-2. I've been flying since the days of Forgotten Battles and more actively since 1946 was released, almost exclusively offline and I can honestly tell you that the quirks in the AI that allow it to "cheat" greatly reduce the immersion and overall enjoyment. I would dare to say that there wouldn't be a single complain from the Il-2 community if the AI was given an overhaul that allow for engine overheat, limited ammo and blackouts. As an option setting, at least.

I can't count how many times I've attacked an AI plane only to have it pull an incredible manuevre that I can't follow due to G-force blackouts, or have had to evade the constant stream of bullets the enemy fighters carry (the last is especially unnerving on planes that historically had low ammo loads, such as the Yaks).

So far, the G-force effects you plan to implement sound more scary and potentially irritating than useful, if they don't affect the AI planes. It's already way more capable than a human player with its lighting time reactions. Having it "cheat" to compensate for less intelligence than a human (that is a general problem of AI, not just Il-2, of course) doesn't help though.

I don't know, the improvements such as radio navigation, AI visibility etc. sound great, but with the AI in its current state it feels like Il-2 is incresingly geared for online play where everyone's on an equal footing regarding flight mechanics.

Please, consider revising some of the AI plane quirks such as non-overheating engine, no-blackouts and huge ammo supply.

Yeah, this is a major issue IMHO, I have posted on the topic before, I really like work that TD is doing and I hope that the G and stress related changes will be incorporated into the AI, along with a more realistic flight envelope for the AI, as it is now many of the missions, esp. Pacific fighters ones are a little absurd in the way they play out.

[AndyJWest]

JUst a minor correction here. Burdokva suggests that AI aircraft have '(nearly) unlimited ammo'. Though it seems that way when they are chasing you, I'm fairly sure they actually have the same limits as player-controlled aircraft. I did a test some time back (I can't remember which aircraft), and they seemed to have exactly the same loadout. In some situations, you can get an AI aircraft to waste its entire ammo in a futile attempt to shoot you down while off-aim. For example, if you are in a P-40 and get into a turning fight with a Bf-109, he may get on your tail, but as long as you maintain a minimum-radius turn, he will expend his ammo just beyond your outer wingtip. Unfortunately for you, this wont help if another AI spots you circling and draws a bead from a distance...

[Wolkenbeisser]

Not sure if somone told before (and to less time to search now): Positionlights are to much visible at daytime. Maybe work of positionlights should be changed.

Until now, every player in a coop-mission turns on his lights if fighting against AI. Means for other coop-players, that it's clear who is human and who is AI. I would like it better, if the "light-advantage" could be eliminated/reduced.

[bf-110]

Another interesting plane to fly is the G.55.

[RPS69]

Didn't see it anywhere so here it goes...

Is it possible for the mission log to show which side the plane is flying?

Something like the ground objects have, 1 for red and 2 for blue...

Extracting the squad names and assign them to each side is quite boring when you try to build a parser. There are other solutions to this, but that should change some of the things needed on campaign mission build.