Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11

[FrankB]

Originally Posted by dFrog

OK, Caspar. I'll ask directly. Why TD does not want to make certain "things" ? There have been many requests or wishes for e.g. Hurricane Mk.IId or Mk.IV. Yes, they exist as mods, but this is no option for users, who do not want to use them.

I am not anyhow connected with TD so I can't speak for them, but it is obvious that there are so many requests that one could work on them for the whole lifetime and still not be finished, so it is a matter of priorities.

Also I would say TD is focusing more on generic issues (e.g. navigation in 4.10 which required coordinated changes all over the code) than specific ones (adding one more plane to the list of, um, more than 100 others).

Do not make me wrong, If I received the Hurri you are talking about, I would be of course grateful for it, but I appretiate TD for doing changes none of the modders is capable of.

Originally Posted by dFrog

As far as I can see, TD has never made anything what allready exist as mod, it was allways something else. For example manual bomb bay doors. Will we ever see this made oficial or never, because it was made first as a mod ? I just like to know...

You are wrong, for example the bomb fuze delay first appeared as a mod.

If you read the forums carefuly, you will see the TD are open to 3rd party development. The main issue seems to be the modders usualy have no interest/will/skills/whatewer to bring the work up to TD standards so it could be included in the official patch.

As a proof you can look around these forums you can see B24 and other planes being developed by 3rd parties and scheduled for inclusion in subsequent patches, so that is definitely not a problem.

[dFrog]

Don't take me wrong, I really appreciate all the effort TD is putting into this game. I just wonder why some versions of already existing planes are still missing. For example brits are still missing ground attack plane - Typhoon or Hurricane Mk.IId
One more question - MTO ban includes whole Mediteranean or just some areas ? I'm still hoping for Avia S-199 and map of Syria - Palestine - Egypt area.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by Juri_JS

Caspar, are there certain standards a map has to meet to be included in an official patch, comparable to the standards for new aircraft?

Yes. There have to be correct texture and file type and size, not too much objects (I have no numbers in mind at the moment) and not too much size (although the reasonable size of the map depends also on objects density). I.e. Bessarabia was to big, so the object density had to be reduced a bit, on the other side the large Solomons map is ok, since it has a low density.
And finally, it shouldn't contain modded objects (naturally), except, if such objects are delivered together with the map as a full standard 3D model, so we can include it. Roads and rails all must work. Same for bridges. Rivers have to be on 0m level.
Well... such stuff... Gitano has already told the most details.

EDIT: 1:1 scale is not a requirement, but nice to have. We even would accept a pure fun-map, if its well made.

But generally you have to care for less points in map making, compared to aircraft modeling.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Why TD does not want to make certain "things" ?

Well, that is not true in its core. If we could, we would do everything, that can be considered as 'missing'! Most issue contrary to that is: not enough manpower and not enough time.

As for the Hurri IID and the manual bomb doors, I think both have very good chances for future implementation anyway. Just be patient pls. The day, that we say: "Thats it, folks!" - that day you can start to complain.

[dFrog]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

...As for the Hurri IID and the manual bomb doors, I think both have very good chances for future implementation anyway. Just be patient pls. The day, that we say: "Thats it, folks!" - that day you can start to complain.

Good to hear, looking forward...

[Lagarto]

Thank you Gitano and Caspar for your posts, very interesting and informative. I'm a little unhappy about the ban on the MTO, which means no Sicily/Malta map, as I understand it. I sincerely hope the 1C has some good reason for it, like an MTO extension pack for ClOD (although I doubt such an add-on would make any sense at the current state of things).
I'm also curious about the maps' size limit. The stock maps are generally small but I thought it's because they were made with 2001/2003-era PCs in mind. The present-day computers surely can handle much more but perhaps the game's engine can't?

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Up till now, gun jams, damage and structural failures have been implemented only as a concequence of players mistakes. This is game-design.
However... technical reason for such issues could be implemented, so these things would happen randomly. While this would be part of realism and maybe wanted by a number of players (offline players I suspect), it could exist only as an option.
I am interested in how many players are willing to be forced to end a campaign unsuccessfully, after having done alot of missions, although they did nothing wrong - only because a random happening?
I think before this question isn't fully evaluated, these considerations cannot be go to a high priority status.

Okay, thank you for the reply!

Hmm... We'll, I was thinking about situations which are primarily the fault of players:
- The structural failures in the Il-2 3m were a result of prolonged firing of the NS-37 (typically in a dive).
- Gun jams could also happen as a result of gun overheating, high-g maneuvers or flying too low. So, how you fly matters.


On the other hand some types of guns were notoriously prone to jamming. This didn't typically lead to the lost of a plane, but it did sometimes force pilots to abort attacks. In most cases it lowered effectiveness by causing one (our of several) guns to become unavailable before it had fired off all of its rounds.

The ShKAS had "48 ways of jamming". The Mk-101 and Mk-108 were also notoriously prone to jamming (one of their downsides vs. the Mk-103). The BK-5 was rarely able to fire off all of its ammunition.

However, these guns could and did prove to be extremely effective weapons. They just weren't 100% reliable and every few missions a pilot would carry some of his ammunition home.

So, it is really just a random factor effecting overall firepower.

If you don't mind, I could put together a poll to see what people think of the idea?

[Pursuivant]

Like Lagarto said,

Thanks to Gitano and Caspar for very helpful information. It should be a sticky post somewhere, along with the other DT limits and standards.

I'd also like to see further clarification as to how broad the ban on MTO maps, equipment, etc. is.

Does the ban on MTO maps just include Northern Africa, or Greece, Malta, Sardinia, Sicily, Italy, Spain, Corsica, Southern France, the Balkans and the Holy Land as well?

What about late war maps which include parts of northern Italy, but which focus on the Western allied attacks on occupied Europe, such as Corsica, Southern France, Yugoslavia or Austria?

Finally, the ban on MTO equipment seems pointless, since most major Italian aircraft are already in the game. If they're not in the game, they could be legitimately modeled because they were used elsewhere in Europe, or could have been used by Italian forces engaged in Russia. The CANT Z.506 will be something of a test case - mostly used in the Med., but also used by the Germans in the Baltic. The Italian vehicles will be another test case - mostly North Africa, but also used in Russia and France.

As for U.S., British and German equipment, just about every vehicle or plane which saw action in North Africa also saw action elsewhere in the world - or could have.

My guess is that Oleg mostly intended the ban to apply to areas of the MTO which saw action from 1939-41. Mostly Libya and the Western Desert of Egypt, but possibly also Greece, Malta, Gibraltar, Sicily and Sardinia.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

If you don't mind, I could put together a poll to see what people think of the idea?

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by swiss

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!

Anything that improves realism is fine by me.

For people who don't like it, there should be a button to turn it off.