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

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

I did not refuse anything. I also stated 2 Different things that:
A) The ShVAK 20 mm cannot has ZERO dispersion value when it mounts Defensive Flexible Installations, and this is WRONG! It makes this weapon to behave like a Sniper gun! What did you Not understand?

I do understand this perfectly but the problem here is that this is the ONLY thing you understand about the problem. And it is completely wrong way to solve it.

I'm willing to remove any changes we did to encounter the "sniper issue" and replace them with your large dispersion values that "fixes the problem". But I guess we need to write in readme that "Sorry about the gunners. We know that they cannot hit anything now, but this had to be done because Hades said so".

So please tell me those large dispersion values that fixes the problem.

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by bigbossmalone

well, my request about the ship padlocking problem seems again to have been brushed aside.

I had a faint flashback that I have talked with you about this before. Or at least someone requested it and I checked the code and what it would take to make it. Simple change would have enabled it, but then AI would treat ships as different kind of targets and results might be unwanted, so it would need to be changed "more safely" -> more work.

[Ltbear]

oooh forgot to my post above.

The Germans used powdered aluminium that increased the explosive effect...

The brittish had shortage of aluminium and therefore most of it whent to munitions for the RN. Its actualy first in 1944 that British bombs are considered as effective as the German counterparts....

Im not native englsih speaking but im talking about alumised explosives <--- that is a huge factor allied vs German bombs....

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by Viikate

I do understand this perfectly but the problem here is that this is the ONLY thing you understand about the problem. And it is completely wrong way to solve it.

WHO said that this is the ONLY issue about the Sniper gunners? Please DO read again what i posted.

Originally Posted by Viikate

I'm willing to remove any changes we did to encounter the "sniper issue" and replace them with your large dispersion values that "fixes the problem".

Yet again, i did not say this. Can't you read? Its not my fault.

Originally Posted by Viikate

But I guess we need to write in readme that "Sorry about the gunners. We know that they cannot hit anything now, but this had to be done because Hades said so".

Nice,
So are you threating me now that "You will remove this feature because of the "evil" HaDeS who posted some really existent issues"? So that community will "hunt down poor HaDeS because we could not answer his questions"?
Nice "mature" way of thinking.
Post more like this Viikate

Originally Posted by Viikate

So please tell me those large dispersion values that fixes the problem.

So do you Deny that Guns in Flexible Gun Installations have Less dispersion value than they used to have when mounted in Wings or in engine cowl?

You Intentionally Mixing 2 Different things, and yet you Threaten me also.

So, i repeat just in case you Understand:

Dispersion value for Guns and the AI Skill regarding Gunners are something Completely Different that affects Different game's classes BUT the Dispersion Value of Guns is Related with their Accuracy either they are Manned by AI, Rookie or Humans.

Clear now?
Good

Cheers,

[Viikate]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

So are you threating me now that "You will remove this feature because of the "evil" HaDeS who posted some really existent issues"? So that community will "hunt down poor HaDeS because we could not answer his questions"?
Nice "mature" way of thinking.
Post more like this Viikate

Interesting how you managed to find that quoted text from my post, but i cannot seem to find it. Let's see... i'll quite my self. I said that

"I'm willing to remove any changes we did to encounter the "sniper issue" and replace them with your large dispersion values". Isn't this exactly what you have been requesting for the past 4 or 5 pages? That the dispersion values should be increased to fix the sniper issue? If you really think that this is the correct way to go then, I'm willing to try it. Please read this carefully so that you don't see any death threats here.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Originally Posted by csThor

Emil, could you make a list of incorrect instrumentation (planetype + instrument)? That might be helpful for our cockpit 3D gurus.


..................... ...

i mnot Emil and sure you ment something different , but the Speed gauges in the Ki-27, D3A and G4M have all knot scalas but are reading km/h - so, at 300 and 330(Val and Betty) the scala is at its end

[ImpalerNL]

Documentation ive found about the bf109K4, shows the iL2 bf109k4 has a lower speed compared to the real bf109k4 data.

The blue line shows 100% power, ingame.
The black line shows 110% power with mw50, ingame.

Ive tested the ingame data provided by IL2 compare, and i managed to hit a "brick wall" at 3km with a topspeed of
~640km/h TAS. (at 110% power + mw50) This is also shown with the IL2 compare data.


The green line shows 100% power, real data.
The red line show 110% power with mw50, real data.

Aircraft takeoff weight is ~3400kg (including 400kg fuel) for both the IL2 bf109k4 and the real bf109k4.



In the first thumbnail ive included the real levelspeed data (green and red), with the ingame levelspeed (black and blue).


All speeds shown in the levelspeed graphs are TAS.

[bigbossmalone]

Originally Posted by Viikate

...Simple change would have enabled it, but then AI would treat ships as different kind of targets and results might be unwanted,..

thankyou, Viikate, for your reply, i appreciate it.
just thinking a bit more on this, currently the way the AI treat ships as targets is pretty atrocious, to say the least. perhaps it would be worthwhile to look into this at some point in the future?
perhaps giving ships the same sort of properties as regular ground targets would be a simpler solution? probably not, but a solution somewhere along those lines...
i realise the implications might be problematic for torpedo bombers, but for most other kinds of planes, the way they attack ships currently leaves a lot to be desired, so it might actually be a case of killing two, or more, birds with one stone, if this can be looked into.

i really hope you guys can investigate this a bit more at some point down the road.
thanks for listening.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by bigbossmalone

thankyou, Viikate, for your reply, i appreciate it.
just thinking a bit more on this, currently the way the AI treat ships as targets is pretty atrocious, to say the least. perhaps it would be worthwhile to look into this at some point in the future?
perhaps giving ships the same sort of properties as regular ground targets would be a simpler solution? probably not, but a solution somewhere along those lines...
i realise the implications might be problematic for torpedo bombers, but for most other kinds of planes, the way they attack ships currently leaves a lot to be desired, so it might actually be a case of killing two, or more, birds with one stone, if this can be looked into.

i really hope you guys can investigate this a bit more at some point down the road.
thanks for listening.

Check P M

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

I keep myself out of that other 'discussion' and pick a sympatic request:





There is a long time plan to rework default skins systematicly.
To have best results, we prefer to have done them nation-wise, by one or two skinners per nation only. This is a huge task (with not so high priority though), either by painting work and organizing work. What we will not do, is picking out single plane types (except if that planetype is fixed also in the model like i.e. Hs129) and asking authors for single skins.

But you are right, there are some wonderfull skins out there.

K, thanks for the reply