4.13.2 de-bugging

[HBPencil]

Originally Posted by HBPencil

Not so much a bug as an error, the Article XV squadrons of the RAAF (450 to 467 inclusive) and RNZAF (485 to 490 inclusive) are now listed under under the RAAF/RNZAF when they should be under the RAF (like the RCAF Article XV squadrons are). Now if you select one of these squadrons you get Aussie/Kiwi PTO markings instead of the RAF roundels they should have.

Cheers, HBPencil

P.S. The RNZAF XV units will also need their squadron codes added.

P.P.S It'd be worth while removing the squadron crest for 486 (RNZAF) Squadron as they didn't paint it on their aircraft.

Just to add to this, the RNZAF Article XV squadrons (but not the regular RNZAF squadrons) now use the Russian voice pack.

[dmitry_npi]

Dear Daidalos Team!

From patch to patch you are adding new planes and some "realistic" features.
I'm not a hardcore player, so I would like to complain about some "bugs" that kill joy))

1. Radio commanding. Let's assume I am leading a wing of fighters (1,2,3,4) and enemy fighters comes in. I approach and command "Wing, attack fighters!", and what happens next? Number 3 and 4 just fly away! They reply "Roger!" but they do some maneuvers and then fly away in random direction.
And I am left 2 by 4. My wingman follows me, as expected. I command him to attack on his own, and now we have the same situation: he confirms but doesn't seem as he really wants to attack the enemy. Meanwhile, all 4 enemies are on my tail. I shout "Wingman, cover me!", and he changes course.. but still no result. He can fly following me ignoring the enemy pursuing and shooting at me.

2. Bots have AWACS. When injured enemy crashes down far far away in his side, my bots immediately become aware of this, shouting "I've got one!". How do they know??
The same thing: if I managed to escape from battle, the enemy always know where I am and they fly towards me even if I am tens of miles away. How do the do this?

3. Attacking airfields. Airfields are usually guarded by AA guns. Suppose I'm leading the wing of IL-2's and I command them to "attack the AA guns". Hmm, what to begin with? Of course, they prefer... spotlights! While the AA guns shoot them at close range.

Is it possible to fix this?

[arnoritter]

The formation feature got somewhat reworked from 4.12 to 4.13, but i think it still does not work good enough.

Please fix these issues, the feature has a lot of potential but at the moment it's not reliable enough for long bomber missions.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6ruK7cJKu4

[Pursuivant]

Bombers in formation shouldn't make serious evasive moves, but should be able to make minor movements as long as they keep their same basic heading and keep their distance from other bombers in the formation.

Single bombers can, did, and should make more extreme evasive maneuvers. (For example, 2LT Charlie Brown vs. Oblt Franz Stigler, Warren Cowan vs. Saburo Sakai)

That said, battle damage, crew panic, and loss of situational awareness sometimes could cause aircraft in formation to collide, particularly if they were flying in poor visibility or in close formation. So, some degree of uncontrolled movement and risk of collision is realistic.

Another oddity about AI bomber formation behavior is that bombers never "close up" when other bombers in the same flight are shot down.

For example, if you have 3 "vics," like this (3, 6, 9 are flight leaders, 9 9 is squadron leader, 2, 5, 7 are assistant flight leaders):

1   2      4    5
  3           6
      7    8
         9

and they take serious casualties, like this:

          2     4
       3 
           7    8

The flights never regroup to regain better defensive firepower and bomb concentration as they should, like this (3 becomes new squadron leader, 7 is 2nd flight leader):

    2    4    8
       3    7

Straggling (damaged) bombers also make no efforts to regroup, making them easier pickings for fighters.

[arnoritter]

I agree, so what's the chance to get this fixed?

[major.kudo]

I often came watching airplanes of AI flies repeating bank left and right alternately.
When big bomber performed this is very strange.
I think it wasn't seeing in the old version.
What do you think, everyone?



-



And too exact gun shooting of AI fighters!!!!!
Please, correct this in the next update! Please!!

Reference
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=229400&page=1

[Marabekm]

Noticed that while playing on a dogfight mission, if I select say RNZAF, and then select squadron 488, When I fly they use the Russian language instead of the New Zealander sound file. This also occurs when flying RAAF and selecting squadron 453.

[Janosch]

When Finnish air force is selected, the serial letter-number combination is sometimes wrong. For Ju-88 A-4, it looks correct (JK-251 and so on). But for other versions of Ju-88, as well as most other planes, it shows MT instead, which should only be for Messerschmitts. For planes that weren't used by Finland at all, at least the letter part should be omitted.

[Pursuivant]

Ordinance Problems with P-39 series

Edit 2: P-400: At Guadacanal, P-400 of the 69th FS carried 100 lb. bombs. Presumably, the P-400 could also carry the same ordinance as the P-39D. Some ex-RAF Airacobra I were used in combat in the USSR, so possibly could have been fitted with Soviet pattern bombs.

P-39D-1 and P-39D-2: Don't have option for Soviet ordinance (possibly FAB-250), although some (~50) were sent to USSR via Lend-Lease. I'm not sure the Lend-Lease planes were ever fitted with bombs, but they should have the capacity to carry them. Soviet P-39 typically had wing guns removed to improve roll rate. This could possibly be modeled as a weapon loadout. US P-39D had provision to carry 250 lb. bomb instead of 500 lb. It's just possible that Lend-Lease RAAF P-39D were fitted with RAF pattern bombs, but I'm still hunting for evidence that this was the case.

Edit: No evidence that RAAF P-39 were ever fitted with RAF pattern bombs. The Aussies didn't use the P-39 in an offensive role, and didn't use enough P-39 for long enough that bombing operations were ever necessary.

Edit 2: US P-39D sent to England were equipped with 168 gallon drop tanks. P-400 sent to Guadacanal were equipped with 100 lb. bombs, so this loadout could be added to the contemporaneous P-39D series.

P-39N-1: There are no American ordinance options for this model, and no drop tanks, although the N variant was used in New Guinea and Italy by the US (later by the Italian Co-Belligerent AF), and it was capable of carrying both 75 gallon and 175 gallon belly tanks. Lend-Lease Soviet versions of this plane often had their wing guns removed, as described above.

P-39Q-1: Soviet P-39 typically had wing guns removed to improve roll rate. No US ordinance loadouts, despite the fact that P-39Q variants were used in Italy (as described above).

P-39Q-10: No US ordinance loadouts, despite the fact that P-39Q variants were used in Italy (as described above). Western Front Q-10 probably retained the .50 caliber wing gun pods of the Q-1.

Edit: The P-39Q-10 was also used in the SW Pacific by the 347th FS flying from Makin Island in 1943. Pictures definitely show US aircraft retaining the wing guns. In 1944 pictures of other US P-39 show them carrying 75 gallon drop tanks. They are also reported to have carried out missions dropping 500 lb. bombs on Japanese positions. So, the same ordinance loadouts for the P-39D series (plus 100 lb. bomb option) should also apply to the N and Q series.

Unspecified "Q" variants of the P-39 were in use by units of the 12th AF in the Mediterranean until June 1944. The "Tuskeegee Airmen" (332nd FG) were initially assigned P-39Q-20 (similar to the Q-10) in February 1944 and practiced skip-bombing using it (unspecified bomb loadouts).

Soviet P-39Q variants were tested with FAB-100 as well as FAB-250 bombs.


Should someone feel like adding more P-39 variants to the game:

P-39K-1: This would be an easy addition. It was basically a P-39D-2 with minor changes to the nose (slightly different skin), a 3-bladed Aeroproducts propeller (possibly slightly different from the Curtiss Electric prop on the D-2), and an Allison V-1710-63 (E6) (1,325 hp/988 kW) engine, and weighed about 800 lb. more than the D-2 version. About 210 were built, 50 were sent to USSR, including one which was Pokryshkin's first Airacobra. Some were also used in New Guinea.

P-39L-1: This was virtually identical to the K-1 variant, except for the use of the the Curtiss Electric prop, and a slightly revised nose wheel. More interestingly, it could be fitted with bazooka type rocket launchers. About 250 were produced and it was used in New Guinea and North Africa in 1943 by the US.

http://i.imgur.com/HdXb44Y.jpg

Edit: Some L models also made it to the USSR.

P-39M-1: This was identical to the L-1 version, but with a larger (11 foot 1 inch diameter) Aeroproducts propeller (a bit smaller than that on the Q versions), and an Allison V-1710-67 (E8 ) which gave improved high-altitude performance at the expense of poorer low-altitude performance. It developed 1200 hp for takeoff and 1125 hp at 15,500 feet, and could fly at 370 mph at 15,000 feet as compared to 360 mph at the same altitude for the P-39L. This variant was used in North Africa. About 250 were built.

Post-War Soviet P-39 were eventually refitted with a 20 mm Berezin B-20 cannon, and 12.7mm Berezin UBS machine guns. It is possible that these were fitted to Soviet planes during WW2, especially since the Soviets preferred the 20mm cannon to the 37mm cannon.

[Nil]

Maybe it has not be said:
I can't control the forward gondola turret of the he111 H6.