4-12 wish list (Merged)

[[URU]BlackFox]

It would be a great addition for mission building to have the chance to set "global objectives", like "Destroy Ground Type" (the mission is won when you destroy a certain number or % of a determined ground object type), or "Destroy Air Type" (say, for example, 6 B-17s are shot down).

Right now when you are intercepting bombers, for example, setting the mission objectives implies to ask for each individual group to be attacked.

There are always workarounds and ways to make objectives achievable, but it seems more natural to just ask for the destruction of 50% of the trucks, or 6 Ju-88s to be shot down as a condition to win.

As always, this is not a demand, and I really appreciate everything TD has done so far. Just trying to contribute with fresh ideas.

[Aviar]

Originally Posted by JtD

What does wide-screen support actually mean? AFAIK, this can be set in the config.ini, so it is supported, isn't it?

Let me add a little bit more info to stovak's excellent post earlier.

The first screenshot below shows IL-2 in it's native 4:3 aspect ratio. Notice the infamous 'black bars' you get if you play on a widescreen monitor:





The second screenshot below shows IL-2 in (untrue) 'widescreen'. This is what you get if you edit your conf file to 'fill' the entire screen of your widscreen monitor. There are two major points to look at here.

First, look at the HORIZONTAL FOV. It is exactly the same as the 4:3 FOV. This is why people say it is not 'true' widescreen. You do not get a wider FOV as you would in 'true' widescreen. All you get is a screen that is 'stretched' horizontally (so it 'fills' the entire screen of your widescreen monitor).

Additionally, one negative aspect of this 'stretching' is that round objects such as dials/guages will appear slightly oval shaped. (Easier seen on a bigger screen.) Indeed, everything on your screen will be stretched horizontally.

Secondly, look at the VERTICAL FOV. You are actually LOSING FOV (compared to 4:3 native). It may not be a lot, but this is what bothers some people. In 'true' widescreen, you would not lose any FOV. In fact, you would actually INCREASE your FOV. (Thus the term 'true'.)

*There is one more factor to consider. These screenshots were taken on a 16:10 monitor. Many people nowadays use a 16:9 monitor. If you use a 16:9 monitor and implement the (untrue) 'widescreen' option, your vertical FOV will be even LESS than on a 16:10 monitor. Just something to be aware of.





Those two screenshots basically sum up the entire issue. However, I will show you one more. I suspect many players do not know what IL-2 would look like in 'true' widescreen.

The third screenshot below is IL-2 in 'true' widescreen on a 16:10 monitor. Notice the INCREASED horizontal FOV as well as the INCREASED vertical FOV. This is what players are asking for when they request natively supported 'true' widescreen.





Aviar

[JtD]

I understood already, but thanks anyway. I'm experimenting a bit with it right now, and even if it still is 4:3 I've turned my monitor by 90° and am getting to see a lot more. See attachment.

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by JtD

I understood already, but thanks anyway. I'm experimenting a bit with it right now, and even if it still is 4:3 I've turned my monitor by 90° and am getting to see a lot more. See attachment.

If you choose 16:10 resolution, then you will loose upper and bottom parts compared to 4:3 resolution. If you choose 10:16 resolution, you will gain more in upper and bottom parts compared to 4:3. You will see exactly the same at sides in both cases when compared to 4:3. This is because "horizontal" FOV in IL2 is always 90 degrees at most, whatever resolution you choose.

It is common to tie FOV to aspect ratio in so called "wide screen aware" games. It would probably be enough if attached function was used in IL2 to achieve what people want.

[fruitbat]

With proper widescreen, i'd be equally happy flying HSFX or stock 4.11.1 CRT=2.

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by Asheshouse

121. no operational tanks produced.
122. Agree
123. The Regia Marina also lacked these (outside of the shipyards). Some Regia Marina escort vessels would be more useful for setting up missions.

I know number 121 shows no tanks produced, however it would be nice to see the p 1000 and p 1500 in the game.

also my continued list :

126. map of vietnam for stock so that the japanese campaigns in asia would be much easier to make.
127. agree that we need more bf-110s which we need the bf 110 early versions for the 1940s.
128. we need a Junkers 88A-4, maybe some early Do-217s

[dFrog]

What version of game do you have ? Ju-88A-4 is in for a looong time...

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by dFrog

What version of game do you have ? Ju-88A-4 is in for a looong time...

yeah that's what i thought when i read that, lol.

[pencon]

How about some functional AI that actually obeys commands and shoots down opposing aircraft instead of just buggering off ? What would be really cool is if some of the buildings down below had Bombed out damage instead of all being in pristine condition .

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by pencon

How about some functional AI that actually obeys commands and shoots down opposing aircraft instead of just buggering off ? What would be really cool is if some of the buildings down below had Bombed out damage instead of all being in pristine condition .

Both of these can be done already.