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

[Fergal69]

It's too easy to eject from an aircraft......

Fighters - in order to eject you have to first open/eject the canopy before actually exiting the plane?

Bombers - if pilot is killed, the remaining crew can't leave. Have to eject for any member of the crew

I suggested a long time ago on the old pacific fighters website, that depending on damage to the aircraft, the canopy sticks & has to be released manually, like damaged landing gear has to be lowered manually. In some cases damage caused the canopies to jam & possibly not release so an element as to whether the canopy would open or not could be built in.

[wheelsup_cavu]

Originally Posted by Fergal69

Bombers - if pilot is killed, the remaining crew can't leave. Have to eject for any member of the crew.

I don't like to get in the gunner seat for that reason.
If the pilot is killed you are stuck in the plane with no way to eject.

Another thing that I would like to see is an adjustment to the no parachutes function.
Right now you can't eject from a fighter or bomber when this option is utilized.
That is fine when you are in flight but if you have safely landed the plane there is no way to get out of it.
You have to end the mission or you could end up burning up in the plane when IRL you would have exited it if you weren't trapped in the plane due to a hard landing/crash landing.


Wheels

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by mkubani

It's my personal opinion that heavy bombers in IL-2 would never be used in their historical role and flown the real "hardcore" way because it is very time consuming, difficult, not much rewarding and last but not least for most virtual players boring to fly long missions. I think this would be especially true online. And the workload needed to accurately model a heavy bomber interior is enormous. So the return on time/energy investment is very small. I think it's enough to have heavies as AI only for 99% of all players.

Martin
Daidalos Team

disagree. Try to fly an online multihour mission (with human navigator onboard and if possible a gunner or two too), its different world, much more team oriented, based on responsibility and certainly not boring.

Agreed on work required, but I think heavy bomber is much more needed than yet another fighter plane(s), gain/effort ratio would be much bigger.

Originally Posted by Billfish

Would really like to see an option to have bomb craters last indeffinitely.........It's a critical aspect of base attacks forcing aircraft to have to divert to other bases. I say option in that I understand the logic of them filling in....Yet it would have great value in most missions in that it adds to the realism.

In kind, a static crater "object" would be a great addition.

We are already working on this, but long lasting craters pose big performance hit (what is probably reason for their short duration in game).

[csThor]

And I agree with Martin

The problem is that a heavy bomber needs a much different environment than even the tactical ones we have. IMO the only bombers worth working on are those tactical ones since they did missions which can be depicted in this game - unlike those of the heavies. For them the whole issue of briefing (with pics or schematics of the target zone), targeting itself (viewing distance, group dropping by AI, question of points and/or medals/promotions in campaigns etc) and a number of additional problems (radar, interceptor AI, formation size and type ...) would have to be solved before even the first plane would be ready.

For me the Il-2 engine is best at tactical level (not to say it couldn't be enhanced a bit) and close air support.

PS: Lesni - wrong avatar. Didn't you see the correct one @ the daidalos board?

[JG52Uther]

Some of the mod maps are 1:1,so there could be a case for heavy bombers.I have regularly flown long missions lasting hours in the He111 and Ju88.Full switch with map reading,timings and dead reckoning is very absorbing.
Still,SM79 is the new best for me,and I certainly thank DT for that!

[ElAurens]

I too have flown very long missions online on the "Slot" map in the "Emily". Hours of navigating by compass heading, speed and clock.

A very different kind of flying, and rewarding when the bombs hit their target.

So don't discount heavy/long range bombers out of hand.

[nearmiss]

Billfish

The seabees built entire bases within 3 days to 3 weeks. They had roadwork equipment. A frontend loader could easily fill a bomb crater in a couple of hours... even back in 1940s.

[Buster_Dee]

Or a scenario that would test the most patient player. If a surfaced sub could be made to dive when threatened, a heavy, low flying bomber with radar could search for subs, while radar-equipped JU-88s out of Lorient search for the bomber. If cargo ships could be triggered to die when a sub is in the area, then everyone has a cat-and-mouse mission. Maybe throw in some radar-equipped stringbags flying off a navigable Bogue-class "jeep" carrier, itself subject to sinking, bobbing in the seas so severely that even the strinbag is a handful.

Add a little fog or poor light and, bingo, sheer madness.

I want a Dunkeswell/Lorient chess game

[ALien_12]

I don't know if anyone posted this question (btw I don't believe nobody have), but I want to ask if you will correct combat AI in one of next patches, because this present is unfightable.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Alien, I think this is already being made. I don't remember the exact nickname, but I do remember that there was someone with something (what an exact description, don't you thin? ) related to "AI" on the signature.

Sorry for my poor memory, I suck with names...

But, well, I hope we get some improvements on the AI, for sure.