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

[Novotny]

Would it be possible to implement widescreen support in IL2? I realise there are many priorities for TD, but if this was possible then I think many people would be completely stoked.

It would be fair to say that the majority of IL2 players these days are using a widescreen.

There is a chap who has created a workaround, which works quite well, however native support would be simply terrific.

Many thanks.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Originally Posted by Novotny

Would it be possible to implement widescreen support in IL2? I realise there are many priorities for TD, but if this was possible then I think many people would be completely stoked.

It would be fair to say that the majority of IL2 players these days are using a widescreen.

There is a chap who has created a workaround, which works quite well, however native support would be simply terrific.

Many thanks.

Indeed a great idea.

It's sort of irritating to have a big screen and not being able to use it at its best.

I can't use 1920 x 1080 on Windows Vista Home Premium even with Conf.ini tweak (reason unknown), and this just annoys me...

[Eldur]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

This would actually be great... it is something that was not always in the sim.. I think after one of the 3.xx patches it started..

I would also like to know if it is possible to alter the scoring system as well..

I've had this for a longer time... I even remember firing up the old Il-2 and having this issue, just because I clicked my desktop while it was still loading.

As for the score system... it really has to be sophisticated. I've had some "ideas" saved somewhere in a txt file if I'm not mistaken. When I find them, I could put them in here.

Originally Posted by Novotny

It would be fair to say that the majority of IL2 players these days are using a widescreen.

I don't think so... but the amount is increasing as it's getting harder and harder to get 5:4 or even a 4:3 screen.

And please get around the issue that FOV is defined by the width which basically means the wider the screen, the less you see. Wide resolutions do NOT add FOV to the left/right, but they substract FOV at the upper and lower edges. If you've got a display with Pivot function, try it out at 1200x1920 instead of 1920x1200 and you'll see what I mean. I've still got some images showing the issue in a 9:16 resolution:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Originally Posted by csThor

It's all in the manual ... But yes, there's a 40% chance to get the more modern Revi. You can also tell the program which one to use based on the skin. The HOW is also described in the manual for 4.09.

I've been trying hard in the QMB to get a Revi Fokker with no luck. Is it possible to get it at all? I always end up with the scope sight, no matter what.

Originally Posted by ben_wh

1) AI gunners on bombers – too accurate at times, and their aim appear not to be affected by condition of the bomber (e.g. when the bomber is executing high-G maneuver)

2) Fighter AI – rely all too frequently on the 360 degree barrel-roll as defensive maneuver. Could use a wider repertoire.

3) Fighter AI – appear to automatically detect player’s presence behind them when at relatively close proximity, even in their blind spot (e.g. lower six o’clock position). It is difficult to surprise the AI regardless of experience level

4) AI can see through cloud and is not affected by low visibility environment

5) AI chooses forest and town to belly land instead of road or relatively flat area

I second that. I dug out the good old Aces of the Pacific for some "instant action" and even there it's possible to sneak up sometimes. That's 17 years old. But hey, I shot down Nishizawa in a single CAP mission twice. That made me rofl. Not even Chuck Norris could do that

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Eldur

I don't think so... but the amount is increasing as it's getting harder and harder to get 5:4 or even a 4:3 screen.

And please get around the issue that FOV is defined by the width which basically means the wider the screen, the less you see. Wide resolutions do NOT add FOV to the left/right, but they substract FOV at the upper and lower edges. If you've got a display with Pivot function, try it out at 1200x1920 instead of 1920x1200 and you'll see what I mean. I've still got some images showing the issue in a 9:16 resolution:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

How did you do that, and did it actually show on screen? I've got a pivoting 1600 x 1200 LCD, I tried that and it didn't work. I'd be prepared to play Oblivion and my other games at 1200 x 1600 so long as I could fly at 1200 x1600 in IL*2. If I recall correctly the left of the screen was brighter, which isn't ideal, but I'd really like a higher rather than a wider view in IL*2.

[Eldur]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Insuber, the cowling guns on the D XXI are very deep in the fuselage and fire through quite long blast tubes between the cylinders. It is very hard to see the muzzle flash.

The guns are indeed there.

This came up over at UBI and one of DT pointed it out.

I've done a screenshot of that, because it's great! I'd be very happy if it would be changed to that muzzle flash behaviour in other planes with "hidden" weapons like the 109/Yak engine cannons or guns put behind the engine in a similar manner.



And yes, I've gotten the Revi finally. Obviously just refly won't produce another sight, one has to start loading all over.

And I've nearly come across another problem, which should be easy to fix. The screenshots start at grab0000.tga *every* time I fire up Il-2, resulting in overwritten screenshots. Apparently, recording quick tracks inflight does not overwrite existing files as it's clever enough to look what's there already and take the next free number. And that's exactly what I expect from the screenshot feature as well.

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

How did you do that, and did it actually show on screen? I've got a pivoting 1600 x 1200 LCD, I tried that and it didn't work. I'd be prepared to play Oblivion and my other games at 1200 x 1600 so long as I could fly at 1200 x1600 in IL*2. If I recall correctly the left of the screen was brighter, which isn't ideal, but I'd really like a higher rather than a wider view in IL*2.

I've got a CRT and it could show me such a resolution, although it was completele out of aspect and halfway off the screen. For making screenshots it was sufficient .
For your display the conf.ini should have this:

[window]
width=1200
height=1600
ColourBits=32
DepthBits=24
StencilBits=8
ChangeScreenRes=1
FullScreen=1
DrawIfNotFocused=1
EnableResize=0
EnableClose=1
SaveAspect=0
Use3Renders=0

Maybe you need to set ChangeScreenRes to 0.

The brightness issue comes from the TN panel type. It's the same issue with up/down in default alignment. A MVA/PVA panel would "fix" this, but it's quite expensive.

Originally Posted by csThor

Default skins are hardcoded and stored in an entirely different format so there is nothing to change here. The only things that make your skins folder bloat like that are custom skins.

I just came across this... will there be more new default skins in future? Some are really bad, especially the A6M skins.

Originally Posted by WWFlybert

1024 x 1024 .gif about 561kb .. not quite the reduction of .png, but consistant indexed palette with .bmp

I think it's a moot point however .. try to buy a desktop HDD less than 250GB these days !

HDD space is not really the point, as it's widely available. But they have to be loaded into RAM. The smaller they're in file size, the more fit in. By the way, is it possible for the DT to do something about memory usage? More and more systems around have bigger amounts of RAM that is not used. Some stuff could be loaded right away if there's enough free space to avoid stutters.

[Novotny]

And please get around the issue that FOV is defined by the width which basically means the wider the screen, the less you see. Wide resolutions do NOT add FOV to the left/right, but they substract FOV at the upper and lower edges.

Thank you Eldur, however I am perfectly aware of how an FOV works and cannot see how I had demonstrated a misunderstanding.

You might wish to have a look at San's fix for IL2, which illustrates the issue quite succinctly.

As for wide-screen uptake - I haven't seen a CRT in the UK for years and personally sold off my last Iiyama I think 3 years ago.

I don't care for a debate about this; I merely wish to ask TD if they could consider implementing wide-screen support.

[Eldur]

Originally Posted by JapanCat

Several Japanese airplanes have a defect.
Is there a correction plan ?

Oh yes, A6M roll rate... top speed compared to Wildcat... missing gun in the A6M5b... probably more

Originally Posted by FC99

In my game I-16Type5 have max. climb rate of 16,5 m/s. IIRC JtD tested it at UBI with similar results, now I'm really curious to know how you made your test.

FC

I just tried this and flying at sea level with 30% I could hold some 140-150km/h. Gave full throttle, kept the cooling shutters closed and the climb rate gauge rocketed up to somewhat above 20m/s while I tried to keep 150km/h. I could also achieve it with ~200km/h.

PS: Why do you model extra Ski versions? Wouldn't it be easier to handle it like other planes that come with Skis on winter maps already (BI-1 and some others)? Or is there a difference in FM? Haven't had the time to test this yet.

Originally Posted by Flyby

Can you model the F8F Bearcat? Just asking. Here's a nice write-up about flying it:
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepBearcat.2.html
I'm asking because there of the "1946 scenario" planes that are already included, and maybe someone might think this one is worthy.

I like the idea of improving the 1946 part as much as improving any other historical part, but I think they should still concentrate on fixing things, adding loadouts and such, then adding some historical stuff and last add some new 1946s.

And the Bearcat is not alone... other Pacific '46 planes would be the F7F Tigercat, F4U-4 and F2G Corsairs, P-80A, Nakajima J9Y Kikka, Mitsubishi Ki-83, Kyūshū J7W1 Shinden, Mitsubishi A7M Reppū and probably others. Not to mention British planes and other US Planes that could have seen service in a longer war. But basically, for many of them the lack of sufficient information makes it hard to model them properly, especially Japanese cockpits...

Originally Posted by Red Dragon-DK

Sorry have been away a few days. No dont belive its unrealistic. I think the pilot was able to do some ajust themself, not putting the flaps all down or up. Looking at old movie the are down, but not in landingpossions. So I belive the settings are all correct. You are just not able to do it, if you dont have the right controls. Buy them and you are allright.

I remember I've read that in case of Seafires they used to lower the flaps, then some ground crew held wooden chocks in the flap slots, followed by the pilot raising the flaps again. The chocks then held them at a "take off" position. All they had to do after takeoff was lower them to get rid of the chocks and raise them completely.

In flight you could still lower them and raise again after some seconds which is already possible in Il-2 series. I also use short flap lowering on these planes. But don't do it for too long.

The program logic would be similar to the SM.79 propeller pitch modeling for the axis, so it's rather easy to implement. Early 109s should have such a propeller setting, too. The Auto Pitch wasn't in the 109s even in the E-4, but I think it has been in the later E models out of factory and many E-4s had it fitted later. Could need some references here.

[Eldur]

Originally Posted by Billfish

So I'd like to request the "Fire Weapon 4 (Drop Bombs) & Drop External Tanks" controls be combined

So, I'd like to request that either one side at a time be dropped rather then both........OR........ that it could be made selectable (utilizing the unused button from above)

I'd welcome that. I hope we'll see the hardcore version of this (each single button does what it is supposed to). German planes also have selecton systems which don't work in Il-2. A lot of them can be seen here:

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/ins...haltkasten.htm

The ASK 190 as found in the FW-190F series is *very* interesting.



You can put the center switch to the left which drops all *selected* ordnance at once. The selection can be done by pressing the 8 buttons. The upper ones are for wing stations (so each of the 4 SC50 you have can be selected separately), the lower ones are for the fuselage rack, also 4 for the case you've got that 4x SC/SD 50/70 /AB24t loadout.
When the center switch is set to the right, you can do the Reihenabwurf, which means it will drop the bombs one after another. Again you have to select which ones like above, but there's also a second switch to the right. Up position is automatic, which probably will release them with a single trigger press and the lower position is Einzel, which supposedly drops them one-by one either when the trigger is held or pressed multiple times (rather the latter one, but I don't just know it).

There are other devices that could be modelled as well, like the ZSK 244 which is used to "program" the bomb fuse. I don't know what it exactly does though, but there should be information availabe.



I'd be glad to have at least a very simple setup in Il-2 to make use of bomb selection, for all planes that had such feature IRL.

1. Select the bomb type if there's a mix in the loadout (e.g. 1 SC500 + 4 SC50), or all together
2. Select the drop count, either 1, pairs or all of the type
3. Select whether they're dropped at once or slightly delayed with a fixed time interval like 50 or 100ms

I'd let the really complex modeling of all these switch boxes go in SoW, but this simple setup as suggested above would make Il-2 a lot better for ground attack actions.

I'd also like to propose a similar control for the guns, as many planes like the German ones (SKK224 in 109E for example) or the US ones (P-39 has 2 selector switches on the left dashboard for activating wing guns, fuselage guns and hub cannon) had the option IRL. I'd go for a single gun trigger and some selector switches (3 should probably enough for all planes + 4th for external gondolas which Il-2 already has, though it's pretty useless).

That all would leave us 2 triggers, one for guns and one for ordnance with the possibility to select which weapons are triggered by them. I know some planes like the Il-2 have a split trigger which is basically 2 triggers (most probably the reason for the current trigger system), but selecting a gun setup and then firing would also simulate the press of just one of these. Most planes did not have separate gun triggers, but selection switches. You could also keep the split triggers and model the above suggestions jsut to the planes that had such. Would probably be the best solution.

I've also found the loadout sheet I once made out of various sources that were spread around at several Il-2 forums. Would be great if that one could be used and expanded for other planes to be incorporated into further development, especially new bomb types like the AB24t.

loadouts.zip

While searching the above, I've come across some good research work done on the 109 performances (by wastel). I thought it might be useful, if you don't have it already.

bf109analyse.zip

Originally Posted by mkubani

3. And let's be reasonable. How often do you look at the loadouts from such a close distance to even appreciate such high fidelity? This sim is intended for virtual flying, not for taking screenshots. I am 110% for historical accuracy and quality (trust me, maybe even more than you are!), but I am also against wasted HW/SW resources. I dare to say you could do a very similar quality job on your loadouts with 30-40% reduction and most people wouldn't even notice the difference.

Good point. Especially "full real" pilots won't even see their loadout, only when it's haning on their close flying wingmens' planes. I'd say a little bit more of graphical quality wouldn't hurt though. But such a fidelty like in LOFC where the Su-25 alone has 50k polys and the bombs are modelled very fine in a sim where the biggest planes don't exceed 1/10th of the polycount just is off. I don't want to carry bombs around that have more polygons than my plane . Most bombs look OK already, some could need rework, especially the AB thingies...

Originally Posted by ramstein

that's right with lots of weapons, if you don't have a direct hit, they will not even scratch the paint..

I think there are 2 problems. First is the damage itself. I remember Oleg telling that it's done by 2 things, the explosion itself and fragments hitting other things. Some bombs seem to do a lot of explosion damage (Russian an US are pretty good) while other hardly do, but have some fragments doing some. BUT: The fragments have to hit, otherwise nothing happens. And there are not so many fragments actually, because of limited CPU power. I've seen FAB-5000 (the Pe-8 thingy) exploding on a parking field of an airfield full of trucks, tanks, static planes and such and it barely did any damage to most of them (some close to the impact point were unharmed, but others 50m away were destroyed, quite randomly), and no damage at all to the tanks. The detonation wave alone should have destroyed everthing.

And the second point I don't just think, because I know. And this is the *major* issue with ground objects DM. The only objects where this not applies are ships and of course active (piloted or AI) planes. Their behaviour in terms of damage is extremely simple. Basically, all you have to do is do damage until it reaches 100% and the target is dead. Some have damage resistances in form of armour (tanks and ships), some have target areas that can be taken out separately (guns on ships). But every "destroyable" part (or whole object in most cases) shares the problem. Any damage done is lost - forgotten after a short time. You can try this out with a Ju-87G, shooting T-34s. You need to hit it in a 30° dive at the back 2 or 3 times to kill it. Try hitting just *once* and redo the whole thing. You will do that until you run out of ammo, and apparently without doing any damage. Just because it resets to 0% after each pass. This seriously needs to be fixed, as it would make things a lot more realistic and easier. What If I drop a bomb for example that visually did no damage? Actually it did, but not enough - and it's being resetted. If it wasn't, I could easily finish the targets off even with short bursts of MG17 where I would need some 5-10 MG151/20 hits normally.

[LesniHU]

Originally Posted by Eldur

I just tried this and flying at sea level with 30% I could hold some 140-150km/h. Gave full throttle, kept the cooling shutters closed and the climb rate gauge rocketed up to somewhat above 20m/s while I tried to keep 150km/h. I could also achieve it with ~200km/h.

PS: Why do you model extra Ski versions? Wouldn't it be easier to handle it like other planes that come with Skis on winter maps already (BI-1 and some others)? Or is there a difference in FM? Haven't had the time to test this yet.

Try uninstalling all FM changing mods. Type 5 in my clean 4.09 needs 71s to reach 1000m and 139s to 2km - less than 15m/s (these numbers are from my tests; I had radiator open). Ski version has even less performance due to increased drag.

Originally Posted by Eldur

And the second point I don't just think, because I know. And this is the *major* issue with ground objects DM. The only objects where this not applies are ships and of course active (piloted or AI) planes. Their behaviour in terms of damage is extremely simple. Basically, all you have to do is do damage until it reaches 100% and the target is dead. Some have damage resistances in form of armour (tanks and ships), some have target areas that can be taken out separately (guns on ships). But every "destroyable" part (or whole object in most cases) shares the problem. Any damage done is lost - forgotten after a short time. You can try this out with a Ju-87G, shooting T-34s. You need to hit it in a 30° dive at the back 2 or 3 times to kill it. Try hitting just *once* and redo the whole thing. You will do that until you run out of ammo, and apparently without doing any damage. Just because it resets to 0% after each pass.

From my experience with Ju87G (and trust me, I have a lot of hours in it ) there is only one way to destroy T34 every time, hit it to top armour. Angle does not matter (extremely flat angles will do, but they are hard to hit), distance does not matter (1.5km+ will do nicely). One hit is enough. Hits to front/rear/sides have no effect. I never noticed any sign of forgetting damage (or maybe sign of any other damage done except which kills it outright), but I can't be 100% sure that it is not there.

[Eldur]

Originally Posted by LesniHU

Try uninstalling all FM changing mods. Type 5 in my clean 4.09 needs 71s to reach 1000m and 139s to 2km - less than 15m/s (these numbers are from my tests; I had radiator open). Ski version has even less performance due to increased drag.

I don't use any mods. Just have a separate installation for trying them out. But like 98% of it doesn't fit to the standards, and I don't want to fly "Frankenplanes".
I also tested it again... have to say I had 25 or 50% fuel at the first test and I did it now with 100%.

Took me ~67 seconds at 150km/h to climb to 1000m and slightly longer (~71 seconds) at 220km/h. So it's just what you got, which is definately OK. But the gauge went as high as 20m/s. Probably it is wrong then. Or I can't read it correctly

While I spead of the climb gauge. There is an error in all these gauges. They show -1m/s when it's actually 0 (you'll see it when being on the ground). At any other value, it's 1m/s less than the actual value. Should be fixed .

Track for the curious (with a curious landing)

From my experience with Ju87G (and trust me, I have a lot of hours in it ) there is only one way to destroy T34 every time, hit it to top armour. Angle does not matter (extremely flat angles will do, but they are hard to hit), distance does not matter (1.5km+ will do nicely). One hit is enough. Hits to front/rear/sides have no effect. I never noticed any sign of forgetting damage (or maybe sign of any other damage done except which kills it outright), but I can't be 100% sure that it is not there.

OK, but the problem with the damage resetting still is there. Should have taken another example - Could be that I had the Bf-110 with BK 3.7 in mind, most probably that's it.

€dit: You changed the Ta-152C... what about the H?



I remember Oleg said before the AEP came out that it would be able to turn as well as the La-7, as it's turning performance was 17s in ground level and 17,8s at 1000m during a left turn (Oleg's figures). I can't even get close to that, and apparently not even flaps can help (see the figure). Especially at slow speeds (which is anything below 380km/h in that plane) it doesn't want to turn at all.

€dit 2: I almost forgot... would be nice to have a 10.000ft hand marker in the altitude meters .